Why does E=MC^2 require the speed of light and why is it squared?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KingNothing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Connection E=mc^2
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the logical underpinnings of the equation E=MC², specifically addressing the necessity of the speed of light and the squaring of this value. Participants highlight that energy is directly proportional to mass, necessitating a conversion factor for consistent units, which is provided by the speed of light squared. The speed of light is posited as the only absolute velocity in the universe, making it a fundamental component of the equation. Additionally, a proposition regarding the electromagnetic field as the irreducible constituent of physical reality is introduced, suggesting deeper implications for understanding E=MC².

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly energy and mass.
  • Familiarity with Maxwell's equations and their implications in physics.
  • Knowledge of SI units and their application in physical equations.
  • Concept of the electromagnetic field as a foundational element in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Maxwell's equations on energy-mass equivalence.
  • Explore the concept of the electromagnetic field as proposed by Einstein.
  • Study the significance of the speed of light in relativistic physics.
  • Investigate the historical context and evolution of E=MC² in scientific literature.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of energy and mass, as well as those exploring the philosophical implications of physical theories.

KingNothing
Messages
880
Reaction score
4
Hi. I understand the equation, but I don't understand logically in my head why it is that way. Maxwell's equations, etc show it mathematically but I'm looking for a logical explanation of why it is this way. Like for instance, the logical connection for F=MA would be "more force is needed to move a bigger object, or to move it faster."...now, as far as E=MC^2...

What I know so far is this:
energy should be directly proportional to mass, because something of more mass should release more energy. The speed of light fits in because it's sort of a measure of pure energy that's already been converted into mass completely.

However, I don't understand:
Why the speed? How does speed fit in?
Why squared?

Now, I know you all could prove it with maxwell's equations and such, but I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for a logical explanation so I can see in my head why it works this way.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All physical equations must have consistent units. The equation "E = m" does not have consistent units, because energy and mass are not the same quantity. To make this equation sensible, you must provide some kind of conversion factor.

You are no doubt aware that the Newton, the SI unit of force, is defined as

\textrm{force (N)} = \frac{kg \cdot m}{s^2}

Energy can also be found by integrating a force over a distance:

\textrm{energy (J)} = F \cdot d = \frac{kg \cdot m^2}{s^2}

As you can see, energy has the same units as mass times a squared velocity. So why is that velocity the speed of light? It's the only absolute velocity in the universe, measured the same by all observers, no matter how they are moving.

- Warren
 
There's a 100 year old proposition that explains why E=mcc; that proposition has never been put to rest. It is:

The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Understand that and you will understand all of the "WHY" questions we can't answer with our present day assumptions.
 
Vern said:
The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
.

I'm interested in this. Can you provide a reference which discusses this concept? Guess I felt there was no irreducible constituent so I'd like to know about it.
Thanks
Salty
 
That is a quote from Einstein; I found it in one of Einstein's articles in "The World of Physics", Weaver. I can look it up if there is any question about its accuracy.

Einstein was explaining how the theories of Maxwell, (Not Maxwell's EM theory) Lorentz, etc had basic flaws. He couldn't find a basic flaw in "final irreducible ..." concept but never used it in his work as far as I can understand.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
17K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K