# T or F: Mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction

• Topher925
In summary: But the mass is still lost, and the mass-energy equivalence is still valid.In summary, the statement that mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction is false. The relationship E=mc2 simply states a mass-energy equivalence, but mass can also be lost or gained in other processes such as chemical reactions. The examples given in the conversation are correct, but may require a re-interpretation of the system being considered.
Topher925
T or F: "Mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction"

"Mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction", quote anonymous authority figure.

Someone, perhaps an educator at my university, repeatedly makes the above statement and states its because of the relationship E=mc2. Every time I hear this person say this, I cry bull@#$% as I do not believe this to be true. It is my understanding that the above equation merely states a mass-energy equivalence in which the mass of the body has an energy equivalence. Some simple examples: -A charged battery has more equivalent mass than an identical discharged battery. -A pen sitting on a shelf has more equivalent mass than an identical pen sitting on the floor. -1kg of water at 100'C has more equivalent mass than 1kg of water at 25'C. Am I wrong about this? Every time this argument comes up, people, perhaps other educators, tell me that my above examples are completely wrong. Am I missing something here or am I just surrounded by incompetence? Last edited: What exactly do they mean by their satement? Other than in particle colliders I am unaware where we can create any matter. And nuclear reactions don't destroy matter either as far as I know, but merely convert them into different elements. Hi Topher925! Topher925 said: "Mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction", quote anonymous authority figure. They mean rest-mass. Energy is mass, and mass is energy, so obviously for example a hot spring has more mass than an identical cold spring, and so does a compressed spring. But they all have the same rest-mass … no rest-mass has been created or destroyed. Someone, perhaps an educator at my university, repeatedly makes the above statement and states its because of the relationship E=mc2. Every time I hear this person say I cry bull@#$% as I do not believe this to be true. It is my understanding that the above equation merely states a mass-energy equivalence in which the mass of the body has an energy equivalence.

e=mc² can either mean what you describe, or it can simply refer to rest-mass.

Talking about rest-mass is far more convenient … for a particular body, it doesn't change.

tiny-tim said:
Hi Topher925!

They mean rest-mass.

Energy is mass, and mass is energy, so obviously for example a hot spring has more mass than an identical cold spring, and so does a compressed spring.

But they all have the same rest-mass … no rest-mass has been created or destroyed. e=mc² can either mean what you describe, or it can simply refer to rest-mass.

Talking about rest-mass is far more convenient … for a particular body, it doesn't change.

You just confused me Tim. If you mean to say that they meant rest-mass, then that refers to rest-mass being created or destroyed. But then you later say that rest-mass doesn't change for a particular body.

Is that true for all processes or just nuclear processes?

Topher925 said:
But then you later say that rest-mass doesn't change for a particular body.

Is that true for all processes or just nuclear processes?

I was envisaging that if the body took part in a nuclear reaction, we wouldn't call it the same body afterwards.

Topher925 said:
Some simple examples:
-A charged battery has more equivalent mass than an identical discharged battery.
-A pen sitting on a shelf has more equivalent mass than an identical pen sitting on the floor.
-1kg of water at 100'C has more equivalent mass than 1kg of water at 25'C.
It's my understanding that if you had a sensitive enough scale (probably not possible with current technology), you'd be able to detect the weight (and hence mass) difference of the first and third. For the second, the mass is in the earth-pen system.

Topher925 said:
"Mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction", quote anonymous authority figure.

Someone, perhaps an educator at my university, repeatedly makes the above statement and states its because of the relationship E=mc2. Every time I hear this person say I cry bull@#$% as I do not believe this to be true. It is my understanding that the above equation merely states a mass-energy equivalence in which the mass of the body has an energy equivalence. Some simple examples: -A charged battery has more equivalent mass than an identical discharged battery. -A pen sitting on a shelf has more equivalent mass than an identical pen sitting on the floor. -1kg of water at 100'C has more equivalent mass than 1kg of water at 25'C. Am I wrong about this? Every time this argument comes up, people, perhaps other educators, tell me that my above examples are completely wrong. Am I missing something here or am I just surrounded by incompetence? In any interaction the total inertial mass is fixed. You are correct in your second paragraph as indeed the famous Einstein mass-energy equation merely states an equivalence. in your simple examples the first and third are correct. The second needs a slight re-interpretation in that it is the system comprising the Earth plus the pen that has to be considered as a whole. In getting from being at rest on the shelf to being at rest on the floor the loss of potential energy has resulted in that potential energy being converted into some other form, and the inertial mass of the Earth now includes the mass equivalent of that lost potential energy. (But where that mass equivalent now resides is less clear and depends on the details of the process.) So your final question comes about because the answers you had received were based on unstated assumptions on the part of those answering. Topher925 said: "Mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction", quote anonymous authority figure. False, but nuclear reactions are so energetic that the mass deficit is significant and easily measurable. The mass lost in a chemical reaction is so small that it would be very difficult to detect. Does pair production count as a "nuclear reaction"? Rest mass is lost/gained by molecules in ordinary chemical reactions. The statement is absolutely false. Everyones comments are good and true but miss the authority's point. They mean that chemical reactions do not alter the atomic numbers of the constituent atoms but nuclear reactions would. Topher925 said: "Mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction", quote anonymous authority figure. Someone, perhaps an educator at my university, repeatedly makes the above statement and states its because of the relationship E=mc2. Every time I hear this person say this, I cry bull@#$% as I do not believe this to be true. It is my understanding that the above equation merely states a mass-energy equivalence in which the mass of the body has an energy equivalence.

Yeah, everytime I hear it too, I find that the two extremes on the issue gear up for war. Perhaps I can shed some light on the issue.

The formula E=mc2 comes from a more basic formula in SR, which is
E^2=p2c2+m2c4

When p=momentum=0 then we get E=mc2. Thus the formula tells us the energy that can be accounted for due to an object's mass. Mass is defined as the amount of matter in an object. - Note that this also means that E=mc2 does not apply for moving objects since if m/=0 and v/=0 then p/=0.

Another thing to realize is that not all energy is equivalent. The prominent example is the difference between kinetic energy, defined as the energy due to motion, and potential energy, defined as the energy due to the force applied on the object. There is a propensity for some people to simply declare all energy the same and then conclude all kinds of nonsense.

Topher925 said:
Some simple examples:
-A charged battery has more equivalent mass than an identical discharged battery.
-A pen sitting on a shelf has more equivalent mass than an identical pen sitting on the floor.
-1kg of water at 100'C has more equivalent mass than 1kg of water at 25'C.

All of these examples are a result of confusing different kinds of energy with the energy that is just due to mass. However there are examples where E=mc2 can be correctly applied:

-Main sequence stars burn hydrogen to helium in a nuclear reaction called the proton-proton chain. As a result for every atom of helium produced about 0.7% of the mass of four hydrogen atoms disappears and gets converted to electromagnetic radiation that has energy given by E=mc2.
-In PET-scans, electrons and positrons (anti-matter of electrons) collide and produce two 511 keV X-ray photons. A calculation shows that this follows E=mc2 exaclty, since photons have no mass.

Topher925 said:
Am I wrong about this? Every time this argument comes up, people, perhaps other educators, tell me that my above examples are completely wrong. Am I missing something here or am I just surrounded by incompetence?

No, you're not *completely* wrong on this. The essense is that even though different forms of energy can be converted to one another, they are not exactly equivalent.

PS= Apologies for not using TeX, but it seems to be screwing up on this machine. I'll figure it out.

kg4pae said:
The formula E=mc2 comes from a more basic formula in SR, which is
E^2=p2c2+m2c4

When p=momentum=0 then we get E=mc2. Thus the formula tells us the energy that can be accounted for due to an object's mass. Mass is defined as the amount of matter in an object. - Note that this also means that E=mc2 does not apply for moving objects since if m/=0 and v/=0 then p/=0.

Really, I think this only rekindles the fires of confusion.

E2=p2c2+m2c4 is the Lorentz invariant equation for a closed system. It tells us nothing about the distribution of
energy and momentum.

Without a Lorentz boost it reduces to E2=m2c4 in the center of mass frame.

Another thing to realize is that not all energy is equivalent. The prominent example is the difference between kinetic energy, defined as the energy due to motion, and potential energy, defined as the energy due to the force applied on the object. There is a propensity for some people to simply declare all energy the same and then conclude all kinds of nonsense.

All of these examples are a result of confusing different kinds of energy with the energy that is just due to mass. However there are examples where E=mc2 can be correctly applied:

-Main sequence stars burn hydrogen to helium in a nuclear reaction called the proton-proton chain. As a result for every atom of helium produced about 0.7% of the mass of four hydrogen atoms disappears and gets converted to electromagnetic radiation that has energy given by E=mc2.

Now this is what I'm talking about. The energy does not "disappear" and get converted to radiation. The electromagnetic radiation had better have nonzero mass and zero momentum or the conservation of both energy and momentum have been violated.

Last edited:

kg4pae said:
Some simple examples:
-A charged battery has more equivalent mass than an identical discharged battery.
-A pen sitting on a shelf has more equivalent mass than an identical pen sitting on the floor.
-1kg of water at 100'C has more equivalent mass than 1kg of water at 25'C.
All of these examples are a result of confusing different kinds of energy with the energy that is just due to mass.
Absolutely wrong. Charged battery has greater chemical potential energy than uncharged. Chemical potential energy contributes to rest mass. Pen at the shelf has more gravitational potential energy. Gravitational potential energy contributes to rest mass. A hot glass of water has more thermal energy. Thermal energy contributes to rest mass of an object.

All of these can be converted to kinetic energy which does not contribute to rest mass, "destroying" mass in the process.
Everyones comments are good and true but miss the authority's point.

They mean that chemical reactions do not alter the atomic numbers of the constituent atoms but nuclear reactions would.
Change in mass and change in quantum numbers of a nucleus are two entirely different subjects. The authority figure is wrong. No further discussion is necessary on that.

## 1. Is it true that mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction?

Yes, this is true. According to the law of conservation of mass, mass cannot be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction or any other process outside of a nuclear reaction. In a nuclear reaction, matter can be converted into energy and vice versa, resulting in a change in mass.

## 2. How does a nuclear reaction create or destroy mass?

In a nuclear reaction, the nuclei of atoms are either split apart (fission) or fused together (fusion). This results in a change in the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, which in turn affects the mass of the atom. Some of this mass is converted into energy in accordance with Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.

## 3. Can mass be created or destroyed in any other type of reaction?

No, mass can only be created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction due to the release or absorption of nuclear binding energy. In chemical reactions, the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus remains unchanged, therefore mass is conserved.

## 4. Is it possible to convert mass into energy without a nuclear reaction?

No, it is not possible to convert mass into energy without a nuclear reaction. In order for mass to be converted into energy, a large amount of energy is required, which can only be obtained through a nuclear reaction.

## 5. Can mass be destroyed completely in a nuclear reaction?

No, mass cannot be completely destroyed in a nuclear reaction. While some mass may be converted into energy, the law of conservation of mass states that the total mass of the reactants must be equal to the total mass of the products. Therefore, mass is always conserved in a nuclear reaction.

• Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
11
Views
596
• High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
9K
• High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
4K
• Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
5
Views
900
• High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
49
Views
2K
• High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
3K
• High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
17
Views
2K