I don’t understand, then, how light photons carry energy with zero mass.. that would be E=(0)C2.. ultimately, zero.. does that mean the equation is incomplete, wrong, or only applicable to that with mass?
You are completely right. According to E=mc^2 the photon shouldn't have energy because it doesn't have mass. However, the more advanced version of Einstein’s equation contains two component which I haven't shown in the video. The full equation becomes E=mc^2 + pc where p is momentum. Since a wave (photon) carries momentum, it has energy.
@@vt.physics ok.. I’m just an old d00d typing.. but this feels like when everybody KNEW the earth was the center of the universe.. momentum is the product of mass and velocity, is it not? Is that equation just a theory? Or it’s stated as fact? Anyway, thanks for the response..
@@bullast2046Well just because something is theory doesn't mean it's wrong, gravity is still technically a theory, but we predict the movement of the planets and their satellites near perfectly with it. Copernicus' sun-centered universe was a theory too, turns out Copernicus was right and we now recognize 'The Solar System' as we know it because of a theory. All of science is theory, the most consistent and predictive theories survive, and quantum theory is no exception. Quantum physics has made many predictions in its time and we have semiconductors because of it! There are mysteries beyond our wildest dreams hidden in the discrete corners (& dimensions!) of the cosmos, and it's theory's job to find them out!
Hadn’t seen the MeV unit since I took modern physics and a few other electives. It gets pretty fun once you start calculating things like the speed of quasars using redshift parameters. This video actually made me look back at my Goodnotes app nostalgically lol
Question: If E=mc^2 + pc, then if Alice gives Bob a small impulse of 1Ns, does Bob's energy increase by at least pc? In this case pc = 1Ns * 299 792 458 m/s . That seems quite a lot. Bob's rest mass stays constant, so the mc^2 term stays constant.
You matter, unless you multiply yourself with the square of the speed of light, then you energy. but yea this conversion is what contributes to mass defect and the binding energy of the nucleus. Good follow up from the last video. The mass of a nucleus is found to be less than the sum of its constituent particles, this is called mass defect
why are u calling it rest energy ? the object isn't at rest ? , isn't it moving with the square of speed of light to convert into energy and that energy being [ Kinetic energy]
I don’t understand, then, how light photons carry energy with zero mass.. that would be E=(0)C2.. ultimately, zero.. does that mean the equation is incomplete, wrong, or only applicable to that with mass?
You are completely right. According to E=mc^2 the photon shouldn't have energy because it doesn't have mass. However, the more advanced version of Einstein’s equation contains two component which I haven't shown in the video. The full equation becomes E=mc^2 + pc
where p is momentum. Since a wave (photon) carries momentum, it has energy.
@@vt.physics ok.. I’m just an old d00d typing.. but this feels like when everybody KNEW the earth was the center of the universe.. momentum is the product of mass and velocity, is it not? Is that equation just a theory? Or it’s stated as fact? Anyway, thanks for the response..
@bullast2046 in the quantum world, momentum is also proportional to a wave's wavelength:
Momentum = Planck's constant * wavelength
@@bullast2046Well just because something is theory doesn't mean it's wrong, gravity is still technically a theory, but we predict the movement of the planets and their satellites near perfectly with it. Copernicus' sun-centered universe was a theory too, turns out Copernicus was right and we now recognize 'The Solar System' as we know it because of a theory. All of science is theory, the most consistent and predictive theories survive, and quantum theory is no exception. Quantum physics has made many predictions in its time and we have semiconductors because of it! There are mysteries beyond our wildest dreams hidden in the discrete corners (& dimensions!) of the cosmos, and it's theory's job to find them out!
Hadn’t seen the MeV unit since I took modern physics and a few other electives. It gets pretty fun once you start calculating things like the speed of quasars using redshift parameters. This video actually made me look back at my Goodnotes app nostalgically lol
You dont get enough Recognition. I will share your channel in my Study Group so that others could benefit from your Knowledge.
Thanks for making me realize how dumb I am, I always wonder how people become this smart
Question: If E=mc^2 + pc, then if Alice gives Bob a small impulse of 1Ns, does Bob's energy increase by at least pc? In this case pc = 1Ns * 299 792 458 m/s . That seems quite a lot. Bob's rest mass stays constant, so the mc^2 term stays constant.
That's crazy, I forgot most of this in school, with math. So thank you, I need to study math again
You matter, unless you multiply yourself with the square of the speed of light, then you energy.
but yea this conversion is what contributes to mass defect and the binding energy of the nucleus. Good follow up from the last video.
The mass of a nucleus is found to be less than the sum of its constituent particles, this is called mass defect
Why c in square not a 3 or 4?
c squared describes what happens in nature accurately, other exponents don't,
@@motomusica question about why exactly 2 not, do you say it's magic number?
Basically, it is just the way to represent it. Like if 1=a, it just is.
Oh. That's the simplest? Right. Got it.
why are u calling it rest energy ? the object isn't at rest ? , isn't it moving with the square of speed of light to convert into energy and that energy being [ Kinetic energy]
The c in the equation is the speed of light, not the speed of the object
@@vt.physics , doest the object need to move in the square of the speed of light to convert into energy ? , let me confirm on my end as well
She sounds like my favorite bass guitarist John Myung of Dream Theater breaking down music theory on a 6 string bass 😂 (progressive bass)
Thx!
I love you