Could this explain how evaporation of matter occurs in the universe?

[kmarinas86]

The laws of thermodynamics [still well regarded by mainstream scientists] forbid mass loss. I sense fundamentally flawed logic here.

Laws of thermodynamics says spontaneous heat flow can only flow from hot to cold. Yet heat is generated by burning a fuel, such as wood or coal. While not spontaneous, the energy needed get a piece of wood or coal burning is potentially less than the energy released by burning wood or coal, provided that a chain reaction be sufficiently sustained. Heat energy is lost by the wood or coal. Therefore, the heat energy must have been stored in some inert form before being released through ignition. In the case for radioactive materials, this occurs through E=mc^2. A simple extension of this principle would imply that E=mc^2 also applies for chemicals, although the value of chemical energy is so small in relation to the mass-energy of its reactants, that many scientists consider it non-existent. However, given the overwhemling support for E=mc^2, I have very little doubt that E=mc^2 (which is actually defined as E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 according to the law of mass-energy equivalence) applies (though not very practically) for just about any event that produces radiation (including the acceleration of charged particles). In my opinion, no credible scientist would disagree that the equation applies in the fusion and fission of nuclear matter as made obvious by the nuclear binding energy curve.

 

[shamrock5585]

"In the case for radioactive materials, this occurs through E=mc^2. A simple extension of this principle would imply that E=mc^2 also applies for chemicals, although the value of chemical energy is so small in relation to the mass-energy of its reactants, that many scientists consider it non-existent."

are you implying that mass is converted to energy in the chemical reaction of combustion? you would be wrong if you are... my regards if i misunderstood you.

 

[kmarinas86]

"In the case for radioactive materials, this occurs through E=mc^2. A simple extension of this principle would imply that E=mc^2 also applies for chemicals, although the value of chemical energy is so small in relation to the mass-energy of its reactants, that many scientists consider it non-existent."

are you implying that mass is converted to energy in the chemical reaction of combustion? you would be wrong if you are... my regards if i misunderstood you.

Actually, there is no consensus as to which is right. For example, see:

But in this scheme, matter is conserved -- there is no loss or gain in the mass of the chemical species involved.
http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/index.htm

Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/Generalchemistry/Energy/LawofConservation/LawofConservation.htm

Nuclear chemistry forces us to modify the Law of Conservation of Mass to include an energy term as well. The energy term is derived from Albert Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation.
http://www2.ucdsb.on.ca/tiss/stretton/CHEM2/nuc02.htm

The specialization in the sciences has not required the observance of certain facts except within the fields which these certain facts become experimentally important. Just because a fact is observed in one field in not another doesn't mean it's entirely wrong, it may just mean a fact may be a pertinent in one field and not another.

 

[Sharpcruizer5]

in a recent article from the astrophysical journal dated oct1. it explains that when antimatter comes into contact with protons or electrons, the result is annihilation with the emmition of gamma rays containing a significant amount of energy directed in opposite directions.