# Mass can turn into Energy, or is it Matter which can turn into energy?

by jacket
Tags: energy, mass, matter, turn, universe
 P: 32 I hope now I am correct: Relativistic mass is a measure of systems Energy. Energy is a measure of system's Relativistic mass. Matter or it's mass, doesnt 'turn into' energy. Relativistic mass and Energy are two ways to represent a same thing.
Mentor
P: 27,563
 Quote by jacket I hope now I am correct: Relativistic mass is a measure of systems Energy. Energy is a measure of system's Relativistic mass. Matter or it's mass, doesnt 'turn into' energy. Relativistic mass and Energy are two ways to represent a same thing.
Er.. no, I think you've made it worse.

We usually do not deal with "relativistic mass". In fact, in many circles, this term is seldom used.

Mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass. These are "invariant mass", and that is the only mass that matters (no pun intended).

I am not sure why you have a problem with each one being converted into the other, or why you need to make a distinction between "relativistic" mass etc.

Zz.
 P: 32 And perhaps Matter has nothing technical to do in the "mass-energy equivalence".
Mentor
P: 27,563
 Quote by jacket And perhaps Matter has nothing technical to do in the "mass-energy equivalence".
We have no idea what you mean by "matter", or what "nothing technical" actually means.

Unless you know of something, you shouldn't be making statements such as this or you'll run afoul of our rules on speculative post.

Zz.
P: 32
 Quote by ZapperZ Er.. no, I think you've made it worse. Mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass. These are "invariant mass", and that is the only mass that matters (no pun intended). I am not sure why you have a problem with each one being converted into the other,... Zz.
Perhaps I should post a link . http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

Everything 'written' next (except the end note) is quoted from this article:

 Quote by ZapperZ We have no idea what you mean by "matter" Zz.
In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. If one wishes to talk about the physical stuff that is the bearer of such properties, then one typically talks about either “matter” or “fields.”
....

 Quote by ZapperZ Mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass. These are "invariant mass", and that is the only mass that matters (no pun intended).
Are mass and energy the same property of physical systems and is that what is meant by asserting that they are “equivalent”?
The first interpretation (Torretti, Eddington) we will consider answers “Yes” to the first interpretative question posed above: mass and energy are the same property of physical systems. Consequently, there is no sense in which one of the properties is ever physically converted into the other.
.........
Lange (2001, 2002) has recently suggested a unique interpretation of mass-energy equivalence. Lange begins his interpretation by arguing that rest-mass is the only real property of physical systems. This claim by itself suggests that there can be no such thing as a physical process by which mass is converted into energy...

....................................................................... ......................

Note:
 Quote by ZapperZ Unless you know of something, you shouldn't be making statements such as this or you'll run afoul of our rules on speculative post. Zz.
I apologize if it seems like that.
 Mentor P: 27,563 It is difficult to carry any kind of rational conversation when one is talking to a series of quote taken from somewhere else. Please note that you asked the question. When I asked for clarification on what you meant, you gave me nothing but a series of quote from another source. I don't even know if you actually understood what you quoted. Do you even know the physics involved in the source that you are citing? A lot of these are "semantics", not physics! Anyone who thinks that the e-p pair is identical to photon that created it has a lot of explanation to do! If you read something, and you didn't understand it, then cite it and ask! Don't respond to something by simply quoting off some webpage or source. A parrot can do that as well! Zz.
P: 32
Well, okey ZapperZ, you are the Mentor here. I expect help from you.
Anyone reading this post with a rational mind will see, whenever I try to say something from my own or try to clarify what I am trying to say, you reply like
 Quote by ZapperZ Unless you know of something, you shouldn't be making statements such as this or you'll run afoul of our rules on speculative post.
I am not "Making statements", I am trying to know if those statements are right or do they make sense at all. I got some ideas by studying some texts and felt confused when I tried to understand those concepts. And so I asked here, for a discussion to clarify my confusions. And I did't 'invent' anything.
Even if I show you one example of from where I got those ideas, you say,
 Quote by ZapperZ It is difficult to carry any kind of rational conversation when one is talking to a series of quote taken from somewhere else.
 Quote by ZapperZ Don't respond to something by simply quoting off some webpage or source. A parrot can do that as well!
I am 'quoting' because if I dont quote, you are saying I am making 'foul statements'.
Now I wonder why you don't Correct my 'foul statements' and explain things clearly? Or explain the contradiction of concepts? (I think *now* many viewers would be happy to get the explanation.)
 Quote by ZapperZ I don't even know if you actually understood what you quoted.
It doesn't matter really. If I understood, then I wouldn't have asked here. And if you understood (which of course you did) you can explain.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

Applies to everyone!
Mentor
P: 27,563
Note what I also said that you neglected to quote:

 Quote by ZapperZ If you read something, and you didn't understand it, then cite it and ask! Don't respond to something by simply quoting off some webpage or source.
I asked you something, and you REPLIED by simply rattling off a bunch of quotes. You did not indicate whether you understood this and using the quotes as a reply to me, or if you didn't understand what you quoted (which is a rather silly way of having a discussion).

If you have read this, and you didn't know what they mean, and you want to learn what it is, then you should have (i) cited the source (ii) quote the exact passage that you didn't understand (iii) then ask what it is that you did not understand!

Look at the way you did this here. You quote my questions or statements, and then it looked as if you were replying to them simply by using a bunch of stuff you copied off that site! Nowhere in that post did you indicate anything to the effect that you were "... trying to know if those statements are right or do they make sense at all... " Go look at it again if you think I'm making this up.

BTW, subjecting physics to definitions and principles made up in Philosophy is as cruel as subjecting scientists to a pseudoscience act such as a lie detector.

 Quote by jacket "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein Applies to everyone!
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3722

Zz.
 PF Patron HW Helper Sci Advisor Thanks P: 11,935 Sometimes, even Albert Einstein was provably wrong. I go with ZapperZ here.
P: 32
 Quote by ZapperZ Look at the way you did this here. You quote my questions or statements, and then it looked as if you were replying to them simply by using a bunch of stuff you copied off that site! Nowhere in that post did you indicate anything to the effect that you were "... trying to know if those statements are right or do they make sense at all... " Go look at it again if you think I'm making this up.
No, no ZapperZ. I wasn't 'replying' to your answer, I was just 'quoting' to mark the contradictions (or ask if there are any), which were very confusing to me.
I tried to say that by
 Quote by jacket Everything 'written' next (except the end note) is quoted from this article
But I agree, perhaps that wasn't the right way to do it. It led to an unwanted misunderstanding, and unintended conversations.

I am just in basic physics now (my study). And at this beginning stage I have (at least I hope I have) very introductory ideas about Mass, Energy, Relativistic mass etc but whenever I go to understand what those definitions actually 'mean' I often get confused.

And of course when I quote Einstein, I know that quote was not a 'law of physics'.

Anyway, here I try to restate my question http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...64#post4557264
(I hope this time I am doing it right way)

Now, I think this thread has come to its end.
Mentor
P: 15,553
 Quote by ZapperZ We usually do not deal with "relativistic mass". In fact, in many circles, this term is seldom used.
Hi ZapperZ, I agree with the point that relativistic mass is seldom used, and in retrospect I wish that I had responded in terms of invariant mass, however, since jacket specified that he was talking about relativistic mass I don't see anything actually wrong with what he said.

 Quote by jacket I hope now I am correct: Relativistic mass is a measure of systems Energy. Energy is a measure of system's Relativistic mass. Matter or it's mass, doesnt 'turn into' energy. Relativistic mass and Energy are two ways to represent a same thing.
I think that is all correct. Relativistic mass is proportional to energy, with a constant of proportionality of c². So I think of them as rather synonomous.

 Related Discussions Beyond the Standard Model 5 General Physics 47 General Physics 32 Introductory Physics Homework 2 Astrophysics 4