Yes. Sometimes when two particles are smashed together at very high velocity, a new particle(s) can be formed with a total mass that is greater than the sum of the masses of the original particles by an amount that is precisely accounted for by the difference in kinetic energy of the original particles and the final particles.heliocentricprose said:
Not always. It can take more energy to split an He atom than to fuse two H atoms to make an He atom. There is a special curved called the "Binding energy per nucleon" curve. It has a peak. Nucleons corresponding to points to the right of the curve will release energy when they split. The opposite is true for nucleons to the left of the curve. Its the difference of getting energy from fission and getting energy from fussion.heliocentricprose said:
For fussion it means that negative work is done bringing the nucleons together for a release of energy and it means that positive work is done fussing two nucleons to release energy. (I'm only 95% correct on this. The positives and negatives of work can confuse me sometimes. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!)
Energy cannot be converted into mass and mass cannot be converted into energy. The forms of energy may converted from one to the other. One for being mass-energy which is the energy that can be extracted from mass. But the total mass and the total energy is a constant in nuclear reactions such as these.
This is not true. What we can say is what the physics tells us, and the physics tells us here is that if we add energy to a body (e.gl in the form of radiation/heat/etc) then its proper mass will increase. Thus if you take a system of two (+) charges and do work on the system of the amount dE then the change in proper mass dm0 will change in accordance with the relationshipZeit said:
This kind of thinking can lead to trouble, ... and it has. The famous equation only applies to closed systems or isolated particles. Not under the most general conditions. One well-known relativity author though in the above manner and a question in his homework section arrived at a paradox (i.e. a solution which seems wrong) in his homework section. The question pertained to mass density of a magnetic field. The paradox is outlined herechroot said:
pmb_phy said:
Can you elaborate? It seems to me this explanation is at the crux of the common question "what does the c^2 represent in E=mc^2?"chroot said:
Zeit said:Hello,
I don't understand why I should be wrong. Rest mass, as its name suggests me, cannot increase : it is an invariant mass. The "relativistic mass" is, as I understand it, a wrong concept ; we should talk of "relativistic momentum". So, may be is it better to use E² = (mc²)²+(pc)² than E = gamma*mc², where m is the invariant mass.
But, what I see is even when an object as a kinetic energy = 0, these equations tell us there's energy. So, if I'm wrong, tell me please
The term invariant means does not change value when the system of coordinates is changed. It does not mean "does not change in time."Zeit said:
Whoever told you that is totally wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept. People who would have you believe so choose to define "mass" in another way which makes the other definition incorrect - "By definition." One way can be called the "geometric" view of mass whereas the other way can be called the "analytic" view of mass. Even in the geometric view there is a misuse of the concept of mass. They really should use the term "proper mass."
Mass is what defines momentum. Not the other way around.
That is absolutely correct. All bodies with finite proper mass contains a finite amount of energy. The derivation of the E= m0c2 starts out with the assumption that the body posseses energy. This is something which is not proved in the derivation. Einstein assumed that the body had energy. He then showed that when the energy of the body decreases then the proper mass of the body decreases as well in direct proportion. This only demonstrates that a body posseses energy (which Einstein assumed before he started the derivation) and when that energy changes so too does the mass.But, what I see is even when an object as a kinetic energy = 0, these equations tell us there's energy. So, if I'm wrong, tell me please
Let me start by quoting my favorite physicist, Richard Feynman. In his lectures he statesheliocentricprose said:
That is in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol I - III, Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, Addison Wesley, (1963)(1989).
The concept of energy-mass equivalence, also known as E=mc^2, is a fundamental principle in physics that states that energy and mass are interchangeable and can be converted into one another. This concept was first proposed by Albert Einstein in his theory of special relativity.
E=mc^2 is related to nuclear reactions as it explains the significant amount of energy released during these reactions. In nuclear reactions, a small amount of mass is converted into a large amount of energy, according to the mass-energy equivalence principle.
Yes, E=mc^2 can be applied to everyday situations. For example, the energy produced by the sun is a result of the conversion of mass into energy through nuclear fusion. Additionally, the energy released from nuclear power plants is also a result of this principle.
The speed of light, denoted by the letter "c", is a constant in E=mc^2. This means that the amount of energy produced is directly proportional to the mass, and the speed of light squared. As the speed of light is a very large number, even a small amount of mass can produce a significant amount of energy.
Yes, E=mc^2 is still considered a valid concept and has been proven through various experiments and observations. It is a fundamental principle in physics and is used in many scientific fields, such as nuclear physics, astrophysics, and particle physics.