You are not logged in.
If energy = mc2 then mc2 = energy. correct?
Offline
Like button can go here
Yes.
Offline
Like button can go here
This tells you that energy has mass.
Offline
Like button can go here
Yeah the famous equation... it permits the conversion of matter into energy and back again basicly, and quantifies it. Note that it has nothing to do with motion nor the type of energy created.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Yes, this is a well established fact - what's your point?
Offline
Like button can go here
Noooo that does not mean that energy has mass nor vice-versa, it means that the two are interchangeable, hence being on opposit sides of the equals sign.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
c² is the speed of light squared? 186,000 MPS X 186,000 MPS . CORRECT?
Offline
Like button can go here
Yes, or more commonly 3x10^8 meters per second, when squared is 9 x 10^16 m/s
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
I thought nothing can exceed the speed of light? Not even light.
Offline
Like button can go here
*Confusion*
Ummm the equation is using C^2 as a conversion, it doesn't reprisent any real world phenominon. Also note, that since E and M are on opposit sides, this distinctly shows that matter and energy are catagoricly seperate things.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
E=M therefore M=E
Offline
Like button can go here
The equation equates the two, that is, tells you how much of one you get by converting it from the other, not that they ARE the same thing. If they were the same thing, there would only be one variable... If you are looking for a convienant hole in Relativity in terms of Newtonian/Einsteinian physics to make the linear laser rocket go, you aren't going to find one.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
The equation is correct according to math. E=M therefore M=E. Correct?
Offline
Like button can go here
Energy can be converted into matter, and matter can be converted into energy. If they were the same thing, then there would be no need for an equation, it would only be one term, a "EM" hybrid. As the equation E=MC^2 states, they are seperate things, convertable and interchangeable, but two distinct seperate things.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Matter = Mass Therefore Mass = Matter. Correct?
Offline
Like button can go here
Yes the terms are used interchangeably in Newtonian macroworld physics.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
My understanding of the matter is that mass is a property completely independent up energy and matter. Energy also has a mass - light is capable of bending spacetime because of its relativistic mass - although the effect is very small.
E=mc^2 is a bit misleading as it implies that mass is only on one side of the equation. In actuality, what it means is that the mass of the energy released when matter is converted to energy is the same as the mass of the matter.
So, the equation is actually:
m = m
However, we usually measure energy in units like Joules or ergs so the equation is written down as e=mc^2. This merely is a conversion factor that converts mass units of energy into more standard energy units.
For example, one could write the equation as:
E = (1000*n/(6.022^23*FW))c^2
Where n = the number of atoms being converted to energy
and FW is the average atomic weight of those atoms.
To summarize:
Matter has a rest mass.
Light/energy has no rest mass but does have a relativistic mass that represents the energy it carries. If it had a rest mass, it would have infininte mass at light speed.
Offline
Like button can go here
Reading over that last message, I realize that I could have explained it better.
What E=mc^2 means is that when you convert 1 kg of matter into energy, you get 1 kg of energy. However, we don't ususally measure energy in terms of its mass. Instead, we measure it in units like kg m^2/s^2 (Joules). Therefore, the whole c^2 term is added. Now, we get the energy in units of Joules.
Mass is a property of matter and energy - it's like something being colored green or having a certain shape. Mass does not equal matter. Nor does mass equal energy - it is a unit of measure. In old fashioned Newtonian mechanics, mass was seen as being equivalent to matter but this is not true.
Therefore, a piece of matter has a certain mass. The mass isn't the same as the matter - it's simply a property like temperature. When you convert the matter to energy, the energy still has the same mass.
Offline
Like button can go here
Mmmmm that doesn't make much sense to me, I think you've taken the engineer's obsession with dimensional analysis too far... It really is kilograms on one side and joules on the other, there isn't any mass stuff on the "E" side at all. The equation is much more general then that, it simply states that a given quantity of mass or energy can become another quantity of energy or mass, it says nothing about the specifics of how.
Energy simply does not carry a mass, they are seperate and wholey different entities in the universe, there is just this creepy thing called apparent mass that seems to make Photons act like they have a nonzero mass, but thats because of their quantum character and not their Relativistic side.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
It always amuses me to see E=mc^2 bandied about by people with no knowledge of its actual meaning, the number of times I've seen it used by the media out of context is amazing. It really is such a simple equation when you understand it, and all it takes to understand it is a little study, yet people are often unwilling to put in the time are happy using it out of context or even just putting the equation into an article to make them look clever.
There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
--Arthur Buller--
Offline
Like button can go here
When you are using E=mc^2, m = the relativistic mass. For light, this is a non-zero value. I realize that the rest mass for a photon is 0 but the rest mass = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - p^2/c^2). This is a completely different equation. If you are talking in context of E=mc^2 and relativistic mass which is assumed given the context, then my last message is completely correct. If you are talking about relativistic mass, then mass is on both sides of the equation as I pointed out.
If you want to talk about rest or invariant mass, please make your assumptions clear. If so, then you can't use E=mc^2 anymore unless the entire discussion is in terms of inertial rest frame - which for a discussions involving spaceships and photons, it is clearly NOT.
While I realize that relativistic mass is a largely obsolete term these days, it is still correct. Use of relativistic mass just requires that you be careful to remember which version of mass you are using. Despite the obscelecence of the term, I prefer to use relativistic mass as it allows one to retain conservation of mass which invariant mass throws right out the window.
Also, do a search on google for "mass energy universe composition". You'll pull up discussions about the relative contributions of various parts of the universe to it's total gravitational mass. Radiation gets an entry - it's a small one but light/energy by itself also distorts space-time. The CMBR makes up approximately 2*10^-5 of the total mass of the universe. From a relativistic mass perspective, this is due to the mass distorting space time. From an invariant mass perspective, the kinetic energy of the photon is capable of exerting gravitational attraction. From that perspective, kinetic energy is kept seperate from mass unlike relativistic mass which includes kinetic energy. It's purely a matter of semantics.
Plus, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the two mass variants of a photon - both are products of relativity. Einstein himself almost always used invariant mass and even discouraged the the teaching of relativistic mass. Invariant mass took precedence in the 50's because it's more useful when talking about subatomic particles but it has nothing intrinsic to do with quantum physics.
So, before getting sanctimonious about the use of equations, please take half a second to make sure that you are even using the correct ones first.
Offline
Like button can go here
All mass has kinetic energy unless it is not moving. If it is not moving then it has potential kinetic energy at absolute zero.
Offline
Like button can go here
Your terminology is confusing... it ought better read "apparent mass" which implies that it isn't normal rather than "relativistic mass" which makes me think the additional mass when you push somthing to high speeds. Kind of like how my textbook written by an engineer uses the word "weight" much too often for things that it should not.
The quantum side of things does have somthing to do with light's apparent mass, that is, it better describes the particle/wave duality of light and helps resolve whats going on better than Newton/Einstein.
I understand the mechanisms of the equation just fine, but trying to communicate about them without being "too technical" for other readers is proving to be problematic.
Errorist: This is almost correct... absolute zero is not possible because zero point energy will come into play and prevent the mass from truely achieveing zero motion. There will still be a kenetic componet, not a potential one.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
So what does light do near absolute zero? Speed up or slow down.
Offline
Like button can go here
Light has no "temperature" (even though light wavelength is sometimes called "temperature" which has nothing to do with it) because it has no inherint mass. As far as my chemistry background definition goes, only atoms have "temperature".
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here