Exploring the Relationship Between Mass and Energy at an Atomic Level

[Owen]

To be honest this is more of a question that a theory but it'll be interesting to see the responses.

If mass is equivilent to energy at an atomic level and everything is made up of atoms then is it fair to assume that the mass of anything is equivilent to its energy? That is the energy within it due to the motion of its atoms. If you can imagine a situation where a particle was at rest surely, no matter what, it would have zero energy, and therefor zero mass? now for something like a neutron, it may be possible to isolate a neutron and hold it still, in this situation it would still have mass, however this is due to the motion of the quarks within which make up the neutron. if we can stop the quarks then it may have no energy and therefor cease to exist. An electron cannot be split into smaller things so if u can stop an electron then it should possesses no energy internally and therefor cease to exist also. The question is, if it were possible (which is isn't) to stop a particle (and all its components) from moving would it be reduced to zero mass and cease to exist?

Not a hugely interesting subject but comments would be appreciated

 

[AWolf]

An electron cannot be split into smaller things so if u can stop an electron then it should possesses no energy internally and therefor cease to exist also. The question is, if it were possible (which is isn't) to stop a particle (and all its components) from moving would it be reduced to zero mass and cease to exist?

Electrons loose energy in the form of photons, so they can be made into smaller things, electrons with less energy.
Conservation of Energy dictates that the energy cannot simply disappear.

The interaction of the components of a particle comprises a system. If you were to stop the components interacting, then the system/particle would cease to exist, but the components/energy would not.

 

[Owen]

What seems unclear to me is that if energy and mass are effectively the same thing the removing the energy from something (in the form of photons, for example) results in its mass decreasing. how is this possible unless mass IS energy. and in this case the photons which carry the energy out of the system must have mass.

I can grasp the idea that energy and mass are equivilent but i can't see how this is true. on a large scale if you have something which is very hot (lots of energy) and you cool it down it must lose mass? surely this mass can't simply become energy? why would it prefer to turn into a massless photon and shoot off with some energy. why not just fly off as a particle with mass ? or why fly off at all ?

 

[Owen]

The interaction of the components of a particle comprises a system. If you were to stop the components interacting, then the system/particle would cease to exist, but the components/energy would not.

Is that to say that the smallest component of everything is that which can carry away energy (a photon?) I support the idea that everything is made up of photons, with some things more willing to give them up than others, but i was under the impression that this idea was totally wrong

 

[AWolf]

I think the humble little photon has more to do with particles than it's being credited with.
When electrons jump shelves, what's involved - photons.
When dealing with electromagnetic fields, what's involved - photons.
Heat transfer is infrared radiation - photons.

I support the idea that everything is made up of photons, with some things more willing to give them up than others, but i was under the impression that this idea was totally wrong

There may be theories, but I've not seen anything concrete.

 

[Sariaht]

You could perhaps create some energy through neutrone fussion.
Never heard of anyone trying. Maybe it's a nuclear waste of time!

 

[Doc Al]

If mass is equivilent to energy at an atomic level and everything is made up of atoms then is it fair to assume that the mass of anything is equivilent to its energy? That is the energy within it due to the motion of its atoms. If you can imagine a situation where a particle was at rest surely, no matter what, it would have zero energy, and therefor zero mass?

Just because a particle has zero kinetic energy does not mean it has zero mass.

 

[deda]

What seems unclear to me is that if energy and mass are effectively the same thing the removing the energy from something (in the form of photons, for example) results in its mass decreasing. how is this possible unless mass IS energy. and in this case the photons which carry the energy out of the system must have mass.

I can grasp the idea that energy and mass are equivilent but i can't see how this is true. on a large scale if you have something which is very hot (lots of energy) and you cool it down it must lose mass? surely this mass can't simply become energy? why would it prefer to turn into a massless photon and shoot off with some energy. why not just fly off as a particle with mass ? or why fly off at all ?

I like this idea cause it speaks in favour of my convictions that the charge (being also proportional with energy E=VQ; V=electric potential; Q=charge) and the mass of every single particle are variable thus there is no point of talking about elementary particles.

 

[Owen]

I like the idea of everything being made of photons. It kind of fits with the idea that photons do have mass (however small it may be) because if something radiates energy then it is radiating photons, and therefor losing mass at a very low rate. an electron for example will reduce in energy by losing photons which also constitutes a loss in mass, until eventually it will have no energy (and no mass) because it has dissipated into billions of tiny photons. Just an idea, but seems logical to me.

 

[AWolf]

If photons are the basis of everything that we know, then there is no need for an individual photon to have mass. Being the most fundamental building block, their mass would have to be then based on something even more fundemental.
If a particle comprises a number of photons, then the separation of the photons would provide a measurement of distance, and subsequently provide a value for the mass of the particle.
If the particle is a system, its properties do not have to reflect those of its components, hence the particle can have mass even it the photons that go into making don't. In much the same way that photons do not have charge, but other particles do.
The addition of more energy would further enhance the particle and effect the separation of the existing photons resulting in an potential increase in mass.

 

[Owen]

It was my understanding (whether correct or not) that the mass of a photon (if it had one) was dependant on the observed frequency of that photon. Because frequency determines momentum and their speed is fixed, so it must be their mass that changes? If this is the case then a particular particle which only emits certain frequencies of light can be thought of as doing so because it only contains photons of certain masses.

 

[AWolf]

Photons are the one particle that Relativity has a problem with, unless they possesses no mass at all. There have been attempts to determine the mass of a photon, and some upper limits have been placed on it, but mostly it is regarded as massless.
The frequency of the photon is directly related to its energy - See Planck.

When a particle emits a photon it is not the mass that it is emitting, but energy. The mass of the particle may have decreased due to the loss of the energy.

The limitation of the frequencies emitted by certain particles, let's assume they're atoms, is caused by an electron at a specific energy level loosing energy. The amount of energy that it looses is governed by the shell that the electron is located on and the shell it is jumping to. I'm fairly sure that an electron will only jump to the next shelf and not make a random jump to just any shelf.

 

[Owen]

I understand the view that photons are massless because otherwise it disagrees with relativity but to me it seems more logical if they do have mass. An electron looses energy when it moves energy levels but why should it only jump to certain energies? (i don't much like the idea of energy levels). If an electron loses energy in the form of a photon then the mass of the electron will also decease (by E=mc^2) so what is wrong with the assumption that the loss in mass is equal to the mass of the photon (if this is assumed then the mass is found to be very small, i think atleast 100,000 times smaller than the electrons mass). the mass of an electron is virtually zero, so this photon which is many orders of magnitude smaller can be assumed to have no mass, but this assumption cannot be correct because at the high speeds which photons travel this small mass presents a relatively large momentum.
I'm not trying to use quantum physics (electron energy levels for example) to explain my idea. I'm presenting a new idea which disagrees with quantum physics to a certain extent. The loss of energy by an electron is observed to occur in definate values but what is wrong with my explanation over the explanation currently in use?

 

[Chen]

Isn't kinetic energy relative anyway? If you're passing by a "motionless" electron, you could say that the electron is passing by you and therefore it has speed and kinetic energy.

 

[Owen]

I believe it is but if an electron loses a photon the speed of the photon relative to the electron is equal to the speed of light, and vice versa. so the kinetic energy of each relative to the other is equal to mc^2. This means that if the electron loses 1eV of energy (i have no idea how realistic that value is, just an easy number to use) then that 1eV is the energy of the photon which is given off. using E=mc^2 the mass lost by the electron can be found, and this loss in mass is equal to the mass of the photon (or atleast this is what i propose)

 

[AWolf]

I believe it is but if an electron loses a photon the speed of the photon relative to the electron is equal to the speed of light, and vice versa. so the kinetic energy of each relative to the other is equal to mc^2. This means that if the electron loses 1eV of energy (i have no idea how realistic that value is, just an easy number to use) then that 1eV is the energy of the photon which is given off. using E=mc^2 the mass lost by the electron can be found, and this loss in mass is equal to the mass of the photon (or atleast this is what i propose)

When a photon is given off, its speed is not relative to that of the electron. It's speed is 186,000 miles per second regardless of whatever speed the electron is traveling at.
So the velocity of the photon has nothing really do with the electron. It as natural velocity. The question should be - why ?

The only reason why the velocity would be so rigid, is if it was governed by something.

If the photon is pure energy and is transmitted through a medium at a set rate, then you can determine the possible mass of a photon using Planck's constant.
Because the speed of light is the natural rate at which the energy is transmitted the photon can have mass, but is not effected by relativity.

Essentially the photon is the only basic particle. The rules by which it is governed then determine the subsequent properties of all other particles.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Organic]

Maybe this address is relevant to this thread:

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Antimatter/20020818020153.htm

 

[AWolf]

Organic, thanks for the link.

It would appear that particles from the major groups have been created using photons.

This does beg the question : What else is there ?

I suspect the answer is - nothing.
Everything can be constructed from, and reduced down to photons.

 

[Owen]

What about other force carrying particles (Gluons or Gravitons for example) could these be photons as well ? because they are emitted by particles (which are made of photons) so surely they must also be photons, or perhaps many photons together. If this is the case then a Theory of Everything would simply be a theory of photons, how they interact and behave in different situations

 

[AWolf]

What about other force carrying particles (Gluons or Gravitons for example) could these be photons as well ? because they are emitted by particles (which are made of photons) so surely they must also be photons, or perhaps many photons together. If this is the case then a Theory of Everything would simply be a theory of photons, how they interact and behave in different situations

Maybe everything is that simple.
Here's a link my http://gamert.co.uk/Theory/ which basically says just that.

 

[Owen]

I'm in the process of reading through that site and i just thought I should comment on something. The effect on photons by gravity does indeed disobey Newtons law of gravitation if a photon is assumed to be massless. however if you assume a photon has mass (calculated approximately by mc^2 = hf) then the effect on the photon can be calculated and gives a sensible answer. I have yet to find data for einsteins measurements of the bending of light round the sun during a solr eclipse so i cannot say whether the answer is correct, but it certainly seems possible

 

[AWolf]

Newton is correct if the photon has mass and Einstein is correct if it does not.

If Newton is to believed and the photon does have mass, then the rules governing the photon would fall outside of the realm of Relativity. This leads to the possibility that Relativity is due to the photon rather than acting upon it.

 

[Owen]

I'm hardly in a position to be arguing with Einstein but i never agreed with relativity when it comes to light. Why invent a new principal to explain something that can be explained with conventional logic provided you accept a fundamental difference, that photons have mass. If photons do have mass it also completely negates the use of energy - mass equivilence because if something loses energy in the form of a photon then it HAS to lose mass because it must have given mass to the photon. If only Einstein had accepted that photons had mass it could have saved him a lot of work

 

[AWolf]

Does that mean that photons are merely ignored when it comes to Relativity, or that Relativity is in error.

When dealing with Relativity, any gain or loss of mass is directly related to energy added to or removed from the system, albeit relativistic mass.
If the energy concerned was photonic - and photons had mass, then this would mean there is absolutely no difference between mass and relativistic mass.

Correct me if I'm wrong - happens occassionaly - but the main difference between the theories of Einstein and Lorentz, was that Einstein considered the transforms related to velocity to be thought experiment however Lorentz considered the transforms to be actual.
If photons have mass and this is directly responsible for relativistic mass, doesn't this mean that Lorentz was correct.

 

[Owen]

You'll have to forgive my ignorance here but i know very little about Lorentz's work so I can't add much here

 

[AWolf]

Here's something that puts Lorentz in context with Einstein.

The equations he developed, known as the Lorentz transforms, showed how physical processes taking place in the aether resulted in the same laws of physics applying in the laboratory in spite of its possible motion through the aether. Poincare showed that any two observers each moving with their own distinct velocity through the aether and making their own observations would be able to relate them using Lorentz transforms.

Lorentz was ignorant of the recent work of Poincare when he read Einstein's paper and instead of accusing Einstein of plagiarism, he acclaimed his genius.

The special theory of relativity as expounded by Einstein in 1905 is based on the argument that since all attempts to detect motion through the aether fail, the assumption of a "privileged background" is superfluous. The idea that light travels at a constant speed against some background is subtly changed to the assertion that all attempts to measure the speed of light will result in the same answer. The result is a theory which is very different in explanation, but identical in outcomes to that of Lorentz.

For Einstein, it is the relative motion which causes both observers to see the other's clocks as having slowed. This effect results from the way in which he specifies that remote clocks should be synchronised. For Lorentz, the motion of the clock through the aether produces an actual slowing of the clock.

 

[Owen]

So they both give the same result just through different reasoning? I suppose that is why relativity is essentially correct even though it is inconsistent with massive photons. So its not a case of proving that Einstein was wrong, just that he was a little off track?

 

[AWolf]

When Einstein published his first paper on relativity in 1905, it contained very little new material. The equations which we associate with relativity had all been previously derived by Lorentz on the assumption that there exists a background, called the aether, through which light travels at a constant speed.

After the failure to discover the aether, and its subsequent unfashionable status, Einstein came up with his Universal Constant, the speed of light, and used it to explain his version of events. It is that velocity because it is...

If the foundation of a theory is based on an incorrect assumption, then it puts into question the validity of the theory.
Lorentz based his on aether, Einstein based his on the speed of light being the universal constant with the photon having zero mass.

If both of these assumptions is incorrect, but the results can be verified, then there must be another explanation.

 

[Owen]

If there is an aether would it be possible to detect? and if photons have mass, is that possible to detect? It seems to me as if it is very tricky to prove whether these things are true or not and science tend not to accept things that can't be proved even if they can't be disproved. so it seems that this will probably go nowhere

 

[AWolf]

If there is an aether would it be possible to detect? and if photons have mass, is that possible to detect?

That's the 64,000 dollar question.

The previous theories about aether speculated that the Earth was traveling through the aether and that it should be possible to detect its wake. They couldn't.

If the aether is the governing factor behind the speed of light, then rather than traveling through it, we are it. It governs the properties of every atom. This does make it somewhat difficult to detect.
What ever measuring devices we create, they too consist of the very thing we're trying to detect.

It may be that we have already detected it.

Loop Quantum Gravity is the latest theory to speculate that space is not smooth, but is granular. Planck's constant providing an indication as to the size of the granules and potentially the mass of the photon.
This would imply, in my view anyway, that Lorentz was right about his proposed aether and Einstein was wrong to dismiss it.

Although we currently use General Relativity when dealing with gravitational fields and Special Relativity when not, we could as easily be using Lorentz's work.

I suppose the only way to really know is for Einstein's theories to be proven or disproved.

One possibility is an objects gravitational field.
If matter curves space, as Einstein suggested, then it should be completely independant of its velocity.
If on the other hand the matter is traveling through the aether, as Lorentz proposed, then there should be a very small discrepancy between the leading and trailing edge. This is not the same as a wake, more like a redshift but related to the gravitational field. As the Earth is currently traveling at less than 1% the speed of light, measuring a similar force either side may differ by a matter of a few metres at some extreme distance.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Owen,

I am working on a new hypothesis that there are two kinds of mass. The potential mass and the kinetic mass. The potential mass is the same as inertial mass and gravitational mass. potential mass is a mass to resist motion. The kinetic mass is a mass to resist rest. Potential mass wants to stay put while kinetic mass wants to keep moving.

With this hypothesis, we can have another interpretation why the photon can have no potential mass and why the fermions can have no kinetic mass. When a fermion loses energy, it loses kinetic mass but gains potential mass
such that the total mass is conserved:

Total mass = potential mass + kinetic mass

Kinetic mass is another quantized form of energy.

When energy is quantized, the quantization process gives two forms of topologies. One topology for potential mass and one for kinetic mass.

What is actually being quantized is the square of energy. The vector form is:

$$Enery^2 = r_i \times F_i \cdot r_j \times F_j$$

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

I think the humble little photon has more to do with particles than it's being credited with.
When electrons jump shelves, what's involved - photons.
When dealing with electromagnetic fields, what's involved - photons.
Heat transfer is infrared radiation - photons.
There may be theories, but I've not seen anything concrete.

You may take a look here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=7611