Matter-energy equivalence ?

  • Thread starter big_bounce
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Equivalence
In summary, Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 from 1905 demonstrates the equivalence between energy (E) and matter (mass m). This challenges the common understanding that mass is a more fundamental concept than energy. The equation also shows that energy can be transformed into massive particles and vice versa, highlighting the interconvertibility of energy and mass. This concept plays a crucial role in physics, where energy is a key concept in understanding the behavior of matter. However, there are various definitions of mass, making it a complex concept in physics.
  • #1
big_bounce
102
3
Hello all .

Is the paragraph right ?

Introduction – Energy from Matter
E=mc2

Einstein's famous equation from 1905 E=mc2 demonstrates that energy (E) is equivalent with matter (mass m). It suggests that the concept of mass is indeed, less basic than what can be believed from everyday experiences with massive bodies. In fact, energy can be transformed into massive particles, and mass can be transformed into energy. Energy in all its different appearances is a key concept in physics.
I think there are three mistakes in the sentences .

First mistake is that mass and matter is not same and the text is not right .

Einstein's famous equation from 1905 E=mc2 demonstrates that energy (E) is equivalent with matter (mass m) .
Second mistake is that energy can not transform to massive particles but it can convert to massive particles , because massive particles are not made of energy .Third mistake is that mass_energy are equivalence not matter_energy .

Energy and matter are equivalent.

What's your idea ?
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/energy/intro.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Off hand, I think you are quibbling.
For example saying mass is equivalent to energy is NOT the same as mass is the same as energy.
What distinguishes "transform" from "convert"? You seem to think the first is wrong but the second is correct.
 
  • #3
big_bounce said:
First mistake is that mass and matter is not same and the text is not right.

It depends on how "mass" and "matter" are defined. :wink: See below.

big_bounce said:
Second mistake is that energy can not transform to massive particles but it can convert to massive particles, because massive particles are not made of energy.

Yes, they are, because mass and energy are equivalent if defined properly. :wink: Again, see below.

big_bounce said:
Third mistake is that mass_energy are equivalence not matter_energy.

Ah, so mass and energy *are* equivalent. That means massive particles *are* made of energy. :wink:

I think what the page is (somewhat clumsily) trying to say is that particles with nonzero rest mass (what we normally call "matter") and particles with zero rest mass (what we normally call "radiation" but could also call "energy") can be inter-converted by nuclear reactions. For example, an electron and a positron can annihilate each other and produce photons; or a pair of photons can produce an electron-positron pair. Or, even if the nuclear reaction involves only particles with nonzero rest mass, some of the initial rest mass can be converted into energy, this time appearing as the kinetic energy of the reaction products. For example, if a uranium nucleus at rest fissions, the fission products are both massive particles (they are nuclei of lighter elements), but they will have a large kinetic energy, because the rest mass of the uranium nucleus is larger than the sum of the rest masses of the fission products; the difference appears as kinetic energy.

If we ask questions like, how much energy would be in the photons produced if an electron and positron annihilated each other? or, how much kinetic energy do the fission products have if a uranium nucleus fissions? the answers are given by the formula E = mc^2. So that formula, in a sense, gives a "conversion rate" between matter and energy in nuclear reactions. The point being, of course, that c^2 is a very large number, so a small quantity of matter can release a large quantity of energy in a nuclear reaction.
 
  • #4
mathman said:
Off hand, I think you are quibbling.
For example saying mass is equivalent to energy is NOT the same as mass is the same as energy.

So if they aren't be same , can we say matter and energy are equivalent ?


mathman said:
What distinguishes "transform" from "convert"? You seem to think the first is wrong but the second is correct.

Energy exists in many forms and one of them is mass So energy can be transformed to mass not to matter .

Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy, by the formula:
E = mc^2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
 
  • #5
big_bounce said:
So energy can be transformed to mass not to matter.

Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy

I agree with mathman here, you seem to be contradicting yourself; first you draw a distinction between "mass" and "matter", then you obliterate it by saying matter can be converted to energy.

IMO a better strategy is to forget about terminology ("mass" vs. "matter" or "energy") and focus on physics. I described the relevant physics in my last post.
 
  • #6
It seems to me that one must be very careful when saying that mass and energy are the same things, or that matter is made of energy. In certain situations energy and mass are equivalent, and you can transform one to the other, and it's true that matter can be "converted" to energy, but the reality is far more complicated than those simple statements in my opinion.
 
  • #7
My $.02. The above text isn't awful, but can be improved.

Introduction – Energy from Matter
E=mc2

Einstein's famous equation from 1905 E=mc2 demonstrates that energy (E) is equivalent with matter (mass m).

This is confusing. Is "matter" supposed to be the same as "mass m". What does equivalent even mean?

My first take at changing this would be:
Einstein's famous equation from 1905 E=mc2 gives a formal relation between mass, and energy.

Moving on:
It suggests that the concept of mass is indeed, less basic than what can be believed from everyday experiences with massive bodies.
This is pretty much spot on. I might expand it by pointing out that there are several concepts of mass in general relatvity.

A literature reference with a roughly similar point of view might help: such as Hecht's http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2150758 "There is no really good defintion of mass". I have a feeling that Hech'ts qrticle needs to be "balanced" with some other points of view, I'm not quite sure what to suggest though.

My own view is that the problem isn't really that there is no good definition of mass, it's that there's too many not-bad definitions.

In fact, energy can be transformed into massive particles, and mass can be transformed into energy. Energy in all its different appearances is a key concept in physics.

This is pretty much spot on too. I might add some remark about how the actual conversion (under some cirumstances) suggests that the relation between energy and mass is more than just formal. It'd probably be best to leave it at this level of indifiniteness, under the principle of "Never write more clearly than you can think".
 
  • #8
PeterDonis said:
Yes, they are, because mass and energy are equivalent if defined properly. :wink: Again, see below.

Ah, so mass and energy *are* equivalent. That means massive particles *are* made of energy. :wink:

If meaning of massive particles is all known particles which have non-zero rest mass like electron or positron , i am not agree with you by refer to the post

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1872942&postcount=9

Please see that and say what are you think about it ?
 
  • #9
big_bounce said:
i am not agree with you by refer to the post

I don't want to be rude, but this statement borders on being incomprehensible.
Is English your first language, or do you have another?
 
  • #10
Drakkith said:
I don't want to be rude, but this statement borders on being incomprehensible.
Is English your first language, or do you have another?
Not first and not even second . Sorry for my English
 
  • #12
big_bounce said:
If meaning of massive particles is all known particles which have non-zero rest mass like electron or positron , i am not agree with you by refer to the post

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1872942&postcount=9

Please see that and say what are you think about it ?

Please bear in mind that I was basing what I said on what you said; you were the one who said mass and energy were equivalent. I didn't mean to imply that I was necessarily taking the same view. I agree with Drakkith that things are more complicated than that; if you think so too, then we are all in agreement.

I described some of the complexities in my earlier post when I talked about nuclear reactions. In my opinion, it's better to focus on the physics--what nuclear reactions are possible, what particles participate in them, and what energy changes are involved--than to worry about what is "made of" what or what is "equivalent" to what.
 
  • #13
pervect said:
My $.02.

$.02 is equivalent to 2¢.

They are equivalent. They are not the same thing.

Maybe that will be a good first approximation of an analogy.

My 2¢ worth.
 
  • #14
Collider experiments have long since confirmed the mass-energy equivalence principle. So, what exactly do you find objectionable about that?
 
  • #15
Mass is a quantitative term while matter is generic. When two protons collide in the LHC, matter is converted to energy. Mass is used for bookkeeping purposes. The total outgoing mass + energy must add up the incoming mass.
 

1. What is matter-energy equivalence?

Matter-energy equivalence is a concept in physics that states that matter and energy are essentially the same thing. This idea was first proposed by Albert Einstein in his famous equation, E=mc^2, which means that energy (E) is equal to mass (m) multiplied by the speed of light (c) squared.

2. How does matter-energy equivalence work?

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, matter and energy are interchangeable. This means that matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. The amount of energy produced is equal to the mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. This is the basis for nuclear energy and the creation of atomic bombs.

3. What are some real-world applications of matter-energy equivalence?

The most well-known application of matter-energy equivalence is in nuclear power plants, where matter is converted into energy to generate electricity. It is also used in medical imaging technologies such as PET scans, which use the conversion of matter into energy to create images of the body's internal structures.

4. Is matter-energy equivalence a proven concept?

Yes, matter-energy equivalence has been proven through numerous experiments and observations. It is a fundamental concept in physics and has been confirmed by various scientific studies and experiments.

5. How does matter-energy equivalence relate to the theory of relativity?

The theory of relativity, specifically special relativity, is the foundation for matter-energy equivalence. It explains the relationship between matter and energy and how they are interchangeable. The theory of relativity also explains the effects of high speeds and gravitational forces on matter and energy.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
123
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
662
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
954
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
131
Views
8K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
83
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
937
Back
Top