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!
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top