What is the relationship between mass and energy according to E=MC^2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaydnul
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    E=mc^2 Scope
AI Thread Summary
E=mc^2 applies to any mass at rest, including point particles like electrons, allowing for the calculation of energy released from mass conversion. The equation is relevant for both atomic nuclei and individual particles, as it describes the energy contained in mass. In nuclear fission, such as with U-235, only a small fraction of the mass is converted to energy, exemplified by the Hiroshima bomb's release of energy from a fraction of the uranium. Conversely, nuclear fusion, which powers the sun, releases energy for light isotopes, while heavier isotopes typically require energy input for fission. The binding energy curve illustrates this relationship, highlighting the differences in energy dynamics between fusion and fission processes.
jaydnul
Messages
558
Reaction score
15
Quick question... does that equation refer to any type of matter, like a point particle? Or does it refer to atoms that have nuclei that are attached by the strong force? Lemme put it another way. Take a point particle, an electron... now if you found a way to convert that single electron into energy, would e=mc^2 calculate how much energy that would be? Or does e=mc^2 just refer to the energy inside an atomic nucleus aka the strong force?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That equation concerns energy of any mass at rest.
If it has got rest mass and is not moving, then it's got that energy.
You can use it to calculate the energy released from the annihilation of an electron with a positron.

Also, I'm pretty sure the "point particle" status of an electron is just an approximation, not actual physical reality.
 
So when u-235 is split the energy released isn't equal to (mass of uranium)*(c^2) right? Because a majority of that mass is still there just in two different pieces.
 
lundyjb said:
So when u-235 is split the energy released isn't equal to (mass of uranium)*(c^2) right? Because a majority of that mass is still there just in two different pieces.

Yes. Uranium fission only releases a very small fraction of the total mass-energy of the uranium atom. The U-235 bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945 contained about 50 kilograms of U-235, of which a bit less than one kilogram fissioned before the bomb blew apart. The explosion released maybe 5x1013 Joules of energy, meaning that about .5 grams of mass was converted to energy.

(These are round numbers because I'm doing the calculations in my head. Google will find you more precise numbers, but I've got the ranges of sizes about right).
 
ahh very interesting. thanks!

Also something that has me a little confused is this: since nuclear fission releases energy, it seems that nuclear fusion should consume energy given that its the opposite of fission. But that's not the case because the sun runs on nuclear fusion. Why is that?
 
For light isotopes, fusion tends to release energy and fission tends to require energy input. For heavy isotopes, it's the other way around. The "turnover point" is around iron. Google for "binding energy curve" and you'll probably turn up explanations.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?

Similar threads

Back
Top