Mass creation from m=e/c^2. is it even possible?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter avolaster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Creation even Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical possibility of creating mass from energy, specifically using the equation m=e/c². Participants explore the implications of this equation in the context of electrical energy in conductive materials and nuclear reactions, raising questions about mass-energy conversion and the nature of mass itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that coiling a conductive wire and running electrons through it with a specific amount of energy could theoretically create mass, but acknowledges the practical impossibility of such a scenario.
  • Another participant argues that energy in the coil is in a different form and cannot be directly converted to mass without a corresponding mass being consumed, such as uranium in a reactor.
  • Some participants assert that mass cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred, and emphasize the conservation of energy principle.
  • There are discussions about the efficiency of uranium in reactors, with some noting that typically only a small fraction of uranium is converted to energy, raising questions about the mass-energy conversion process.
  • One participant mentions that the energy associated with accelerating a charged object theoretically increases its mass, introducing the concept of relativistic mass.
  • Another participant challenges the distinction between relativistic mass and inertial mass, discussing how potential energy can affect inertia when photons are emitted or absorbed.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about the nature of mass and whether the energy contained in various forms can contribute to mass creation.
  • There is a claim that if a nuclear reactor consumes a certain amount of fuel, it could theoretically create an equivalent mass through the circuit, though this is framed as a highly energy-intensive process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the feasibility of creating mass from energy, with no consensus reached on the theoretical implications or practical applications of the concepts discussed.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include unresolved questions about the definitions of mass, energy conversion efficiencies in nuclear reactions, and the theoretical frameworks surrounding mass-energy equivalence. Some assumptions about the practicality of energy conversion processes remain unaddressed.

avolaster
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
take a cunductive wire. coil it (for conventional space) then run electrons through it with 8.98755179 × 10^16 J (the same number for the speed of light squared) of energy. ( i realize that doing that is nearly or completely impossible). using the equation m=e/c^2 e and c^2 are the same. meaning that, at least theoretically, you would have 1 kg of mass, weighing about 9.8 N. anyways it's all cool theoretically, but would it actually create mass considering that the conductive wire could handle such energy or just waste a good atomic bomb?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It would require 1kg of mass to produce the energy in the coil, assuming the mass is uranium in a reactor connected to your coil.

Now the energy in the coil is energy in a different form. Electricity, it is no longer in the form of Mass.

Energy is conserved.

To answer the question of creating mass from other forms of energy such as heat or electricity though. I am not familiar with any experiments of the sort, the question of what exactly mass is I think is still very fuzzy. It is likely a relativistic correction of some sort on a very fundamental level. I think the last I heard physicists are still trying to understand why particles have the exact mass they do. The Higgs field theory also attempts to tackle the problem.
 
Last edited:
You cannot create or destroy mass. You can only transfer it around, just like energy.
 
LostConjugate said:
It would require 1kg of mass to produce the energy in the coil, assuming the mass is uranium in a reactor connected to your coil.

Now the energy in the coil is energy in a different form. Electricity, it is no longer in the form of Mass.

Energy is conserved.

To answer the question of creating mass from other forms of energy such as heat or electricity though. I am not familiar with any experiments of the sort, the question of what exactly mass is I think is still very fuzzy. It is likely a relativistic correction of some sort on a very fundamental level. I think the last I heard physicists are still trying to understand why particles have the exact mass they do. The Higgs field theory also attempts to tackle the problem.

Actually, the energy associated with accelerating a charged sphere, as an example, does increase its mass slightly, according to theory.

It's interesting to think about if the energy contained in a magnetic or electric field can actually act a source of gravitation if the density is high enough...
 
LostConjugate said:
It would require 1kg of mass to produce the energy in the coil, assuming the mass is uranium in a reactor connected to your coil.

It would require 1kg Uranium only if ALL the atoms of uranium are converted to energy. Usually its is around 2-3%, not 100%.
 
supratim1 said:
It would require 1kg Uranium only if ALL the atoms of uranium are converted to energy. Usually its is around 2-3%, not 100%.
Not quite. A 1 GWe reactor requires about 3 GW of heating power. This is about 100 million GJ or 10^17 Joules. Divide this by the square of the speed of light (about 10^17 m^2/sec^2) and you get the mass equivalent - 1 Kg actually converted to energy.

However, a 1 GWe reactor will use about 25 Tonnes (25,000 kg) of enriched uranium in a year, or about 175 T (175,000 kg) of natural U. So the 1 kg of mass equivalent of energy represents about .004 percent of the actual input enriched U mass or about .0006 percent of the input natural U mass.

AM
 
so it means that 100% is not utilised, only a small fraction is converted to energy.
 
supratim1 said:
so it means that 100% is not utilised, only a small fraction is converted to energy.
Yes. About half of the U235 undergoes fission. This is about 2-3% of the total uranium fuel for reactors using enriched U fuel (about .5% of unenriched U in reactors using natural U - eg. Candu), but only a tiny fraction of the fissioned U mass is transformed into energy.

AM
 
supratim1 said:
It would require 1kg Uranium only if ALL the atoms of uranium are converted to energy. Usually its is around 2-3%, not 100%.

That is why the reactor has 50kg of Uranium ready to go. I only stated that once it converts the mass to electrical energy it has converted 1kg. It is simplified yes. :)
 
  • #10
pergradus said:
Actually, the energy associated with accelerating a charged sphere, as an example, does increase its mass slightly, according to theory.

It's interesting to think about if the energy contained in a magnetic or electric field can actually act a source of gravitation if the density is high enough...

That is relativistic mass, only measured as higher mass from a relative reference frame.
 
  • #11
LostConjugate said:
That is relativistic mass, only measured as higher mass from a relative reference frame.
No. It is inertial mass. Potential energy in any form can be converted to electromagnetic energy in the form of photos of energy E = h\nu. A mass that emits a photon has its inertia is diminished by an amount m = h\nu/c^2. A mass that absorbs such a photon has its inertia increased by the same amount. So the more potential energy that an object has, the greater its inertia.

AM
 
  • #12
It was my understanding that in OP's example, the wire WOULD in fact weigh 1kg more. Electrical, chemical, mechanical, nuclear, heat...whatever the energy, it's going to equal mc^2. Is that not the case?
 
  • #13
Lsos said:
It was my understanding that in OP's example, the wire WOULD in fact weigh 1kg more. Electrical, chemical, mechanical, nuclear, heat...whatever the energy, it's going to equal mc^2. Is that not the case?
Yes, that is correct.

AM
 
  • #14
avolaster said:
take a cunductive wire. coil it (for conventional space) then run electrons through it with 8.98755179 × 10^16 J (the same number for the speed of light squared) of energy. ( i realize that doing that is nearly or completely impossible). using the equation m=e/c^2 e and c^2 are the same. meaning that, at least theoretically, you would have 1 kg of mass, weighing about 9.8 N. anyways it's all cool theoretically, but would it actually create mass considering that the conductive wire could handle such energy or just waste a good atomic bomb?

Yes, if you use an nuclear reactor that consumes 1kg of fuel (the fuel lost 1kg of mass), then you are creating another 1kg of mass via the circuit, e.g. heat, when molecules are heated they gain mass. But that is quite a sum of energy, probably much greater than the most powerful lighntening. If you are not going to commit suiside, better not do that.
 
  • #15
supratim1 said:
It would require 1kg Uranium only if ALL the atoms of uranium are converted to energy. Usually its is around 2-3%, not 100%.

Then you can use 50kg uranium, but that is probably a super A-bomb, which probably can destroy a small country.
 
  • #16
yes it can. 100% efficiency will be hell for a bomb, and heaven for a power plant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
11K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K