B Where did the 1/2 go in E=mc^2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    E=mc^2
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Einstein's equation E=mc^2 and its relation to kinetic energy. Participants clarify that E=mc^2 calculates the rest energy of a mass at rest, while kinetic energy is derived from classical mechanics and includes a factor of 1/2 due to the nature of motion. They emphasize that the two equations stem from different principles: one from special relativity and the other from Newtonian physics. The absence of the 1/2 factor in E=mc^2 is explained by the context of rest energy versus kinetic energy, with the latter being relevant only when the object is in motion. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the conceptual differences between relativistic and classical energy calculations.
  • #91
Dale said:
The SI system does specify that the base units are dimensionally independent. From the BIPM website:
  • The seven base units were chosen for historical reasons, and were, by convention, regarded as dimensionally independent: the metre, the kilogram, the second, the ampere, the kelvin, the mole, and the candela
So the SI is explicit both that considering them dimensionally independent is a convention and also that they use that convention.
I am not sure I understand the point of your post.

'Energy' is not one of the base units in SI, so actually following the SI convention you would tend to expect there to be a conversion factor between energy and mass.

Energy is defined in SI as [kg⋅m^2/s^2 ] so the conversion factor is clearly in the form (m/s)^2. If you pick a system of units based on a 'fundamental' m/s = 1 then E=m.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Dale said:
The SI system does specify that the base units are dimensionally independent. From the BIPM website:
  • The seven base units were chosen for historical reasons, and were, by convention, regarded as dimensionally independent: the metre, the kilogram, the second, the ampere, the kelvin, the mole, and the candela
So the SI is explicit both that considering them dimensionally independent is a convention and also that they use that convention.
Indeed. If metrologists were able to measure "great G" much better than now, we could degrade all the base units of the SI to mere conversion factors for convenience of having handy numbers for quantities in everyday life (including engineering). This final realization of the complete definition of the base units (and with them all units within the SI) in terms of natural constants is not realized yet, because of the problem to measure Newton's constant of gravity way more accurately. That's why the definition of the base units still rests on one "material-dependent constant", namely the hyperfine transition energy of Cs-133. That's of course a very good basis, because there's nothing more accurately measurable than times, although I believe that this standard will be substituted in the not to far future by something even more accurate, i.e., based on some frequency normal in the optical regime (maybe by a nuclear rather than an atomic transition). At least the corresponding experiments seem to reach the accuracy limit right now. Maybe soon they will top the Cs-133 accuracy, and then after some careful research maybe the frequency normal will be redefined. I don't think that measuring ##G## has the chance to reach the needed accuracy in the foreseable future.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #93
This discussion reminds me of a lab I had in particle physics as an undergrad. We were measuring the timing of photon pairs resulting from electron-positron annihilations. After measuring the timing difference for one setup, one of the detectors was moved 10 cm further away from the source and the timing difference was measured again (of course it was about 10 cm/##c## different from the original measurement).

Professor: So! What have you done now?! (very excited - expecting the answer "measured the speed of light")
Me: We have checked the calibration of your ruler. (probably with a smug expression on my face)
 
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913, vanhees71, sysprog and 2 others
  • #94
cmb said:
actually following the SI convention you would tend to expect there to be a conversion factor between energy and mass.
Yes, definitely. And between length and time, and between any other combination of base units. That is how the SI works.
 
  • #95
Orodruin said:
This discussion reminds me of a lab I had in particle physics as an undergrad. We were measuring the timing of photon pairs resulting from electron-positron annihilations. After measuring the timing difference for one setup, one of the detectors was moved 10 cm further away from the source and the timing difference was measured again (of course it was about 10 cm/##c## different from the original measurement).

Professor: So! What have you done now?! (very excited - expecting the answer "measured the speed of light")
Me: We have checked the calibration of your ruler. (probably with a smug expression on my face)
Theorists have a hard time in both the introductory and advanced lab. For me the experience with those labs was to decide that I want to become a theoretician. I have two anectdotes in mind:

(1) In one of the first advanced labs we had to explain Atwood's machine to demonstrate that we've adequately prepared for the experiment. Happily I explained the working of the machine using Hamilton's principle with constraints. It took about 5 minutes. The tutor was totally amazed, how quickly this can be done ;-)).

(2) In one of the advanced labs we had to investigate some em. transition in a nucleus, which was a quadrupole transition, and the dipole transition was forbidden by some selection rule. First question: How much spin can a photon carry. I answered that there's no spin in the strict sense, but that it's 1, 2, 3,... The tutor was of the opinion the only right answer is 1. Then I replied that then there'd not be the quadrupole transition, because it's ##J=2##, and that there's spin and orbital angular momentum, but this split doesn't make sense for a photon and you have to argue with total angular momentum of the em. field. This went back an forth for a while, until a professor came along and declared that of course my multipole expansion formula is right and that we now should start doing the experiment ;-)).

Of course there were endless fights with the theory part of our lab reports, concerning the use of Gaussian units...
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #96
Dale said:
Yes, definitely. And between length and time, and between any other combination of base units. That is how the SI works.
That wasn't what I meant.

Energy is a derivative unit from the base units. You would not tend to expect a conversion between base units, you'd have to invent new units to make that happen.

What's the conversion between moles and seconds, without inventing a 'new' base unit?
 
  • #97
vanhees71 said:
Indeed. If metrologists were able to measure "great G" much better than now, we could degrade all the base units of the SI to mere conversion factors for convenience of having handy numbers for quantities in everyday life (including engineering). This final realization of the complete definition of the base units (and with them all units within the SI) in terms of natural constants is not realized yet, because of the problem to measure Newton's constant of gravity way more accurately. That's why the definition of the base units still rests on one "material-dependent constant", namely the hyperfine transition energy of Cs-133. That's of course a very good basis, because there's nothing more accurately measurable than times, although I believe that this standard will be substituted in the not to far future by something even more accurate, i.e., based on some frequency normal in the optical regime (maybe by a nuclear rather than an atomic transition). At least the corresponding experiments seem to reach the accuracy limit right now. Maybe soon they will top the Cs-133 accuracy, and then after some careful research maybe the frequency normal will be redefined. I don't think that measuring ##G## has the chance to reach the needed accuracy in the foreseable future.
Surely you are describing the recent 2019 base unit changes (came into force 4 days ago, timely enough!), where all 7 base units are defined (not necessarily directly) by 7 physical quantities now?

I don't see the problem with the Cs-133 as it is not subject to a 'sample control' issue and 'anyone' (so to speak) can measure it. Is your point that it is not a 'precisely perfect' value? Can that be said of all the other physical values?

244119
 
Last edited:
  • #98
cmb said:
What's the conversion between moles and seconds, without inventing a 'new' base unit?
No need for a new base unit. It would just be a factor with units of mol/s. I don’t think there is any universal constant with those units, but no new units are needed.
 
  • #99
cmb said:
Surely you are describing the recent 2019 base unit changes (came into force 4 days ago, timely enough!), where all 7 base units are defined (not necessarily directly) by 7 physical quantities now?

I don't see the problem with the Cs-133 as it is not subject to a 'sample control' issue and 'anyone' (so to speak) can measure it. Is your point that it is not a 'precisely perfect' value? Can that be said of all the other physical values?
The point is that it is not a "universal natural constant" like the speed of light, Planck's ##h##, etc. It still refers to a specific atom, namely Cs-133. This is of course not a problem in practice as you explained since indeed all Cs-133 atoms and their atomic states, including the fine-structure transition used to define the second are indistinguishable (according to very fundamental and very well established quantum theory), i.e., everybody wherever in the unierse can just use Cs-133 atoms to very accurately realize the SI units of time, the second.

However, there's no problem to use another fundamental frequency normal to redefine the second again if this becomes possible (I think in the near future) and is necessary for the accuracy needed in high-precision experiments.

Of course, the just enforced revision of the SI units is great progress. Particularly to get rid of a single artefact to define one of the base units, the "grande K", has been an overdue step forward; last but not least because particularly this one most important prototype of the kg significantly shifted its mass compared to all the secondary prototypes!
 
  • #100
Dale said:
No need for a new base unit. It would just be a factor with units of mol/s. I don’t think there is any universal constant with those units, but no new units are needed.
I always found giving mol a fundamental dimension misguided. It is a unit of something that should be fundamentally dimensionless in my opinion, i.e., a number of things.

This is pretty evident in the new definition, where it is the only unit that is not connected to the other units (and ultimately to the definition of the second based on Cs) by the definition of a fundamental constant.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Dale
  • #101
Orodruin said:
I always found giving mol a fundamental dimension misguided.
I agree. I have always wondered why they didn’t treat it as dimensionless. They treat the radian as a dimensionless unit, so why not the mol also? (Of course I have also seen arguments to make radians dimensionful!)
 
  • #102
Dale said:
I agree. I have always wondered why they didn’t treat it as dimensionless. They treat the radian as a dimensionless unit, so why not the mol also? (Of course I have also seen arguments to make radians dimensionful!)
Honestly I would rather have angles have dimensions than numbers, but I agree that neither is naturally dimensionful.
 
  • #103
Orodruin said:
Honestly I would rather have angles have dimensions than numbers, but I agree that neither is naturally dimensionful.
Me too. Luckily I know that dimensions are conventional so whenever I feel like it I depart from the SI convention and use my own. I don’t publish anything that way, but it helps me make sure I have the formulas right.
 
  • #104
vanhees71 said:
The point is that it is not a "universal natural constant" like the speed of light,
Out of interest, what is the proof that the speed of light is a constant?
 
  • #105
cmb said:
Out of interest, what is the proof that the speed of light is a constant?
The definition of the meter makes c constant in SI units.
 
  • #106
cmb said:
what is the proof that the speed of light is a constant?

It's not a proof, it's a definition: the SI definition of the meter makes the speed of light a universal constant.

The physical reason why this definition works well is the geometry of spacetime.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #107
cmb said:
Out of interest, what is the proof that the speed of light is a constant?
There is of course never a "proof" of a fundamental natural law as in mathematics, which is based on some axioms from which everything can be derived by logical thought. The difference between math and theoretical physics is that math creates its own universe and doesn't care about whether it describes the real universe. Theoretical physics is the opposite: It tries to describe objective quantitative observations about the universe as we find it using our senses and all kinds of devices to enhance them with as few as possible "fundamental laws", from which all known observed facts can be, more or less accurately, deduced. The constancy of the speed of light in our observable universe is one of the most fundamental laws. It cannot be proven, but always tested with more accurate observations. So far, there's no hint at a violation of this fundamental law, which is the basis of the relativistic description of space and time (or rather spacetime). The same holds for Planck's constant ##h##, which is the fundamental constant entering physics through quantum theory, the other most fundamental theory we have.

As you see, the physical edifice is not complete. It consists of two fundaments, the spacetime model (General Relativity and Special Relativity as an approximation, when gravity can be neglected, which fortunately is the case for almost everything concerning the description of matter) on the one hand and relativistic local quantum field theory on the other. Although intimately connected (e.g., the very fundamental properties all quantum descriptions must follow are derived from the mathematical structure of spacetime in terms of its symmetries), a completely consistent theory is still missing, i.e., there's no quantum theory of spacetime or, again intimately related, gravitation, i.e., a unified theory of "everything" (and we can't even be sure whether this really is everything)!
 
  • #108
cmb said:
Out of interest, what is the proof that the speed of light is a constant?
The problem with proofs is that their conclusions don't contain any information that wasn't already present in the assumptions used to construct the proof. So, for example, if you assume the validity of Maxwell's equations you can prove that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source or observer (which is what I assume you mean by constant in this context).

The issue is not one of proof, but of observation. We always observe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source or observer.

The fact that the speed of light can be measured more precisely than the length of a meter stick resulted in the metrologists setting an exact value for the speed of light rather than defining the length of a stick to be exactly one meter.
 
  • Like
Likes Wes Tausend and vanhees71
  • #109
DaveC426913 said:
So, assuming my thoughts are correct, what happened to the

1/21/2​

1/2? Einstein's formula doesn't contain it.

Is it anything to do with pair creation vs black holes? Suppose 1.022 MeV photon near a nucleus produces a electron-positron pair. I now drop the positron from infinity into a black hole. What is the rest energy + kinetic energy of the positron (with respect to a similar particle at its original position) just before the event horizon?
 
  • #110
metastable said:
What is the rest energy + kinetic energy of the positron (with respect to a similar particle at its original position)

This is not well-defined. To compare energies in a curved spacetime, the objects must be close to each other.
 
  • #111
metastable said:
Is it anything to do with pair creation vs black holes?

No, the question under discussion in this thread has nothing to do with that.
 
  • #112
PeterDonis said:
Mass/energy and length/time still have inverse physical dimensions to each other, and GGG still has units of length squared/inverse mass squared.
What is the physical meaning of the inverse of photon frequency. I’ve heard here before here it’s not emission duration.
 
  • #113
metastable said:
What is the physical meaning of the inverse of photon frequency.
The inverse of the frequency is the period.
 
  • #114
It has the usual physical meaning of any wave phenomenon the inverse frequency is the temporal period of the wave, ##T=2 \pi/\omega##, while the inverse wave number is the wave length, i.e., the spatial period, ##\lambda=2 \pi/|\vec{k}|##.
 
  • #115
Is there any appropriate mathematical conversion from mass to energy to frequency to time to length?
 
  • #116
metastable said:
Is there any appropriate mathematical conversion from mass to energy

Of course, just multiply by ##c^2## (which in natural units means ##1##).

metastable said:
energy to frequency

Sure, just divide by Planck's constant (which in natural units means ##1##).

metastable said:
frequency to time

Um, just take the reciprocal?

metastable said:
time to length?

Multiply by ##c##.
 
  • #117
Get ready to have your eyes opened! I'm going to show you where the 1/2 went (and where it still resides). This will be new to you (no matter who you are). In fact, we're going to make this entertaining for you. I will pose the answer as an exercise. You will have to solve it to find what you need.

Exercise:
Assume αv² < 1 and m ≠ 0, and let u = v²/(1 + √(1 - αv²)).

Prove that if L = mu, H = Mu and M = m + αH, then M = m/√(1 - αv²), H = pv - L, where p = Mv, H = p²/(m+M) and p² - 2MH + αH² = 0

Calculus bonus: Prove that p = ∂L/∂v.

Comments:
Interpretations should be obvious, if you are familiar with the letter names. L,H,m,M,p,v are respectively named Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, rest mass, moving mass, momentum, velocity. The extra coordinate u has no name; but plays a central role in all of this.

The magic parameter α distinguishes different types of kinematics from one another. The geometry associated with it has, as its invariants, the following:
dt² - α(dx² + dy² + dz²), ∇² - α (∂/∂t)²

For α > 0, you have relativity with an underlying Minkowski geometry in which the invariant speed is given as c = 1/√α. Upon substitution into the formulae above, you arrive at the usual expressions for the associated terms that any Relativist should be familiar with.

For α = 0, you have an underlying non-relativistic framework (associated with a flat spacetime Newton-Cartan geometry). As you can see, the extra coordinate u reduces to your familiar ½ v². That's where it is.

For α < 0, these would be the expressions that apply in a Euclidean form of the kinematics, where the underlying geometry has 4 dimensions of space and none of time.

Heuristically, you can think of the Legendre transform from L to H as a kind of "renormalization" in which one first adds the mass equivalent αmu of the "bare" kinetic energy mu to the mass m; then the mass equivalent
α(αmu)u of the bare kinetic energy (αmu)u of that extra mass; then the mass equivalent α(α(αmu)u)u of the bare kinetic energy (α(αmu)u)u of the second contribution to the mass, and so on ad infinitum, to arrive at the total moving mass M:
m + αmu + α(αmu)u + α(α(αmu)mu)mu + ⋯ = m/(1 - αu) = m/√(1 - αv²) = M
(the last two equalities are what the exercise was, ultimately, to show!)

The corresponding kinetic energy Mu is the Hamiltonian H.

Underlying geometry;
Notice the mass shell invariant has 5 components (if you treat the momentum p as a 3-vector), not 4. The associated signature is 4+1, independent of what α is. Divide out M² from p² - 2MH + αH², and you get the invariant v² - 2u + αu². In addition, you also have the linear invariants M - αH and, associated with this, 1 - αu.

If, in place of u, you write -du/dt (I prefer it with the other sign), and express the velocity v as dr/dt, then you may (upon multiplying by dt²) rewrite this as a line element: dx² + dy² + dz² + 2dtdu - αdu²; and linear invariant ds = dt + αdu. For relativity, setting the line element to 0 (that is, confining one to the 5D light cone for this geometry) reduces ds to the proper time and the line element to the Minkowski metric.

This still has meaning, even when α = 0 ... and is closely linked to the natural 5-dimensional representation of the Galile group and its central extension, the Bargmann group. For α ≠ 0, it gives you the relativistic version of this interpretation.

The unification of Mikowski, Newton-Cartan and Euclidean geometries here is entirely analogous to the unification of Euclidean, spherical and hyperbolic geometries into projective geometry.

Symmetries:
Treating the momentum, now, as a vector p↑, then under infinitesimal rotations ω↑, infinitesimal boosts υ↑, the momentum p↑, moving mass M and kinetic energy H transform together as a 5-vector Δ(H,p↑,M) = (-υ↑·p↑, ω↑×p↑ - υ↑ M, -αυ↑·p↑). From this, you can derive a finite transform by exponentiating it (H,p↑,M) → exp(sΔ) (H,p↑,M) = (1 + sΔ + s²/2! Δ² + s³/3! Δ³ + ⋯)(H,p↑,M).

This leads to another exercise that generalizes this a bit further still...

Exercise:
Define the following operations
Δ (dr↑, dt, du) = (ω↑×dr↑ - β υ↑ dt, -αυ↑·dr↑, υ↑·dr↑)
Δ (H, p↑, M) = (-αυ↑·p↑, ω↑×p↑ - υ↑ M, -αβυ↑·p↑)
on 3-vectors p↑ = (p₁,p₂,p₃), dr↑ = (dx,dy,dz) and scalars dt, where ()×() and ()·() respectively denote the cross product and dot product.

Express, in closed form, exp(sΔ)(dr↑, dt, du) (where exp(sΔ) = 1 + sΔ + s²/2! Δ² + s³/3! Δ³ + ⋯) in terms of θ↑ = sω↑ and w↑ = sυ↑.

You may use the following functions
C(λ,x) = 1 + λ x²/2! + λ² x⁴/4! + ⋯
S(λ,x) = x + λ x³/3! + λ² x⁵/5! + ⋯
E(λ,x) = x²/2! + λ x⁴/4! + λ² x⁶/6! + ⋯
in your answer [note: the E function is ultimately where the v²/2 and its relativistic analogues stem from]; and assume the following properties
C(λ,0) = 1, S(λ,0) = 0, E(λ,0) = 0
C(λ,x) - λE(λ,x) = 1
S(λ,x)² - 2E(λ,x) C(λ,x) + λE(λ,x)² = 0
C(λ,x)² - λS(λ,x)² = 1
Prove the operator identity
Δ²(Δ² + ω² - αβυ²) = αβ(ω↑·υ↑)²
For αβ ≠ 0, express the answer also in terms of
v↑ = w↑/w S(αβ,w)/C(αβ,w)
(where w = |w↑|) restricted to vectors v↑ where αβv² < 1, and show that
C(λ,x)² = 1/(1 - αβv²).

Prove that the following are invariants under these transforms:
dx² + dy² + dz² + 2βdtdu + αβdu², dt + α du, β(p₁² + p₂² + p₃²) - 2MH + αH², M - αH
and, from these, derive the reduced 4D invariants
α(dx² + dy² + dz²) - β dt², M² - αβ(p₁² + p₂² + p₃²)

Discuss each of the cases αβ > 0, αβ < 0, (α = 0 & β ≠ 0), β = 0. For αβ > 0 what's the invariant velocity in terms of α and β; and what does the case β = 0 correspond to?

Related References:
Bargmann structures and Newton-Cartan Theory
C. Duval, G. Burdet, H. P. Künzle, and M. Perrin
Physical Review D, Volume 31, Number 8, 15 April 1985
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.31.1841
Although their 5D geometric formulation (corresponding to my β = 1 cases above) is tailored for Newton-Cartan geometry and non-relativistic gravity; the underlying framework is general and provides a nearly seamless unifying framework that also includes 4D General Relativity (embedded in the 5D geometric representation just described) as a special case. The "almost" part is that there is still an obstruction that prevents a smooth continuous transform from α > 0 → α = 0.

Possible Kinematics
Henri Bacry, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond
Journal of Mathematical Physics 9, 1605 (1968);
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1664490
They provide a general classification of all possibilities according with general assumptions ... but arbitrarily exclude the Euclideanized cases (αβ < 0) - despite the utility that they have in field theory! Their notation's different than mine, because everything I laid out here was independently developed (and much cleaner) and only later cross-fitted with their work.

Kinematical Lie algebras via deformation theory
José M. Figueroa-O'Farrill
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06111
An even bigger classification that derives everything as a deformation of the "static" group (which corresponds to the α = 0, β = 0 above). I did the same thing several years before this, but didn't take it as far as they did (they allow the central charge -- the invariant M - αH in my notation above) to have non-zero Lie brackets -- something I specifically excluded in my version.
 
  • Like
Likes Lydia M W and vanhees71
  • #119
if m is restmass, then ##E_{rest}=m*c^2##, but in classical physics ##E_{kinetic}=\frac{m*v^2}{2}## so these 2 are just not the same quantities.

but reltivistic kinetic energy approches classical relativistic energy if speed of light is very big.
##E_{kinetic}=E-E_{rest}##
##E_{rest}=m*c^2##
##E=\frac{m*c^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}##

therefore
##E_{kinetic}=\frac{m*c^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}-m*c^2##
to get classical limit where c>>v
##E_{kinetic\ classic}=\lim_{c \to \infty}(\frac{m*c^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}-m*c^2)=\frac{m*v^2}{2}##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #120
olgerm said:
##E_{kinetic\ classic}=\lim_{c \to 0}(\frac{m*c^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}-m*c^2)=\frac{m*v^2}{2}##
The limit is effectively ##c \to \infty##, not ##c \to 0##, or, perhaps better, ##(v/c) \to 0##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K