Collisions: Subatomic vs Non-Subatomic Particles

  • Thread starter Thread starter student85
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Collisions
AI Thread Summary
When two subatomic particles collide at high speeds, they can form a larger particle with a mass less than the sum of the original particles, converting the mass difference into energy as described by Einstein's equation E=mc². In contrast, when non-subatomic particles like balls collide, any energy loss primarily manifests as heat and sound rather than a measurable mass loss. Significant mass loss in macroscopic collisions typically only occurs during chemical or atomic reactions. Although kinetic energy increases as objects approach, the total kinetic energy decreases slightly after a collision due to energy transfer into other forms, such as vibrations or light. Overall, while mass-energy conversion is evident in subatomic interactions, it is not perceptible in everyday macroscopic collisions.
student85
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
This might be stupid but I was thinking, when two subatomic particles collide at very high speeds, they form a bigger particle whose mass is less than the sum of the smaller ones, and the mass lost transforms into energy as in Einstein´s equation E=mc2.
What happens with non subatomic particles, say two balls colliding or whatever. Is there a mass loss that turns into energy. THIS SOUNDS VERY OFF LOL, because the amount of energy released with just a little bit of mass is huge. But then, what is wrong here? Why doesn't this happen, or if it does, why isn't it percieved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There isn't a mass loss, unless you count something like little pieces chipping off. The energy lost through macroscopic collisions is primarily in the forms of heat and sound. You would get mass loss only if the materials were such that a chemical or atomic reaction occurred when they hit.
 
There should be a mass loss. The approaching balls are heavier than they would be if they were at rest (KE=(m-m0)c2), and after the collision (assuming some energy is lost to sound etc) there will be slightly less total kinetic energy (because some of the mass-energy has been transferred into air-vibrations, perhaps some even radiated away as a flash of light, etc).

Similarly, 2xH2O should not weigh the same as 2xH2 + O2.
 
Thanks danger and cesiumfrog, you really helped me!
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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