For the invariant mass energy relationship (E=mc^2), why is energy and mass related by c? As the question applies to the invariant mass energy, the answer can not have anything to do with the energy momentum four-vector.It has to do with the energy-momentum four-vector.........
For the invariant mass energy relationship (E=mc^2), why is energy and mass related by c? As the question applies to the invariant mass energy, the answer can not have anything to do with reference frames.Now, you may wonder, why c specifically? That also has to do with the idea of shifts in reference frame being like rotations............
Yes that is true, but why for every particle is the rest mass and rest energy related by the square of a value that is the same as the value of the speed of light.In order to make a vector that transforms according to the rules of a generalized rotation ......., which means that every particle has a "rest energy" of [itex]mc^2[/itex] in .
What?! That doesn't make sense at all. Just because the equation deals with rest mass does not mean a derivation based on four-momentum or Lorentz transformations is invalid.For the invariant mass energy relationship (E=mc^2), why is energy and mass related by c? As the question applies to the invariant mass energy, the answer can not have anything to do with the energy momentum four-vector.
For the invariant mass energy relationship (E=mc^2), why is energy and mass related by c? As the question applies to the invariant mass energy, the answer can not have anything to do with reference frames.
If mass is energy and energy is mass then this statement requires the photon to have mass.The point should be that they are not simply related... they are EXACTLY the very same thing....
Mass IS energy, and energy IS mass...
It is not a derivation question, it is a fundamental question. One that goes below the mathematics, and asks what is the fundamental nature of particle mass energy.What?! That doesn't make sense at all. Just because the equation deals with rest mass does not mean a derivation based on four-momentum or Lorentz transformations is invalid.
The italic sentences are not correct. We tried to explain above what happens (perhaps the explanation is not clear for you).For the invariant mass energy relationship (E=mc^2), why is energy and mass related by c? As the question applies to the invariant mass energy, the answer can not have anything to do with the energy momentum four-vector.
For the invariant mass energy relationship (E=mc^2), why is energy and mass related by c? As the question applies to the invariant mass energy, the answer can not have anything to do with reference frames.
No.A good physics theory should not only mathematically relate values, but explain why the values are related. As far as I know, the SM does not indicate any reason why rest mass and rest energy are related this way.
This is wrongIf mass is energy and energy is mass then this statement requires the photon to have mass.
So it is clear that the mass form of energy does not have the properties of the photon form of energy. Thus the above statement is incorrect.
No.For example string theory attempts to give an underlying foundation (source of behavior) to the present theory, the SM, that models the behavior of particles.
I have never seen a derivation of E=mc^2 from the Lorentz transformation which results in the invariance of E - p^2c^2. Can you show it or give a reference.The Lorentz transformations automatically generate a relation like E = mc²
Since mass has units of kg and energy has units of kg m²/s² it is clear that the conversion factor must have units of m²/s². The only combination of universal constants with those units is c².Im a 3rd year physics major. I understand the equation E=mc[tex]^{2}[/tex].
But i don't understand why mass and energy are related by the number c.
How are mass, energy, and the speed of light so inextricably related that
we can describe their relationship with one simple equation?
If you would actually go and look on wiki at the evidence you are given, rather than just insisting you are right, you might find there are other avenues you haven't considered.Your statement that the derivation can be done w/o using the Lorentz transformation is not really true. The Lorentz transformation is somehow hidden in all these expressions, but in principle it is the underlying mathematical structure.