Thread: at what level is enery and mass the same thing

just wondering. i know one can turn into the other and vice versa. but in the context of the various fields of study.
i've just picked up a book about quantum physics (physics for everyone, you know the kind of books). this is my first book specifically about quantum physics.any other books just glanced at the uncertainty principle and explained where the quantum mechanics began.
is quantum physics still at the level that deals with particles with and without mass and they're response to energy?or is it at this level that one would get an understanding of the most elementary building blocks of everything?(that is the things that make up both energy and mass). or is that another level of study.something like string theory? or other theories that go further down a level again?

perhaps look into Lavoisier. (note how energy is defined (observed) when associating to make molecules)

then read up on Faraday

then maxwell

telsa

get an idea of what electromagnetism (the spectrum) and the elements


then return with questions there of


i suggest to any, return to nature, what life is and then seek to combine mass and energy into a base understanding.

go back to the basic of calulating energy as the specimen (ie....electronic/electrical frame, before going into physics; i promise you, it will be the best advice you ever got on this subject)

i'm ok with understanding energy at those levels. but energy is always different to mass at those levels. i was just wondering at what level in theoretical physics does one work with basic building blocks that make up both energy and mass?

Originally Posted by haventaclue

i'm ok with understanding energy at those levels. but energy is always different to mass at those levels. i was just wondering at what level in theoretical physics does one work with basic building blocks that make up both energy and mass?

space and time

if you are inquiring as to which math (physics)

that will depend on the discipline (school, model, beliefs)

as for that Theory of Everything type of math, that is consistant across the board??/..

not published anywhere on the planet, that i know of.....................

but i could be wrong. (if you find something let me know)

ah so it hasnt been figured out yet. fair enough. i was just wondering is that what string theory was trying to do. or other theories.or would there be something about it in the quantum physics book even. erra if i ever come across the answer i'll be sure to let you know.

Originally Posted by haventaclue

ah so it hasnt been figured out yet. fair enough. i was just wondering is that what string theory was trying to do.

YES

or other theories.

many of them

or would there be something about it in the quantum physics book even.

many ideas that describe many phenomenon but not a one consistant across the board. (we need ya man)

erra if i ever come across the answer i'll be sure to let you know.

thanx a bunch

orrrrrrrrrrrrrr

what if we had a discussion and you have ideas to work on, would ya?

Originally Posted by haventaclue

just wondering. i know one can turn into the other and vice versa. but in the context of the various fields of study.
i've just picked up a book about quantum physics (physics for everyone, you know the kind of books). this is my first book specifically about quantum physics.any other books just glanced at the uncertainty principle and explained where the quantum mechanics began.
is quantum physics still at the level that deals with particles with and without mass and they're response to energy?or is it at this level that one would get an understanding of the most elementary building blocks of everything?(that is the things that make up both energy and mass). or is that another level of study.something like string theory? or other theories that go further down a level again?

Mass and energy are, per relativity, simply two sides of the same coin. That applies all the time, and everywhere.

The equivalence is most useful and pronounced when one is dealing with elementary particles, but it holds everywher and all the time.

If you heat a bucket of water, the kinetic energy of the molecules increases, and there is a slight increase of mass associated with that increase, consistent with .

If you want to learn serious science you would be safe in ignoring Bishadi.

If you heat a bucket of water, the kinetic energy of the molecules increases, and there is a slight increase of mass associated with that increase, consistent with .

nice one. how exactly does it have an increase in mass though?i thought protons, neutrons and electrons have a set mass. i always assumed the energy absorbed just made the atoms jiggle more and/or electrons move from orbit to orbit or from molecule to molecule(depending on the nature of the energy being added.)the number of elementary particles hasnt increased has it?just from allowing heat to propagate through the water. or does the size of the particles change.

see i've read a bit of feynmans six easy pieces and other books and its always just energy hits an electron and it moves and the atom/molecule its part of jiggles and all books so far have just kept it at the bohr model of the atom.
but of course it goes further than that. i don't know much myself about particle physics and i've never seen energy and mass treated as such and was wondering about, as you said they are both different sides of the same coin, what the coin was so to speak. i assume its a big question so not looking for the big answer but at what level might one be doing equations with a variable or unit that is what makes both erergy and mass.
am i wrong to say that according to string theory vibrating strings make up both energy and mass depending on . . . <insert string variables(length?how they curl?vibrate?)>. .

Originally Posted by haventaclue

If you heat a bucket of water, the kinetic energy of the molecules increases, and there is a slight increase of mass associated with that increase, consistent with .

nice one. how exactly does it have an increase in mass though?i thought protons, neutrons and electrons have a set mass. i always assumed the energy absorbed just made the atoms jiggle more and/or electrons move from orbit to orbit or from molecule to molecule(depending on the nature of the energy being added.)the number of elementary particles hasnt increased has it?just from allowing heat to propagate through the water. or does the size of the particles change.

see i've read a bit of feynmans six easy pieces and other books and its always just energy hits an electron and it moves and the atom/molecule its part of jiggles and all books so far have just kept it at the bohr model of the atom.
but of course it goes further than that. i don't know much myself about particle physics and i've never seen energy and mass treated as such and was wondering about, as you said they are both different sides of the same coin, what the coin was so to speak. i assume its a big question so not looking for the big answer but at what level might one be doing equations with a variable or unit that is what makes both erergy and mass.
am i wrong to say that according to string theory vibrating strings make up both energy and mass depending on . . . <insert string variables(length?how they curl?vibrate?)>. .

Energy and mass related by the equation . In special relativity one finds that mass is dependent on the reference frame of the observer, and that objects in motion relative to an observer have greater mass relative to the observer than the same object when it is at rest. So proteons, and electrons have a rest mass that is the same for all protons and all electrons. But the mass seen by a specific observer is dependent on the speed relative to that observer. The speed is related to kinetic energy.

The precise relation is where v is the velocity of the particle relative to the observer.

You might want to look further into Feynman's explanations. I don't recall if his treatment of special relativity is in "Six Easy Pieces" or not, but it is certainly in The Feynman Lectures on Physics of which "Six Easy Pieces" is an excerpt.

perfect. so its relativity. thats in "six not so easy pieces". its on my to read list.thanks for that.suppose i'll start with the primer on the forum now while i'm here.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Mass and energy are, per relativity, simply two sides of the same coin. That applies all the time, and everywhere.

The equivalence is most useful and pronounced when one is dealing with elementary particles, but it holds everywher and all the time.

If you heat a bucket of water, the kinetic energy of the molecules increases, and there is a slight increase of mass associated with that increase, consistent with .

I’d think that when you heat a bucket of water the water is likely to evaporate, decreasing the mass of water, and so the quantity of particles and the energy inside must also decrease.
In a closed environment the e=mc2 may work, building pressure until the kettle pops broken. That’s the whole concept behind the nuclear energy if I am not mistaken.

I think it's safe to say that Dr. Rocket was ignoring evaporation and boiling in that example.

Anyway, it's not the whole idea of nuclear energy, but steam generation is used in nearly every power plant of every type. isn't the whole idea either, but it does explain several important details.

Originally Posted by bongobay

I’d think that when you heat a bucket of water the water is likely to evaporate, decreasing the mass of water, and so the quantity of particles and the energy inside must also decrease.
In a closed environment the e=mc2 may work, building pressure until the kettle pops broken. That’s the whole concept behind the nuclear energy if I am not mistaken.

Put a lid on the bucket.

Nuclear energy is due to the ability to release energy from the nucleus because of the variability in binding energy per nucleon. Some nuclei release energy when they are split, and we get energy from fission. Some nuclei release energy when they are formed by the joining of smaller nuclei and we get energy from fusion. In all cases matter and energy are balanced and the equation holds.

mass balancing perfectly with energy?

Let me guess?

Where?

The sun: a wash of energy and mass held perfectly in the form of a sphere. What more could you want.



(I'm hoping that is what was being asked, namely where mass and energy most notably equalise with one another in space-time, otherwise apologies)

Originally Posted by haventaclue

just wondering. i know one can turn into the other and vice versa. but in the context of the various fields of study.
i've just picked up a book about quantum physics (physics for everyone, you know the kind of books). this is my first book specifically about quantum physics.any other books just glanced at the uncertainty principle and explained where the quantum mechanics began.
is quantum physics still at the level that deals with particles with and without mass and they're response to energy?or is it at this level that one would get an understanding of the most elementary building blocks of everything?(that is the things that make up both energy and mass). or is that another level of study.something like string theory? or other theories that go further down a level again?

Suppose you've determined the mass of two particles, and you put them into a particle accelerator and start accelerating them so they're going in opposite directions at a very high speed, like a substantial fraction of the speed of light, and then they collide in a way so they don't bounce off of each other, they just fuse. If you measure the mass of the combined particle, then theoretically it should weigh more than the two original particles put together.

In practice, they would probably give off some heat when they collide, so that would kind of gum up the experiment because some of the energy is getting lost before it becomes mass, but you get the general idea?

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by haventaclue

just wondering. i know one can turn into the other and vice versa. but in the context of the various fields of study.
i've just picked up a book about quantum physics (physics for everyone, you know the kind of books). this is my first book specifically about quantum physics.any other books just glanced at the uncertainty principle and explained where the quantum mechanics began.
is quantum physics still at the level that deals with particles with and without mass and they're response to energy?or is it at this level that one would get an understanding of the most elementary building blocks of everything?(that is the things that make up both energy and mass). or is that another level of study.something like string theory? or other theories that go further down a level again?

Suppose you've determined the mass of two particles, and you put them into a particle accelerator and start accelerating them so they're going in opposite directions at a very high speed, like a substantial fraction of the speed of light, and then they collide in a way so they don't bounce off of each other, they just fuse. If you measure the mass of the combined particle, then theoretically it should weigh more than the two original particles put together.

In practice, they would probably give off some heat when they collide, so that would kind of gum up the experiment because some of the energy is getting lost before it becomes mass, but you get the general idea?

Generally in particle accelerators, particles don't "just fuse". What happens is that the particles interact and a spray of particles emerges. What emerges is consitent with conservation of both mass/energy and momentum.

What is also seen is the energy required to raise particles to a given speed is consistent with relativity.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by haventaclue

just wondering. i know one can turn into the other and vice versa. but in the context of the various fields of study.
i've just picked up a book about quantum physics (physics for everyone, you know the kind of books). this is my first book specifically about quantum physics.any other books just glanced at the uncertainty principle and explained where the quantum mechanics began.
is quantum physics still at the level that deals with particles with and without mass and they're response to energy?or is it at this level that one would get an understanding of the most elementary building blocks of everything?(that is the things that make up both energy and mass). or is that another level of study.something like string theory? or other theories that go further down a level again?

Suppose you've determined the mass of two particles, and you put them into a particle accelerator and start accelerating them so they're going in opposite directions at a very high speed, like a substantial fraction of the speed of light, and then they collide in a way so they don't bounce off of each other, they just fuse. If you measure the mass of the combined particle, then theoretically it should weigh more than the two original particles put together.

In practice, they would probably give off some heat when they collide, so that would kind of gum up the experiment because some of the energy is getting lost before it becomes mass, but you get the general idea?

Generally in particle accelerators, particles don't "just fuse". What happens is that the particles interact and a spray of particles emerges. What emerges is consitent with conservation of both mass/energy and momentum.

What is also seen is the energy required to raise particles to a given speed is consistent with relativity.

So basically, the actual results are more complicated than my description, but the principle is the same. If it were possible to make particles collide without shattering, or emitting light, then the combined particle would weigh more. It's just that it's not possible to make that simple of an event happen.