Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I may be confusing things here...But If Energy can be converted into matter and vise versa...Does this violate the laws of thermodynamics sayng that energy and matter can not be created?

If "energy" is the ability to move matter...Then how can matter be energy and vise versa?

Please post a link explaining this,Or explain it to me.

[Vortex]

Originally posted by Dustin
I may be confusing things here...But If Energy can be converted into mass and vise versa...Does this violate the laws of thermodynamics sayng that energy and mass can not be created?
No, conversion does not equal creation. No violation of thermodynamics.
If "energy" is the ability to move matter...Then how can matter be energy and vise versa?
Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa per the famous equation... it works. :)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Vortex
No, conversion does not equal creation. No violation of thermodynamics.

Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa per the famous equation... it works. :)


The laws of thermodynamics state that the amount of matter and energy in the universe remain the same.

If they are "interchangable" then they do not remain the same,You either have more matter and less energy in one instance or more energy and less matter in one instance.


So that explanation does not work.

[The Don]

I think what Vortex was saying is that the total energy in the system (the free energy plus the energy tied up in mass) remains the same.

As the amount of free energy reduces, the amount of mass would increase. As the amount of mass reduces, the amount of free energy would increase. There is still no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

It's like saying that the amount of money you have at the moment is fixed, You have £10 in your pocket and £100 in the bank. You can put the £10 in the bank and have none in your pocket, or you can take money out of the bank, but there'll never be more than £110 in total

[Darat]

Originally posted by Dustin
The laws of thermodynamics state that the ammount of matter and energy in the universe remain the same.

If they are "interchangable" then they do not remain the same,You either have more mass in one instance or more energy in one instance.


So that explanation does not work.

That is not quite what they state, they state that energy is conserved (1st), the direction of the conversation (2nd) and the 3rd is that absolute zero is not obtainable.

Perhaps it is better to view "matter" as "stored" energy?

[Vortex]

Originally posted by Dustin
The laws of thermodynamics state that the ammount of matter and energy in the universe remain the same.

If they are "interchangable" then they do not remain the same,You either have more mass in one instance or more energy in one instance.


So that explanation does not work.
They aren't interchangeable, they are convertible. The amount of matter and energy doesn't change. Combined, the equation remains the same.

[H3LL]

This is an interesting link:

Thermodynamics, Relativity, and Gravitation:
Evidence for a Close Link Between the Three Theories (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-4/taneTRG.htm)

Also remember that science is ever-changing as new evidence befomes accepted as "the best we have to describe this observation".

Also it is a matter of choosing the best tool for the job. Although relativity is applicable in the movement of a bullet, you would not normally use e=mc2 in ballistic calculations.

There is no FACT in science. It's not ID where they believe the have the final answers to everything. Science does not collapse if a part of it is shown to be wrong or can be explained better.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by The Don
I think what Vortex was saying is that the total energy in the system (the free energy plus the energy tied up in mass) remains the same.

As the amount of free energy reduces, the amount of mass would increase. As the amount of mass reduces, the amount of free energy would increase. There is still no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

It's like saying that the amount of money you have at the moment is fixed, You have £10 in your pocket and £100 in the bank. You can put the £10 in the bank and have none in your pocket, or you can take money out of the bank, but there'll never be more than £110 in total


Energy is defined as anything that can do work(move matter),How can energy be "tied up in mass" ?

[Brian the Snail]

Strictly speaking, the way in which the first law of thermodynamics was originally presented was that energy is always conserved. E=mc<SUP>2</SUP> does violate this.

The way of getting around this is to generalize the first law to say that mass/energy is conserved (where the conversion between the two is given by E=mc<SUP>2</SUP>) so that the total amount of mass and energy in the system is constant.

By the way, even this isn't correct, since through the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics energy/mass conservation can be violated over short enough periods (e.g. spontaneous creation and annihilation of particle/antiparticle pairs).

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Darat
That is not quite what they state, they state that energy is conserved (1st), the direction of the conversation (2nd) and the 3rd is that absolute zero is not obtainable.

Perhaps it is better to view "matter" as "stored" energy?

No,They state the amount of energy in the universe is constant,so is the amount of matter.



Also,How can matter be "stored energy" when energy is just an objectification of the observed effects of matter upon other matter?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Vortex
They aren't interchangeable, they are convertible. The amount of matter and energy doesn't change. Combined, the equation remains the same.


Explain to me the difference between "interchangable" and "converted".

If you convert matter to energy then the amount of matter reduice while the amount of energy increases. Is this not interchanging them?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Dustin
Energy is defined as anything that can do work(move matter),How can energy be "tied up in mass" ?

Like I said it may be helpful to think that matter is just stored energy. A very poor analogy is frozen water compared to liquid water.

Don't forget when trying to use English to explain a theory of physics you are translating from physic's precise language of mathematics to a language that was created to explain things like "Look! Meat-on-legs, kill meat-on-legs, eat meat-on-legs".

[Darat]

Originally posted by Dustin
No,They state the amount of energy in the universe is constant,so is the amount of matter.

...snip...

As BTS says above that is how they were expressed at one time however things move on as new facts come to life...

[Soapy Sam]

Energy is defined as anything that can do work(move matter),How can energy be "tied up in mass" ?

Dustin- where did you find this definition?

Energy and matter are two aspects of the same thing.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Energy is defined as anything that can do work(move matter),How can energy be "tied up in mass" ?

Dustin- where did you find this definition?

Energy and matter are two aspects of the same thing.


Every physics book and webpage I have read has said that Energy is the capability to move matter(do work).

And "energy" is just an objectification of what happens when matter acts upon other matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

http://bioweb.wku.edu/courses/Biol280/280mat.HTML

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/denise/Spring03/Feb11/Feb11.htm



Well...I could go on forever with google,But the fact is,I have not found one single defenition that is opposite of that.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It seems I may be misundering what it means to "Convert".


When they "convert" energy into matter,Where does the energy go? I mean...Energy is just the ability to move matter,So how can something like the "ability to move matter" which is not really a something physical be converted into something that is physical?

and when they "convert" matter into energy,Where does the matter go? "Poof" nowhere?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Dustin
No,They state the amount of energy in the universe is constant,so is the amount of matter.



Also,How can matter be "stored energy" when energy is just an objectification of the observed effects of matter upon other matter?
IIRC the laws of thermodynamics were defined years before anyone was aware of the convertability of mass and energy.

As has been pointed out by Brian the Snail the laws of thermodynamics should be amanded to say mass/energy

It must also be noted that, by and large, this energy/mass conversion does not happen in normal circumstances to any measurable degree

[The Don]

Originally posted by Dustin
It seems I may be misundering what it means to "Convert".


When they "convert" energy into matter,Where does the energy go? I mean...Energy is just the ability to move matter,So how can something like the "ability to move matter" which is not really a something physical be converted into something that is physical?

and when they "convert" matter into energy,Where does the matter go? "Poof" nowhere?
Essentially, yes. When you look at the mass and energy involved in high energy interractions you will notice that some of the mass has gone missing and energy has been emitted. Thats E= mc2 in action.

I though energy was the ability to do work.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Dustin
...snip...

and when they "convert" matter into energy,Where does the matter go? "Poof" nowhere?

It changes to energy - see the sun or nuclear weapons for examples.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by The Don
IIRC the laws of thermodynamics were defined years before anyone was aware of the convertability of mass and energy.

As has been pointed out by Brian the Snail the laws of thermodynamics should be amanded to say mass/energy

It must also be noted that, by and large, this energy/mass conversion does not happen in normal circumstances to any measurable degree



Something does not seem right here...You seem to be saying that conversion of energy to mass and vise versa does go against thermodynamic laws.
But this does not seem right...Since the laws remain the same,Obviously it does not otherwise it WOULD of been amanded.


Also...Does the thermodynamic laws take place only in classical mechanics? And not quantum mechanics? Or what?

Im missing something here...I just don't know what. Because I know energy can't be created or destroyed. and I know that "converting" the two would cause one or the other to be created or destroyed.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by The Don
Essentially, yes. When you look at the mass and energy involved in high energy interractions you will notice that some of the mass has gone missing and energy has been emitted. Thats E= mc2 in action.

I though energy was the ability to do work.


Well if it has "gone missing" it's been destroyed and turned into energy,Which violates thermodynamic laws.They state that the amount of energy AND matter in the universe are always constant. This means that the money in the bank and pocket anology does not work.

The question here is....You have 10 dollars in your pocket and 100 in the bank.
The amount of money in your pocket stays constant as does the amount in the bank.
So how can you "convert" the two?


Also...."do work" means Move matter.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Darat
It changes to energy - see the sun or nuclear weapons for examples.


"Changing" to energy from matter means that the amount of matter in the universe has just gone down while the energy gone up.This vilolates the laws of thermodynamics.
Also,Since "Energy" is just the ability to do work(non physical) how can it turn into matter(Physical) ?

Please provide a better explanation.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Dustin
Well if it has "gone missing" it's been destroyed and turned into energy,Which violates thermodynamic laws.They state that the amount of energy AND matter in the universe are always constant. This means that the money in the bank and pocket anology does not work.
...snip...


No because it is now accepted (because of e=mc²) that energy and matter are just two different but equivalent ways of describing the universe.

...snip...

Originally posted by Dustin

Also...."do work" means Move matter.

You can use energy to "do work" on other energy. Again don't forget we are trying to translate maths into English and have to be careful not to allow English (semantics) to confuse the matter. ;)

[NarrMaster]

"matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed" does not mean "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" and "energy cannot be created nor destroyed".

It is not two statements rolled into one. It is one statement, concerning the non creation/destruction of matter and energy, or more appropriately, matter/energy (because they can be converted).

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Darat
No because it is now accepted (because of e=mc²) that energy and matter are just two different but equivalent ways of describing the universe.

...snip...



You can use energy to "do work" on other energy. Again don't forget we are trying to translate maths into English and have to be careful not to allow English (semantics) to confuse the matter. ;)



How can energy do work on other energy when energy is described as anything that can do work on matter?

Give me an Example.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Dustin
Something does not seem right here...You seem to be saying that conversion of energy to mass and vise versa does go against thermodynamic laws.
But this does not seem right...Since the laws remain the same,Obviously it does not otherwise it WOULD of been amanded.

They have been amended. It's just that the conversion between mass and energy in most circumstances where thermodynamics is used (for example, chemical reactions) is so small that for all intents and purposes these kinds of subtleties can be ignored.

Also...Does the thermodynamic laws take place only in classical mechanics? And not quantum mechanics? Or what?

Thermodynamics is really useful for classical (i.e. large scale) systems. They can also be used for quantum systems as long as you consider long enough times/big enough systems. But to really understand why you need to understand quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics.

Im missing something here...I just don't know what. Because I know energy can't be created or destroyed. and I know that "converting" the two would cause one or the other to be created or destroyed.

Energy can be created or destroyed, by converting to and from mass.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by NarrMaster
"matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed" does not mean "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" and "energy cannot be created nor destroyed".

It is not two statements rolled into one. It is one statement, concerning the non creation/destruction of matter and energy, or more appropriately, matter/energy (because they can be converted).


1st law of thermodynamics="Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only modified in form."

The Law of Conservation of Matter="Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only modified in form."

[MRC_Hans]

No offence meant, but this kind of questions always puzzle me.

Now, the sharpest brains on the planet have been working with this for the best part of a century; if it was fundamentally flawed, or logically inconsistent, don't you think somebody would have noticed?

Hans

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I'll add my non-physicist's tuppence-worth to reiterate what Soapy just said. Once you can get to grips with mass and energy being two ways of expressing the same thing, there ceases to be a problem.

One thing I found helpful was to stop reading E=mc² as "E equals m c squared" and actually say, "E is m c squared". I find that gets the identity of them across in a subjective way more strongly.

Then focus on an example: I charge a NiCd battery and electrical energy enters it. Does that mean it is heavier? That seems to be ridiculous, but it is true, it's just that the extra weight conferred by giving it that electrical potential energy is really really tiny, because E must be divided by c² to express it in everyday units.

Or, you could say that my mass is 75kg, or you could adjust your bathroom scales to read in Joules, except the number would always be an unwieldy large one for reporting at WeightWatchers' meetings. "Today, Marcie, I weigh 64 times 10 to the 17th Joules"

(Edited for clarity)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
They have been amended. It's just that the conversion between mass and energy in most circumstances where thermodynamics is used (for example, chemical reactions) is so small that for all intents and purposes these kinds of subtleties can be ignored.

How is an Atomic Bomb a small scale?





Originally posted by Brian the Snail
Energy can be created or destroyed, by converting to and from mass.


This goes against the the first law of thermodynamics.

Also...Define "energy" in terms other than some objectification of matter acting on other matter.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Dustin
How is an Atomic Bomb a small scale?



See my post with the example of the battery.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
No offence meant, but this kind of questions always puzzle me.

Now, the sharpest brains on the planet have been working with this for the best part of a century; if it was fundamentally flawed, or logically inconsistent, don't you think somebody would have noticed?

Hans


Im not saying it is flawed...Im saying how I am looking at(based on reading of physics) it seems flawed to me.


If Energy(as defined by every physics book i've read) Is just the ability to do work(move matter).

and The laws of thermodynamics are true.

Then E=mc2 can't mean that energy can be CONVERTED into matter and vise versa...

What does "converted" really Mean? Because It can't mean the energy destroyed and matter created because that violates thermodynamic laws.

I know that it takes tons of energy to split an atom and create energy out of it....But Still,Matter is being destroyed which violates thermodynamic laws.

It also takes tons of energy to collide particles to create matter but still you are substituing energy(destroyed) for matter(created).

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I'll add my non-physicist's tuppence-worth to reiterate what Soapy just said. Once you can get to grips with mass and energy being two ways of expressing the same thing, there ceases to be a problem.

One thing I found helpful was to stop reading E=mc² as "E equals m c squared" and actually say, "E is m c squared". I find that gets the identity of them across in a subjective way more strongly.

Then focus on an example: I charge a NiCd battery and electrical energy enters it. Does that mean it is heavier? That seems to be ridiculous, but it is true, it's just that the extra weight conferred by giving it that electrical potential energy is really really tiny, because E must be divided by c² to express it in everyday units.

Or, you could say that my mass is 75kg, or you could adjust your bathroom scales to read in Joules, except the number would always be an unwieldy large one for reporting at WeightWatchers' meetings. "Today, Marcie, I weigh 64 times 10 to the 17th Joules"

(Edited for clarity)


This really does not clear a thing up..

First of all...I do already see e=mc2 as e is mc2.

Second of all...If you charge a battery with electrical charge,You are sending electricty into it(Electromagnetic wave) which consists of particles..Which Im not sure,But I think they have weight. So electricty is not 100% energy since it contains particles which of course is matter. Which likely weighs something.

A better example would be sound waves...Do sound waves weigh any thing? No,They theirselfs do not...Their medium however does. And a "sound wave" is just like a ocean wave as in the energy of the ocean wave would not exist without a medium or matter(water).

[Darat]

Originally posted by Dustin
This really does not clear a thing up..

First of all...I do already see e=mc2 as e is mc2.


What's your confusion then? Simple replace any use of the word "matter" and energy with "e=mc²" and use that as your label for whatever matter and energy "is".

Originally posted by Dustin


Second of all...If you charge a battery with electrical charge,You are sending electricty into it(Electromagnetic wave) which consists of particles..Which Im not sure,But I think they have weight. So electricty is not 100% energy since it contains particles which of course is matter. Which likely weighs something.


A better example would be sound waves...Do sound waves weigh any thing? No,They theirselfs do not...Their medium however does. And a "sound wave" is just like a ocean wave as in the energy of the ocean wave would not exist without a medium or matter(water).

I am not being impolite here but perhaps you would be better working your way through some basic physic text books? I'm not that educated in physics and am not a great teacher but I can see from your above post that you are very confused or ignorant about a lot of basic theories and concepts of physics.



(Edited for formatting.)

[Pragmatist]

I don't believe the equation E=mc² violates any law of thermodynamics.

But there is an issue here that needs to be addressed and which I think is being widely misinterpreted.

E=mc² does not say that matter and energy are the same thing. What it does say is that a certain amount of energy is obtained when a certain amount of matter is annihilated which is a different thing entirely.

But there is a further problem in the use of the word "amount". We assume that "mass" and "energy" are quantities of "substances" - and this interpretation is too simplistic. Energy is not some kind of "magic liquid", we can't go and fill up a gallon jar with "energy". Nor could we do so with mass. Rather, mass and energy are names we give to particular manifestations or aspects of something more fundamental. Soapy Sam hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that they are aspects of the same thing.

The two faces of a coin are both "aspects" of the coin. But they are neither equal, equivalent or interchangeable. They are distinct and different, and observation of them depends on the frame of reference of the observer. Imagine a coin suspended in mid-air so that an observer on one side sees the heads and an observer on the other side sees the tails. Now, we can agree that they are both looking at a coin - the coin is the fundamental object in question. But they will disagree on an apparent aspect of the coin - if we ask each which side is facing them, one will say "heads", the other will say "tails". It would be silly to deny this and say, "Well heads is the same as tails", because it clearly isn't. Nor could we say, "The total amount of sides is two and therefore we shall blur the distinction between one side and the other". Well, we could say it, but it would be a lousy argument! :)

Therefore, in respect of energy/mass it would be more accurate to say that they are both superficial aspects of something fundamental. Different and distinct aspects, that depend on something unique to a particular observer. So we need to start by identifying the fundamental thing that we're looking at, and then look at what distinguishes one observer from another.

I believe the fundamental thing is momentum. If we start from the assumption that all things in the universe have a property which we call momentum, it starts to make sense. But what is "momentum"? Isaac Newton thought it was fundamental too, he defined it as, "a quantity of motion". Which, despite its simplicity is a rather good definition.

Let us start with two objects. Each has a fundamental property of momentum. We place an observer on one of the objects. From the point of view of that observer we can now define "mass" and "energy" as relative aspects of momentum.

Assuming our observer is on object A:

1. If the object B is in net motion (not conservative motion) relative to object A, then object B appears to have a quality we call "energy".

2. If the object B is stationary relative to object A, then object B appears to have a quality we call "mass".

Superficially, this appears to be a pretty weak and useless definition - but think about it. It's much more subtle than it appears.

The situation is analogous to electric and magnetic fields. If an observer is stationary with respect to an electric field, he sees only an electric field. If the observer is in motion relative to an electric field, he sees a magnetic field (and a changing electric field). In this latter case, it is actually the magnetic field that is equivalent to the momentum. The question of whether electric and magnetic fields are independent entities rather than just aspects of the same thing dependent on motion, is the same question (in form, if not substance) to the questions of mass/momentum/energy.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Dustin
Im not saying it is flawed...Im saying how I am looking at(based on reading of physics) it seems flawed to me.

Trust me, it is not.

If Energy(as defined by every physics book i've read) Is just the ability to do work(move matter).

and The laws of thermodynamics are true.

No, because why couldn't it be destroyed (or used up), then?

Then E=mc2 can't mean that energy can be CONVERTED into matter and vise versa...

What does "converted" really Mean? Because It can't mean the energy destroyed and matter created because that violates thermodynamic laws.

Converted, like in exchanged. You exchange $ or € or vice versa. Nothing lost, nothing gained (yeah, forgetting exchange fees; metaphors only go so far). So the amount of energy in the universe is not constant and the amount of matter in the universe is not constant, but the amount of ehergy/matter IS constant.

I know that it takes tons of energy to split an atom and create energy out of it....But Still,Matter is being destroyed which violates thermodynamic laws.

No, it is being exchaged to energy.

It also takes tons of energy to collide particles to create matter but still you are substituing energy(destroyed) for matter(created).

Exchanging

Hans

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I don't believe the equation E=mc² violates any law of thermodynamics.

But there is an issue here that needs to be addressed and which I think is being widely misinterpreted.

E=mc² does not say that matter and energy are the same thing. What it does say is that a certain amount of energy is obtained when a certain amount of matter is annihilated which is a different thing entirely.

But there is a further problem in the use of the word "amount". We assume that "mass" and "energy" are quantities of "substances" - and this interpretation is too simplistic. Energy is not some kind of "magic liquid", we can't go and fill up a gallon jar with "energy". Nor could we do so with mass. Rather, mass and energy are names we give to particular manifestations or aspects of something more fundamental. Soapy Sam hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that they are aspects of the same thing.

The two faces of a coin are both "aspects" of the coin. But they are neither equal, equivalent or interchangeable. They are distinct and different, and observation of them depends on the frame of reference of the observer. Imagine a coin suspended in mid-air so that an observer on one side sees the heads and an observer on the other side sees the tails. Now, we can agree that they are both looking at a coin - the coin is the fundamental object in question. But they will disagree on an apparent aspect of the coin - if we ask each which side is facing them, one will say "heads", the other will say "tails". It would be silly to deny this and say, "Well heads is the same as tails", because it clearly isn't. Nor could we say, "The total amount of sides is two and therefore we shall blur the distinction between one side and the other". Well, we could say it, but it would be a lousy argument! :)

Therefore, in respect of energy/mass it would be more accurate to say that they are both superficial aspects of something fundamental. Different and distinct aspects, that depend on something unique to a particular observer. So we need to start by identifying the fundamental thing that we're looking at, and then look at what distinguishes one observer from another.

I believe the fundamental thing is momentum. If we start from the assumption that all things in the universe have a property which we call momentum, it starts to make sense. But what is "momentum"? Isaac Newton thought it was fundamental too, he defined it as, "a quantity of motion". Which, despite its simplicity is a rather good definition.

Let us start with two objects. Each has a fundamental property of momentum. We place an observer on one of the objects. From the point of view of that observer we can now define "mass" and "energy" as relative aspects of momentum.

Assuming our observer is on object A:

1. If the object B is in net motion (not conservative motion) relative to object A, then object B appears to have a quality we call "energy".

2. If the object B is stationary relative to object A, then object B appears to have a quality we call "mass".

Superficially, this appears to be a pretty weak and useless definition - but think about it. It's much more subtle than it appears.

The situation is analogous to electric and magnetic fields. If an observer is stationary with respect to an electric field, he sees only an electric field. If the observer is in motion relative to an electric field, he sees a magnetic field (and a changing electric field). In this latter case, it is actually the magnetic field that is equivalent to the momentum. The question of whether electric and magnetic fields are independent entities rather than just aspects of the same thing dependent on motion, is the same question (in form, if not substance) to the questions of mass/momentum/energy.


Basically what you are saying is that an object in motion has momentum while an object at rest has potential?


Also..How can an object not have mass and show energy at the same time?

Also..Define "energy". Im not sure I understand your defenition of it,Or if you even defined it.

Also explain how matter is created and how energy is created.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Trust me, it is not.

Not saying it is.


No, because why couldn't it be destroyed (or used up), then?

That violates the laws of conservation of energy and matter.

Converted, like in exchanged. You exchange $ or € or vice versa. Nothing lost, nothing gained (yeah, forgetting exchange fees; metaphors only go so far). So the amount of energy in the universe is not constant and the amount of matter in the universe is not constant, but the amount of ehergy/matter IS constant.

No....Exchanging dollars for euros you loose dollars and gain euros,Exchanging euros for dollars you loose dollars and gain euros...But the laws of conservation of matter and energy state the amount of energy and matter in the universe remain constant.

Question:Can energy Exist without Matter?

Define-Energy...

[CurtC]

Dustin wrote:
So electricty is not 100% energy since it contains particles which of course is matter. Which likely weighs something.Electrical energy is in the form of photons, which have no (rest) mass.
If Energy(as defined by every physics book i've read) Is just the ability to do work(move matter).Someone else already asked about this, but you keep making the same assertion. Where did you read that the ability to do work is the same thing as "moving matter"? It's not really right.
How is an Atomic Bomb a small scale?You should have asked "how is the Sun small scale?" But for most purposes down here on Earth, matter and energy remain as matter and energy respectively, so we can, in most situations, ignore the conversion. For those purposes, it's small scale.

I accused someone on another thread a few days ago of being intentionally obtuse. I should have saved that phrase for this thread. It's been explained to you again and again, but you keep posting the same basic question. I'll try to summarize:

* The laws of thermodynamics were originally written before it was known that e and m were interchangeable, and they did indeed say that energy is conserved.

* Discoveries in the 20th century taught us that they are interchangeable, so the laws of thermodynamics got modified, so that (e+m) is conserved. This is likely left out of many textbooks, because the problems students work on when dealing with thermo classes can pretty much ignore the conversion.

Because It can't mean the energy destroyed and matter created because that violates thermodynamic laws.No, it doesn't violate thermodynamic laws. It violates the laws as they were first written, but now we know that the quantity (e+m) is conserved, so they can change from one form to another.

Do you feel that scientists don't really understand this? That's the impression I get from you.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by CurtC
Do you feel that scientists don't really understand this? That's the impression I get from you.


I get mixed answers from various people and mixed answers from various websites,But
You explained it better than the others did...


But You say that work is not the ability to move matter? What then is "Work" and How would you Define "Energy"?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Dustin
This really does not clear a thing up..

First of all...I do already see e=mc2 as e is mc2.

Second of all...If you charge a battery with electrical charge,You are sending electricty into it(Electromagnetic wave) which consists of particles..Which Im not sure,But I think they have weight.

No, not an electromagnetic wave. You are sending electrons (which do weigh something) through it. They don't stay in there, but passing through they do work. They "wind up" some chemical configurations in there. Wind up is a good expression; when you wind up a clock, it also gets heavier (not so much that I think we will ever be able to measure it, but still..).

So electricty is not 100% energy since it contains particles which of course is matter. Which likely weighs something.

Yes, electricity is energy. But to move it you need to move matter (since energy is the ability to move matter).

A better example would be sound waves...Do sound waves weigh any thing? No,They theirselfs do not...Their medium however does. And a "sound wave" is just like a ocean wave as in the energy of the ocean wave would not exist without a medium or matter(water).

Mechanical waves are generally a poor methphor for electromagnetic waves. They really have very little in common. I think I'll gove you the same advice as Igave Kumar: Read the book, starting at page #1. At the moment you are trying to make sense of pages #457, #14, #53, and #1218.

You are likely to fail.

Hans

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by Dustin
This really does not clear a thing up..

First of all...I do already see e=mc2 as e is mc2.

Second of all...If you charge a battery with electrical charge,You are sending electricty into it(Electromagnetic wave) which consists of particles..Which Im not sure,But I think they have weight. So electricty is not 100% energy since it contains particles which of course is matter. Which likely weighs something.

A better example would be sound waves...Do sound waves weigh any thing? No,They theirselfs do not...Their medium however does. And a "sound wave" is just like a ocean wave as in the energy of the ocean wave would not exist without a medium or matter(water).

Okay, here's a simple example:
You look at a electron with very little energy (it's not moving around too much, maybe it's part of your arm), and you will find that its mass is very small.
You look at an electron with alot of energy, this energy could be coming from its increadible speed as it hurtles toward the earth, and you find that it's energy is much larger.
Both are electrons. But one has more mass because it has more energy.
And this doesn't only apply to kinetic energy either. Any form of increase to the energy of an object or system will increase it's mass in a dirrect way. Namely following the formula E-mc squared.

For instance, if you heat up a bot of water, with the lid on so that no water inside will escape, it's mass will increase as well. This is because the thermal energy increased, but you can also look at is as the average kinetic energy of each particle having increased.
If you climb a mountain you will actually have greater mass. This is because your potential energy will have increased.
Any normal scale that could detect the differance (yeah right) would actually show you as weighing less than it showed you at sea level, because you're further from the center of the earth, but your mass will have increased, even if to a miniscule extent.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Dustin
Basically what you are saying is that an object in motion has momentum while an object at rest has potential?

Also..How can an object not have mass and show energy at the same time?

Also..Define "energy". Im not sure I understand your defenition of it,Or if you even defined it.

Also explain how matter is created and how energy is created.

No, that is not what I am saying. Firstly you need to define "motion". Motion is a purely relative term. There is no way of defining some absolute motion because there is no absolute frame of reference. If an object is found in empty space, is it in motion or not? There is no way to tell in any absolute sense - the only motion we can speak about meaningfully is motion relative to us as observers. Therefore understanding that motion is relative (and therefore so is mass, energy and momentum) is key.

As I mentioned in another thread, all objects seem to have some sort of internal periodic motion associated with them. For example at the quantum level we talk about the wavelength of particles - this implies a periodic motion otherwise there wouldn't be a "wave" that we could meaningfully talk about the "wavelength" of!

But, I don't need to even start from that - all I need to do is define an abstract quality called "momentum". You have to let go of classical ideas first. Stop thinking of momentum as being a quantity of mass in motion, and start from the assumption that there is some totally unknown property that we will call "momentum". It is from there that you build the other definitions.

A photon, by definition, has energy but has no mass. A photon is always (relatively) in motion with respect to any observer - basic relativity.

I did define energy (look again).

Energy and mass are not "created". They are not substances as I said. They are properties we associate with an object depending on how we look at it (from a relative state of rest or motion). For example, if you look at a movie, frame by frame, you have a set of static pictures. A person in that movie appears to have no quality which we would call "life" in the individual static frames. But when we run the movie reel through a camera, the rapid motion of frames appears to us to be a "live" event, and the person is no longer a static, lifeless, object, but rather appears to be just like a living person. The illusion of continuity arises because the frames are relatively in motion with respect to us. Therefore with regard to a movie, we could define a person in a static frame as having "presence". But the person in the moving frame appears to have "life". The qualities we call "presence" and "life" are not objective physical entities, they are subjective impressions that depend on our state of motion relative to a movie frame.

In the same way, the qualities we call "mass" and "energy" are subjective qualities that appear depending on our state of motion relative to another body. The only fundamental property we require the body to have (in a physical sense) is a property called "momentum".

Like I said before, think about it. That goes for everybody!

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by CurtC
Electrical energy is in the form of photons, which have no (rest) mass.

Not that it really matters much, but electricity is made up of streams of electrons. The reason they can be used for energy is because they all have the same electrical charge.
They repulse each other and are attacted to things with positive charges.
Also, moving electrical fields produce magnetic fields, and vice versa. I think...
Anyway, that's why you can use electricity to do work.
Electrons do have mass, but their mass will actually increase just based upon what sort of electrical potential builds up. Basically, electrical energy = mass (c)(c).
To put it another way, the mass of a battery will decrease as it runs down, even though it has the same amount of matter in it. The actual amount of that decrease is very very small though, becasue the energy isn't that large.
To make something's mass increase by 1kg you'd have to add
90,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. I think that's the right number.
But no matter what you put that energy into, it's mass will still be equal to 1kg. It will still cause that same gravitational field.
For instance, say you explode an atomic bomb inside a large sphere in space. the sphere is large enough and made of something strong enough that the whole explosion will be contained.
Question, will the gravitational field produced by the sphere decrease? After all you just converted some mass into energy, right?
Answer: No. The "new" energy IS mass, and whatever form it is now taking (increase in temperature for instance) it should still create a gravitational field equal to the one it had before.

I'm pretty sure that's right.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Some clarification.

The point is that mass, not matter, is equivalent to energy. Typically matter is anything which has non-zero rest-mass. This rest-mass is a form of mass/energy, as are kinetic energy and potential energy. Indeed QM indicates that rest-mass itself is a form of potential energy, associated with the Higgs field.

That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that energy is conserved. Turning matter into energy does not create energy. It just changes the form of the energy from rest-mass to something else (usually kinetic energy). Note that kinetic energy has just as much mass as an equivalent amount of rest-mass.

So the total mass/energy of the Universe does not change. You just sometimes turn rest-mass into other forms of mass, such as kinetic energy.

You just have to remember that mass is energy, and energy is mass. Mass is not a form of energy, it is energy. There is no form of energy which does not have mass given by M=E/C^2, and there is no form of mass which does not have energy given by E=MC^2.


Dr. Stupid

[CurtC]

Originally posted by Roboramma
Not that it really matters much, but electricity is made up of streams of electrons.That's not a very good way of thinking about electricity. It's kind of what most kids learn in fifth grade, but beyond that it's not very helpful.

Think of electricity instead as the intensity of the electric field. This field can cause electrons to move, but moving electrons themselves are not "electricity." You can have other forms, such as a propagating EM wave, which moves no electrons, and you can have a stream of protons moving due to the electric field, no electrons required. And the electric field is carried by photons, which was my point in the first place.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Dustin
How is an Atomic Bomb a small scale?
An atomic bomb is NOT a chemical reaction.

You seem to be confusing some very basic things.

[rppa]

Originally posted by patnray
An atomic bomb is NOT a chemical reaction.

You seem to be confusing some very basic things.

Yes, that question ("how is an atomic bomb small scale?") confused me in the context of chemical reactions also.

However, an atomic bomb IS small scale in discussion of conversion of matter to energy. Most of the particles that were there before an atomic reaction are still there afterward. Only a very tiny fraction of mc^2 is released. A one kiloton explosion is the energy equivalent of 47 mg of mass. The Hiroshima explosion was about 15 kT, or about 0.7 gm mass equivalent.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Roboramma
Electrons do have mass, but their mass will actually increase just based upon what sort of electrical potential builds up. Basically, electrical energy = mass (c)(c).
To put it another way, the mass of a battery will decrease as it runs down, even though it has the same amount of matter in it. The actual amount of that decrease is very very small though, becasue the energy isn't that large.

Um...I think you've got a bit muddled there. A bettery doesn't contain energy (and therefore a little more mass) because it has been stuffed with electrons. That would give it an overall -ve electrical charge.

A battery contains energy (and therefore a little more mass) as electrical potential because electrical charges have been separated.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dustin
Energy is defined as anything that can do work(move matter),How can energy be "tied up in mass" ?

There is a great thought experiment for this. Once many people realize that energy can be converted to mass, and vice versa, they make a thought experiment for a perpetual motion machine. At the bottom, put something that converts water into energy, just a little upstream from that, put a turbine that converts the kenetic energy of the water into energy as well. Beam the photons up to a receiver. The receiver converts the photons back into water, and the water travels downhill to the turbine.

You are getting the output of the turbine for free, right? Wrong. When you beam the photons up, they lose energy due to redshift. The amount of energy they lose is equal to the kenetic energy the water would have gained.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dustin
How is an Atomic Bomb a small scale?


Within an atom bomb, each atom of uranium is not converted into energy. If it did, we'd be in really, really, big trouble. No, in an atom bomb, uranium is decayed via chain reaction (the atom is split). The post decayed state has significantly less energy, and also less mass, thus the conversion of mass to energy.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by CurtC
That's not a very good way of thinking about electricity. It's kind of what most kids learn in fifth grade, but beyond that it's not very helpful.

Think of electricity instead as the intensity of the electric field. This field can cause electrons to move, but moving electrons themselves are not "electricity." You can have other forms, such as a propagating EM wave, which moves no electrons, and you can have a stream of protons moving due to the electric field, no electrons required. And the electric field is carried by photons, which was my point in the first place.

aye, and they are tricky buggers too, bouncing off any change in impedence and making reflections, etc.

[egslim]

Because it is very much simplified, highschool physics contains lots of small errors. In the context in which they are presented they're usually correct, but when applied to other fields one gets into trouble.
Take for example the definition of energy as: "the ability to do work".
I would prefer this: "Energy is a mathematical quantity, existing in different forms. (For example kinetic energy, gravitational energy, heat and mass.) The sum of all these energies in a closed system is constant.

When one gets to modern physics, classical definitions lose their value and can actually cause a lot of confusion. Take for example "wave" and "particle". In quantum mechanics, every particle is a wave and every wave a particle. Which is impossible with the classic definitions, yet works perfect for quantum mechanical calculations.

This is what makes modern physics very abstract and thus a lot harder (if not impossible) to comprehend.
Note the difference between comprehension en the ability to describe.

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Um...I think you've got a bit muddled there. A bettery doesn't contain energy (and therefore a little more mass) because it has been stuffed with electrons. That would give it an overall -ve electrical charge.

A battery contains energy (and therefore a little more mass) as electrical potential because electrical charges have been separated.

I'm not quite sure what you mean... I didn't say it contained energy because it was stuffed with electrons.
All I said (maybe not in the clearest way) was that even though there may be the same amount of matter present from one moment to the next, the total mass of the battery is slightly less when it has less energy.
I'm pretty sure that's correct, regardless of the internal workings of batteries which I know very little about. :)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Roboramma
I'm not quite sure what you mean... I didn't say it contained energy because it was stuffed with electrons.


OK, I can see what you were trying to say now.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
A photon, by definition, has energy but has no mass. A photon is always (relatively) in motion with respect to any observer - basic relativity.

[...]


[...] the qualities we call "mass" and "energy" are subjective qualities that appear depending on our state of motion relative to another body. The only fundamental property we require the body to have (in a physical sense) is a property called "momentum".I don't understand how you're looking at this.

The momentum of an object depends on the observer's state of motion, whereas its mass doesn't. At least, its rest mass doesn't, which seems to be the sort of mass you're talking about, because you say that photons are massless.

And the other sort of mass---namely, relativistic mass---is identical to energy, not complementary to it as you seem to be saying.

If by "fundamental" you mean "invariant" (i.e., independent of the observer's state of motion), then rest mass is and momentum and energy are not.

[egslim]

Not sure if this is what you mean, but rest mass is also a form of energy. See what happens when matter and anti-matter collide, both particles are annihilated.

[voidx]

I think he was getting stuck in semantics also. As Stimpson pointed out he was interchanging matter with mass. Either way, matter would only truly be destroyed if it did not result in the emission of mass/energy.