Can Mass Be Transformed Into Energy?

[yuiop]

...
Way to many inconsistencies in the definitions I’ve seen such as: If this form of mass is “invariant” how does invariant mass of a particle change over time; except by acquiring additional invariant mass to change into a new and different particle; such as an electron that converts into a heavier electron able to maintain a higher energy level.
...

As far as I know, an invariant quantity in the context of relativity is defined as not changing under a Lorentz transformation, but does not imply the quantity can not change over time. An example of an invariant quantity is transverse length. A vibrating spring in the rest frame has its length continually changing but the length of the vibrating spring at any instant is invariant under transformation to a reference frame that has motion orthogonal to the length of the spring.

The (invariant mass)^2 is simply the quantity that is left when the (momentum mass)^2 is subtracted from the (inertial mass)^2. Inertial and gravitational propeties are related to the inertial mass which is why a photon has those properties, despite have zero rest (invariant) mass. As far as I can tell the only physical property related to rest mass is that non zero mass precludes a particle from moving at the speed of lightand the converse (a particle with zero rest mass can not move at less than the local speed of light). It is also worth noting that the inertial mass of a photon can change under transformation to a different reference frame, because the frequency changes.

 

[pmb_phy]

I question the reasonableness of, as kev puts it, “deliberately avoiding using that term” (relativistic mass) to avoiding addressing Okun opinions when effectively using the principles of relativistic mass, in order to apply different types of mass (rest, momentum, Inertial) to account the constituent parts that make up matter and light.

Each side of the debate that Okun addresses is avoiding using a particular term.

I find the Sandin position to be inconsistent and confusing, ..

Were you yourself confused? If so then what part confused you?

Regarding "parts" of systems - The term rest mass in general has no meaning when it comes to non-closed systems as I mentioned above with the magnetic field example.

PEte

 

[RandallB]

Each side of the debate that Okun addresses is avoiding using a particular term.

?? what part of the Okun position do propionates of it need to avoid using in order to advocate the position.
I read Okun as using one term for mass,
that matter containing mass put in motion relative to other matter can be measured as having a quantity called energy.
And a thing called Energy also exists in massless particles called photons.
And mass can be converted into or from the Energy that makes up the massless photons.
Thus whatever “mass” is; it is not be conserved as parts of can be removed and replaced by conversion into energy in photons.
Likewise energy is not conserved as portions of that can disappear for a closed system as photons are converted into matter with mass.
But the absolute total of Mass and energy must be conserved when combined using an appropriate “exchange rate” to measure total in common units.
The same fixed rate that applies to the conversions; E=mc^2.
There are no Okin terms that propionates need to conceal from the arguments for Okin that I am aware of, they only need one term for mass.

Not so for the Sandin position,
Kev clearly admitted withholding the significance of relativistic mass by not using the term; while clearly it is an important part of the Sandin position defining different forms of mass.

(on Sandin position) Were you yourself confused? If so then what part confused you?

Regarding "parts" of systems - The term rest mass in general has no meaning when it comes to non-closed systems as I mentioned above with the magnetic field example.

No not at all.
It is the Sandin position I find confusing.

Sandin seems unable to establish a consistent meaning to the various forms of mass it proposes (inertial, momentum, invariant, etc.), just as you point out in your examples.

IMO that accounts for why some elements of Sandin (relativistic mass is only one) need to be skirted over in order to advocate for Sandin.
THAT just doesn't work for me.

 

[pmb_phy]

?? what part of the Okun position do propionates of it need to avoid using in order to advocate the position.

Wow. What a confusing question! Okun doesn't like it when people use the term "rest mass" since he believes it is redundant. The whole point of his paper is to do away with any other term expcet "mass" period. However, it should be noted that Okun was not addressing the entire concept of mass as it is used in all generality. He was usinng it to how it pertains to particle physics. In fact Okun never considered the GR portion of Einstein's text The Meaning of Relativity when he wrote that article since in the GR part of that text Einstein does refer to a different use of mass that Okun was speaking about. Einstein used a particular definition of mass which is dependant on the gravitational potential. It was for that reason that he was able to argue the validity of Mach's principle.

I read Okun as using one term for mass, that matter containing mass put in motion relative to other matter can be measured as having a quantity called energy.

But the entire purpose of that paper was to argue that only one term should be used for mass. Okun didn't have a complete understanding of mass when he wrote that paper in fact. He was unaware of the fact that there are situations where E does not equal mc².

Please note that if I don't respond to parts of your posts its not because I'm ignoring them. In those cases I've already said what I had to say one the topic and am trying not to repeat myself, okay? I just wanted to make sure so that you didn't think I was being rude.

By the way, I wrote a paper on this subject which covers all aspects of this debate in fine detail. I would enjoy your feedback if you'd likee to read it? I'm always open to constructive criticism.

Best wishes

Pete