Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What in the world does E =mc2 mean?

  1. Jul 15, 2005 #1
    What in the world does E =mc2 mean? (Einstein's equation.)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 15, 2005 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The amount of energy that could be obtained by completely annihilating a mass m Kg is equal to m Kg multiplied by [tex]9X10^{16} meters^2/second^2[/tex]. The units come out right for an energy.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2005
  4. Jul 15, 2005 #3

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    SA, you mean ~9 times 10 to the power of 16, right? :uhh:

    Daniel.
     
  5. Jul 15, 2005 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Eek! I put in the value for the wrong length! It's changed now.
     
  6. Jul 15, 2005 #5

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You had put the number for "cgs", instead of "mKs" but left out the all important "centi".

    Daniel.
     
  7. Jul 18, 2005 #6
    ok, thanks for the anwser.
     
  8. Jul 18, 2005 #7

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    mass and energy are two sides of the same coin
    you can convert one to the other
    the conversion factor is c-squared
    a little matter is made of a lot of energy
     
  9. Jul 19, 2005 #8
    But what's energy here? The energy of gamma rays (high energy photons). Correct?
     
  10. Jul 19, 2005 #9

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hehehe

    bomba1.gif

    Gamma rays.. x-rays.. visible light... all sortsa fun stuff.
     
  11. Jul 19, 2005 #10
    My understanding is that there's only one type of energy (AFAK). This energy can come in many different forms, including gamma rays. m=mc^2 obviously uses the SI unit of joules.

    whats whe speed of light have to do with the deveration of energy from mass nanyway :yuck:
     
  12. Jul 19, 2005 #11
    energy comes in form of photons when E=mc^2 is involved
     
  13. Jul 19, 2005 #12

    learningphysics

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    No. This doesn't have to be.

    For example... if you heat up a pot of water... its mass will increase, and the increase in mass = [tex]E/c^2[/tex] where E is the amount of heat added.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2005
  14. Jul 19, 2005 #13

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    .... no. The mass will not increase at all.
     
  15. Jul 19, 2005 #14

    learningphysics

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yes it does. It may not be measurable. But it's a consequence of special relativity that the mass increases.
     
  16. Jul 19, 2005 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well if it does, news to me. Someone else should be along soon enough to tell me off.
     
  17. Jul 20, 2005 #16

    Ich

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The rest mass of a system of particles is generally bigger than the sum of the rest masses. The reason is that you can´t find a frame where all particles are at rest - the residual movement wrt the center of mass increases the mass of the system.
    The most common form of residual movement is called temperature.
     
  18. Jul 20, 2005 #17
    By definition the mass, m, of an object is associated with the momentum, p, of the same object. The sum of the kinetic energy, K, and the rest energy, E0, equals the inertial energy of the object. Therefore E = K + E0. If the object is free of all external influences, or the object is a particle, then it can be shown that E = mc2.

    [/quote]Not quite right. That expression is limited in form. In general it is incorrect. When you have an object of finite extent and there are forces being exerted on it then that equation is incorrect.

    If you have Shutz's new text Gravity from the Ground up then you can read about an example he gives about how the inertia of a body increases with an increase in the body's pressure.

    Pete
     
  19. Jul 20, 2005 #18
    This depends on what you mean by the term "mass." learningphysics is thinking of p = mv as the expression defining m. Others define mass as follows; p = M(v)v, m = M(0).

    Pete
     
  20. Jul 20, 2005 #19

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah but if you heat up bunch of copper molecules or whatever, theres still the same # of molecules if its at 100K or 200K.
     
  21. Jul 20, 2005 #20

    learningphysics

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Pete, but in this example (heating the water up... assuming the center of mass of the water is motionless in the frame of interest)... the inertial mass = invariant mass. So regardless of either definition, mass increases right? You clarified this for me in a thread a few months back.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2005
  22. Jul 20, 2005 #21
    Yes.

    Pete
     
  23. Jul 20, 2005 #22
    But the molecules move faster if they're heated up, so their relativistic mass increases.
     
  24. Jul 20, 2005 #23
    Yes. That's quite true. Its also part of the mechanism of why the mass of the object increases with the addition of heat. Take the simple case of a box of particles whose velocity has only an xy-component and no z component. Let the mass of the containment walls be insignificant when compared to the mass of the gas. Then as the gas is heated the particles move faster. The faster they move the greater the weight. Let the total momentum of the gas be zero. With all this in mind its rather easy to see why the mass of the gas increases when its heated up.

    See details at http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/gr/weight_move.htm

    Pete
     
  25. Jul 21, 2005 #24

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Interesting, but a bit questionable. For instance, in your second derivation, if you take the result dead seriously, the weight would depend on the height 'z'.

    In GR, mass is founded on asymptotic flatness, which is nowhere mentioned in your webpage. A standard method would be to use the energy pseudotensors in an asymptotically Minkowskian coordinate system.
     
  26. Jul 21, 2005 #25
    How can masses of the particles depend on their velocity ? Mass is a Lorentz-invariant quantity. All that changes is kinetic energy of the particles. Their masses remain the same. If this would not be the case, you would surely have different decays at different temperatures.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook