# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: E=MCxC  (Read 2400 times)

#### macrocosmos

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### E=MCxC
« on: 25/09/2007 09:38:01 »
E=MC2
Just a thought, if energy is equal to mass at light speed squared.
This then must mean that at light speed squared both Energy and Mass have the same characteristics and are therefore interchangeable, Hmm Fascinating.
I must apologise if I sometimes think outside of Schroedinger's containment of choice, but I tend not to subscribe to linear thought it is far to confining.
Speaking of Linear.
Why is it assumed that light speed can only be achieved via linear motion, it is far more likely to be achieved by non linear motion.
Imagine something that vibrates at light speed like a string of a cosmic violin.
« Last Edit: 25/09/2007 12:45:13 by macrocosmos »

#### macrocosmos

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### E=MCxC
« Reply #1 on: 25/09/2007 12:53:14 »
Another brief one,
Would not something approaching light speed be just as likely to experience an increase in energy equivalent to mass rather than an increase in mass?
I mean kinetic transfer between bodies in motion is feasible, why not a transfer of energy at the quantum level to an object approaching C

#### Soul Surfer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3345
• keep banging the rocks together
##### E=MCxC
« Reply #2 on: 25/09/2007 23:55:32 »
E=MC2
Just a thought, if energy is equal to mass at light speed squared.
This then must mean that at light speed squared both Energy and Mass have the same characteristics and are therefore interchangeable, Hmm Fascinating.

This is totally incorrect thinking.  The interchangeability between energy and mass is true at any speed.  The square of the speed of light is only a constant that shows exactly how energy and mass are related.  It also refers to the energy associated with the "rest mass" of the object.  This constant is derived in effect from the general relation for the kinetic (energy of motion) energy of a moving object  which (at speeds small compared to the velocity of light) is  1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity.

Why is it assumed that light speed can only be achieved via linear motion, it is far more likely to be achieved by non linear motion.
Imagine something that vibrates at light speed like a string of a cosmic violin.

Vibrations and other confined non linear motions are subject to exactly the same rules as linear motions.  Orbital motions are more interesting because one of the definitions of the event horizon of a black hole is that it is the point at which the orbital velocity required to keep an object in a circular orbit around its centre is equal to the velocity of light (ie it is not possible to go fast enough to achieve a stable orbit

Your second question shows more woolly thinking.  Any object that is moving experiences an increase in its energy content this energy is called its Kinetic energy.  This energy mv^2 then adds to the mass of the object however slow it is moving and effectively makes it more difficult to move faster.  As the body approaches the velocity of light this increase in effective mass becomes greater and greater and can completely dominate the rest mass of the particle.  At extremely high energies the velocity of the particle and the mass of the particle can be completely insignificant it is just the energy of the particle that determines its properties  because that determines its effective mass and the velocity is as near as dammit the velocity of light  for example  1Tev electons have a mass of about 2 billion times the rest mass of an electron.  (the electron rest mass is around 500KEV (a measure of energy.  1ev is the energy gained by an electron accelerating across a potential difference of one volt)

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### E=MCxC
« Reply #2 on: 25/09/2007 23:55:32 »