Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: My mass into pure energy

  1. #1 My mass into pure energy 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    I weigh around 90kg.

    If all of my mass was converted into pure energy. How much of it would there be ? Please don't give the answer to me in terms of joules as it would mean nothing to me....Give it me in terms of destruction. How much of an area could I "wipe out" on the earth if I was converted into pure energy ?

    Strange question I know.


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    e = mc^2 is the formula, yes in joules I'm afraid, It's the temperature that wipes things out, the air gets superheated in a nuclear blast and expands rapidly, the pressure created is what causes the damage, so from Joules you can work out how much air you can heat and to what temperature. After that you can decide what is the 'wipeout temp' and how far it goes - and I ain't goona do the maths for you!.

    though the first bit is easy, 8.1*10^18, if released in 1 second that's 8 million trillion watts! or about 8 thousand trillion 1KW electric fires, you could burn a lot of arse with that!

    I understand the total 'mass to energy' conversion of the hiroshima bomb was about the same as the mass of two matchsticks. BUT it was a long time ago I heard that so check up before you take it fully on board!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 e=mc^2 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    20
    Ok, a lot of people are confused about this. The equation e=mc^2 does NOT describe the results of a transformation that can actually occur. The equation describes how much energy would HAVE to be created, to replace a set amount of mass that was removed from the universe.

    Nuclear blasts DO NOT convert matter into energy. In a nuclear weapon the strong nuclear bonds are broken in atoms, and the energy in those bonds in released. NOTE: no mass has been converted to energy; energy in strong nuclear bonds has been released.

    You cannot use e=mc^2 to show how destructive a mass would be if converted to energy, as that is not what the equation describes.

    You could work out how much energy would be released if all the strong nuclear bonds making up the matter in your body were broken. But why.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    jeheron, have mike brainwashed you?

    Nuclear blasts DO NOT convert matter into energ
    oh yeah it does, mass into energy gives big boom

    In a nuclear weapon the strong nuclear bonds are broken in atoms, and the energy in those bonds in released
    the strong force is responsible for it yes but the sum of the resulting components mass is LESS than what you originally had. so then the MASS has been converted into energy. you shouldnt listen to mike hes a crackpot

    You cannot use e=mc^2 to show how destructive a mass would be if converted to energy, as that is not what the equation describes.
    this is you correct on but you can use it to describe the destructive force if it were all released at once. and i can tell you it will be a big boom.

    You could work out how much energy would be released if all the strong nuclear bonds making up the matter in your body were broken. But why.
    i think leo is more refering to the reaction between anti-matter and matter wich gives a 100% matter-energy transformation, fission and fussion gives top 1%
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    The original question was "if I was converted", using Einstein's formula is perfectly proper in this sense, maybe I should have used the word 'equivalent mass energy conversion' when referring to hiroshima, not being sure I advised him to check it out.

    Well I'll go away and read it again, and if my knowledge is wrong I'll tweak it, so thanks fore pointing this out Jeheron.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    20
    I've never heard of Mike, and I Don’t plan on being brainwashed by anyone, including you Zelos. This is what I have been taught and this is also what I have read in scientific literature (stuff more in depth than your average webpage or wiki article):

    Mass is not converted to energy in nuclear explosions. The mass before and after is equal. If you measure the mass of the component elements you will notice a decrease, however subatomic particles have been formed, and would have whizzed away at blistering speeds by the time you could get any mass measuring device into place. It is these subatomic particles that make up the observed difference. No mass is lost; it is merely converted from atomic particles to subatomic particles. The energy released is the strong nuclear force bonds being broken as this transformation occurs. This is what Einstein proposed when he put forward the e=mc^2 equation.

    If e=mc^2 was a measure of the amount of energy released when matter was converted to energy, wouldn’t you have to also add the energy held in the strong nuclear force bonds? This energy would naturally be released at the same instant.

    As I always say, I could be wrong, and I invite you to disprove me. I’d much rather be more knowledgeable having been incorrect, than incorrect forever. And please remember I’m still only in highschool.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: e=mc^2 
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by jeheron
    Ok, a lot of people are confused about this. The equation e=mc^2 does NOT describe the results of a transformation that can actually occur. The equation describes how much energy would HAVE to be created, to replace a set amount of mass that was removed from the universe.

    Nuclear blasts DO NOT convert matter into energy. In a nuclear weapon the strong nuclear bonds are broken in atoms, and the energy in those bonds in released. NOTE: no mass has been converted to energy; energy in strong nuclear bonds has been released.

    You cannot use e=mc^2 to show how destructive a mass would be if converted to energy, as that is not what the equation describes.

    You could work out how much energy would be released if all the strong nuclear bonds making up the matter in your body were broken. But why.

    Hi Jeheron,
    You are partly correct, but you are also partly wrong. In nuclear reactions, mass is indeed converted into energy. That is where you are wrong. You are right, however, in that it is the binding energy (that appears as mass!) that gets converted.

    In the sun, the primary energy source is the fusion of hydrogen to helium. The process is called the "p-p chain" (proton-proton chain). It takes 4 hydrogen nuclei to make one helium nucleus. The difference in mass between 4 protons (H nuclei) and one alpha particle (He nucleus) is
    6.693 x 10<sup>-27</sup> kg - 6.645 x 10<sup>-27</sup> kg = 0.048 x 10<sup>-27</sup> kg.
    Multiply that by c<sup>2</sup> and the energy released by that one reaction is about 0.43 x 10<sup>-27</sup> J. The key thing is that you must use the mass difference between the initial configuration and the final one.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeheron
    Mass is not converted to energy in nuclear explosions. The mass before and after is equal.
    Unfortunately, this is incorrect also. The energy released in a nuclear weapon is equivalent to the mass difference between the initial mass and the final mass times c<sup>2</sup>. There is a mass difference between the initial and final products. But you are correct that that mass comes from the binding energy.

    Incidentally, iron is the limit for fusion. It has the highest binding energy of all the elements. That is, there is no atomic configuration which is more tightly bound, and iron is the stopping point in stellar fusion (with the exception of supernovae). Elements heavier that iron can release energy by fission and lighter elements by fusion.

    Edit: In many nuclear reactions, particles are created as byproducts (as jeheron stated). In the p-p chain for example, positrons and neutrinos are created. Both these have mass (yes, neutrinos have mass - they oscillate between three flavors!). To be precise, you would have to take into account their mass in calculating the mass difference if you want to know the energy released strictly by the reaction alone. In practice though, the positron will meet an electron (in this case, in the sun) and release its energy, and the mass of the neutrino is so small that it can be safely neglected and we can still get an accurate energy output using the above calculation for the p-p chain. But even including their mass, there is still a mass difference between initial and final products. end edit


    On to Leo,
    To answer your specific question, if all your mass were converted into energy, it would be 8.1 x 10<sup>18</sup> J. One megaton of TNT produces about 4 x 10<sup>15</sup> J. So your destructive power would be that of ~2.0 x 10<sup>3</sup> (~2,000) megatons of TNT. Keep in mind that the largest weapon ever detonated by the U.S. was 15 Mt (Castle Bravo), and by the Soviet Union was 50 Mt (Tsar Bomba). Those would pale in comparison to the "leo-bomb!"

    In terms of Hiroshima's (13 kilotons of TNT), you would give off as much energy as about 160 thousand (160,000) Hiroshima's!

    Could this ever happen? Jeheron was correct in that it couldn't via nuclear reactions (either fission or fusion) as there is always mass left over after the reaction, but...
    if you ever shook the hand of the "anti-Leo" (the LeoHopkins made of antimatter) it most definitely could! In fact, if that were to happen, twice the mass would be converted to energy producing as much energy as about 320 thousand (320,000) Hiroshima's!

    Now behave yourself Leo....

    Cheers,
    william
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    I actually just saw a show on the science channel about this. I think it was called Einstein's famous Formula. It was all about Einstein and the atom bomb. The way they said it works is... They shoot a neutron at uranium which causes the uranium to get extremely unstable. Then it splits into roughly 2 neutrons and a small ammount of energy. Then the neutrons cause the same reaction in more uranium and the cycle continues. A huge chain reaction occurs, each time only a small ammount of energy is released.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: e=mc^2 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    Hi Jeheron,
    You are partly correct, but you are also partly wrong. In nuclear reactions, mass is indeed converted into energy. That is where you are wrong. You are right, however, in that it is the binding energy (that appears as mass!) that gets converted.
    True, but in that sense even a chemical explosion could be considered an example of mass-to-energy conversion. The chemical bond energy will have a little mass, after all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Okay, so lets say I was converted into the energy of 160,000 hiroshima bombs. That could crack the planet in half, no ?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    nha, but take it squared and you can blow the planet into tiny little pieces
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Okay, so lets say I was converted into the energy of 160,000 hiroshima bombs. That could crack the planet in half, no ?
    No. You would seriously mess up the surface, but you wouldn't really disturb the structure of the planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    The 'explosive' power of a nuclear explosion comes simply from superheating the air. If you look at sub-surface explosions, it just causes the ground above to 'sink' a little...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Hmmm.

    I wonder if the "downward" blast would be sufficient enough to shift the planets orbit slightly ?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    Nope, because little or nothing would escape the earth's atmosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Hmmm.

    I wonder if the "downward" blast would be sufficient enough to shift the planets orbit slightly ?
    nope, it cant happen. only, as mega said, can the orbit be changed if something escapes from earth and nothing do that
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •