Can Mass Be Converted to Energy and Vice Versa?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AnthreX
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interconvertibility of mass and energy, exploring whether mass can be converted to energy and vice versa. Participants delve into theoretical aspects, practical examples such as nuclear reactions and matter-antimatter interactions, and the implications of Einstein's equation E=mc².

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that both mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass, citing nuclear fusion and fission as examples.
  • Others express confusion about the relationship between mass and energy, questioning how they are interrelated.
  • A participant mentions that matter-antimatter reactions exemplify mass-energy conversion, where mass is transformed into radiation and energy can create mass.
  • There is a claim that mass is a form of energy, and that in fission, mass energy converts to kinetic energy, leading to a semantic debate about terminology.
  • Some argue that a large amount of energy is required to produce a small amount of mass, referencing Einstein's equation.
  • A participant challenges the notion that mass can be converted to energy, proposing that energy possesses mass instead, using a football analogy to illustrate their point.
  • Another participant critiques this view, emphasizing the distinction between classical and quantum mechanics and questioning the assertion that photons have mass.
  • There are warnings against posting personal theories, with some participants expressing frustration over perceived misunderstandings of established physics.
  • Discussion includes references to external resources for further understanding of mass and energy in relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of mass and energy, with multiple competing views presented. Some agree on the basic principles of mass-energy equivalence, while others dispute specific interpretations and implications.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect misunderstandings of quantum mechanics and the definitions of mass and energy, with unresolved questions about the nature of photons and their relationship to mass.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the fundamentals of physics, particularly in the context of relativity, energy-mass equivalence, and the nuances of theoretical interpretations in physics.

  • #31
Michael F. Dmitriyev said:
Does it not means that radiation is the TWO DIMENSIONAL PRODUCT of light (c^2) and an object having mass is a FOUR DIMENSIONAL PRODUCT of light (c^4) ?
No.

- Warren
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
chroot said:
No.

- Warren
Why?

-Michael
 
  • #33
Michael F. Dmitriyev said:
Why?

-Michael
Mostly by default. The assertion that "radiation is the two dimensional product of light" doesn't even make sense. I'm going to warn you, as well, to resist the temptation to post your personal theories in parts of the site where they are unwelcome.

- Warren
 
  • #34
Sorry, but how was Michael F. Dmitriyev inappropriately expressing a personal theory? He asked a question ( hence the question mark at the end) - he didn't demand that he was right, just asking if he was correct. ( as I in fact was) He wasn't in flicting a confusing personal theory on anyone.
 
  • #35
chroot said:
You did not ask a question, you made an assertion which concluded that light has mass.
...
Because momentum in relativistic mechanics is defined more generally than in classical mechanics. In relativistic mechanics, the energy of a particle is related to its momentum via

E = \sqrt{p^2 c^2 + m_0^2 c^4}

where E is the energy, p is the momentum, m_0 is the rest-mass, and c is the speed of light. Energy can come in several forms: kinetic energy, rest-mass energy, and so on. Thus, a photon does not need mass to have momentum. This definition winds up being precisely the same as the classical definition when you consider particles that aren't moving very fast, so the two are not incompatible; it just happens that the relativistic version applies everywhere (as far as we currently know anyway), while the classical version has restrictions on where it can be applied.
- Warren
Cheman has \ correctly deduced that light has mass. re - he was correct when he said
Hence, if a photon lacks mass then how can it have momentum if momentum = mass * velocity?
In your comment above you posted the correct relationship between inertial energy, rest mass and momentum. You then used the term "mass" unqualfied to mean "rest mass" as you have in previous posts and threads in this forum. Cheman does not seem to be aware of the semantics of this point and that is where the disagreement is. Once more we're back to the debate of what the term "mass" means.

The statement made by Cheman is correct if the term "mass" refers to "inertial mass, aka "relativistic mass" , m, and is wrong if it refers to "rest mass", m0. Relativistic mass, aka inertial mass, is defined as the "m" in p = mv (e.g. see French, D'Inverno, Rindler, Mould, Schutz etc.). If the particle is a tardyon (moves at v < c) then it depends on velocity, i.e. m = m(v). Rest mass aka proper mass is defined as m0 = m(0).

Therefore cheman is speaking of relativistic mass and chroot is speaking of rest mass.

Its also incorrect to claim that people mean "rest mass" when the use the term "mass" unqualified. Differerent relativists mean different things by this term as evidenced in many new modern relativity texts etc.

Cheman - See
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/relativistic_mass.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/inertial_mass.htm
See the links at the bottom of that page under Particle Accelerator Labs for examples from Cern, Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and University of Wisconsin-Madison

Even the text A Short Course in General Relativity, Foster & Nightingale, Springer Verlag, (1994) discusses the photon mass in one derivation of gravitational redshift.


There was a recent artilce on relativistic mass in the American Journal of Physics

Apparatus to measure relativistic mass increase, John W. Luetzelschwab, Am. J. Phys. 71(9), 878, Sept. (2003).

That was an article which addressed tardyon's only.


Here is a quote you'll like Cheman. From The Evolution of Physics, Einstein & Infeld, Touchstone Pub., (1966). Commenting on the observation made by an observer inside an accelerating elevator that light is ‘weightless’ Einstein writes
But there is, fortunately, a grave fault in the reasoning of the inside observer, which saves our previous conclusion. He said: “A beam of light is weightless and, therefore, it will not be affected by the gravitational field.” This cannot be right! A beam of light carries energy and energy has mass.
:biggrin:

Pete
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Nice quote Pete. ;-) So, was what I said correct, or at least a reasonable assumption to make?
 
  • #37
Cheman said:
Nice quote Pete. ;-) So, was what I said correct, or at least a reasonable assumption to make?
As I said, if you claim that a photon has rest mass then you're comments were incorrect. If you meant that photons have inertial mass (aka "relativistic mass") then you were correct.

Einstein was not the only who said that. Many newer and older texts did too. One famous one who said what Einsteins said is Feynman's.

From the Feynman Lectures Vol -I page 7-11, Section entitled Gravitation and Relativity
One feature of this new law is quite easy to understand is this: In Einstein relativity theory, anything which has energy has mass -- mass in the sense that it is attracted gravitationaly. Even light, which has energy, has a "mass". When a light beam, which has energy in it, comes past the sun there is attraction on it by the sun.

Pete
 
Last edited:
  • #38
pmb_phy,

We've heard your tired argument long enough. Seriously.

- Warren
 
  • #39
Cheman said:
Sorry, but how was Michael F. Dmitriyev inappropriately expressing a personal theory?
Every question has presuppositions. His question is so weird, that it only makes sense in the context of his own theory. I applaud the mentors' efforts to keep general forum discussions consistent with accepted physics, because if it contains every new theory, it will be of no use to students who want a deeper understanding of currently accepted physical theories. If you or Dmitriyev want to discuss other stuff, go to the Theory Development" forum. PLease.

pmb_phy said:
Who is "we"?
I'm with Warren.

pmb_phy said:
Your closed mindeness on this matter is getting very tiring. If you don't like a concept then simply don't use it. Throw away all your elativity texts that employ it. But don't insult/demean the people who do. Nothing good can come from that attitude.
This is starting up again? I'm outta here.
 
  • #40
chroot - It appears to me that anytime someone disagrees with you, you post insulting remarks. (e.g. you infered I was stupid because I like kaza)

Why do you do that?


Cheman - Check your private messages
 
Last edited:
  • #41
I think you're too sensitive, pmb. Just quit filling up our forum with hundreds of copies of your little relativistic mass manifesto.

- Warren
 
  • #42
chroot said:
I think you're too sensitive, pmb. Just quit filling up our forum with hundreds of copies of your little relativistic mass manifesto.
I'm tired of your constant whining chroot. Give it a rest. Everytime I give someone the correct answer to this rather basic question in relativity which they asked for you chime in and complain as if you wish to silence everyone who disagrees with you.

What you're constantly whining about be can always be quite literally said about you too. I.e. when someone asks about the velocity dependence of mass or the mass of light you constantly chime in with your little mass is rest mass manifesto.

You really need to stop being so closed minded. You sound like arrogant bratty school boy who thinks he knows everything. I have news for you. That's the furthest thing from the truth that there is.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
You're definitely too sensitive. Keep in mind that I can still read the posts you deleted. You enjoy flame wars, which we try to squelch.

I do have a potential solution to this problem, however. Since virtually every post you make is connected in some way with championing your unusual relativistic mass veiwpoint, I think I'm going to have you prepare an essay with every point you'd like to make about your view. When you feel the need to inject your view into a discussion here, you can simply provide a link to your essay. I have grown tired of seeing a hundred copies of virtually the same arguments all over the forum.

- Warren
 
  • #44
agreed

K_
 
  • #45
chroot said:
You're definitely too sensitive. Keep in mind that I can still read the posts you deleted. You enjoy flame wars, which we try to squelch.
I delete posts because because I try different versions before I post them and I see errors best when I read after I hit submit. Whether you like them or not is your problem. Go tell your problems to Jesus.


And you can write what you want. You simply don't know this particular topic in relativity well enough to correct anything I've posted because nothing I've posted is incorrect. All you've ever been able to do is start with a definition of your personal chooseint and then you whine when people don't use it. All I've seen from you is a poor understanding of this topic.

Tell you what chroot. I have a permanent solution to this problem. Delte my account. I'm just plain sick of your pathetic childish attitude. You've been far too insulting and closed minded for me to want to bother with. Until then I'll explain what needs to be explained and you can whine all you want. But people don't like you forcing your views on them.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Quit being so childish, and, most definitely, stop with the personal attacks. I'm not attacking you personally at all here, so I'd appreciate the same respect.

I'd like you to distill all your thoughts about the issue into an essay -- you can post it in a thread all by itself, and I will lock the thread. When you want to insert your views on relativistic mass, you can provide a link to the essay.

I will make the same demands on your archenemy DW.

- Warren
 
  • #47
Good lord chroot. You most certainly are attacking me personally. When you post a direct somment to me using terms such as "stupic" and in this thread "tiresome", "little relativsitic mass manifesto" etc.

I guess your problem is truly that you don't know when you're provoking people. You need to grow up and stop trying to force your views on others


And I BEG you with all my hear DELETE MY ACCOUNT. It will be a reminder to me not to post at a place with people who are as closed minded as you who like to start trouble like you do.
 
  • #48
pmb_phy said:
Good lord chroot. You most certainly are attacking me personally. When you post a direct somment to me using terms such as "stupic" and in this thread "tiresome", "little relativsitic mass manifesto" etc.

I guess your problem is truly that you don't know when you're provoking people. You need to grow up and stop trying to force your views on others


And I BEG you with all my hear DELETE MY ACCOUNT. It will be a reminder to me not to post at a place with people who are as closed minded as you who like to start trouble like you do.

If you're still not clear on why you're irritating let me fill you in - you post comments which are relevant to your view. I post comments which are relevant to my view. You then post comments like "tiresome" etc. That is clearly a hypocritical postition since I could just as logically state that your posts on mass are tiresome.

You're really quite irritating chroot. And just because you try to weasle out of it by claiming that I'm oversensitive can't change the facts that you clearly are troublesome and closed minded
 
  • #49
Wow!
I thought it was made quite clear that speculative comments belong in Theory Development(and are welcome there)
What is so hard to understand about that and the reasons for it?
Organization is important in a class-act forum such as PF.
 
  • #50
pallidin said:
Wow!
I thought it was made quite clear that speculative comments belong in Theory Development(and are welcome there)
What is so hard to understand about that and the reasons for it?
Organization is important in a class-act forum such as PF.
Everything I've ever posted on this forum or any other forum or newsgroup is readily found in the [modern relativity literature. All references have always been provided when asked

Even the Usenet Physics FAQ explains the facts that I have in this post, i.e. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
Does light have mass?

The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".
[...]
Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum and momentum is related to mass p = mv.
Even that FAQ is somewhat lacking since it claims that this is an outdated concept. But that's empoerically incorrect since its very difficult to find a modern relativity text which doesn't use this concept in one place or another. One merely has to look and there it is. chroot doesn't choose to look. He prefers to whine and insult instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
pmb_phy said:
Everything I've ever posted on this forum or any other forum or newsgroup is readily found in the [modern relativity literature. All references have always been provided when asked

Even the Usenet Physics FAQ explains the facts that I have in this post, i.e. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Even that FAQ is somewhat lacking since it claims that this is an outdated concept. But that's empoerically incorrect since its very difficult to find a modern relativity text which doesn't use this concept in one place or another. One merely has to look and there it is. chroot doesn't choose to look. He prefers to whine and insult instead.

OK, fine. Perhaps this can be put in another way:
Facts are that which can be repeatedly and responsibly reproduced by others, so much so that it becomes accepted within the mainstream scientific community.
Do your propositions reflect that criteria?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
pallidin said:
OK, fine. Perhaps this can be put in another way:
Facts are that which can be repeatedly and responsibly reproduced by others, so much so that it becomes accepted within the mainstream scientific community.
Do your propositions reflect that criteria?
The world trade center was destroyed on September 11, 2001. I take that as fact and I hold that it would be irresponsible to repeat it.

I'm speaking about a definition. Its impossible to create an experiment to prove that a definition is either correct or incorect. Its only possible to show that such a definition is consistent and adhered to within the scientific community by a signficant, not neccesarily dominant, fraction.

What terms are accepted by the scientific community are those that appear in scientific journals, scientific texts, and now that the new millineum is here - on university website/online lecture notes and web sites at particle accelerator labs. All one need do regarding what I've posted is go to the those sources and see for themselves.

There are two basic notions of the mass of a particle in relativity. Proper mass is the coefficient of proportionality between 4-momentum and 4-velocity. Relativistic mass is the coefficient of proportionality between 3-momentum and 3-velocity. It's as simple as that. Any arguments on this topic are people complaining that "mass" is a short hand term for one of them. Its best to leave the qualifier in and stop all this whining about whether the term "mass" refers to proper/relativistic mass. Complaints such as those by chroot are just plain silly.

Pete
 
Last edited:
  • #53
pmb_phy said:
I'm speaking about a definition. Its impossible to create an experiment to prove that a definition is either correct or incorect. Its only possible to show that such a definition is consistent and adhered to within the scientific community by a signficant, not neccesarily dominant, fraction.

Pete

You make a specific distinction between "significant" and "dominant"
It would seem to me that "significance" alludes "important indications" whereas "dominant" alludes a bullying attitude.
 
  • #54
pallidin said:
You make a specific distinction between "significant" and "dominant"
It would seem to me that "significance" alludes "important indications" whereas "dominant" alludes a bullying attitude.

That's not very logical. If 60% of a group likes Coke and 40% likes Pepsi, do you force the 40% of the group who likes Pepsi to stop drinking Pepsi and force then to drink Coke? No! It's a matter of taste. Don't force a particular view on a group without explaining both views and letting them choose. Even in that cases its extremely silly since there has never been any confusion between proper mass and relativistic mass. The only thing people whine about is what the term "mass" refers to. Its a very bad idea to not introduce each one since each is meaningful.

People who explain relativistic mass should be harassed and that's my point. chroot and others love to harass me for using that term and that is a pathetic attitude.

Besides, how else are people going to understand what the literatude under the CERN website means?

http://humanresources.web.cern.ch/humanresources/external/training/tech/special/AXEL2003/AXEL-2003_L02_24Feb03pm.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
krab said:
Every question has presuppositions. His question is so weird, that it only makes sense in the context of his own theory. I applaud the mentors' efforts to keep general forum discussions consistent with accepted physics, because if it contains every new theory, it will be of no use to students who want a deeper understanding of currently accepted physical theories. If you or Dmitriyev want to discuss other stuff, go to the Theory Development" forum. PLease.

I'm with Warren.


This is starting up again? I'm outta here.

I have not left for limits of the formula submitted by chroot himself.
Is it a great sin if I say that pi (r^2) is the area of a circle?
Whose an infallibility I have braked by thus?
 
  • #56
guyz i still don't really know the conclusion...
well even if there isn't one

thank you for your time
 
  • #57
AnthreX said:
guyz i still don't really know the conclusion...
well even if there isn't one

thank you for your time
Energy of mass, at the limit, is equal to the total energy of photons which an object (mass) emits at the full disintegration.
 

Similar threads

High School Would isolating the Solar System prevent its heat death?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Energy Harvesting: Calculating kWh from Motorway Traffic
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Is Entropy the inexorable conversion of potential to kinetic energy?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Undergrad Mass, Energy and a compressed spring
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
High School Can energy be decomposed?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad How to calculate the mass of gas in a tank?
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
9K
Undergrad Nuclear power plant vs coal power plant efficiency
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Graduate First law of thermodynamics, mass/energy in the Universe
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding the concept of energy
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
High School I have a question regarding temperature and the kinetic energy of molecules
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K