Is Matter Just Another Form of Energy in E=MC²?

[Andrew Mason]

So what you say here is inconsistent with your insistence that they are "the same thing".

I didn't invent the concept of mass-energy equivalence. When you add energy to an electron traveling at .9999999999999c the energy goes almost entirely into increasing the mass of the electron.

The root of the apparent difference between mass and energy is the distinction that we make between space and time. Einstein showed that space and time are observer dependent and not absolute. So if time and space are equivalent, space^2/time^2 cancel each other and mass=energy.

AM

 

[Mk]

You can convert one into the other

Its been said many times, and do not let it be asked again!

Would you say that a piece of bread is the same as the flame coming out of a candle?

Einstein said that mass and energy are equivalent.

When a piece of bread burns to a crisp and shrivels up, it loses mass. But most of the lost mass goes to solid flakes that come off the bread and to combusted carbon that gets released as carbon dioxide gas. This is essentially a chemical transformation and does little to exemplify mass-energy equivalence.

Of course, let's say you set the bread on fire (or set a wax candle on fire) and drop it into a container containing air on a very precisely calibrated weighing balance and seal the container completely. No mass can escape the sealed container, only energy can leave it.

By classical physics (Lavoisier attempted something like this), the reading on the balance should not change since the masses of the burnt residue and all the released gases etc should total the initial mass. But in fact, a very precise measurement would show the container losing mass. This exemplifies Einstein's mass-energy equivalence : the exothermic reaction occurring in the container releases chemical binding energy that then gets radiated off as photons that pass through the container into the external Universe or heat up the walls of the container (which will then radiate off that energy to the exterior). For the small quantity of chemical energy that is released, the decrease in mass will be really miniscule, which is why this setup would only work as a thought experiment.

I didn't intend to leave it at that, but rather have a systematic progress in developing the idea of why something can be "the same" and "different" at the same time, depending on what criteria one is using. So his teacher CAN be correct in saying that we cannot simply put on blinders and say matter is equal to energy simply based on that equation.

At the end of the day, one must realize that E=mc^2 is merely a mathematical formalism. It makes predictions that we can verify experimentally if we know what to look for. It does not give us an intuitive understanding of the nature of the relationship between mass and energy.

They can be transformed into one other but it is not the same as saying that they are "the same". I would not say that it is the same to have an unexploded atomic bomb resting on my desk as to have an atomic explosion in my office...

The electrons are tiny little pieces of matter, as we understand them today. Not energy, although it holds an amount of energy. E=mc².

 

[Mk]

I've gone through years and years of schooling, and if there is one thing that I have learned, it is THAT. I know that personally, I find such satisfaction when it is a problem that I solved myself. A student, especially, need that kind of self-esteem, especially when the road ahead into graduate school and employment can be bumpy.

So how does one guide things through? I learn this from the BEST instructors that I've ever had in college. You instead ask the student to think of something similar, or ask what he/she meant, or figure out what he/she knows and START from that. That was my intention in asking that question - to get the originator to think about the question itself and see if by looking at it closely, he can figure out "Ah ha! It depends on what I use to say something to be "the same"! Holy cow! My question, and how I ask it, can some time dictates the answer that I could get!" This is the FIRST step in becoming a physicist - being aware of what question you should ask of Nature and how that question can some time effect the type of answer that you get!

Erm, well, that's what I meant.

Einstein showed that space and time are observer dependent and not absolute. So if time and space are equivalent, space^2/time^2 cancel each other and mass=energy.

Uhm, what? How did you go from time and space being equivalent to mass equalling energy? The relation between space and time are kind of like matter and energy, although I don't know how to explain.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Your keyboard you are typing on is massive. I would like to see you define your keyboard as the inertia carried by n photons.

Ok. Let's define the unit of energy and mass as a Gork which is 5.5x10^24 photons emitted by Hydrogen when its electron undergoes the n=2 to n=1 energy transition (\nu = 2.47\cdot 10^{15} sec^{-1}.

My laptop has a mass of about 2x10^10 Gorks or 20 gigaGorks (written 20 gG). It also has an energy of 20 gG.

AM

 

[Curious3141]

Ok. Let's define the unit of energy and mass as a Gork which is 5.5x10^24 photons emitted by Hydrogen when its electron undergoes the n=2 to n=1 energy transition (\nu = 2.47\cdot 10^{15} sec^{-1}.

My laptop has a mass of about 2x10^10 Gorks or 20 gigaGorks (written 20 gG). It also has an energy of 20 gG.

AM

"Gork" ! This is becoming more entertaining than most episodes of Seinfeld !

 

[Andrew Mason]

Uhm, what? How did you go from time and space being equivalent to mass equalling energy? The relation between space and time are kind of like matter and energy, although I don't know how to explain.

E = mc^2 Since c = distance/time, if distance and time were in the same units, E would have the same units as m.

AM

 

[Mk]

E = mc^2 Since c = distance/time, if distance and time were in the same units, E would have the same units as m.

But distance and time aren't in the same units. They're in meters and seconds respectively. Are meters and seconds the same? Space and time aren't the same! Just like matter and energy, they are only very closely related, and not quite the same thing.

I like the Gork thing.

 

[ZapperZ]

I didn't invent the concept of mass-energy equivalence. When you add energy to an electron traveling at .9999999999999c the energy goes almost entirely into increasing the mass of the electron.

The root of the apparent difference between mass and energy is the distinction that we make between space and time. Einstein showed that space and time are observer dependent and not absolute. So if time and space are equivalent, space^2/time^2 cancel each other and mass=energy.

AM

IF time and space are equivalent??! Hello? Which parallel universe are you living in right now?

You are being very sloppy in this whole debacle. You want to tell me that we know nothing about the structure of things, and yet, you go against THAT advice yourself by insisting that you know E = M, while IGNORING other properties of M that are not contained in E. All you care about is "conversion" automatically means "equal". It is YOU who is making this blatant assumption of things. You contradict yourself.

Zz.

 

[Mk]

Jeez Zz, keep your cool. Don't use caps, it has the effect of yelling, even if you are. Smart people don't yell.

 

[ZapperZ]

Jeez Zz, keep your cool. Don't use caps, it has the effect of yelling, even if you are. Smart people don't yell.

But I'm not smart. So I YELL!

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

for post 47

Okay, so energy and mass are equivalent, just different forms of the same thing. I think most of us got that.

However, I came to this thread, not to hijack it, but to not make a new thread(keeps the board cleaner), since someone is already talking about this:

Why C^2? E=MC^2, but why is it the speed of light squared?

Just wondering.

I remembered seeing something about that on NOVA:



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ance-sq.html



The 'science' behind the c^2 isn't exactly a 'eureka' moment the way it's explained in the two paragraphs (at the bottom of that page). In fact, it seems rather un-scientific. I like their terminology, " did suddenly appear " for the explanation--- .

 

[rbj]

I didn't invent the concept of mass-energy equivalence. When you add energy to an electron traveling at 0.9999999999999c the energy goes almost entirely into increasing the mass of the electron.

from the POV of the observer that the electron is whizzing past at 0.9999999999999c.

Andrew, for some reason it has become out of vogue to think in terms of relativistic mass.

E = m c^2 = E_0 + T

makes sense when m is relativistic mass and

E_0 = m_0 c^2

is rest energy (i think this is the equation most people mean when they say " E = mc² " and T is kinetic energy (energy which depends on who is watching).

The root of the apparent difference between mass and energy is the distinction that we make between space and time. Einstein showed that space and time are observer dependent and not absolute. So if time and space are equivalent, space^2/time^2 cancel each other and mass=energy.

this equating of dimensions can, in my opinion, eventually lead to madness. so if we equate space and time (there's an arrow of time, but there is no arrow of space outside the event horizon of a black hole) that is effectively setting c = 1. that means (besides that length is the same thing as time), that

E = m c^2

becomes

E = m

and energy is the same thing (or same dimension) as mass.

why stop there? let's do like Planck and set \hbar = 1 and G = 1. so

E = \hbar \omega

becomes

E = \omega

and energy (which is the same as mass) is the same thing as frequency or 1/time. and since time is length, then mass is the same as 1/length. now

E = G \frac{M m}{r}

becomes

E = \frac{M m}{r}

so now energy (the same thing as mass) is the same as mass² x length^-1. that says the same thing that mass is the same as length.

so length = 1/length? or time = 1/time? or mass = 1/mass? all this would be true if we say that length (or space), time, or mass are all dimensionless.

so, for my money, either:

1. there is such a thing as different dimensions of physical quantity and mass is not the same as length nor is the same as time. (so energy is not dimensionally the same thing as mass.) i would also view electric charge as a fundamental dimension, but the cgs people might not.

or

2. there is no such meaningful thing as dimension of physical quantity and they are just human constructions which no deep physical correspondence.

that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[rewebster]

I'm really (really) surprized that there isn't some one making a comment on the origins of the c^2 (from the NOVA link-post 61).


Is the c^2 just 'accepted' ? as 'the' maximum speed possible transposed? justified from a ball in clay?

 

[Universe_Man]

Hey everyone, thanks for the input, I really apppreciate it. It would seem that I have much more to learn on the subject.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm really (really) surprized that there isn't some one making a comment on the origins of the c^2 (from the NOVA link-post 61).


Is the c^2 just 'accepted' ? as 'the' maximum speed possible transposed? justified from a ball in clay?

That's an interesting story on the origin of the concept of energy, but it isn't all that relevant here. It seems like you think that is the entire basis for squaring velocity in any equation, including Einstein's. It is nowhere near as trivial as you are implying. It was derived mathematically for its application in E=mc^2. And it isn't "just 'accepted'", it is accepted because it is well supported by the evidence available.

Part of the mathematical derivation, on a basic level, Blahness, is that the units have to work out. Energy has the units mV^2, so that's what it has to be, whether Newtonian or relativistic. If Einstein had come up with anything else, it wouldn't have been consistent with the definition of "energy".

 

[rewebster]

It seems like you think that is the entire basis for squaring velocity in any equation

no, I didn't mean that or mean to imply that

Energy has the units mV^2, so that's what it has to be, whether Newtonian or relativistic.

yes

If Einstein had come up with anything else, it wouldn't have been consistent with the definition of "energy".

This is the part of his idea of his theory that I have trouble with.

And it isn't "just 'accepted'", it is accepted because it is well supported by the evidence available.

the evidence supports his theory as long as you go "by his theory"

 

[DaveC426913]

the evidence supports his theory as long as you go "by his theory"

You've got the cart before the horse.

If there is a theory out there that better describes the evidence, we're all ears.

 

[Kalouste]

The answer to your question can be found on this book: http://www.davidbodanis.com/books/emc2/" .

6th chapter, «2»

The post's question is why c is squared. The author, after a brief introduction about Emile du Châtelet and Voltaire introduces few reasons for c being squared. You should look up.

Good Luck.

Edit: Thanks for the correction rewebster.

You can also watch a video presentation with David Bodanis himself to learn more about the book: http://www.meettheauthor.com/bookbites/397.html

 

[rewebster]

The big question is why c is squared.

Well, I don't think that's the big question. The BIG question is rather it's right or not.



Is there a 'published' theory out there?

Not that I've read that I (me, personally) discern to be 'correct' as that they (those theories) can't answer all (everyone's/most people's) concerns (from my knowledge --which would not be as great as 'x'% of the people on this forum--where 'x' is an unknown); and, of course, I haven't read them all---and someone could spend time^2 reading all (everything relating to and about physics and/or philosophy) that's out there (published, unpublished, on the web, written on napkins hidden in books).


And if you're asking the question that I (may, can) assume (induct,deduct) you're asking---that's the reason I initially found the Physics Forum.

Did that answer your question?

PS:
I guess you really didn't state it as a question, though, so...

 

[Andrew Mason]

Well, I don't think that's the big question. The BIG question is rather it's right or not.

It is not whether it is right or wrong in the sense of being a true description of physical reality. Science does not work that way. Any theory is 'correct' so long as it is consistent with all the evidence. Theories can only be disproven. They can never be proven absolutely true. One fact will destroy the most elegant theory. A gazillion facts will not make it 'absolutely true'.

All Einstein did was derive, from very few simple principles, a mathematical and conceptual model of matter and energy that, to date, is completely consistent with all physical observation. In a hundred years, no one has been able to find a fact that is inconsistent Einstein's theory.

You don't have to believe that Einstein's theory of relativity represents 'truth' or 'reality'. But it is irrational to think there is something wrong with it if you are unable to identify a fact that it is inconsistent with.

AM

 

[rewebster]

It is not whether it is right or wrong in the sense of being a true description of physical reality. Science does not work that way. Any theory is 'correct' so long as it is consistent with all the evidence. Theories can only be disproven. They can never be proven absolutely true. One fact will destroy the most elegant theory. A gazillion facts will not make it 'absolutely true'.AM

yes---and I think I've read something like that before someplace

All Einstein did was derive, from very few simple principles, a mathematical and conceptual model of matter and energy that, to date, is completely consistent with all physical observation. In a hundred years, no one has been able to find a fact that is inconsistent Einstein's theory.

You don't have to believe that Einstein's theory of relativity represents 'truth' or 'reality'. But it is irrational to think there is something wrong with it if you are unable to identify a fact that it is inconsistent with.
AM

but if this were true, then there would not have been any reasons why Quantum Physics and all of its derivatives would have come about.




There are inconsistencies.

 

[ZapperZ]

but if this were true, then there would not have been any reasons why Quantum Physics and all of its derivatives would have come about.

Er... say what?

There are inconsistencies.

What are they?

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

the actions/interactions around and in the atom

 

[ZapperZ]

the actions/interactions around and in the atom

.. and how is this inconsistent with anything? And please, make a complete description of it and show the citation that you are basing this claim on, keeping in mind our guidelines.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the part of his idea of his theory that I have trouble with.

Please explain - what is the problem?

the evidence supports his theory as long as you go "by his theory"

Huh? What other way is there to test his theory? You can't count ducks at a pond and say the number of ducks isn't what Einstein predicted in Relativity - to test relativity, you have to test relativity. That tautology is pretty basic.

The BIG question is rather it's right or not.

And how does science figure out if it is right or not?

Honestly, you're not being real clear/specific on what the issue you have with Relativity is: it just seems like some vague discomfort with the theory's implications.

but if this were true, then there would not have been any reasons why Quantum Physics and all of its derivatives would have come about.

You do understand that Relativity and QM describe two different things, right? QM wasn't created to correct Relativity, it addresses issues outside the scope of Relativity.

 

[rewebster]

I'm not saying there are not inconsistencies with QM (a theory too), either-

-but isn't that why the two theories exist, and they can't be totally and successfully entwined? Don't both have inconsistencies and are not completely compatible?----for their own varies reasons of inconsistency and are not combined because of their incompatibility.

 

[rewebster]

I hate it when I have a message typed and I've been 'timed' out and lose my response. (I know---put a check in the 'remember me' next time)

 

[russ_watters]

-but isn't that why the two theories exist, and they can't be totally and successfully entwined? Don't both have inconsistencies and are not completely compatible?----for their own varies reasons of inconsistency and are not combined because of their incompatibility.

No. It isn't that they are incompatible or inconsistent. They are two different theories that discuss two different things. Scientists would like to combine them into a single "theory of everything", but for the moment, both work just fine in their separate domains of applicability.

It is starting to sound like like you have heard vague objections to the theories and because of that you think there are problems with them...but you don't know what those problems are. That's why you are not explaining what you think the problems are. Am I correct?

 

[rewebster]

Please explain - what is the problem?

Huh? What other way is there to test his theory? You can't count ducks at a pond and say the number of ducks isn't what Einstein predicted in Relativity - to test relativity, you have to test relativity. That tautology is pretty basic.


And how does science figure out if it is right or not?

Honestly, you're not being real clear/specific on what the issue you have with Relativity is: it just seems like some vague discomfort with the theory's implications.


You do understand that Relativity and QM describe two different things, right? QM wasn't created to correct Relativity, it addresses issues outside the scope of Relativity.

A lot of people have a problem with it (SR). Those who use it or have to use it accept it as what it is. They are people who are all the way up and down the Bell curve for their admiration of it, and a separate curve who think there's something wrong with it to 'its perfect'. MY problem is that I don't think its right (from my own reasons which I can't discuss on the forum).


As far as testing his theory, it depends on what you have in mind before you start testing. Is someone 'testing his theory' or are they doing a test 'looking for' results to prove or disprove his theory? In other words, would this test be done if his theory wasn't even known and how would the results be interpreted? How would the results fit in anywhere (in any theory)? (and yes, I know its one of the best theories we have---and, yes, the other 'best theory we have' is quantum based).


(started that at 2:30 --with interruptions-finished 2:57)


They are two different things trying to explain all/most of the same things. They both have similarities and both have been built on the same foundations. Would SR been the same if quantum would have been put out twenty years earlier, say 1885? I never said they were the same. And yes, wouldn't it be great if they were combined?

 

[jtbell]

Um... we have a very successful theory that combines special relativity and quantum mechanics. It's called Quantum Electrodynamics.

 

[rewebster]

----it may do a better job -- (from what I've read)--but is it 'right' ?

but, does it explain everything? I know people have to use 'something' and hopefully the 'best'.

 

[rewebster]

Um... we have a very successful theory that combines special relativity and quantum mechanics. It's called Quantum Electrodynamics.

I needed a


jtbell:

OK---from 1% to 100% , where would you fit QED on the ' it's right ' scale?

(not the "it's the one I use" scale)

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not saying there are not inconsistencies with QM (a theory too), either-

-but isn't that why the two theories exist, and they can't be totally and successfully entwined? Don't both have inconsistencies and are not completely compatible?----for their own varies reasons of inconsistency and are not combined because of their incompatibility.

What EXACTLY is incompatible here? SR has been incorporated inside of QM. That is why we have QFT/QED/Dirac equation, etc.

So I am still waiting for this inconsistency here. Point out exactly and explicitly where SR and QM don't agree. You are verging on crackpottery here.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Mostly, I'm just questioning the validity of theories.

It seems from the amount of theories and postulates to those theories to "correct" them, that the right explanation still doesn't exist. It seems like that's the reason for many experiments (gravity wave, the CERN labs, etc.). We don't know yet and we want to know more. If we have QFT/QED/Dirac equation, etc., why is there a MWI?

Is it wrong to question why we have to have so many postulates to theories to 'correct' them (just thinking about Occam's razor)?

I haven't found any thing in SR to explain electricity. -maybe there is.

 

[ZapperZ]

Mostly, I'm just questioning the validity of theories.

It seems from the amount of theories and postulates to those theories to "correct" them, that the right explanation still doesn't exist. It seems like that's the reason for many experiments (gravity wave, the CERN labs, etc.). We don't know yet and we want to know more. If we have QFT/QED/Dirac equation, etc., why is there a MWI?

Is it wrong to question why we have to have so many postulates to theories to 'correct' them (just thinking about Occam's razor)?

I haven't found any thing in SR to explain electricity. -maybe there is.

1. You are confusing the FORMALISM with INTERPRETATION!

2. You are confusing your ignorance of the subject matter to mean there's no explanation.

3. You are confusing your ignorance of the empirical evidence to mean something isn't valid.

4. There is a difference between questioning something based on VALID evidence, either logically or experimentally, versus questioning it by throwing out random phrases without undrestanding what they mean.

This thread is done, thanks to your hijacking of it.

Zz.