Does mass-energy equivalence seem really weird to anyone

>>8247144
But my post contained no anime

>>8247165

Ignore him it's just some faggot spamming

>>8247174
It's funny

>>8247140
Honestly curious, why does it seem wierd to you?

>>8247174
maybe the first time...

>>8247140
It looks much better when you take in account the quantum mechanical affects of momentum:
E_r = sqrt {(m_0*c^2)^2+(p*c)^2}

>>8247140
m = E / c^2 makes sense when you try to explain mass.

>>8247140
Yeah it should be [math]E = \frac{1}{2}mc^2[/math] cause the momentum of light is [math]p = m c[/math]

Extasy means MC on a square, it means revolution

>>8247269
light is massless so your momentum equation is garbage

>>8247140
Mass is confined energy. Meaning, for say, a proton, the potential/kinetic energy of the gluons holding the quarks together and the potential/kinetic energy of the quarks themselves(their kinetic energy and potential energy associated with the color fields they themselves produce. That leave the mass of the quarks which comes from the potential energy associated with their interaction with the higgs field.

Now we have "labeled" the energy in a proton, C^2 is then simply the conversion factor that takes the confined energy and relates it to what we measure as "mass". Meaning F=(E/c^2)/a, so that is the force when an amount of energy E is accelerated by an amount a.

>>8247280
Also, you are stupid. Mass literally IS energy, you can have momentum just fine as a massless particle BECAUSE it has energy. No fuck off and stop confusing people. Do not speak with authority unless you know something.

Yea it is a hard to grasp concept. I just started a book on it. Is it wrong to think of mass like a balloon that has potential to explode? Another question I have is a bit different but I don't want to make a thread for it. Can anyone help me understand how the energy level of the universe is 0? It's because it all cancels out I've read but I'm still not understanding it as well as if like to.

>>8247280
So it takes no energy to bend the light, thou light is carrior of energy even at non visible spectras, since when you have zero point energy unsquared and you dont share the humanity?

File: photon.png (25KB, 302x365px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 302x365px

>>8247287
blow it out of your ass, asshole

>>8247313
>>8247287
>>8247280
>rest mass = relativistic mass
Reeee.

>>8247315
>resting light

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>8247323
Take your Newtoni/a/n physics back to >>>/a/

>>8247313
The gaps in your knowledge is really fucking you in the ass.

>I know this one thing and therefore....

No, if you don't look at these phenomena holistically, you will fuck up.

We can relate the energy IE wavelength of a photon to it's momentum. If that photon is adsorbed in for example an atom in a crystal lattice, the "mass" IE energy content of the atom is increased by the energy in that photon related by C^2.

It all depends on perpective, being a cunt is not necessary.

>>8247280
>light has no momentum

plz be bait..

>>8247331
take your forced meme faggotry to /b/ or wherever the fuck you came from

>>8247315
>relativistic mass
Implying anyone uses relativistic mass

>>8247269
Momentum of light is [math]p = E/c [/math]

>>8247389
There is no frame in which light is at rest, light has no mass, at all, not even relativistic mass (also if you're using that concept please stop immediately). Look at its 4-momentum [math] p = \left ( E, \vec { P } \right ) [/math] unless you want to argue that a photon has 3-momentum then clearly the photon can have no mass.

>>8247412
Learn to read.
Light is massless, thus the idiotic equation
p=mc is crap.

>>8247185
>Honestly curious, why does it seem wierd to you?
Because the idea that a thrown ball or warm piece of toast or a tightly wound rubber band is heavier than its less energetic counterpart is just strange.

>>8247493
The energy they contain has nothing to do with their mass.

The one is variable while the other is stable.

>>8247508
I really hope you are at least pretty

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/mass_and_energy.html

>>8247508
>The energy they contain has nothing to do with their mass.
But that's not true:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/152873/will-heating-up-an-object-increase-its-mass
>So, yes, a hot object has greater rest mass and would weigh more when measured, if a scale were sensitive enough.

>>8247513
>>8247514
>Relativistic mass

Is a depreciated concept, fuck it's been depreciated since at least the 40's when the man himself argued against it's use. Stop using it. It's pretty clear that if mass were not an invariant then we would have some pretty strange experiments, where physical quantities would vary between reference frames.

File: l.gif (673KB, 232x139px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 232x139px

>>8247543
>compressed spring is relativistic

>>8247563
Mass-energy equivalence is a relativistic concept.

>>8247564
and yet a compressed spring has more mass

>>8247563
So much I miss the groupie again and sombody deleted my posts from this computer; I may somehow being unconfortable for somebody

>>8247567
And yet it doesn't. Mass is mass, the magnitude of a 4-vector, even Einstein said so. The idea of relativistic mass is unsound and should be avoided. It was introduced to ensure that momentum was a linear function of velocity, so that it corresponded to Newtonian mechanics. However doing this means that we can no long define mass in any meaningful way.

The modern view is to abandon the idea all together.