Mass-Energy Equivalence: Does E=mc2 Apply in Systems at Rest?

In summary, the conversation discusses the relationship between mass and energy, specifically in the context of a system with zero total momentum. The formula E=mc^2 is mentioned and the question is raised about whether internal changes in a system can produce more work than mc^2. The conclusion is that this is not possible, and the concept of "bias" in this context is also addressed.
  • #1
simeonz
14
0
Let's assume that a system has zero total momentum. The following relationship between mass and energy should apply: [itex]E=mc^2[/itex].

If a system is overall at rest, does that mean that any internal changes to that system, assuming they leave the system with non-negative mass, will not be able to produce more work than mc2? The work is used for reaction with another system, initially placed sufficiently far away to be insignificant when the thought-experiment begins.

To clarify the motivation for my question. I thought of energy as having unknown bias. The number and character of the acting phenomenon (e.g. fields), unknown and not essential to the application of the conservation law from classical mechanics. The total work in a a given period of time and spatial vicinity may (predominantly) involve only part of the entire range of acting forces. But, if the above formula expects the energy to be non-biased aggregate of the system's ability to do work, then adding the potential, kinetic, and field energies, for example, should always produce amount lower than the one predicted by the mass equivalence or would be incomplete/incorrect. Is that the case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
simeonz said:
If a system is overall at rest, does that mean that any internal changes to that system, assuming they leave the system with non-negative mass, will not be able to produce more work than mc2?
Yes, that is correct.

On the rest of the post, I am not sure what you mean by "bias" in this context.
 
  • #3
Dale said:
Yes, that is correct.
That is all I needed to know, really. Thanks.
Dale said:
On the rest of the post, I am not sure what you mean by "bias" in this context.
What I meant is that that the equivalence formula excludes the possibility for unknown additive to the energy that can be introduced to compensate "negative energy" appearing in the explanation of new physical phenomenon.
 

What is mass-energy equivalence?

Mass-energy equivalence is a scientific concept that states that mass and energy are interchangeable and can be converted from one form to another. This concept was first proposed by Albert Einstein in his famous equation, E=mc2.

How does E=mc2 apply to systems at rest?

E=mc2 applies to systems at rest because it is a general equation that describes the relationship between mass and energy. This means that even when an object is not moving, it still has a certain amount of energy that is equivalent to its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.

Are there any exceptions to E=mc2?

There are no known exceptions to E=mc2. This equation has been tested and proven to be accurate in various experiments and has been a cornerstone of modern physics for over a century.

How is E=mc2 used in practical applications?

E=mc2 has been used in practical applications such as nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. It is also used in medical imaging technologies such as PET scans, which utilize the conversion of mass into energy to create images of the body.

Can E=mc2 be applied to systems in motion?

Yes, E=mc2 can be applied to systems in motion. However, the equation needs to be modified to include the object's velocity, resulting in the equation E=γmc2, where γ is the Lorentz factor. This allows for the calculation of the object's relativistic mass and energy.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
471
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
897
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
5K
Back
Top