Huh?! "c" is often quoted as being the speed of light but really it is more important than that. It is a fundamental constant of spacetime and space, time, mass, and energy are all related in some way. E = mc<sup>2</sup> is a result of applying the Work-Energy Theorem using the concept from special relativity that mass depends upon speed.
OK I'm a total newbie, but I agree with the E=mc^2 thingy. If light was "trying" to go faster it's mass would have to increase accordingly but it's physical properties prevent it's mass increasing.
Not quite. I am sure u could say light IS trying to go faster but it can't, not because it its mass will increase but simply because 'c' is a limit imposed on time and space.
maybe it could be fair to say...hmmmm...that if light went faster it would be in the past and if it went slower it would be in the future..........
Well in that case the governing factors for the value of 'c' would be the permittivity and permeability of free space. Now these are constsnts for our universe which have absolutely no other reason to be as they are. Happy? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Maybe you are satisfied by the statement: There is a conservation law. However in physics we want to know why there is a conservation law. And mathematics is a tool that help us understand why there is a conservation law. For example: We believe that physics is invariant under translations (this is what we call a symmetry). Use now Noether theorem and you will find that there must exist a quantity (that we call momentum) that must be conserved.
If you were EM radiation then your maximum velocity is c. But does that mean that there is no such thing as a velocity of c+1 m/s? A big question I know but partly rhetorical. Matter and energy are interchangeable no? From E = mc² mass and energy are related via the speed of light. It makes sense then that to increase mass to c would require an infinite amount of energy. However (theorizing here - whoa!) if you exist as something that was not comprised of energy then velocities of c+n m/s is possible. c is only a velocity limit on objects made of energy and mass. So far we know that these two foundations are necessary for any object we interact with and hence measure. An immeasureable entity which is impervious to space-time would be free to move faster than c. By the way dont take any of this seriously.
infinite amount of energy to increase mass to 'c' but isn't that waht happens in a nuclear explosion......increasing mass to 'c' mass converted to energy means mass is increased to 'c' Just a thought and naive one at that....
No, we never increase a mass's speed to c (I assume this is what you meant) in a nuclear explosion. We are converting mass to energy but not by speeding it up to c. Instead the mass is 'decayed' into energy. This sentence is not very accurate but will suffice for now. . In a nuclear reaction (fission) we start with a mass which decreases via radioactive decay while its kinetic energy increases. You can rather easily see how kinetic energy increases since it is conserved. We tend not to use E=mc² in nuclear reaction energy calculations but rather E = (m_i - m_f)c² So The change in KE = (-1) * The change in MASS * c² = -(m_f - m_i)c² = (m_i - m_f)c² = KE released where i and f are initial and final. See why the minus sign is there? Kinetic energy decreases with increasing internal/mass energy.
quote: "The change in KE = (-1) * The change in MASS * c² = -(m_f - m_i)c² = (m_i - m_f)c² = KE released where i and f are initial and final. See why the minus sign is there? " =============================================================== Would not the final mass be the massive particles and any other mass that was not converted into energy? Kinetic energy would decrease with an increase of such particles. quote: "Kinetic energy decreases with increasing internal/mass energy." Here is where I am confused. Is increasing internal/mass energy another way of saying 'increasing final mass'?
I guess what interests me is the speed of this change from mass to energy. It is often suggested that to reach v='c' the object would be in effect energy and not mass......( maybe this is misinformation ) So I surmise that a nuclear explosion is by converting mass to energy doing just that "accelerating mass to 'c' as energy." Oxymoron, I just thought I'd explain why I thought the above post that you have responded to.
