Wondering e=mc^2 is derived from what equations

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter karan1114
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    E=mc^2
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The equation E=mc², derived by Albert Einstein in his 1905 paper "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?", establishes the equivalence of mass and energy. The derivation involves analyzing two frames of reference, A and B, where an object emits light, leading to the conclusion that a loss of energy E results in a corresponding decrease in mass by E/c². The constant c represents the maximum speed of causality and can be derived without reference to light, as shown in Rindler's 1979 work on Lorentz transformations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's 1905 paper "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?"
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations and their implications in physics.
  • Knowledge of the concept of four-vectors in relativistic physics.
  • Basic grasp of the principles of conservation of energy and mass-energy equivalence.
NEXT STEPS
  • Read Einstein's original paper "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?" for foundational insights.
  • Study Rindler's "Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological" for a deeper understanding of Lorentz transformations.
  • Explore the concept of four-vectors and their applications in modern physics.
  • Investigate the implications of mass-energy equivalence in nuclear physics and cosmology.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of relativity and the relationship between mass and energy.

karan1114
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
i was just wondering e=mc^2 is derived from what equations and is linked to which other.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


There are lots of threads about this. This is what I said in one of them.
 


FAQ: Where does E=mc2 come from?

Einstein found this result in a 1905 paper, titled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?" This paper is very short and readable, and is available online. A summary of the argument is as follows. Define a frame of reference A, and let an object O, initially at rest in this frame, emit two flashes of light in opposite directions. Now define another frame of reference B, in motion relative to A along the same axis as the one along which the light was emitted. Then in order to preserve conservation of energy in both frames, we are forced to attribute a different inertial mass to O before and after it emits the light. The interpretation is that mass and energy are equivalent. By giving up a quantity of energy E, the object has reduced its mass by an amount E/c2, where c is the speed of light.

Why does c occur in the equation? Although Einstein's original derivation happens to involve the speed of light, E=mc2 can be derived without talking about light at all. One can derive the Lorentz transformations using a set of postulates that don't say anything about light (see, e.g., Rindler 1979). The constant c is then interpreted simply as the maximum speed of causality, not necessarily the speed of light. We construct the momentum four-vector of a particle in the obvious way, by multiplying its mass by its four-velocity. (This construction is unique in the sense that there is no other rank-1 tensor with units of momentum that can be formed from m and v. The only way to form any other candidate is to bring in other quantities, such a constant with units of mass, or the acceleration vector. Such possibilities have physically unacceptable properties, such as violating additivity or causality.) We find that this four-vector's norm equals E2-p2c2, and can be interpreted as m2c4, where m is the particle's rest mass. In the case where the particle is at rest, p=0, and we recover E=mc2.

A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik. 18 (1905) 639, available online at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

Rindler, Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological, 1979, p. 51
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K