Why is E=MC^2 such a neat and simple formula?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplicity and elegance of the equation E=mc², exploring its implications and the relationship between metric units and the universe. Participants examine why the formula appears so clean without additional corrections or constants, and they delve into the underlying physics and interpretations of the equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why E=mc² is a simple formula without additional corrections, pondering whether metric units are based on physical reality or vice versa.
  • Another participant asserts that the c² term exists because the units are not inherently compatible, suggesting that with appropriate units, the formula could simplify to E=m.
  • Some participants express curiosity about the significance of the squared term and why the equation does not include more complex constants.
  • A later reply discusses the relationship between mass and energy, noting that the formula represents mass as a form of energy but does not account for the energy required to convert mass into free energy.
  • One participant introduces a modern interpretation involving the Higgs field and the nature of quanta, suggesting that the equation reflects deeper physical structures and relationships.
  • Another participant mentions that if mass were expressed in terms of volume, the equation would differ, indicating a dependency on how mass is conceptualized.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of the equation and its implications, with no consensus reached on the underlying reasons for its simplicity or the relationship between metric units and physical reality.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include various interpretations of the equation and its components, with some participants challenging or refining earlier claims without reaching definitive conclusions.

Slyster
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
OK.. my question I've pondered in the past.. why is E=MC2 such a nice and clean formula.. with no corrections or " x .00003845" etc.

Was metric based on the universe (physics) or is the universe somehow based on metric?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, it is not. The c^2 is there because the units are not "fitted" for this formula. With properly selected units it could be just E=m.
 
nasu said:
No, it is not. The c^2 is there because the units are not "fitted" for this formula. With properly selected units it could be just E=m.
squared is pretty neat though.. why not E=MC2.01867378432783794847384 etc.

Might be a silly question but it bugs me :)
 
What if it were? You could ask why 2.018... and not 2.019...:smile:
 
Yes. But 2.018 I could live with. but exactly 2? Either metric is based on energy/mass or the other way around. seems fishy. ;)
 
In metric units c is 299792458... Meter/sec. That's where the messy is.
 
gmax137 said:
In metric units c is 299798... Whatever. That's where the messy is.

ah.. that's a good point of view.. I hadn't thought of that.
 
Slyster said:
squared is pretty neat though.. why not E=MC2.01867378432783794847384 etc.

Might be a silly question but it bugs me :)
The squaring follows from the derivation and the units, just like with kinetic energy.
 
Slyster, I understand your curiosity about the formula. Indeed, it is confusing.

First, the formula expresses the equivalence between mass and free energy (quanta). Nevertheless, the formula don’t describe the energy we need to transform a particle with rest mass into free energy. The formula only shows the energy representation of mass. So C^2 is a constant to get the right outcome. The equation is classic physics (beginning of the 20th century) and probably Wikipedia will show you the original derivation.

Nevertheless, after nearly a century, our concept about the micro cosmos has changed. So let us try to explain the equation by modern understanding.

Rest mass is a local deformation of the flat Higgs field (scalar field). So the vector field (electromagnetic field) “absorbs” energy from the Higgs field and this amount of energy represents a certain number of quanta (E = n x h).
The “back ground” vector field – the carrier of quanta – isn’t a smooth field. It is turbulent space and the turbulence is perceptible as electromagnetic waves. These electromagnetic waves are not the whole vector field: we only can detect “the long ripples”. In fact, the turbulence is quanta. And the velocity of all these quanta is the speed of light.
So when we want to return the energy of the rest mass to the Higgs field, we have to “free” the enclosed quanta of the particle and spread it out into the environment. As a result, the local Higgs field will become flat again and the particle don’t exist anymore.

Spatial fields have a structure. Therefore, every spatial field has a volume and a surface area. Just like the bricks in a wall. The transfer of energy between 2 spatial fields is the transfer of local volume at the cost of local surface area and vice versa (combined spatial fields have a topological structure otherwise there is no conservation of energy). Unfortunately, we don’t express mass with the help of volume (n^3). So we have to translate mass into the surface area of individual quanta with the help of C^2.
Suppose science had expressed mass with the help of volume. Then the famous equation of Einstein has to be: E = m/c.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Uncovering a Decent Proof of E=mc^2
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
High School Why is E=MC2 Squared and not Cubed?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
High School Where did the 1/2 go in E=mc^2?
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
18K
Undergrad Assumption that the rest mass energy is mc^2
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Was Einstein's Proof of E=MC^2 Flawed?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Usage of kinetic energy in proof for E=mc^2
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Why is E=mc² Defined with c Squared?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
Undergrad Question about deriving E=mc^2
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Undergrad Scope of General Relativity: Assumptions & Implications
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Undergrad E=mc^2 how you picture it in nature?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K