Why does c have to be the speed of light

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether the constant c in Einstein's equation E=mc² must be exactly the speed of light or if it could be a different value. Participants explore the implications of this constant in the context of energy-mass equivalence and the units involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether c must be exactly the speed of light or if it could be a slightly different value, suggesting that c² might simply represent a large number.
  • One participant asserts that c² serves as a conversion factor between energy and mass units, implying that if different units were used, the equation could take a simpler form.
  • Another participant notes that light moves at speed c because photons are massless, linking the speed of light to fundamental properties of particles.
  • A participant provides a numerical example using E=mc² to illustrate the energy equivalent of mass, expressing confusion about why c² results in a specific large number (9 x 10¹⁶) rather than another value.
  • One participant references a previous post by another user, suggesting that understanding the relationship between energy and mass requires mathematical insight and knowledge of physics laws.
  • A later reply attempts to clarify the reasoning behind why the constant k in the energy equation must equal c², discussing the implications of mass and speed in the context of Newton's laws and special relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the necessity of c being the speed of light, with some asserting it must be so while others question this necessity. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the importance of unit consistency in the equation, while others note the mathematical relationships that lead to the conclusion that c must be the limit speed. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the implications of using different constants in the energy-mass relationship.

drinkey
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
In e=Mc2 Does c have to be exactly the speed of light? Can it not be a slightly bigger or smaller number? Or does C squared simply represent an enormous number?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
drinkey said:
In e=Mc2 Does c have to be exactly the speed of light? Can it not be a slightly bigger or smaller number? Or does C squared simply represent an enormous number?

Welcome to physicsforums! :smile:

Your question has been thoroughly discussed recently, here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=461451
 
welcome to pf!

hi drinkey! welcome to pf! :smile:

(try using the X2 button just above the Reply box :wink:)
drinkey said:
In e=Mc2 Does c have to be exactly the speed of light?

yes :smile:

c2 is really only a conversion factor, between the units for energy and speed

if, instead of the metres and kilograms in the SI system, we used light-seconds and a similar light-based mass unit (such as is used in studying black holes), then the equation would just be e = m :wink:
 
Light moves at speed c because photons are massless.
 
Thanks for your answer TT. I read the thread suggested but now my brain hurts! I am a novice that did not do physics at school but am now fascinated by the subject. I saw this somewhere where a question was asked about the energy in a kg of matter (rest)

This is determined by Einstein's equation E = mc2, where c = velocity of light = 3 x 108 meters/sec. So c2 = 9 x 1016. For 1 kg of mass therefore the equivalent energy is 9 x 1016 Joules, for 1 gram it is 9 x 1013 Joules.

Note units, in the SI system energy is in Joules, mass in kg, distances in meters. If you keep to these units you will get consistent results.

So I get the conversion I still don't know why (above example) it has to be 1016 and not say 1015...
 
drinkey said:
[..] I read the thread suggested but now my brain hurts! I am a novice that did not do physics at school but am now fascinated by the subject. I saw this somewhere where a question was asked about the energy in a kg of matter (rest)

This is determined by Einstein's equation E = mc2, where c = velocity of light = 3 x 108 meters/sec. So c2 = 9 x 1016. For 1 kg of mass therefore the equivalent energy is 9 x 1016 Joules, for 1 gram it is 9 x 1013 Joules.

Note units, in the SI system energy is in Joules, mass in kg, distances in meters. If you keep to these units you will get consistent results.

So I get the conversion I still don't know why (above example) it has to be 1016 and not say 1015...
The best answer is, I think the one by DrStupid:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3760256#post3760256

Now, this does require mathematical insight, together with know laws of physics. But then, your question was a mathematical question. :-p

I'll try to clarify drStupid's summary:

E = m * constant, let's call that constant k. And you ask why should k be equal to c*c.

If E=m*k, then a change of energy dE = dm*k

A change of mass dm is given by Newton's force law (which is still valid):
Force is proportional to a change of momentum per time, and momentum is mass times speed. Maybe you did get that far with physics lessons.

In handy units that law is written as: F = d(m*v)/dt

After a little math drStupid got from these two equations that for a moving body, its inertial mass (resistance against acceleration) increases as follows:

m= m0 / √ (1- v2/k)

That can only be correct if the moving body can just not be accelerated to c, which is the limit speed. Then k=c2. (You can try what happens for other values of k!).

So, if the limit speed is c (and that is the case according to special relativity, because light has no rest mass), then the energy formula constant must be c2.

And that, I hope, answers your question. :smile:
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
963
  • · Replies 120 ·
5
Replies
120
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K