@@oreowithurea5018 just because a formula resembles the format a² = b² + c² we automatically take the discussion to a triangle approach simply because we know about pythagoras. But it's kind of an artibtrary decision for analysis right? My physics is not too sharp but is it more appropriate to say something like (mc²) and (pc) are simply vectors that are perpendicular? I don't know just a random thought.
@@ChannelTwentyTwoThe stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. SO, consider WHAT IS the Moon !! SO, WHAT IS THE MOON will (and does) move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE EARTH/ground. WHAT IS E=MC2 is the reason why what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE. Great. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!! Great. CLEARLY, ON BALANCE, I have proven WHAT IS the FOURTH dimension. (Again, BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) Consider what is complete combustion AND WHAT IS E=MC2. CLEARLY (ON BALANCE), I have solved WHAT IS the coronal heating “problem”; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! Great !!! By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Because Trigonometry is the study of triangles, typically right, and the functions derived from it, giving models for harmonic motion and billions of other stupid applications?
Mass can reach the speed of light but not the mass we are use to ,the ONLY mass that can do it is the 0,000000000000001kg mass ,the quantum mass ,the mass that in the equation E=mc^2 (for light) its discarded because it is practically zero, but in reality it is not totally 0, if something exist in space-time always need to have mass,but in light is very very low at quantum level, it must have mass but in this case it is absurdly small, did you understand now?
First- For-Fun Are you saying that a photon has mass? I mean really all I see are photons. Where did you learn this factoid? Can you define “Quantum mass”?
And more! When our teachers back then in school said: You'll gonna need that the rest of your life! And you go like... Whatever! Sure triangles yes, ever single day! Keep talking blabla.... HE WAS RIGHT! DAMN IT! 🤬
Triangles explains everything! And why he took E as Hypotenuse instead of base or altitude? I Just Couldn't understand the logic behind comparing the formula to Pythagoras theorem!
@@jankiprasadsoni6793 E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 This does not necessarily mean Energy is the physical hypotenuse of a right angle triangle with a base and height, But it's useful to think of it that way, so we do. And maybe Energy is a hypotenuse of some cosmic triangle. It wouldn't be the strangest idea in science
@@hareecionelson5875 as soon as we find an equation that resembles c^2 = a^2 + b^2, we automatically think in terms of triangles. but is it more appropriate to say that (mc^2) and (pc) are simply perpendicular vectors and that's why it works?
I am not going to lie this was probably the only video so far which I didn't have to watch twice to understand. I am an average intelligence guy with a little interest in Science but Henry nailed it for me in this video.
Dominic Boggio ThePCguy17 Buckminster Fuller would tell you that right triangles don't really exist in the real world and are rather special cases of the intersection of three circles that run across the surface of the Earth and which the result of these intersections is very tiny such as to make negligible that fact that the sum of their inner angles is larger than 180 degrees,
DigGil3 And he would be unfortunately spouting thechnobabble (or would it be mathnobabble?) that doesn't actually have reasoning in it. I meant actually having a step by step proof. Or inventing a warp drive's power cell and bypassing the whole light speed problem.
I wonder, can we have "negative" mass ? Something that weights less than zero should pass light speed. Yes, I know - it sounds silly. Maybe I should go to bed . . . .
assuming that negative mass can exist, that would be similar to adding a minus sign to the mc^2 part of the equation, since the full equation is E=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, this would translate to E=(-mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. Since a negative number squared is a positive number, the object would still not be able to pass light speed
No, put simply you can't travel F.T.L. as you would require an infinite amount of energy regardless of your "negative mass". Objects with mass would not only need an infinite amount of energy but your mass would also increase exponentially. Your mass would be almost universally massive and this can never happen!
Kate Hoover Einstein's equation suggests that we can have negative mass matter and also negative energies. Often called exotic matter-energy. However we haven't found any proof of negative matter, but the Casimir effect seems to produce some sort of negative energy, and from negative energy we could theoretically create matter with negative mass. This negative matter (Stretching to sci-fi here) could potentially be used to stabilize a worm hole, so it might be very important for space travel in the future.
Lighthammer18 I agree with the Casimir - Polder force (research) effect being demonstrably real and accurate, and a surprize to many scientists. It seems counter-intuitive that "empty" space (vacuum) is actually teeming with energy/particles popping in and out of our physical space time. This especially makes me laugh when creationists and the religious claim that "everything must have a cause and effect or something can't come from nothing" You picked a sound example that not only educates but also makes me laugh :) PS your "Sci-fi hypothesis" needs a bit of work though LOL ;0) I also think my site to site transporter technology (star-trek) needs more string and sticky tape as the Heisenberg compensators are playing up again !
comediac Could you, hypothetically, have a particle with an imaginary mass (i.e. a multiple or fraction of i, the square root of -1), thereby solving the squaring to positive problem?
Pretty good explanation, and I love the animation you used too! My only complaint is you use the word "mass", I would have liked at least a passing mention of the fact this is "invariant mass" (which light doesn't have), as opposed to relativistic mass.
My mind has been blown today ! I was doing my physics exercices during a physic lesson, and to solve one, I did some calculations and other integrals. (took me some time) And guess what ? I found E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 ! The funny part is that as I wrote E = (p^2c^2 + m^2c^4)^1/2 I did not realize immediately that it was the exact same formula as I had seen in this video for ages !
ChingHern Tay Oh...No, that triange represents that a hypotenuse can never be equal to base until the perpencular side is zero. But until an object has mass, the mass-energy (mc²) will never be zero so momentum can never be directly converted to energy without mass-energy unless we are talking about photons
ITs sImPLe. E(3) - pos(2, y, pc^2) is equal to the hypotenuse, times the quantum field of π^ω, plus the constant 4.378896458112134254601928717472..., ^ 8, if 4 > 3ba, ± 0.00000000000013. I hope you realized this was a joke.
means if object is not moving we calculate its enery witn e mc2 formula if object have no mass like light than we calculate energy by e pc2 formula simple 😃
So, E=(mC^2)^2 + pC^2, and because with photons, m = 0, therefore E=PC^2, excellent. But P (momentum) = mV.... but m is still 0. so E is still 0. WTF physics?
Umm... I may sound stupid, But using the equation, E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2, if you have that triangle, lets say that pc=d, and d=1/2 the speed of light, So and energy is= to k(k is a variable) and mass= t, then if you multiply d times 2, the speed of light, then the hypotenuse would grow(energy), but the energy would not equal infinity because the Energy to get to half the speed of light is not infinite, and you can't have 1/2 of infinity, because 1/2 of infinity is, well, infinity. So, everything in the universe, no matter what speed, takes an infinite amount of energy. To make it easier to understand, here: ~2.01k=mass + c(the speed of light). But, this doesn't make any sense, because infinity is unreachable, so in theory nothing in the Universe with mass can move! someone please help me understand this! sorry if I did a terrible job explaining it.
ABSOLUTE MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Time DILATION proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. Einstein's equations are NECESSARILY QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, the mathematical unification of Maxwell's equations AND Einstein's equations (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension) proves that ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with time. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is, in fact, CLEARLY proven by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED IN AND OUT of SPACE AND TIME, as this is CLEARLY proven by time DILATION, F=ma, AND E=mc2. This ALSO explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black hole(s)". Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) ACCORDINGLY, FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AND A POINT are all then in BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. GREAT !!! This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, I have demonstrated the true mathematical UNIFICATION of physics/physical experience AS what is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 is F=ma IN BALANCE. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. By Frank DiMeglio
@@Theo_Caro Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 is F=ma IN BALANCE. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. By Frank DiMeglio
Can someone please explain how photons have energy at all then? If momentum is equal to an objects mass * velocity (p=mv) then doesn't something that has no mass have no momentum? [EDIT: read down a little further and saw explanations for my first question] Also, if I remember correctly don't photons have an insanely tiny tiny amount of mass? Does this mean that even photons don't travel at the speed of light - or am I interpreting it entirely wrong?
+Nic Steyn As far as I'm concerned, photons only have mass when they're not moving (because E=mc^2). That's why they behave like particles when they come into contact with objects, but behave like EM Waves when they move.
+Nic Steyn Photons do NOT have mass at all. they also travel at the speed of light. HOWEVER photons DO have momentum. Their momentum is quite different than objects with mass as it's proportional to their frequency ( frequency of the light wave)and not to their mass. Overall the equation to calculate the momentum of a photon is different than that of objects with mass. There are 2 momentum equations used to calculate momentum, one is for mass-less particles and one is for particles with mass
First we need to state that this is a theory. According to Einstein a photon don't have mass but carry momentum. My understanding is that light is a wave and the photon a wave packet, not a real particle. If we abolish Einstein's postulate then photon can have mass, but we can't forget that light is a wave in a medium. So the mass is created when the electromagnetic energy goes through the medium.
+Nic Steyn Photons have mass. That means they have energy. But because Photons only exist at lightspeed, they dont have an acceleration, despite their mass.
We can apply E=mc2 to photon to calculate a mass, but as I said before this contradicts Einstein's postulate. Supposing an existing structure in vacuum (Ether), the Electromagnetic energy integrating with the structure could give rise to what we call mass. In this way we can explain the momentum, otherwise is magic. Is important to note that light is only the undulation in the medium, not the mass, as well sound is the undulation in the air, so sound don't have mass. The distinction must be made between light as wave and photon as particle.
It never fails to amaze me how everything in math and science just *works*. Like, the same principles that apply to trigonometry and measuring triangles also explain why we can't exceed the speed of light. Just, think about that.
Complicated for people with my level of education in these matters, I am just going doing my GCSE equivalent exams, so yeah, complicated for me, maybe not so for you. Had an interest in this stuff since I was 5.
+CxC_personal I'm doing my A Levels (final year) and only now have we touched E-mc^2, not the complete version either. And the hardest maths we do in physics is just rearranging exponential equations (not hard).
+CxC_personal e.g Q=Qe^-t/RC, e just means exponential and describes how the charge (Q) falls of exponentially with time. This is to do with capacitors, a component in a circuit used to store charge (Energy), but over time it will tend to zero. That's what the equation means, the R is the resistance and the C is the capacitance.
@@mateuszdziewierz4234 the former two are simplifications for special cases in which either mass or momentum are (close to) 0, so you cannt mix them since they are mutually exclusive (except both are actually 0, in which case your "conclusion" holds up)
Same. I have a friend that thinks I'm so smart that when I was watching this she was like ugh I wonder if this would make since if I were you. I didn't have any idea what he meant either tho so...
Well you've sort of got 3 things at play here. Roughly speaking: * Energy is mass * Massless things (can) move at the speed of light * Mass stops you from going as fast as light. The formula is the math, but the concepts are more interesting. Essentially it means massless photons - the bits of light; and hypothetically gluons could travel at the speed of light. If you have any mass at all, then no light speed for you! Gluons get screwed here because gluons always travel with friends. Think of Gluons as usain bolt walking with a fat friend. And then the whole energy mass equivalence. It just means if you, say, burn wood you get fire. Mass of log - > heat. It's the science of three concepts.
E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² or Energy squared equals (mass times speed of light in vaccum squared) squared plus (momentum x speed of light in vaccum) squared is the new E = mc² which was Energy equals mass x speed of light in vaccum squared.
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 is F=ma IN BALANCE. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. By Frank DiMeglio
Thanks for uploading this video. I never understood how fotons were able to move at the speed of light or even to move at all, but this makes a lot of sense. :-)
Oh, now I just dicovered momentum = m.v If a foton has no mass, it also has no momentum at all and follwing, no energy. Is that even possible, if it's able to produce light? Can someone give me an answer please?
wait, I know I must be overlooking something, but isn't (translational) momentum "p" given by p=mv, where m is mass (v is velocity)? So therefore a massless particle has 0 momentum, regardless of velocity, and also as a result (according to the video) 0 energy? I know there must be a reason why this deduction is wrong, but what is that reason?
Bliffity Translational momentum and basic talk of Energy is not complex physics. Fluid dynamics or quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is. I am also a Physics major, judging me by my profile picture is a pretty unintelligible way to make assertions about someone.
***** First of all I use the term complex lightly, and second of all I'm pointing out something doing something that does not correspond to what it appears to be which is a form of humor. It doesn't hold up if you look into it, but it's a joke. You're not supposed to look deeply into jokes. My comment is meant only for someone to glance at, think, "Oh, that's a bit funny," and forget about the next day.
Cody Roth, here's a copy of my recent answer on this page to a similar question, in case you have trouble navigating to it on your device: Momentum is not mass times velocity - that's what lead to your confusion. Mass times velocity is just a useful approximation for CALCULATING momentum for an object possessing mass that is moving slowly relative to c (the speed of light in a vacuum) - it doesn't DEFINE momentum. So it's completely useless even as an approximation for calculating the momentum of a photon, because a photon has no mass. Photons have measurable momentum: for example in Compton Scattering a photon, which is like a packet of kinetic energy, interacts with an electron which gains some of the energy of the photon. The first photon disappears and a new photon with less kinetic energy (longer wavelength) is created and emitted at an angle such that the total momentum of the system is the same as before the interaction - conservation of momentum. So the lesson for today: mathematical equations are invented to conform to our measurements of the natural world in terms of making successful predictions, not the other way round. If an equation doesn't make a good enough prediction for a particular scenario it's dumped. (And as far as we know it's possible that nothing in the natural world is governed by equations - we've no way of finding out - just because we can use an equation to make a prediction obviously doesn't mean the event being studied was in any way caused by the equation!)
That's in Newtonian physics. Momentum has like 10 different definitions or formulas based on what branch of physics you're dealing with. In relativity, there is no fix time so we cannot apply classical formula
Which means that as long as we have a mass, we can never reach the speed of light. But does that indicate that if you have a negative mass you could go faster than speed of light? Maybe theoretical but the equations tell that negative mass square still ends up as positive, therefore not faster than c.
Introductory calc. (or maybe even just algebra depending on what you're trying to do) would be more than enough to work with an equation like E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. I mean, MinutePhysics did a pretty good job of explaining it with just the Pythagorean theorem. BUT, knowing how to simply work exponents in E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 and knowing (understanding) all of the physical implications of E=mc^2 is an entirely different ball of wax.
You never had to learn trigonometry and physics? What kind of crappy school did you go to? XD Trigonometry is like the most useful aspect of math past multiplication for everyday use.
This doesn't exactly explain the "why" you can go at the speed of light but rather a math trick that physicists establish to demonstrate the concept lol
To anyone who believes that triangles are the reason we can’t reach the speed of light, you are wrong. The triangle in the video is used as a visual analogy to explain energy, since the expression of the energy looks so much like the pythagorean theorem. But it doesn’t stem from any triangle, nor does it have any secret connection to any. The triangle just happens to behave in the same way, and it’s convenient to use it to show that you can’t quite reach the speed of light, if you have the tiniest amount of mass.
If photons don't have mass, why isn't the speed of light unlimited? It sounds logical that photons do have a little bit of mass, but they are still the lightest thing in universe and therefote the fastest
Photons are massless. Because of that, they can travel at the fastest possible speed, which is the speed of light (approx. 186,000 miles per second). Yes, it does seem logical that they do have mass, but that is incorrect.
Allen Junge Neutrinos are not believed to be massless, since the only explanation for their flavor oscillations is that they have mass... although their mass was never measured, and is very very small (smaller than 1/500000 times that of an electron).
Yes. From the time of Leibniz and "vis-viva", and of course, Newton. And (linear) momentum has, as you already know, units of mv which can also be written as mv²/v, which is units of energy divided by units of speed. So, any object which has a physical attribute with these (more general) units is said to have (linear) momentum.
hmm, so if momentum is also Energy divided by speed, the momentum of light is Energy of light divided by speed of light? I looked up wikipedia that Energy of light (photon energy) is equal to Planck constant * speed of light / light's waveleght. Then momentum = planck constant * c / lambda / c which c cancels out and we left with momentum = planck constant / lambda is this correct ?
+Kovanovsky Momentum is the energy an objects must have to remain in motion once it starts moving. What you described at the end was simply a mathematical equation describing the energy the light wave must have to remain moving
Doctor Yammy umm, so... is that a correct? is what I stated there momentum of light? or is it something similar but different? or am I missing something? I am just confused how to calculate momentum of light since light has no mass (as far as I know) and momentum equation is mass x velocity thanks for the replies though
+Interferencyjny You can't just use classical knowledge like p=mv for problems like this. The relativistic dispersion relation E^2 = (mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 is part of a bigger picture of special relativity that superseeds Newtonian dynamics (which is regained in the limiting case). So you have to take this new formula as like an axiom.
+Michael Foskett Not really an axiom, because it implies that it isn't proven and you just have to accept it. Unlike General Theory of Relativity, which is... you know... proven :P
BellaBandgirl I know that a nuetrino contains mass and could possibly go 2 x faster than the speed of light but the problem is they are proving immensely difficult to detect, so for now it can't be proven. I really want new age technology which would help us detect new things.
If something were proven to go faster than light, it would disprove a lot of modern physics. There was an erroneous experiment a while ago which seemed to suggest that neutrinos could do it, but it was later proved wrong.
alifbatah Yes . Reading the last page of a book first thus knowing the outcome before the beginning . That is the only analogy I can readily come up with .
How can you have momentum and no mass if you were taught momentum is mass * velocity? The answer is that what you were taught doesn't apply to objects with no mass! Countless experiments show that light has momentum and countless measurements show that light has no measurable mass. For a photon (which has no mass), momentum = Planck Constant/wavelength of the light. Also, "momentum = mass * velocity" is an approximation and doesn't work for objects approaching the speed of light. For an object with mass, linear momentum = mass * velocity/ sqrt(1- velocity²/speed of light²) BTW, in the video as well as in this reply, "mass" means the Newtonian concept of mass, which does not change with velocity. That is also what physicists mean when they use the term mass. ("Relativistic mass" is an energy term that is often confused with "mass" - for this reason it seems to be on the way out, and even Einstein recommended not using it when teaching physics. Particle physicists never refer to relativistic mass.)
James Cuttell, there's an experiment to notice that: turn the light on then feel the light pushing you back! Just kidding. That is a really common question, it was one of the questionings of Einstein's theories about the light behaviour back at his times. He noticed that if you assume that light has a momentum, all his equations matched perfectly and everything worked really well. When he were deducing the E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 math formalism based on differential equations (Maxwell equations, Lorentz transformations), he noticed that the conservation of linear momentum were being broken at some point! So either linear momentum conservation - which is an untouchable and unquestionable law - didn't apply to that, - you would need some balls to face all those angry physicists telling you you were wrong, even being Einstein - , or photons had a linear momentum related to them. The latter was his assumption, and, surprisingly, that assumption matched every concept known so far, everything fitted perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle just when photons had linear momentum. It was basically a discovery made during a math equation development! This is what I know so far about the history of photons linear momentum...
Well, to say that E=mc^2 is not complete is actually wrong. E=mc^2 is complete (as far as we know), it is the full equation. In the equation m is not the rest mass, it is the total mass (sometimes called relativistic mass). The total mass already takes into account the momentum component. In the video the mass term that Minute Physics is talking about is the rest mass, and is generally written as m0 (with the 0 as a subscript) not as m. Everything else is correct assuming that when Minute Physics is talking about mass, he is talking about rest mass.
If you have a particle with zero rest mass you will mostly likely be talking about a photon which have a impulse of p = h/lambda where h is planks constant and lambda is the wavelenght.
If a physicist (or physics teacher) is ever saying "just because", they're not much of a physicist. The whole point of the science is to be able to explain results like this in terms of fundamental principles. That raises the question, where do the fundamental principles come from? Ans: from Experiment. So that's the point at which we need to fall back on "just because." But it's "just because so far every single bit of observational data ever collected throughout history points to this principle being true in nature." And soon as we get a datum that contradicts it, we'll begin to question it.
+Kaitlyn Amanda Guys like this exist everywhere. You just need to look for them. They usually hide themselves away in dark library corners or in the middle of a group of like-minded friends. Be adventurous! You'll find him eventually!
J.J. Shank As one of them, I agree. But it's not like I'm hiding, I just don't really feel the need to meet more people. I have a small group of 4+ years very good old friends to hang out with, eventually party, but mostly staying home or hitting the gym.
I'm four years late, but the expression p=mv is an approximation - it's only accurate for objects travelling at speeds that are very slow compared to the speed of light. For relativistic particles, you need another equation, p=γmv. For massless particles, it works out that p=E/c - which is equivalent to E=pc, as shown in the video.
My teacher said tat E=mc^2 means that sunlight could be theoretically be turned into solid matter, and I lamented all the misconceptions about physics. Probably because of the definition of mass as the amount of stuff in an object, rather than a property which determines the strength of the gravitational interaction. Saying that E=mc^2 means energy can be converted into mass makes it seem as if light shouldn't be pulled by gravity, as it still has no mass, but it does.
E = mc^2 is not incomplete. When an object is moving in a speed comparable to c, then the mass of the particle is no longer the rest mass. Then the effective mass of the particle would be gamma*m0, where m0 = the rest mass and gamma = 1/(1 - (v/c)^2)^0.5.. Now just expand the equation and then you will find the ans that total energy = rest mass energy + Kinetic energy. For calculating kinetic energy we use the contraverient form of momentum(four momentum). Then we get the equation , E^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2
dude, ik a lot of your comments are jokes, but in hopes this cranks out even another 10 seconds of video (i dont have the money for patreon, one day) you make really quality informative videos that's seems to be although short give a lot of ideas that dont seem to be presented anywhere else. Plus, I really like math, and physics seems really lightly covered in youtube and pop culture, this is great. Please, keep doing you!
This very first equation can be used correctly even if the body is moving, but just use the relativistic mass instead of the rest mass in the equation. The second equation which is represented by the triangle is more or less an approximation for the first one after using the power series and neglecting the higher order terms in the equation. Therefore, it is not true to say "it only describes the objects that have mass and are not moving."
I don't understand where the equation V= C * PC/E comes from? That seems to be pulled out of thin air, and seems to be contradictory. If V = C*PC/E, and P = momentum = MV, then: V = C *MVC/E -> VE = CMVC -> VE = MVC^2. Then, if V > 0, you can divide by V and get: E = MC^2. Which at first looks nice, until you remember the opening line that "this is only true if velocity = 0", and we just established the velocity > 0, a contradiction, which would seem to establish that the original equation is inaccurate. Am I missing something?
E=mc^2 has no problem. The only incomplete thing about this is the way we understand mass in this situation. Mass is dependent on the speed an object moves, given by the equation m = m0*(gamma), so if we apply some simple transformations to that, we find out the complicated formula. In the same way, light is not a massless particle. Only that it has no static mass (in the hypothetical case of the photon not moving at all, its mass would be 0), but the photon's mass in its motion is given by m = p/c, where p in the momentum, equal to h/(lambda).
lim E=PC [mc^2->0] because mc^2 cannot be equal to 0. it is because mass can never be zero. Hence any object with mass cannot travel at the speed of light.
I found a problem! P is the letter used for momentum if it is used for this as well the photons must have mass or they do not have energy. If the mass was zero the right side of the triangle would be zero. But momentum is measured with the mass and velocity of a object times each other. If the mass is zero then there is no momentum, making the bottom of the triangle 0 and energy would equal nothing since the right side is also composed of mass and would compress to nothing as well.
There are different formulations of momentum, actually. The momentum of a photon comes from its wave-like properties, not the particle-like properties.
Justin Case If an object with mass gets hotter it means that on average the particles that make up the object have more kinetic energy. If the object has constant velocity its momentum stays the same regardless of whether it is getting hotter or colder. www.mansfieldct.org/Schools/MMS/staff/hand/atomsheat.htm
Pibroch That's classical physics. It's accurate enough to be used, but really, mass does increase (but by such a small amount it is immeasurable). Relativistic physics would show it (E=mC^2; one result of this is that more energy means more mass).
Nothing has a ZERO mass Ideally.. Even if something has a 1 x 10^-31 (i.e. 0.000000......000 - 31 times zeroes than 1) - it will have some Energy based on (speed of light)^2.. Though there was something (some theory) with a negative mass here - about the anti-matter I think, regardless - lim(0+) =/= 0.. You can NEVER assume something is 0 if it's multiplied by something near infinity.. It's more like 0xInfinity = 1 (for simplicity, just for the basic understanding), but the truth is that 0xInfinity = undefined.. Regardless - you can see that my assumption was that c^2 is near infinity (which really is - that's the power of 18th decade), and what has the mass much less than the power of -18th decade ? - nothing really.. Even particles are near that mass I believe (studied quite a long time ago, but pretty sure nothing has a mass like 10 powers less than a power of -18, more like 0.00000 28 zeroes than 1 grams - in mass don't exist, I think)
Sahana - if you know the wavelength of the light its momentum can be calculated by dividing the Planck constant by the wavelength (p = h/greek letter lambda). As you can see, the smaller the wavelength the greater the momentum. Per photon, gamma rays are more harmful than radio waves for example, and are sometimes used to kill cancer cells.
I first saw this prior to taking any university physics class and now I am about to graduate college. I come back to this year after year because of the simple yet beautiful explanation
I've gotta question. As you said based on the triangle, when m=0 , E=pc. But according to theory, when m=0, p should also be 0 based on the formula p=mv, right ?
It makes sense with all those tv shows and movies having FTL(Faster Than Light) technology. And then you see their ship literally shrink into a long thin paper and ZOOM away as if they just teleported. Even television gets it right sometimes.
Well technically, E = mc^2 DOES include everything. Why? Simply put m = m(o)y, where m(o) is the inertial mass and y is gamma ( the lorentz transformation factor ). Thus E= m(o)yc^2, and this result is the simplification of E = K + m(o)c^2 (where K is the kinetic energy and m(o)c^2 is the energy at rest). I´ll go deeper if you ask me to.
Technically you're wrong because technically you're altering the equation by changing what the symbols in the video represent. Physics isn't semantics - you're confused.
You're wrong, the convention in physics is that mass, which is invariant, is represented by m, not m(0). The video is simply using the normal convention. people.phys.ethz.ch/~strthom/physik1/hs07/skript/Okun.pdf
You are correct, the equation E=mc^2 is an incomplete expression of the relationship between energy (E), mass (m), and the speed of light (c). It is a special case of the more complete equation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where p is the momentum of an object and c is the speed of light. This equation is known as the mass-energy equivalence and it expresses the fact that mass and energy are interchangeable and can be converted into one another. Thank you for pointing out the mistake. Here is a PowerShell script for the above $mass = Read-Host "Enter the mass (in kilograms): " $speedOfLight = 299792458 # meters per second $momentum = Read-Host "Enter the momentum (in kg m/s): " $massEnergy = [double]($mass * ($speedOfLight * $speedOfLight)) $momentumEnergy = [double]($momentum * $speedOfLight) $totalEnergy = [double](($massEnergy * $massEnergy) + ($momentumEnergy * $momentumEnergy)) Write-Output "The total energy is: $totalEnergy joules"
The correct formula is actually ΔE = ΔMC². The purpose of this formula is not to calculate the energy level of an entity, but to calculate the change of energy (ΔE) that occurs when the mass changes.
I thought Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 was only for masses at rest. His other equation accounting for Lorentz Contraction included the masses velocity. E = gamma * mc^2, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2
I’ve heard all of this before, but I’ve never put 2 and 2 together to realize that this is what shows that nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. It’s nice to finally understand that instead of just taking it for granted because I’m sure somebody with a PhD would be questioning it if it wasn’t super obvious for some reason.
E=mc2...energy is mass times the speed of light times the speed of light again...I believe there is no constant and fixed speed of light...the speed of light is determined in relation to it's environment...where is the symbol for light itself that should be generated and created in this equation as well as the symbols for motion acceleration and velocity? I believe there are nth degree of densities of energies...E=mc2 can be branched into nth degree of densities of energies....this is a broad definition of what energy is...light itself should exude in this equation and at different rates pulses and subtle to radiant brightness levels....
Brilliant geometry but what is E measured in? How does the speed of Vibrations in Magnetic Feilds (light) tell us how much Energy is in a physical object?
If you put E=Mc2 into an electrical format and add positive and negative rings it divides water by water. Creates a new energy that is in everything that is neither positive or negative. Only way to travel at the speed of light is to become the light
What slaved this beautiful equation to a right angled triangle. This concept also means a mass can’t travel fast enough to become all energy…that is, to convert from visible to invisible or from flesh to spirit. However, at the beginning, the converse occurred…matter came from ‘nothing’ tangible. So why can’t it revert?
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[1/2] เปิดแคมป์หลอนต้อนรับ 2 ตัวพ่อแห่งวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2uPuHYHgwiI/mqdefault.jpg)
That triangle example made great sense. Thanks
And why he took E as Hypotenuse?
@@jankiprasadsoni6793 because the original equation is E² = (mc²)² + (pc)². Resembling the Pythagorean theorem where a² = b² + c², a = hypotenuse
@@oreowithurea5018 just because a formula resembles the format a² = b² + c² we automatically take the discussion to a triangle approach simply because we know about pythagoras. But it's kind of an artibtrary decision for analysis right? My physics is not too sharp but is it more appropriate to say something like (mc²) and (pc) are simply vectors that are perpendicular? I don't know just a random thought.
@@ChannelTwentyTwoI don't understand what describing it this way implies, using a triangle is just a kind graph of the equation
@@ChannelTwentyTwoThe stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. SO, consider WHAT IS the Moon !! SO, WHAT IS THE MOON will (and does) move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE EARTH/ground. WHAT IS E=MC2 is the reason why what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE. Great. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!! Great. CLEARLY, ON BALANCE, I have proven WHAT IS the FOURTH dimension. (Again, BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) Consider what is complete combustion AND WHAT IS E=MC2. CLEARLY (ON BALANCE), I have solved WHAT IS the coronal heating “problem”; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! Great !!!
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
I need a good reminder occasionally just why geometry can be so useful in mathematics. Thanks for this!
Wait until you see what general relativity is!
To think the whole reason we can't go at the speed of light is because of triangles. Screw you trigonometry.
+L0b5terlick luminarty comfirm
+Drious TB it is Illuminati
+L0b5terlick
XD How was that even trig?
Because Trigonometry is the study of triangles, typically right, and the functions derived from it, giving models for harmonic motion and billions of other stupid applications?
sato
But were sine, cosine, or tangent (ratio) even involved?
THIS ANSWERS SO MANY QUESTIONNNNNSSSSSSS
ikr
It creates so many more though. Like why do photons have momentum and why don't I know shit about physics?
Ive looked at some other sources and they say other variations for what E=MC*2 should be! Im still no closer to finding the legitimate answer
Bejoy Sen The momentum of a photon is p=h/a, where h is Planck's constant and a is the wavelength of the photon.
Ikr
The best "Why mass can't reach the speed of light " video I've seen so far. Nice work! A+
Mass can reach the speed of light but not the mass we are use to ,the ONLY mass that can do it is the 0,000000000000001kg mass ,the quantum mass ,the mass that in the equation E=mc^2 (for light) its discarded because it is practically zero, but in reality it is not totally 0, if something exist in space-time always need to have mass,but in light is very very low at quantum level, it must have mass but in this case it is absurdly small, did you understand now?
First- For-Fun
Source?
@@chetopuffs all around of you,every thing you see and dont even see have mass,so everything that exist have mass
First- For-Fun
Are you saying that a photon has mass? I mean really all I see are photons.
Where did you learn this factoid?
Can you define “Quantum mass”?
@@chetopuffs yes i can ,quantum mass is the mass in the 0,0000000001 kg scale ,but have mass , everything have mass
So E=MC squared is also related to a right triangle? Arrgghh,, can't seem to get away from Pythagoras!
And more! When our teachers back then in school said: You'll gonna need that the rest of your life! And you go like... Whatever! Sure triangles yes, ever single day! Keep talking blabla.... HE WAS RIGHT! DAMN IT! 🤬
Pythagoras is the dominatrix that whips you with theory once you think the pain of physics is finally over
Triangles explains everything!
And why he took E as Hypotenuse instead of base or altitude?
I Just Couldn't understand the logic behind comparing the formula to Pythagoras theorem!
@@jankiprasadsoni6793 E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
This does not necessarily mean Energy is the physical hypotenuse of a right angle triangle with a base and height,
But it's useful to think of it that way, so we do. And maybe Energy is a hypotenuse of some cosmic triangle. It wouldn't be the strangest idea in science
@@hareecionelson5875 as soon as we find an equation that resembles c^2 = a^2 + b^2, we automatically think in terms of triangles. but is it more appropriate to say that (mc^2) and (pc) are simply perpendicular vectors and that's why it works?
If we want to travel the speed of light we must kill all the triangles. It's simple people.
That would kill either all energy in the universe, all "stuff" in the universe, or all movement in the universe. Sorry, count me out.
***** Pffffft
Illuminati
Melon Crystal I delight in not knowing what this ever-popular term means.
Perfectly balanced as everything should be
I am not going to lie this was probably the only video so far which I didn't have to watch twice to understand. I am an average intelligence guy with a little interest in Science but Henry nailed it for me in this video.
damn right triangles. I will now prove them obsolete.
Yeah, go make those right triangles, wrong triangles!
Now I'm waiting for ViHart to step in and say something about triangles.
Dominic Boggio ThePCguy17 Buckminster Fuller would tell you that right triangles don't really exist in the real world and are rather special cases of the intersection of three circles that run across the surface of the Earth and which the result of these intersections is very tiny such as to make negligible that fact that the sum of their inner angles is larger than 180 degrees,
DigGil3 And he would be unfortunately spouting thechnobabble (or would it be mathnobabble?) that doesn't actually have reasoning in it. I meant actually having a step by step proof. Or inventing a warp drive's power cell and bypassing the whole light speed problem.
I thought you meant geometry... Sorry, the department for gravity-electromagnetism theory unification is next doors.
That is a cute joke.
Fuck me this is amazing
exactly what part struck u most?
Thanks for the offer!
I never cared about this stuff but now I think is amazing all the sudden.
Okay. Give me your address.
No problem... Turn around and bend over...
I had been missing the momentum P variable. You helped me shape my understanding of relativity SO MUCH.
dafuq dude i just understood so much in 2 minutes i might collapse into myself
I wonder, can we have "negative" mass ? Something that weights less than zero should pass light speed. Yes, I know - it sounds silly. Maybe I should go to bed . . . .
assuming that negative mass can exist, that would be similar to adding a minus sign to the mc^2 part of the equation, since the full equation is E=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, this would translate to E=(-mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. Since a negative number squared is a positive number, the object would still not be able to pass light speed
No, put simply you can't travel F.T.L. as you would require an infinite amount of energy regardless of your "negative mass". Objects with mass would not only need an infinite amount of energy but your mass would also increase exponentially. Your mass would be almost universally massive and this can never happen!
Kate Hoover Einstein's equation suggests that we can have negative mass matter and also negative energies. Often called exotic matter-energy. However we haven't found any proof of negative matter, but the Casimir effect seems to produce some sort of negative energy, and from negative energy we could theoretically create matter with negative mass. This negative matter (Stretching to sci-fi here) could potentially be used to stabilize a worm hole, so it might be very important for space travel in the future.
Lighthammer18 I agree with the Casimir - Polder force (research) effect being demonstrably real and accurate, and a surprize to many scientists. It seems counter-intuitive that "empty" space (vacuum) is actually teeming with energy/particles popping in and out of our physical space time. This especially makes me laugh when creationists and the religious claim that "everything must have a cause and effect or something can't come from nothing" You picked a sound example that not only educates but also makes me laugh :)
PS your "Sci-fi hypothesis" needs a bit of work though LOL ;0) I also think my site to site transporter technology (star-trek) needs more string and sticky tape as the Heisenberg compensators are playing up again !
comediac Could you, hypothetically, have a particle with an imaginary mass (i.e. a multiple or fraction of i, the square root of -1), thereby solving the squaring to positive problem?
Pretty good explanation, and I love the animation you used too! My only complaint is you use the word "mass", I would have liked at least a passing mention of the fact this is "invariant mass" (which light doesn't have), as opposed to relativistic mass.
My mind has been blown today !
I was doing my physics exercices during a physic lesson, and to solve one, I did some calculations and other integrals. (took me some time) And guess what ? I found E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 !
The funny part is that as I wrote E = (p^2c^2 + m^2c^4)^1/2 I did not realize immediately that it was the exact same formula as I had seen in this video for ages !
math is definitely math
herp derp that is science
are you inferring that science is not based on math?
herp derp
Of course not ! Science is based on experiments, that is all ! Maths are only here to let us read the results.
Fino260 lol but then what's the point of the experiment if not to draw a conclusion from it via math?
that just blew my nerdy little mind
oh......I have no idea of what this wizard is saying
ChingHern Tay me too but i don't know what e=mc2 even mean yet sighh
Fairy lights are pretty HOW?!
ChingHern Tay Oh...No, that triange represents that a hypotenuse can never be equal to base until the perpencular side is zero. But until an object has mass, the mass-energy (mc²) will never be zero so momentum can never be directly converted to energy without mass-energy unless we are talking about photons
ITs sImPLe.
E(3) - pos(2, y, pc^2) is equal to the hypotenuse, times the quantum field of π^ω, plus the constant 4.378896458112134254601928717472..., ^ 8, if 4 > 3ba, ± 0.00000000000013.
I hope you realized this was a joke.
means if object is not moving we calculate its enery witn e mc2 formula if object have no mass like light than we calculate energy by e pc2 formula simple 😃
So, E=(mC^2)^2 + pC^2, and because with photons, m = 0, therefore E=PC^2, excellent.
But P (momentum) = mV.... but m is still 0. so E is still 0. WTF physics?
BananaNeil p=m*v is only valid for classical (that is: slower than 0.1*c) particles.For light, for instance: p=h*f
*****
You mean p=h/λ.
LeconsdAnalyse
Oh yea, sorry ... I intuitively typed the energy of the photon instead of its momentum ;)
Thanks for the correction :)
***** Do you mean lambda?
Umm... I may sound stupid, But using the equation, E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2, if you have that triangle, lets say that pc=d, and d=1/2 the speed of light, So and energy is= to k(k is a variable) and mass= t, then if you multiply d times 2, the speed of light, then the hypotenuse would grow(energy), but the energy would not equal infinity because the Energy to get to half the speed of light is not infinite, and you can't have 1/2 of infinity, because 1/2 of infinity is, well, infinity.
So, everything in the universe, no matter what speed, takes an infinite amount of energy.
To make it easier to understand, here:
~2.01k=mass + c(the speed of light). But, this doesn't make any sense, because infinity is unreachable, so in theory nothing in the Universe with mass can move! someone please help me understand this!
sorry if I did a terrible job explaining it.
1+1=2 is the most famous :/
True
Best explanation I've seen!
This is awesome! So you CAN actually describe complicated physics with basic mathematics.... :D WIN!!!
ABSOLUTE MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Time DILATION proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. Einstein's equations are NECESSARILY QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, the mathematical unification of Maxwell's equations AND Einstein's equations (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension) proves that ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with time. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is, in fact, CLEARLY proven by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED IN AND OUT of SPACE AND TIME, as this is CLEARLY proven by time DILATION, F=ma, AND E=mc2. This ALSO explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black hole(s)". Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) ACCORDINGLY, FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AND A POINT are all then in BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. GREAT !!! This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, I have demonstrated the true mathematical UNIFICATION of physics/physical experience AS what is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 tldr
Newton be like I KNEW IT, I TOTALLY KNEW IT
Everyone: Shut up, Newton. No you didn't. You were too busy trying to be an alchemist!
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 is F=ma IN BALANCE. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@Theo_Caro Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 is F=ma IN BALANCE. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense.
By Frank DiMeglio
Can someone please explain how photons have energy at all then? If momentum is equal to an objects mass * velocity (p=mv) then doesn't something that has no mass have no momentum?
[EDIT: read down a little further and saw explanations for my first question]
Also, if I remember correctly don't photons have an insanely tiny tiny amount of mass? Does this mean that even photons don't travel at the speed of light - or am I interpreting it entirely wrong?
+Nic Steyn As far as I'm concerned, photons only have mass when they're not moving (because E=mc^2). That's why they behave like particles when they come into contact with objects, but behave like EM Waves when they move.
+Nic Steyn Photons do NOT have mass at all. they also travel at the speed of light. HOWEVER photons DO have momentum. Their momentum is quite different than objects with mass as it's proportional to their frequency ( frequency of the light wave)and not to their mass. Overall the equation to calculate the momentum of a photon is different than that of objects with mass. There are 2 momentum equations used to calculate momentum, one is for mass-less particles and one is for particles with mass
First we need to state that this is a theory. According to Einstein a photon don't have mass but carry momentum. My understanding is that light is a wave and the photon a wave packet, not a real particle. If we abolish Einstein's postulate then photon can have mass, but we can't forget that light is a wave in a medium. So the mass is created when the electromagnetic energy goes through the medium.
+Nic Steyn Photons have mass. That means they have energy. But because Photons only exist at lightspeed, they dont have an acceleration, despite their mass.
We can apply E=mc2 to photon to calculate a mass, but as I said before this contradicts Einstein's postulate. Supposing an existing structure in vacuum (Ether), the Electromagnetic energy integrating with the structure could give rise to what we call mass. In this way we can explain the momentum, otherwise is magic. Is important to note that light is only the undulation in the medium, not the mass, as well sound is the undulation in the air, so sound don't have mass. The distinction must be made between light as wave and photon as particle.
E=mc^2 is about how much energy is in an object,not how much energy it can produce by moving
thank you, finally an explanation that makes sense and doesn't end with "just because"
It never fails to amaze me how everything in math and science just *works*. Like, the same principles that apply to trigonometry and measuring triangles also explain why we can't exceed the speed of light. Just, think about that.
To all the guys asking questions in the comments. This is quite advanced stuff. Google it and look at reputable sources
Complicated for people with my level of education in these matters, I am just going doing my GCSE equivalent exams, so yeah, complicated for me, maybe not so for you. Had an interest in this stuff since I was 5.
+CxC_personal I'm doing my A Levels (final year) and only now have we touched E-mc^2, not the complete version either. And the hardest maths we do in physics is just rearranging exponential equations (not hard).
+CxC_personal e.g Q=Qe^-t/RC, e just means exponential and describes how the charge (Q) falls of exponentially with time. This is to do with capacitors, a component in a circuit used to store charge (Energy), but over time it will tend to zero. That's what the equation means, the R is the resistance and the C is the capacitance.
+LeconsdAnalyse They make the mistake at p
Many say the m in E=mc^2 refers to relativistic mass while m-not (m with a zero subscript) is conventional for rest mass.
mc vs pc? Sounds like an Apple commercial.
Mc² has to team up w/ pc to make E. top 10 anime plot twists
@@squibble311 any good anime recommendations?
@@shrishsatheesh3274 i have one
dont
E=MC^2? E=PC? PC IS MASTER RACE. MICROSOFT MAKES PCs. MICROSOFT IS ILLUMINATE. LOOMANATEE CONFIRMED! wait, lemme adjust my tinfoil hat.
+Christian Morales
E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²
Christian Morales so true!
If E=mc² and E=pc then E²=E²+E² becouse E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²
@@mateuszdziewierz4234 the former two are simplifications for special cases in which either mass or momentum are (close to) 0, so you cannt mix them since they are mutually exclusive (except both are actually 0, in which case your "conclusion" holds up)
ωhaτ?
i dont even understand.... but i like it
Same. I have a friend that thinks I'm so smart that when I was watching this she was like ugh I wonder if this would make since if I were you. I didn't have any idea what he meant either tho so...
Well you've sort of got 3 things at play here. Roughly speaking:
* Energy is mass
* Massless things (can) move at the speed of light
* Mass stops you from going as fast as light.
The formula is the math, but the concepts are more interesting.
Essentially it means massless photons - the bits of light; and hypothetically gluons could travel at the speed of light.
If you have any mass at all, then no light speed for you! Gluons get screwed here because gluons always travel with friends. Think of Gluons as usain bolt walking with a fat friend.
And then the whole energy mass equivalence. It just means if you, say, burn wood you get fire. Mass of log - > heat.
It's the science of three concepts.
great explanation
indeed
30th like!
E in E = mC² stands for REST MASS ENERGY (E)
Which literally describes that the momentum is zero because the object isn't moving
E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² or Energy squared equals (mass times speed of light in vaccum squared) squared plus (momentum x speed of light in vaccum) squared is the new
E = mc² which was Energy equals mass x speed of light in vaccum squared.
whats the purpose of the comment
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 is F=ma IN BALANCE. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense.
By Frank DiMeglio
Thanks for uploading this video. I never understood how fotons were able to move at the speed of light or even to move at all, but this makes a lot of sense. :-)
Oh, now I just dicovered momentum = m.v
If a foton has no mass, it also has no momentum at all and follwing, no energy. Is that even possible, if it's able to produce light? Can someone give me an answer please?
light has a different equation for momentum, it's p=hf I think where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency (1/wavelength)
Allright, thnx :-)
Pantopam I guess E=hf not p=hf
E = h.f, p = h/lambda.
f = 1/T, not 1/lamda
Mind was properly blown away by triangles, once again.
Fucking triangles.
Yeah, trigonometry (my weakest spot in math) keeps pounding me to the ground over and over... **sigh**
This is the best explanation I have ever heard for e=mc^2. It makes so much sense now
wait, I know I must be overlooking something, but isn't (translational) momentum "p" given by p=mv, where m is mass (v is velocity)? So therefore a massless particle has 0 momentum, regardless of velocity, and also as a result (according to the video) 0 energy? I know there must be a reason why this deduction is wrong, but what is that reason?
Your profile picture is not something that should be talking about complex physics.
Bliffity Translational momentum and basic talk of Energy is not complex physics. Fluid dynamics or quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is. I am also a Physics major, judging me by my profile picture is a pretty unintelligible way to make assertions about someone.
*****
First of all I use the term complex lightly, and second of all I'm pointing out something doing something that does not correspond to what it appears to be which is a form of humor. It doesn't hold up if you look into it, but it's a joke. You're not supposed to look deeply into jokes. My comment is meant only for someone to glance at, think, "Oh, that's a bit funny," and forget about the next day.
Cody Roth, here's a copy of my recent answer on this page to a similar question, in case you have trouble navigating to it on your device:
Momentum is not mass times velocity - that's what lead to your confusion. Mass times velocity is just a useful approximation for CALCULATING momentum for an object possessing mass that is moving slowly relative to c (the speed of light in a vacuum) - it doesn't DEFINE momentum. So it's completely useless even as an approximation for calculating the momentum of a photon, because a photon has no mass. Photons have measurable momentum: for example in Compton Scattering a photon, which is like a packet of kinetic energy, interacts with an electron which gains some of the energy of the photon. The first photon disappears and a new photon with less kinetic energy (longer wavelength) is created and emitted at an angle such that the total momentum of the system is the same as before the interaction - conservation of momentum. So the lesson for today: mathematical equations are invented to conform to our measurements of the natural world in terms of making successful predictions, not the other way round. If an equation doesn't make a good enough prediction for a particular scenario it's dumped. (And as far as we know it's possible that nothing in the natural world is governed by equations - we've no way of finding out - just because we can use an equation to make a prediction obviously doesn't mean the event being studied was in any way caused by the equation!)
Bliffity Alright, I see your humorous intent.
But isn’t momentum dependent on mass? Is the equation not E^2=(mc^2)^2+(mvc)^2? Because momentum = mass * velocity?
you've just demonstrated that you can have momentum without mass - well done
That's in Newtonian physics. Momentum has like 10 different definitions or formulas based on what branch of physics you're dealing with. In relativity, there is no fix time so we cannot apply classical formula
theory: einstein was just a really advanced 5th-grader
Which means that as long as we have a mass, we can never reach the speed of light. But does that indicate that if you have a negative mass you could go faster than speed of light? Maybe theoretical but the equations tell that negative mass square still ends up as positive, therefore not faster than c.
thank god we dont have to learn this in school
Depending on your country. I learned it in school, even if the complete equation was only used in the introduction before being simplified to E=mc²
You do if you take a physics class.
you learn it second year physics. In my school its in grade 12. Its really not that hard btw.
Introductory calc. (or maybe even just algebra depending on what you're trying to do) would be more than enough to work with an equation like E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. I mean, MinutePhysics did a pretty good job of explaining it with just the Pythagorean theorem. BUT, knowing how to simply work exponents in E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 and knowing (understanding) all of the physical implications of E=mc^2 is an entirely different ball of wax.
You never had to learn trigonometry and physics? What kind of crappy school did you go to? XD
Trigonometry is like the most useful aspect of math past multiplication for everyday use.
I wish I was high on potneuse
Jaguar same
This doesn't exactly explain the "why" you can go at the speed of light but rather a math trick that physicists establish to demonstrate the concept lol
It's not a "math trick", its a math model which is the same as any other things that you'll find studying physics!
chivaswwe It's neither math trick nor math model, but actually a mnemonic.
derek xiao What's your profile?
Konata Chan like as a student? Or like what is my profile picture
To anyone who believes that triangles are the reason we can’t reach the speed of light, you are wrong. The triangle in the video is used as a visual analogy to explain energy, since the expression of the energy looks so much like the pythagorean theorem. But it doesn’t stem from any triangle, nor does it have any secret connection to any. The triangle just happens to behave in the same way, and it’s convenient to use it to show that you can’t quite reach the speed of light, if you have the tiniest amount of mass.
If photons don't have mass, why isn't the speed of light unlimited? It sounds logical that photons do have a little bit of mass, but they are still the lightest thing in universe and therefote the fastest
A photon does have limited energy though, as we saw, when m=0, E=V
This is just plain wrong, I don't know what else to say.
Photons are massless. Because of that, they can travel at the fastest possible speed, which is the speed of light (approx. 186,000 miles per second). Yes, it does seem logical that they do have mass, but that is incorrect.
I think the most famous equasion in the world is 2 + 2 = 4.
That, or:
Mind = Blown.
Dominic Donahue 2+2=4 is an identity
Dominic Donahue let's me ask you what is an equation?
Dominic Donahue LOL!!
yiu yeung Kan whats 9 + 10?
Mårten Dejfors 21!
Does this mean, that any other matter with no mass (what is there apart from photons of light btw ?), travels at the speed of light ?
Yes, the speed of light isn't just the speed of light, it should be called "The Speed of Massless Particles".
Albert Zhang And do you know any other massless matter than photons of light ?
***** Well there are tachyons that way have a negative mass(?) and there are neutrinos that are massless.
Allen Junge No, but if they did they would.
Allen Junge Neutrinos are not believed to be massless, since the only explanation for their flavor oscillations is that they have mass... although their mass was never measured, and is very very small (smaller than 1/500000 times that of an electron).
What a beautiful visualization.
but isn't the equation for momentum is mass x velocity ?
thats exactly what i tought
Yes. From the time of Leibniz and "vis-viva", and of course, Newton.
And (linear) momentum has, as you already know, units of mv which can also be written as mv²/v, which is units of energy divided by units of speed.
So, any object which has a physical attribute with these (more general) units is said to have (linear) momentum.
hmm, so if momentum is also Energy divided by speed, the momentum of light is Energy of light divided by speed of light?
I looked up wikipedia that Energy of light (photon energy) is equal to Planck constant * speed of light / light's waveleght.
Then momentum = planck constant * c / lambda / c
which c cancels out and we left with
momentum = planck constant / lambda
is this correct ?
+Kovanovsky Momentum is the energy an objects must have to remain in motion once it starts moving. What you described at the end was simply a mathematical equation describing the energy the light wave must have to remain moving
Doctor Yammy umm, so... is that a correct? is what I stated there momentum of light? or is it something similar but different? or am I missing something?
I am just confused how to calculate momentum of light since light has no mass (as far as I know) and momentum equation is mass x velocity
thanks for the replies though
Hey! Momentum = mass * velocity. When mass = 0 then p = 0* x = 0 so wtf with E = pc?
+Interferencyjny You can't just use classical knowledge like p=mv for problems like this. The relativistic dispersion relation E^2 = (mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 is part of a bigger picture of special relativity that superseeds Newtonian dynamics (which is regained in the limiting case). So you have to take this new formula as like an axiom.
Oh, that's interesting. I've thought momentum is dependent on mass. Thank you for response. :)
+Michael Foskett Not really an axiom, because it implies that it isn't proven and you just have to accept it. Unlike General Theory of Relativity, which is... you know... proven :P
+UpcomingAssassin point taken 😅
+Michael Foskett p=mc² where m is relativistic mass and therefore never 0
Is there anything proven to be faster than light?
I dont think anything with mass can move the same velocety as light, but i think they proved that wrong in a video i saw, idk tbh haha
BellaBandgirl I know that a nuetrino contains mass and could possibly go 2 x faster than the speed of light but the problem is they are proving immensely difficult to detect, so for now it can't be proven. I really want new age technology which would help us detect new things.
If something were proven to go faster than light, it would disprove a lot of modern physics. There was an erroneous experiment a while ago which seemed to suggest that neutrinos could do it, but it was later proved wrong.
alifbatah Yes . Reading the last page of a book first thus knowing the outcome before the beginning . That is the only analogy I can readily come up with .
Darkness
This is the best mathematics I have ever seen on this equation. Great job, thanks!
How can you have momentum and no mass? I was taught momentum is mass * velocity
LeconsdAnalyse Thanks for that explanation, as I'm a student I'm going to watch some of your videos
How can you have momentum and no mass if you were taught momentum is mass * velocity?
The answer is that what you were taught doesn't apply to objects with no mass! Countless experiments show that light has momentum and countless measurements show that light has no measurable mass.
For a photon (which has no mass), momentum = Planck Constant/wavelength of the light.
Also, "momentum = mass * velocity" is an approximation and doesn't work for objects approaching the speed of light.
For an object with mass, linear momentum = mass * velocity/ sqrt(1- velocity²/speed of light²)
BTW, in the video as well as in this reply, "mass" means the Newtonian concept of mass, which does not change with velocity. That is also what physicists mean when they use the term mass. ("Relativistic mass" is an energy term that is often confused with "mass" - for this reason it seems to be on the way out, and even Einstein recommended not using it when teaching physics. Particle physicists never refer to relativistic mass.)
Most of the formulas you are taught in high school are not the whole truth.
James Cuttell, there's an experiment to notice that: turn the light on then feel the light pushing you back! Just kidding. That is a really common question, it was one of the questionings of Einstein's theories about the light behaviour back at his times. He noticed that if you assume that light has a momentum, all his equations matched perfectly and everything worked really well. When he were deducing the E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 math formalism based on differential equations (Maxwell equations, Lorentz transformations), he noticed that the conservation of linear momentum were being broken at some point! So either linear momentum conservation - which is an untouchable and unquestionable law - didn't apply to that, - you would need some balls to face all those angry physicists telling you you were wrong, even being Einstein - , or photons had a linear momentum related to them. The latter was his assumption, and, surprisingly, that assumption matched every concept known so far, everything fitted perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle just when photons had linear momentum. It was basically a discovery made during a math equation development! This is what I know so far about the history of photons linear momentum...
light has no mass.
I'm pretty sure 2+2 is the most famous
Not an equation, but yes it's probably the most famous algebra problem
that's a sum not en equation
I'm a simple man, I see E=mc², I press like.
Do you like my Nickname? I've made you waste 5 sec Give me my 5 seconds back
Lander Deckers give me back 5 seconds for reading your comment.
I wasted 2 seconds.
You're lying.
Well, to say that E=mc^2 is not complete is actually wrong. E=mc^2 is complete (as far as we know), it is the full equation. In the equation m is not the rest mass, it is the total mass (sometimes called relativistic mass). The total mass already takes into account the momentum component.
In the video the mass term that Minute Physics is talking about is the rest mass, and is generally written as m0 (with the 0 as a subscript) not as m.
Everything else is correct assuming that when Minute Physics is talking about mass, he is talking about rest mass.
If-> p=m*v
Then-> m=0 ; p=E/c? NO
m=0 ; p=0 ; E=0
There is no momentum nor energy without mass, and vice versa
alejandro zapata
You forgot the gamma factor in your expression for p, and that m is moving with constant speed 0
LeconsdAnalyse Thanks. Btw, what is the gamma factor in p?
alejandro zapata
You're welcome.
You wrote p=mv. It should be p=γmv, where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²) is the gamma factor in (the expression for) p.
LeconsdAnalyse Oh! The Lorentz factor, right? Thank you very much!
If you have a particle with zero rest mass you will mostly likely be talking about a photon which have a impulse of p = h/lambda where h is planks constant and lambda is the wavelenght.
finally someone that explain's why things can't move at speed of light in terms I can comprehend
If a physicist (or physics teacher) is ever saying "just because", they're not much of a physicist. The whole point of the science is to be able to explain results like this in terms of fundamental principles. That raises the question, where do the fundamental principles come from? Ans: from Experiment. So that's the point at which we need to fall back on "just because." But it's "just because so far every single bit of observational data ever collected throughout history points to this principle being true in nature." And soon as we get a datum that contradicts it, we'll begin to question it.
Why can't girls find guys like you?...
+Kaitlyn Amanda Guys like this exist everywhere. You just need to look for them. They usually hide themselves away in dark library corners or in the middle of a group of like-minded friends. Be adventurous! You'll find him eventually!
***** I guess if I looked up from that dark library corner myself, I might see more people, then.
Amen
J.J. Shank As one of them, I agree. But it's not like I'm hiding, I just don't really feel the need to meet more people. I have a small group of 4+ years very good old friends to hang out with, eventually party, but mostly staying home or hitting the gym.
Easily one of the best videos I've seen on U-Tube
This video, square.
LeconsdAnalyse Woof.
Im smarter than Einstein! 10+9=21 that is the missing equation there! Which talks about unknow laws of fisics!
Masahiro Wakahaya Im actually in war with my grammar to
wait, but if a photon is mass less, and P=MV, if the mass is 0, then energy is 0. But light has energy!
??????????
I'm four years late, but the expression p=mv is an approximation - it's only accurate for objects travelling at speeds that are very slow compared to the speed of light. For relativistic particles, you need another equation, p=γmv. For massless particles, it works out that p=E/c - which is equivalent to E=pc, as shown in the video.
Very elegant way of describing it
0:02 Wrong , its 9 + 10 now.
-You were going to give a lecture on physics. You talked about poetry.
-Poetry, physics, same thing.
:)
My teacher said tat E=mc^2 means that sunlight could be theoretically be turned into solid matter, and I lamented all the misconceptions about physics. Probably because of the definition of mass as the amount of stuff in an object, rather than a property which determines the strength of the gravitational interaction. Saying that E=mc^2 means energy can be converted into mass makes it seem as if light shouldn't be pulled by gravity, as it still has no mass, but it does.
Einstein- no one can correct me
Henry- hold my marker
E = mc^2 is not incomplete. When an object is moving in a speed comparable to c, then the mass of the particle is no longer the rest mass. Then the effective mass of the particle would be gamma*m0, where m0 = the rest mass and gamma = 1/(1 - (v/c)^2)^0.5.. Now just expand the equation and then you will find the ans that total energy = rest mass energy + Kinetic energy. For calculating kinetic energy we use the contraverient form of momentum(four momentum). Then we get the equation ,
E^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2
dude, ik a lot of your comments are jokes, but in hopes this cranks out even another 10 seconds of video (i dont have the money for patreon, one day) you make really quality informative videos that's seems to be although short give a lot of ideas that dont seem to be presented anywhere else. Plus, I really like math, and physics seems really lightly covered in youtube and pop culture, this is great. Please, keep doing you!
This very first equation can be used correctly even if the body is moving, but just use the relativistic mass instead of the rest mass in the equation. The second equation which is represented by the triangle is more or less an approximation for the first one after using the power series and neglecting the higher order terms in the equation. Therefore, it is not true to say "it only describes the objects that have mass and are not moving."
that was the fastest and most well explained math eauasion ever. i watched it 7 times. amazing, sir.
I don't understand where the equation V= C * PC/E comes from? That seems to be pulled out of thin air, and seems to be contradictory.
If V = C*PC/E, and P = momentum = MV, then:
V = C *MVC/E ->
VE = CMVC ->
VE = MVC^2.
Then, if V > 0, you can divide by V and get:
E = MC^2. Which at first looks nice, until you remember the opening line that "this is only true if velocity = 0", and we just established the velocity > 0, a contradiction, which would seem to establish that the original equation is inaccurate.
Am I missing something?
Also, since you're talking about the faults in the equation, you could add that the equation is actually: E=±mc^2 because there is also antimatter.
E=mc^2 has no problem. The only incomplete thing about this is the way we understand mass in this situation. Mass is dependent on the speed an object moves, given by the equation m = m0*(gamma), so if we apply some simple transformations to that, we find out the complicated formula. In the same way, light is not a massless particle. Only that it has no static mass (in the hypothetical case of the photon not moving at all, its mass would be 0), but the photon's mass in its motion is given by m = p/c, where p in the momentum, equal to h/(lambda).
This was such an amazing yet simple explanation. I understand this so much better now.
lim E=PC
[mc^2->0]
because mc^2 cannot be equal to 0.
it is because mass can never be zero.
Hence any object with mass cannot travel at the speed of light.
Awesome video, but please make it available offline so I can watch these fantastic videos when I'm travelling.
I found a problem! P is the letter used for momentum if it is used for this as well the photons must have mass or they do not have energy.
If the mass was zero the right side of the triangle would be zero. But momentum is measured with the mass and velocity of a object times each other. If the mass is zero then there is no momentum, making the bottom of the triangle 0 and energy would equal nothing since the right side is also composed of mass and would compress to nothing as well.
There are different formulations of momentum, actually. The momentum of a photon comes from its wave-like properties, not the particle-like properties.
So if a object was hotter and had more energy it would have more momentum?
Justin Case If an object with mass gets hotter it means that on average the particles that make up the object have more kinetic energy. If the object has constant velocity its momentum stays the same regardless of whether it is getting hotter or colder.
www.mansfieldct.org/Schools/MMS/staff/hand/atomsheat.htm
Pibroch That's classical physics. It's accurate enough to be used, but really, mass does increase (but by such a small amount it is immeasurable). Relativistic physics would show it (E=mC^2; one result of this is that more energy means more mass).
Nothing has a ZERO mass Ideally.. Even if something has a 1 x 10^-31 (i.e. 0.000000......000 - 31 times zeroes than 1) - it will have some Energy based on (speed of light)^2..
Though there was something (some theory) with a negative mass here - about the anti-matter I think, regardless - lim(0+) =/= 0.. You can NEVER assume something is 0 if it's multiplied by something near infinity.. It's more like 0xInfinity = 1 (for simplicity, just for the basic understanding), but the truth is that 0xInfinity = undefined..
Regardless - you can see that my assumption was that c^2 is near infinity (which really is - that's the power of 18th decade), and what has the mass much less than the power of -18th decade ? - nothing really.. Even particles are near that mass I believe (studied quite a long time ago, but pretty sure nothing has a mass like 10 powers less than a power of -18, more like 0.00000 28 zeroes than 1 grams - in mass don't exist, I think)
Sahana - if you know the wavelength of the light its momentum can be calculated by dividing the Planck constant by the wavelength (p = h/greek letter lambda).
As you can see, the smaller the wavelength the greater the momentum. Per photon, gamma rays are more harmful than radio waves for example, and are sometimes used to kill cancer cells.
I first saw this prior to taking any university physics class and now I am about to graduate college. I come back to this year after year because of the simple yet beautiful explanation
MinutePhysics corrects EVERYTHING i've learned in school. I fucking love this channel
Thank you minutephysics, that was an amazing visualisation & explanation!
I've gotta question. As you said based on the triangle, when m=0 , E=pc. But according to theory, when m=0, p should also be 0 based on the formula p=mv, right ?
It makes sense with all those tv shows and movies having FTL(Faster Than Light) technology. And then you see their ship literally shrink into a long thin paper and ZOOM away as if they just teleported.
Even television gets it right sometimes.
Probably the best video I've ever seen on TH-cam. Thank you
Well technically, E = mc^2 DOES include everything. Why? Simply put m = m(o)y, where m(o) is the inertial mass and y is gamma ( the lorentz transformation factor ). Thus E= m(o)yc^2, and this result is the simplification of E = K + m(o)c^2 (where K is the kinetic energy and m(o)c^2 is the energy at rest). I´ll go deeper if you ask me to.
Technically you're wrong because technically you're altering the equation by changing what the symbols in the video represent. Physics isn't semantics - you're confused.
It´s not semantics, it´s a fact. I am not altering the representation of said symbols, simply put I am explaining what the real abbreviation means.
You're wrong, the convention in physics is that mass, which is invariant, is represented by m, not m(0). The video is simply using the normal convention. people.phys.ethz.ch/~strthom/physik1/hs07/skript/Okun.pdf
Well then, ill go with Einstein´s original declaration and i´ll accept my mistake. Cheers.
Jamie Anderson See Max Jammer's book, "Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy".
You are correct, the equation E=mc^2 is an incomplete expression of the relationship between energy (E), mass (m), and the speed of light (c). It is a special case of the more complete equation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where p is the momentum of an object and c is the speed of light. This equation is known as the mass-energy equivalence and it expresses the fact that mass and energy are interchangeable and can be converted into one another. Thank you for pointing out the mistake.
Here is a PowerShell script for the above
$mass = Read-Host "Enter the mass (in kilograms): "
$speedOfLight = 299792458 # meters per second
$momentum = Read-Host "Enter the momentum (in kg m/s): "
$massEnergy = [double]($mass * ($speedOfLight * $speedOfLight))
$momentumEnergy = [double]($momentum * $speedOfLight)
$totalEnergy = [double](($massEnergy * $massEnergy) + ($momentumEnergy * $momentumEnergy))
Write-Output "The total energy is: $totalEnergy joules"
The correct formula is actually ΔE = ΔMC². The purpose of this formula is not to calculate the energy level of an entity, but to calculate the change of energy (ΔE) that occurs when the mass changes.
I thought Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 was only for masses at rest. His other equation accounting for Lorentz Contraction included the masses velocity. E = gamma * mc^2, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2
The best explanation I've ever seen - even kids can understand, but played it about ten times slower :) thanks bro!
I’ve heard all of this before, but I’ve never put 2 and 2 together to realize that this is what shows that nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. It’s nice to finally understand that instead of just taking it for granted because I’m sure somebody with a PhD would be questioning it if it wasn’t super obvious for some reason.
E=mc2...energy is mass times the speed of light times the speed of light again...I believe there is no constant and fixed speed of light...the speed of light is determined in relation to it's environment...where is the symbol for light itself that should be generated and created in this equation as well as the symbols for motion acceleration and velocity? I believe there are nth degree of densities of energies...E=mc2 can be branched into nth degree of densities of energies....this is a broad definition of what energy is...light itself should exude in this equation and at different rates pulses and subtle to radiant brightness levels....
so beautifully explained it brought a tear to my eye
This is probably my favourite video. I found the triangle illustration to represent the triangular relationship to be gorgeous.
Brilliant geometry but what is E measured in? How does the speed of Vibrations in Magnetic Feilds (light) tell us how much Energy is in a physical object?
If you put E=Mc2 into an electrical format and add positive and negative rings it divides water by water. Creates a new energy that is in everything that is neither positive or negative. Only way to travel at the speed of light is to become the light
What slaved this beautiful equation to a right angled triangle. This concept also means a mass can’t travel fast enough to become all energy…that is, to convert from visible to invisible or from flesh to spirit. However, at the beginning, the converse occurred…matter came from ‘nothing’ tangible. So why can’t it revert?
I would loooove to see a video of you explaining how this law was discovered or how we can get to this equation.
This is a *BEAUTIFUL* explanation/description of these spacetime factors. Thanks you.