The Tritium Puzzle: Unravelling Mass-Energy Equivalence

In summary, it was questioned how 1 amu can be equal to 931.5 MeV and 1.66e-27 kg at the same time. This is due to the unit of energy, MeV, being used as a common currency for both mass and energy, with the conversion factor of c^2 being implied. Some argue that this convention is an error, while others view it as an efficient simplification. Ultimately, it is standard practice in physics to suppress c wherever possible, even though it may initially cause confusion.
  • #1
Stephen Bulking
54
10
TL;DR Summary
How can 1 amu = 931,5 MeV and 1.66e-27 kg at the same time? They have different units
I was finding the energy required to separate tritium into it's component parts, the binding energy when it hit me that how could 1amu= 931.2 MeV and 1.66e-27 kg at the same time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
E = mc²
 
  • #3
Stephen Bulking said:
Summary:: How can 1 amu = 931,5 MeV and 1.66e-27 kg at the same time? They have different units

I was finding the energy required to separate tritium into it's component parts, the binding energy when it hit me that how could 1amu= 931.2 MeV and 1.66e-27 kg at the same time?
The answer is laziness. The actual unit is MeV/c^2 where c is the speed of light. But when you’re talking about mass, sometimes you’ll just say MeV (which is a unit of energy) and the /c^2 is implied.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale, vanhees71 and etotheipi
  • #4
Isaac0427 said:
The answer is laziness. The actual unit is MeV/c^2 where c is the speed of light. But when you’re talking about mass, sometimes you’ll just say MeV (which is a unit of energy) and the /c^2 is implied.
Hah it's as simple as that, thanks man.
 
  • #5
Isaac0427 said:
The answer is laziness.
That could be a bit harsh. When you are amongst workers who are all doing the same thing, a choice of 'different' unit is quite acceptable. A measuring instrument may present its answers in a certain unit. Alternatively, you could be dealing with photons (Hz?) and massive particles (kg?) at the same time (nuclear reactions). The Energy would be a suitable common currency.

Another current thread mentioned the use of mpg, still, in the UK when we have bought motor fuel in litres for decades. Same thing.
 
  • #6
sophiecentaur said:
The Energy would be a suitable common currency.
Right, and I agree there is a conversion factor. To me, measuring mass in eV is like measuring mass in pounds. The conversion is implied, but it’s technically incorrect and can confuse students.
 
  • #7
Isaac0427 said:
Right, and I agree there is a conversion factor. To me, measuring mass in eV is like measuring mass in pounds. The conversion is implied, but it’s technically incorrect and can confuse students.
A very common convention is to use units where ##c=1##, and then measure time in units of length, or length in units of time (that's what a light second is - we just drop the "light" prefix). This is actually quite natural in relativistic physics because time is another direction in spacetime and it's odd to use different units for different directions. In such a system, mass and energy have the same unit because ##E=mc^2## simplifies to ##E=m##. Note that this isn't the same as your mass and weight confusion example, since weight is an interaction while mass is a property of a body.

Some people describe ##c=1## as an error on philosophical grounds, even if there are no practical consequences beyond some confusion. As I understand it they argue that there is a distinction between time and distance and so ##E=mc^2## remains ##E=mc^2## even if your units are such that the numerical value of ##c## is one. I seem to recall Terry Tao is one such. Others argue that if the only consequence of an error is confused students, well, it doesn't take long to learn and then it's consequence-free. The physics of the distinction between time and space is encoded in the metric tensor anyway, so why add extra factors in your equations for no practical reason?

I lean towards the latter view, as you can probably tell. Certainly it's a standard convention to suppress ##c## wherever possible. You can always mentally read a mass of 100 MeV as 100 MeV/c2 if you prefer. I bet you'll get bored of the extra effort fairly quickly. :wink:
 
  • #8
Ibix said:
Some people describe c=1 as an error on philosophical grounds, even if there are no practical consequences beyond some confusion. As I understand it they argue that there is a distinction between time and distance and so E=mc2 remains E=mc2 even if your units are such that the numerical value of c is one
That's more or less where I am. I don't dislike setting c to 1, as long as there is an understanding that there is a factor of c there. Personally, though I may not always use it in my work, when I report results I always stick the c's back in, to cause minimal confusion. The OP seemed (and for a good reason) troubled by the missing /c2, and I believe the best answer to that is that physicists understandably like to get rid of factors of c and just set them to 1, and they are implied in the units, though not explicitly mentioned.

The "lazy" characterization isn't aimed at any particular physicists, I say it more about how physics treats the unit in general, if that makes sense.
 
  • #9
Perhaps "efficient" would be a better choice of word than "lazy"?
 
  • #10
Isaac0427 said:
I say it more about how physics treats the unit in general, if that makes sense.

One might consider if a high school experience is sufficient to pass judgement on the entire field. Just sayin'.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
  • #11
Isaac0427 said:
like measuring mass in pounds
Since the pound (mass) is a unit of mass, measuring mass in pounds is entirely appropriate.
 

1. What is "The Tritium Puzzle"?

"The Tritium Puzzle" refers to a scientific mystery surrounding the mass-energy equivalence principle, which states that mass and energy are interchangeable and can be converted into each other. Specifically, it refers to the discrepancy between the predicted and observed mass of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen.

2. Why is the tritium puzzle important?

The tritium puzzle is important because it challenges our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics. If the mass-energy equivalence principle does not hold true for tritium, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and the way it operates.

3. How has the tritium puzzle been studied?

The tritium puzzle has been studied through a variety of experiments, including mass spectrometry, nuclear reactions, and precision measurements of tritium's mass. These experiments have provided valuable data and insights, but the puzzle remains unsolved.

4. What are some proposed solutions to the tritium puzzle?

There are several proposed solutions to the tritium puzzle, including the existence of unknown particles or interactions, errors in experimental techniques, and deviations from the standard model of particle physics. However, none of these proposed solutions have been definitively proven.

5. How close are scientists to solving the tritium puzzle?

While significant progress has been made in studying the tritium puzzle, scientists have not yet reached a conclusive solution. Ongoing research and advancements in technology may eventually lead to a resolution, but for now, the tritium puzzle remains a fascinating and unsolved mystery in the world of physics.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
309
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
491
  • Mechanics
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
990
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top