If mass is accelerated continuously, will it ever turn into pure energy, and if so, how?

[Goosemaster]

<---fool, but a curious fool at that


If mass is continuously accelerated by some infinitely-capable force, how would it turn into energy by e=mc^2, in practical sense, if that is at all imaginable; that said, would it not change into energy, but in some way be definable as energy?

Would the speed or the increasing mass serve as a catalyst for some sort of reaction, and what kind of reaction would that be? Think of it as having me ask you how solid turns into a gas, via sublimation, but focusing on how the process takes place.

My thoughts tem from interest in the difference between mass and energy. I am interested to see if they are one in the same, except at different states, or if they are different states of something else.


Thanks

 

[MrDudeMan]

errr an infinitely capable source? that doesnt really make any sense. if it was infinitely capable, it would need infinite energy, right? wouldnt that mean nothing else could exist because it would all be in the source?

 

[bobsmith1492]

If you put infinite energy into accelerating an object, the energy you have there would be infinity + mc^2; it's the same idea as infinity + 1 = infinity; therefore, you can't get any energy out of it.

Ok so I just made that up but it makes sense.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
If you put infinite energy into accelerating an object, the energy you have there would be infinity + mc^2; it's the same idea as infinity + 1 = infinity; therefore, you can't get any energy out of it.

Ok so I just made that up but it makes sense.

lol




I simply gave an example usign an infinite energy source because that is what is said to be required to push something to that speed.


Rather, think of it like this:

if there was a way to make object "A" go the at the speed of light, would it change into energy? If so, how?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
If you put infinite energy into accelerating an object, the energy you have there would be infinity + mc^2; it's the same idea as infinity + 1 = infinity; therefore, you can't get any energy out of it.

Ok so I just made that up but it makes sense.

lol




I simply gave an example usign an infinite energy source because that is what is said to be required to push something to that speed.


Rather, think of it like this:

if there was a way to make object "A" go the at the speed of light, would it change into energy? If so, how?

that isnt possible, though. to push something with mass to that speed would require infinite energy, and that pretty much takes up all the energy in the universe, so there would be no mass left to push.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
If you put infinite energy into accelerating an object, the energy you have there would be infinity + mc^2; it's the same idea as infinity + 1 = infinity; therefore, you can't get any energy out of it.

Ok so I just made that up but it makes sense.

lol




I simply gave an example usign an infinite energy source because that is what is said to be required to push something to that speed.


Rather, think of it like this:

if there was a way to make object "A" go the at the speed of light, would it change into energy? If so, how?

that isnt possible, though. to push something with mass to that speed would require infinite energy, and that pretty much takes up all the energy in the universe, so there would be no mass left to push.

SOmehow when people ay that and I read it, it seems to describe the "creation of light"

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

SOmehow when people ay that and I read it, it seems to describe the "creation of light"

what do you mean? light has mass, but only because it has momentum due to its energy. it doesnt have mass if it stops moving.

 

[the splat in the hat]

theres millions of questions surrounding light speed and e=mc² , and like the sound barrier we really need to test it physicly before we get a truely accurate answer , l dont think anyone can predict what really happens to mass at light speeds so to speak, and how can they , we already know theres things in space that cant be put correctly into e=mc², its why quantum physics has come along, we humans assume to know it all, but really we know so little about our universe still.
Who knows we may find going faster than light very possible, we may not , but to assume to know the FACTS on it when we cant really test it physicly, to me is like being a believer in the bible ! faith.....
Let science take its coarse , and PROVE it one way or another one day, but with all the debate in the world and many scientists are starting to believe light speed can be breached.
The future looks very interesting.....

yea yea mass this mass that energy this energy that , like the bible prove it ! you cant , all that can be shown is maths, um which we know our math table isnt perfectly accurate.
bla bla atomic clock , dribble dribble, suss em out not accurate enoungh to tell us FACT.

Doing it will prove or disprove it, but doing is real , and can we ?
Remember sceince has been wrong before , Einstein has been wrong, his law is good, but not perfect, go science ...............

 

[MAW1082]

Mass is energy. Energy is mass.

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

I wonder if the question might be rephrased as

"How can we turn a (stationary) object of mass m completely into pure energy of E=mc2?"

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat
theres millions of questions surrounding light speed and e=mc² , and like the sound barrier we really need to test it physicly before we get a truely accurate answer , l dont think anyone can predict what really happens to mass at light speeds so to speak, and how can they , we already know theres things in space that cant be put correctly into e=mc², its why quantum physics has come along, we humans assume to know it all, but really we know so little about our universe still.
Who knows we may find going faster than light very possible, we may not , but to assume to know the FACTS on it when we cant really test it physicly, to me is like being a believer in the bible ! faith.....
Let science take its coarse , and PROVE it one way or another one day, but with all the debate in the world and many scientists are starting to believe light speed can be breached.
The future looks very interesting.....

yea yea mass this mass that energy this energy that , like the bible prove it ! you cant , all that can be shown is maths, um which we know our math table isnt perfectly accurate.
bla bla atomic clock , dribble dribble, suss em out not accurate enoungh to tell us FACT.

Doing it will prove or disprove it, but doing is real , and can we ?
Remember sceince has been wrong before , Einstein has been wrong, his law is good, but not perfect, go science ...............

wow.

 

[TStep]

a little OT but still related:

I've read where time slows down a little, proven by clocks, but what relation does it have to one's actual physical aging process?

For example:

I go on a journey for 12 months (from earth's perspective) at such as speed, that upon my return, the atomic clock in the spaceship shows only 6 months has passed. My hair grows at the rate of 1" per month on earth. Upon my return, has my hair grown 6" or 12"?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: TStep
a little OT but still related:

I've read where time slows down a little, proven by clocks, but what relation does it have to one's actual physical aging process?

For example:

I go on a journey for 12 months (from earth's perspective) at such as speed, that upon my return, the atomic clock in the spaceship shows only 6 months has passed. My hair grows at the rate of 1" per month on earth. Upon my return, has my hair grown 6" or 12"?

6"

Same would be true of something like your total number of heartbeats, etc.

 

[TStep]

Follow up:

Take three frame references: A, B, and C

A: travelling at 0 velocity as viewed from B who is travelling at say 0.9c

B: travelling at 0.9c as viewed from A

C: travelling at 0.9c as viewed from B

Is this possible? Can A view C or vise versa? Or does A cease to exist when viewed from C since time essentially past in an infinitely small instant? Does C cease to exist when viewed from A because C will never happen (infinitely long time)?

 

[CrispyFried]

if you keep accelerating something with the infinite power source, eventually so much energy would be added to it, its apparent mass would grow so large that its own gravity would collapse it into a black hole. Yes? No?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TStep
Follow up:

Take three frame references: A, B, and C

A: travelling at 0 velocity as viewed from B who is travelling at say 0.9c

B: travelling at 0.9c as viewed from A

C: travelling at 0.9c as viewed from B

Is this possible? Can A view C or vise versa? Or does A cease to exist when viewed from C since time essentially past in an infinitely small instant? Does C cease to exist when viewed from A because C will never happen (infinitely long time)?

The speed of light is, supposedly, constant in all frames of reference. According to theory (which has also been bourne out by observation), A would see B & C at .9c, B & C would see A at 0c and see each other at .9c.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TStep
Follow up:

Take three frame references: A, B, and C

A: travelling at 0 velocity as viewed from B who is travelling at say 0.9c

B: travelling at 0.9c as viewed from A

C: travelling at 0.9c as viewed from B

Is this possible? Can A view C or vise versa? Or does A cease to exist when viewed from C since time essentially past in an infinitely small instant? Does C cease to exist when viewed from A because C will never happen (infinitely long time)?

The speed of light is, supposedly, constant in all frames of reference. According to theory (which has also been bourne out by observation), A would see B & C at .9c, B & C would see A at 0c and see each other at .9c.

It'll take some serious calculation to work out the actual measured velocity.

In principle though, each of A, B and C will measure different velocities for the other two bodies. They will also all be right. Remember that the faster you go relative to another body, the more time slows down relative to that body. Depending on which inertial reference frame you choose, time will move differently.

In answer to the original question, note that there is no V term in E=MC^2. You cannot become energy by accelerating continuously (even if such a thing were possible). This thread is mixing a number of different concepts which don't necessarily apply to each other.

In answer to someone else's comment by the way, photons have no mass by our current definitions thereof.

 

[RossGr]

The correct answer to original question is simply, no.

Consider, that in relationship to distant objects in the universe our speed is very nearly c. Do you feel any heavier? No matter what your speed or how much you accelerate, your mass, as observed by you, will not change, unless of course the food is very good and you pig out.


In relativity problems the observer is always stationary.

So to say

A: travelling at 0 velocity as viewed from B who is travelling at say 0.9c

is not a well posed question.

All you are saying is that A has a velocity of .9c relative to B, who is stationary and who is moving depends on who is doing the observing. A sees B moving, B sees a moving, without an external reference frame it is impossible to say that one is stationary.
B, the observer, would observe A has having a velocity of .9c, Since the obserer is stationary.

The computation to get the velocity of C as observed by A is not really all that difficult, I do not have referenc at hand and will not attempt to dig the relationships out of my memory. A bit of web searching will get you the answer. A good place for more information on this is www.physicsforums.com

 

[Dimos]

Hello, first post

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat
theres millions of questions surrounding light speed and e=mc² ...............................................................................
we already know theres things in space that cant be put correctly into e=mc², its why quantum physics has come along, we humans assume to know it all, but really we know so little about our universe still.

I agree with that, and I would like to say about a thought I made recently which led me to the belief that E=mc^2 is not a totally correct law of physics.

First, I want to point out that this equation has on the one side the E(nergy) and on the other mass and the speed of light. If we accept that the value of the speed of light is a fixed number, we have a straight-forward relationship between mass and energy. This equation is pretty much usefull to find out how much energy we can have from a given mass of i.e. uranium.

Now, if you think of the way a nuclear reactor works, it is after all a heat generator for heating the water to move some turbines. We do know from experience that the fission of the atom produces vast amounts of heat and radio energy. Now think of a paper, of let's say 10 grams. If you burn it, there may stay 1-2 grams of ash, but the rest mass dissapears as heat thru combustion. So we have 8 (10-2) grams of mass which turn to energy, so we can use the equation E=mc^2, but we all now that 8 grams of paper are not equivalent to 8 grams of uranium! It is obvious that we deal with an equation that does not apply to all cases.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: Dimos

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat
theres millions of questions surrounding light speed and e=mc² ...............................................................................
we already know theres things in space that cant be put correctly into e=mc², its why quantum physics has come along, we humans assume to know it all, but really we know so little about our universe still.

I agree with that, and I would like to say about a thought I made recently which led me to the belief that E=mc^2 is not a totally correct law of physics.

First, I want to point out that this equation has on the one side the E(nergy) and on the other mass and the speed of light. If we accept that the value of the speed of light is a fixed number, we have a straight-forward relationship between mass and energy. This equation is pretty much usefull to find out how much energy we can have from a given mass of i.e. uranium.

Now, if you think of the way a nuclear reactor works, it is after all a heat generator for heating the water to move some turbines. We do know from experience that the fission of the atom produces vast amounts of heat and radio energy. Now think of a paper, of let's say 10 grams. If you burn it, there may stay 1-2 grams of ash, but the rest mass dissapears as heat thru combustion. So we have 8 (10-2) grams of mass which turn to energy, so we can use the equation E=mc^2, but we all now that 8 grams of paper are not equivalent to 8 grams of uranium! It is obvious that we deal with an equation that does not apply to all cases.

No mass disappears when you burn a paper. The resulting products of combustion are H20 and C02 - paper consists of hydrocarbons, and the oxygen comes from the air.

If you weight your paper and oxygen before burning and collect all resulting products you will have exactly the same mass, but in a lower-energy form (i.e. fewer chemical bonds.)

Paper burning is purely chemical - no atomic nuclei are harmed in the process. A nuclear reaction consists of splitting nuclei - again, no mass is lost, but much higher energy bonds are broken, resulting in more energy output.

e=mc^2 has nothing to do with either case - it has to do with converting energy into mass/vice versa, which has never been directly done (well, maybe in particle accelerators....)

EDIT: By the way, welcome to AT!

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Dimos

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat
theres millions of questions surrounding light speed and e=mc² ...............................................................................
we already know theres things in space that cant be put correctly into e=mc², its why quantum physics has come along, we humans assume to know it all, but really we know so little about our universe still.

I agree with that, and I would like to say about a thought I made recently which led me to the belief that E=mc^2 is not a totally correct law of physics.

First, I want to point out that this equation has on the one side the E(nergy) and on the other mass and the speed of light. If we accept that the value of the speed of light is a fixed number, we have a straight-forward relationship between mass and energy. This equation is pretty much usefull to find out how much energy we can have from a given mass of i.e. uranium.

Now, if you think of the way a nuclear reactor works, it is after all a heat generator for heating the water to move some turbines. We do know from experience that the fission of the atom produces vast amounts of heat and radio energy. Now think of a paper, of let's say 10 grams. If you burn it, there may stay 1-2 grams of ash, but the rest mass dissapears as heat thru combustion. So we have 8 (10-2) grams of mass which turn to energy, so we can use the equation E=mc^2, but we all now that 8 grams of paper are not equivalent to 8 grams of uranium! It is obvious that we deal with an equation that does not apply to all cases.

No mass disappears when you burn a paper. The resulting products of combustion are H20 and C02 - paper consists of hydrocarbons, and the oxygen comes from the air.

EDIT: By the way, welcome to AT!

Which, I, for one, am very thankful. When mass disappears, energy replaces it in a big way. A nuke going off does convert some matter to energy. Boom.

 

[Dimos]

 

[ruffilb]

Well, there's no such thing as "pure energy", that we know of. Something's either potential energy or kinetic energy or a combination of both, right? Sounds like what you've got with something going at the speed of light is just something with an infinite amount of kinetic energy.

 

[Makromizer]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Dimos

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat
theres millions of questions surrounding light speed and e=mc² ...............................................................................
we already know theres things in space that cant be put correctly into e=mc², its why quantum physics has come along, we humans assume to know it all, but really we know so little about our universe still.

I agree with that, and I would like to say about a thought I made recently which led me to the belief that E=mc^2 is not a totally correct law of physics.

First, I want to point out that this equation has on the one side the E(nergy) and on the other mass and the speed of light. If we accept that the value of the speed of light is a fixed number, we have a straight-forward relationship between mass and energy. This equation is pretty much usefull to find out how much energy we can have from a given mass of i.e. uranium.

Now, if you think of the way a nuclear reactor works, it is after all a heat generator for heating the water to move some turbines. We do know from experience that the fission of the atom produces vast amounts of heat and radio energy. Now think of a paper, of let's say 10 grams. If you burn it, there may stay 1-2 grams of ash, but the rest mass dissapears as heat thru combustion. So we have 8 (10-2) grams of mass which turn to energy, so we can use the equation E=mc^2, but we all now that 8 grams of paper are not equivalent to 8 grams of uranium! It is obvious that we deal with an equation that does not apply to all cases.

No mass disappears when you burn a paper. The resulting products of combustion are H20 and C02 - paper consists of hydrocarbons, and the oxygen comes from the air.

If you weight your paper and oxygen before burning and collect all resulting products you will have exactly the same mass, but in a lower-energy form (i.e. fewer chemical bonds.)

Paper burning is purely chemical - no atomic nuclei are harmed in the process. A nuclear reaction consists of splitting nuclei - again, no mass is lost, but much higher energy bonds are broken, resulting in more energy output.

e=mc^2 has nothing to do with either case - it has to do with converting energy into mass/vice versa, which has never been directly done (well, maybe in particle accelerators....)

EDIT: By the way, welcome to AT!

If you split atoms, mass is lost indeed. This is the very source of nuclear energy.
As an easier example, let's take hydrogen-fusion: first, we have two deuterium cores, each consisting of one neutro and one proton. Now that we fuse them together, we get a very instable (3,2) helium core and a free neutron. Now regarding our product, of course we still have 2 neutrons and 2 protons, so where did the massive amount of energy come from?
It comes from the energy that binds the neutron and the proton to each other. Now this energy might not be represented as mass in form of protons or neutrons (or electrons), but it is there. And this energy is also mass.
So, yes, you do lose mass while fusing two pieces of deuterium together.
Now, at some point, atoms become to fragile, as they are to heavy. That's why we gain energy when we split some atoms (non-stable, radioactive ones), while we gain energy when fusing small ones together (usually hydrogen-isotopes like deuterium ant tritium, but you could also take others like beryllium). Of course we still can't handle controlled fusion, but that's another topic. H-bombs also work that way, but as you might guess, that's not what one would call "controlled" fusion.
The loss of mass in case of deterium-deuterium fusion isn't that big but still quite measurable, as far as I remember, it's around 1%, but that could as well be wrong.

 

[bobsmith1492]

So, if I understand you correctly, subatomic bonds have a particular mass? How does that work? It seems like it would have to be negative - if you fuse two hydrogen atoms, you gain energy (the point of fusion), and you gain a bond. So, for there to be net energy out, there would have to be a net loss of mass, so a new bond corresponds to a loss of mass... how does that work?