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

[avolaster]

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?

 

[LostConjugate]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

You cannot create or destroy mass. You can only transfer it around, just like energy.

 

[pergradus]

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...

 

[supratim1]

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%.

 

[Andrew Mason]

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

 

[supratim1]

so it means that 100% is not utilised, only a small fraction is converted to energy.

 

[Andrew Mason]

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

 

[LostConjugate]

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. :)

 

[LostConjugate]

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.

 

[Andrew Mason]

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

 

[Lsos]

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?

 

[Andrew Mason]

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

 

[ZealScience]

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.

 

[ZealScience]

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.

 

[supratim1]

yes it can. 100% efficiency will be hell for a bomb, and heaven for a power plant.