What is the Mass–energy equivalence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equivalence
AI Thread Summary
Mass and energy are not generally equivalent, as confusion arises from varying definitions of mass. The famous equation E=mc² applies specifically when mass is at rest and does not imply that mass is moving at the speed of light. The more general equation E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² shows that mass and energy are only equivalent when momentum (p) is zero. In cases where momentum is non-zero, energy can exist without mass, such as with massless radiation like light. Understanding these distinctions is crucial in fields like nuclear physics and particle accelerators, where the relationship between mass and energy plays a significant role.
Messages
19,773
Reaction score
10,726
Short answer: Mass and energy are NOT equivalent in general. Confusion can arise due to multiple definitions of mass (see our https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-relativistic-mass-and-why-it-is-not-used-much.796527/ ), but using the modern convention of identifying the word "mass" with the "invariant mass" (also known as "rest mass") it is clear that mass and energy are not equivalent.

Definition/Summary

##E = mc^2## is the famous formula relating mass to energy in the inertial reference frame where the mass is at rest. In SI units, ##E## is energy, in joules (J), and ##m## is mass, in kilograms (kg). Note, ##c^2## does not imply that the mass is moving at ##c##. Instead, ##c^2## reflects the fact that SI units are not natural units, so it is necessary to convert the units on the left to match the units on the right. In natural units where ##c=1## the formula would be simply ##E = m##.

Although this formula gives the impression that mass and energy are equivalent, this formula is itself a special case of a more general formula:

##E^2 = (mc^2)^2+(pc)^2##

The general equation reduces to the famous equation for ##p=0##. In other words, the common concept of mass energy equivalence holds only in the special case when ##p=0##. However, when ##p\ne 0## it is clear that mass and energy are not equivalent. In fact, when ##E=pc## you have energy, but no mass. This is the case for massless radiation, such as a pulse of light. Since ##p^2## can never be negative it is clear that all mass has energy, but the reverse is not true and it is possible to have energy without mass.

Although mass and energy are not equivalent in general, in an inertial frame where ##p=0## for some system the internal energy of the system is part of its mass. Since mass has inertia this can lead to interesting effects. For example, a box containing hot springs, or compressed springs, is more difficult to push than an identical box containing identical but cold or uncompressed springs. This becomes particularly important in nuclear physics and particle accelerators where more massive particles can be created from systems of smaller particles with high internal KE, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Arthur Rocha, SredniVashtar, ComplexVar89 and 1 other person
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Thanks for the overview on mass-energy equivalence!
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top