Same Link Between Momentum, Energy & Mass

AI Thread Summary
Mass is not accurately described as a "condensed form of energy," despite the relationship defined by Einstein's E=mc^2, which states that energy can convert to mass and vice versa. Energy and momentum are distinct concepts, even at the atomic level, and it is incorrect to claim that energy is a "condensed form of momentum." In relativity, energy and momentum are related through the energy-momentum 4-vector, but this does not imply that one is a condensed version of the other. The distinction between intrinsic mass and relative mass is crucial, as seen in the case of photons, which possess energy but have zero rest mass. The discussion raises the question of whether the rest mass of particles could be linked to hidden motion or unexplained aspects of space.
Islam Hassan
Messages
237
Reaction score
5
If mass is a condensed form of energy, can we likewise consider that energy is a condensed form (or store) of momentum at the molecular/atomic/particle physics level?

IH
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not correct to think of mass as a "condensed form of energy." By Einstein's formula, E=mc^2, energy can be converted to mass and vice versa. Or, in other words, all mass is associated with some energy. Thus, objects with mass m, have an associated "rest energy" of mc^2. However, this is not the same as saying that mass is a "condensed form of energy."

It is also not correct to say that energy is a "condensed form of momentum." Even at the atomic level, energy and momentum are distinct concepts.

In relativity, energy and momentum are related, both being part of the energy momentum 4-vector, but, this does not mean that energy is "condensed momentum." That statement is nonsensical.
 
Condensed is a strange way of putting it. it refers to a lot of stuff in a small volume, but what is a lot and what is small?

I think the OP means to refer to intrinsic mass as being entirely a relativistic correction of some sort. In the case of a photon it turns out that the mass is only due to relative motion and the "rest" mass is zero. So the photon has mass, but it is really just energy. This is why physicists are careful to distinguish rest (or intrinsic) mass and relative mass.

So of course it is a common question to ask "Could the rest mass of particles like electrons really just be some hidden motion or aspect of space we don't understand."
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top