Mass to energy conversion in living beings

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of mass to energy conversion in living beings, particularly in the context of food consumption and metabolic processes. Participants explore the implications of the mass-energy equivalence principle, E=mc², and its applicability to biological systems, including the challenges of measuring mass changes in everyday life.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the mass of food consumed (m1) equals the sum of waste produced (m2), body mass increase (m3), and energy gained (Eg) according to E=mc², expressing doubt about the mass-energy equation due to perceived significant mass differences (Mdiff).
  • Another participant notes that while E=mc² is difficult to observe in everyday life due to the large conversion factor (c²), it remains valid, suggesting that common sense may not always align with physical principles.
  • Some participants argue that E=mc² is primarily applicable to nuclear reactions rather than chemical reactions, raising questions about the mass of molecules compared to their constituent atoms.
  • There is a discussion about the mass lost through breathing and sweating during exercise, with one participant emphasizing that weight loss occurs mainly through breathing and CO2 exhalation.
  • Participants debate the measurability of mass changes associated with chemical reactions, with some asserting that the changes are too small to be detected with standard equipment.
  • One participant provides a calculation related to the energy content of food, illustrating the minuscule mass equivalent of energy gained from consuming a Snickers bar, further emphasizing the challenges in observing mass-energy conversion in biological contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of E=mc² to biological processes, with some asserting it is not suitable for chemical reactions while others challenge this notion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the significance of mass changes in metabolic processes and the implications of these changes.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in measuring mass changes due to the small scale of changes associated with chemical reactions compared to nuclear reactions. There are also unresolved assumptions regarding the initial conditions and the complexity of metabolic processes.

n.karthick
Messages
245
Reaction score
0
I have a doubt regarding mass to energy conversion. Suppose I consume m1 kg of food at beginning of a day. Will it be equal to the mass of solid and liquid wastes out of my body on that day (say m2) and increase in mass of my body (say m3) and added to energy gained by me from that food (Eg) according to famous relation [itex]E=mc^{2}[/itex] (Let us assume initial conditions of my body to be zero). That is
[tex]m1=m2+m3 + \frac{Eg}{c^2}[/tex].
Since a small difference in mass (Mdiff=m1-(m2+m3)) is equivalent to enormous amount of energy, and by my common sense (which may be wrong) I feel Mdiff will be significant leading to energy gained Eg to be very high, I doubt the mass-energy equation. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
That's the problem with E=mc2, conversion factor (c2) is so large it makes is almost impossible to observe mass changes in the surrounding reality. But it doesn't make E=mc2 wrong, just impossible to observe in everydays life.

That's not the only thing that is hard to believe using just a common sense, time dilation or tunneling effect also don't make sense when you try to understand them using intuition trained to deal with low speed macroscopic objects. Does it make these effects wrong? No, just more interesting :biggrin:
 
Because of this, that equation really only works well for nuclear reactions. Not for chemical reactions.
 
Also, in your equation you missed mass lost due to breathing. Exercise doesn't really have much impact on urine or feces production. So when you exercise to lose weight you lose it chiefly in two ways:
1) sweating - water and electrolytes, replaced upon drinking
2) breathing - water and CO2, the water is replaced upon drinking and the CO2 represents the real weight loss
 
russ_watters said:
Because of this, that equation really only works well for nuclear reactions. Not for chemical reactions.

Are you sure about that? A water molecule does not have the same mass as 2 H's + 1 O, does it?
 
Russ stated "it only works well" - by which I suppose he meant that this equations can be easily used to calculate amount of energy liberated in nuclear reactions, but in other cases using it is a waste of time (even if technically correct).
 
Academic said:
Are you sure about that? A water molecule does not have the same mass as 2 H's + 1 O, does it?

Sure it does, not including relativistic effects.
 
By 'working well' I think we mean, 'we can measure the calculated change in mass.' Since c^2 is so big, the changes in mass associated with chemical reactions are tiny, where 'tiny' means they can't be measured with normal equipment.

Yes, of course the H2O molecule weighs less than the individual atoms - but I doubt you have a scale that can make that determination. And that's why the relationship (mass to energy) remained undiscovered for so long. And also why it was discovered by a guy with a pencil, rather than by someone in a lab coat.
 
n.karthick said:
I have a doubt regarding mass to energy conversion. Suppose I consume m1 kg of food at beginning of a day. Will it be equal to the mass of solid and liquid wastes out of my body on that day (say m2) and increase in mass of my body (say m3) and added to energy gained by me from that food (Eg) according to famous relation [itex]E=mc^{2}[/itex] (Let us assume initial conditions of my body to be zero). That is
[tex]m1=m2+m3 + \frac{Eg}{c^2}[/tex].
Since a small difference in mass (Mdiff=m1-(m2+m3)) is equivalent to enormous amount of energy, and by my common sense (which may be wrong) I feel Mdiff will be significant leading to energy gained Eg to be very high, I doubt the mass-energy equation. :confused:

This is a totally inappropriate approach. Humans consume about 2 kCal/day- figure out the mass equivalent from that.
 
  • #10
See my post #3 in

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=402825&highlight=snickers

A Snickers bar has about 19,900 joules per gram of metabolic (oxidation) energy, or about 2 x 107 joules per kilogram. Dividing by c2 = (3 x 108)2 yields 2.2 x 10-10 kilograms of pure energy-equivalent-mass per kilogram of food. (I think U235 fission is ~202 MeV per 220,000 MeV, or 9 x 10-4 kilograms per kilogram).

During the day, you will probably inhale about 0.7 kilograms of oxygen, and exhale about 1 kilogram of CO2 and 0.4 kilograms of water vapor. So you won't be able to detect the added M = E/c2 energy from a Snickers bar..

You can also use the energy-mass conversion: 1 fructose molecule (C6H12O6; 180 grams/GMW) = 29 eV of metabolic energy per molecule.

Bob S
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
17K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K