Can Energy Be Converted to Mass?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hanii
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convert Energy Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether energy can be converted to mass, exploring various interpretations of the relationship between energy and mass as described by the equation E=mc². Participants examine theoretical and experimental contexts, including particle physics and chemical reactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that energy can be converted to mass, referencing particle accelerators that create new elements from high-energy collisions.
  • Others argue that energy already possesses mass and does not require conversion, emphasizing that mass and energy are two sides of the same coin.
  • There is a discussion about the mass of particles produced in high-energy collisions, with some claiming that the resulting mass exceeds the original rest masses of the colliding particles.
  • Some participants propose that chemical reactions with positive enthalpy changes imply a form of mass conversion, questioning whether energy release in reactions corresponds to mass changes.
  • Several participants clarify that energy and mass are not interchangeable but rather interconnected, with energy contributing to the mass of a system.
  • There is mention of pair production as a phenomenon where energy can lead to the creation of mass, though this is not universally accepted as a direct conversion.
  • Discussions about photons highlight their lack of rest mass but their momentum and effects on mass when absorbed by other objects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the conversion of energy to mass, with no consensus reached. Some agree that energy has mass, while others maintain that mass and energy are distinct properties that do not transform into one another.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various definitions of mass and energy, indicating that the discussion is influenced by differing interpretations of these concepts. The nuances of chemical and nuclear reactions, as well as the role of momentum in photons, remain points of contention.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the fundamental principles of physics, particularly in the realms of particle physics, energy-mass relationships, and theoretical interpretations of mass and energy.

  • #31


Dadface said:
It was one of Einsteins favourite illustrations to state that an object when hot is more massive than the same object when cold.

but hot water is lighter than cold water...!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


hanii said:
but hot water is lighter than cold water...!

Are you confusing mass with density?
 
  • #33


Mass and energy are just metrics applied to systems; unlike Transformers they are not actual objects. E=mc^2 says that the energy in a system is equal to the mass of a system times the speed of light in a vacuum. This implies that adding energy to a system increases its mass; its 'rest mass' is the mass it has when it has no energy. Sometimes rest mass is created by particle accelerators or positron emission; because of the law of conversation of mass, it is assumed that the rest mass created is equal to the mass of the energy that is consumed by its creation.

The nuclear reactions inside stars cause them to emit cosmic rays including protons. Those protons (hydrogen nuclei) can be used as fuel for nuclear fusion. The fused nuclei (or just the protons emitted by stars) can drift into a forming star, becoming fuel for that star's nuclear reactions.
 
Last edited:
  • #34


Mass and energy are just metrics applied to systems; unlike Transformers they are not actual objects. E=mc^2 says that the energy in a system is equal to the mass of a system times the speed of light in a vacuum.

Mass is a fundamental property while energy is a description of the interaction of systems via work. While i agree that mass and energy themselves are not "objects", all objects have mass and energy.

The nuclear reactions inside stars cause them to emit cosmic rays including protons. Those protons (hydrogen nuclei) can be used as fuel for nuclear fusion. The fused nuclei (or just the protons emitted by stars) can drift into a forming star, becoming fuel for that star's nuclear reactions.

This is...kind of correct? The nuclear reactions inside stars release energy and neutrinos, but the reactions themselves do not release "cosmic rays" in the form of protons or electrons. The solor wind is composed of charged particles such as electrons and protons, but these are ejected from the outer atmosphere of the sun, not the core where the fusion is taking place. Also, the unused Hydrogen can indeed form other stars, and it is our current view that the Sun was created when a nebula, composed of hydrogen and other elements from previous stars, collapsed in on itself.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How do I convert mass units in physics?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad What can we scientifically measure directly?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Undergrad Need a practical example of E=mc^2 with real numbers
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Can Energy Really Be Converted to Matter in Everyday Life?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
High School Can energy be decomposed?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
High School The relationship between mass, light and energy
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Undergrad How can I calculate the energy of a body of mass?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad Antimatter-matter annihilation: significance of opposite charge
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
High School Energy is Matter is Energy? - confused layman here
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Undergrad Distinctions among the concepts: mass, matter, energy
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K