23 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's the initial reaction for everybody. Believe me, but once it sinks in that what we are doing with natural units is indeed more fundamental than using SI units that feeling of discomfort passes. It takes a while but it does happen.
After some thought I think my issue is with natural units, not with the equation itself. I realize that the idea of natural units is to make time and distance essentially equivalent, but there is of course a conversion factor c. Although I realize that it is constant (or appears to be) for our universe, I am still uncomfortable with simply setting it to 1 and eliminating it.
23 Mar 10
Originally posted by adam warlockcan you explain 'natural units'? Not sure what that means.
That's the initial reaction for everybody. Believe me, but once it sinks in that what we are doing with natural units is indeed more fundamental than using SI units that feeling of discomfort passes. It takes a while but it does happen.
23 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWhen distances are divided by c so that they are measured in seconds, just like time. Distances are measured in light-years, light-months, light-days, light-minutes, light-seconds. Time units.
can you explain 'natural units'? Not sure what that means.
Or, in a more general sense,
In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement defined in such a way that certain selected universal physical constants are normalized to unity; that is, their numerical value becomes exactly 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units
23 Mar 10
Originally posted by adam warlockNot me. The first time I was introduced to natural units was the first day of my gr class. Soon after that point, we were knee-deep in calculations, so I did not bother to worry whether or not I was uncomfortable with natural units. In fact, for a system I had never really used before, I was comfortable with it, and rather glad that these were the units we were using, otherwise a lot of our calculations would have been unnecessarily complicated. After a little bit of practice, the units felt natural to me, and the implications of using such a system sunk in.
That's the initial reaction for everybody. Believe me, but once it sinks in that what we are doing with natural units is indeed more fundamental than using SI units that feeling of discomfort passes. It takes a while but it does happen.
24 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's not "set to one". It's divided by the speed of light - a constant.
After some thought I think my issue is with natural units, not with the equation itself. I realize that the idea of natural units is to make time and distance essentially equivalent, but there is of course a conversion factor c. Although I realize that it is constant (or appears to be) for our universe, I am still uncomfortable with simply setting it to 1 and eliminating it.
I think.
27 Mar 10
@ the OP and twhitehead:
I have derived Einstein's formula, and stated my case for why c^2 should be considered a conversion factor on my newly started blog. Its a bit of a long read, but hopefully it clarifies my position, and answers the OPs question, perhaps in more detail than he wanted. I did this on a blog and not here as here I can not add any mathematical symbolism.
http://diaryofaphysicsstudent.blogspot.com/
27 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by amolv06Using relativistic mass is a bit of an outdated practise. But it is required to arrive at E = mc². You could also derive the formula for relativistic mass from the principle of relativity together with the assumption that c is constant in all intertial frames of reference.
@ the OP and twhitehead:
I have derived Einstein's formula, and stated my case for why c^2 should be considered a conversion factor on my newly started blog. Its a bit of a long read, but hopefully it clarifies my position, and answers the OPs question, perhaps in more detail than he wanted. I did this on a blog and not here as here I can not add any mathematical symbolism.
http://diaryofaphysicsstudent.blogspot.com/
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by amolv06Very nice blog. It's on my favorites.
@ the OP and twhitehead:
I have derived Einstein's formula, and stated my case for why c^2 should be considered a conversion factor on my newly started blog. Its a bit of a long read, but hopefully it clarifies my position, and answers the OPs question, perhaps in more detail than he wanted. I did this on a blog and not here as here I can not add any mathematical symbolism.
http://diaryofaphysicsstudent.blogspot.com/
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis is probably something I would have to work out. I've never actually seen the derivation for relativistic mass -- it was only presented as an experimental fact. I've heard it can be done, though. I'll look into it, and perhaps make a post about it some time.
You could also derive the formula for relativistic mass from the principle of relativity together with the assumption that c is constant in all intertial frames of reference.[/b]