Why does c have to be the speed of light

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:
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Abstract The gravitational-wave signal GW250114 was observed by the two LIGO detectors with a network matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 80. The signal was emitted by the coalescence of two black holes with near-equal masses ## m_1=33.6_{-0.8}^{+1.2} M_{⊙} ## and ## m_2=32.2_{-1. 3}^{+0.8} M_{⊙}##, and small spins ##\chi_{1,2}\leq 0.26 ## (90% credibility) and negligible eccentricity ##e⁢\leq 0.03.## Postmerger data excluding the peak region are consistent with the dominant quadrupolar...

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
42
Views
644
Replies
53
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Back
Top