Does photosynthesis contribute to the increasing mass of Earth?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on whether photosynthesis contributes to the increasing mass of Earth, exploring the implications of energy conversion in plants and the overall mass balance of the planet. It includes theoretical considerations, chemical reactions involved in photosynthesis, and the impact of external factors such as meteors and solar wind.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the energy from sunlight converted by plants into glucose could indicate an increase in Earth's mass if losses are ignored.
  • Others argue that plants do not convert sunlight into mass according to E=mc^2, but rather use sunlight to facilitate chemical reactions that transform CO2 and water into sugars.
  • A participant questions whether the products of photosynthesis (CH2O and O2) weigh more than the reactants (CO2 and H2O), indicating a need for further investigation.
  • It is noted that while plants store energy as chemical bonds, the total number of nucleons and electrons remains unchanged, implying that matter is transformed rather than created.
  • Some contributions highlight that Earth's mass is primarily affected by external factors such as meteors and solar wind, with estimates suggesting a net decrease in mass due to gas loss.
  • One participant provides a detailed breakdown of the photosynthesis reaction and raises questions about the energy stored in chemical bonds and its potential mass difference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of photosynthesis in contributing to Earth's mass, with some emphasizing the transformation of energy rather than mass creation, while others explore the implications of chemical reactions and external mass contributions. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about energy conversion and mass balance, as well as the dependence on specific definitions of mass and energy in the context of chemical reactions.

Blenton
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
Since each day we are illuminated by the sun, plants convert that energy into glucose etc does this indicate an increase in mass of the Earth if losses due to heat radiating out and gains such as meteors are ignored?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
Plants don't convert sunlight into food by E=mc^2
They just use the energy of sunlight to cause a chemical reaction (making sugar from CO2+water) when they eat the sugar it goes back to CO2 and H2O - rther like a rechargeble battery/

The Earth's mass does increase mainly from dust and ice that falls from space plus a lot of charged particles form the sun
 
mgb_phys said:
Plants don't convert sunlight into food by E=mc^2


Sorry, Einstein didn't make an exception for plants!
However, plants store energy by converting sunlight into chemical bonds.


So, the real question is if CH2O and O2 weigh more than CO2 and H2O.


Will have to check this out later...
 
Xnn said:
So, the real question is if CH2O and O2 weigh more than CO2 and H2O.


Will have to check this out later...
The cellulose and plant structure should weigh less than the constituent CO2 and H2O, but the difference is going to be very small, probably in the ppb range since the bond energies are on the order of eV, not MeV or GeV.

Light enables plants to restructure CO2 and H2O into more complex molecules, but the number of nucleons and electrons doesn't change, and that is what mgb_phys was indicating. Matter is not created, it is only transformed. But one is right, the sunlight energy becomes stored chemical energy.

On the other hand, the Earth does capture some of the solar wind, so it does gain mass that way, and there is the odd meterorite that strikes the earth.
 
Earth's heat balance is pretty stringently balanced. A tiny, tiny fraction of the incident energy might be stored as chemical bonds and a certain amount of carbon is buried each year, thus leading to a net rise in oxygen levels - i.e. it's stuff that can potentially burn, but hasn't.

Meteors and interplanetary dust particles add about 40,000 tons of mass to Earth each year, but it loses a couple of kilograms of gas per second, thus there's actually a net decrease of about 20,000 tons per year.
 
Astronuc said:
The cellulose and plant structure should weigh less than the constituent CO2 and H2O, but the difference is going to be very small, probably in the ppb range since the bond energies are on the order of eV, not MeV or GeV.

The photosynthesis (Calvin) cycle is

6CO2 + 6H2O + ~ 48 photons <-----> C6H12O6 + 6O2

The heat of oxidation of this reaction is about 29 eV. The total mass of the sugar + oxygen is ~272 AMU = ~346 MeV. The energy difference is about 84 ppb. Where is the 29 eV (heat of oxidation) stored? Is the chemical (potential energy) stored as a mass difference?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
22K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
11K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K