Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 730:
Line 730: + + + +
→New consensus
::::I have a problem with the wording of "The formula E=mc² has little relevance to situations where mass is not converted into energy such as chemical reactions or electrostatic interactions." (I believe this is part of "AugustO's version" but correct me otherwise.) The theory of relativity doesn't classify some types of reactions as "mass is not converted to energy". It says that whenever there is a change in energy, there is a corresponding change in mass. It doesn't matter if it's two deuterons sticking together to form a <sup>4</sup>He nucleus, or two refrigerator magnets sticking together. Yes, the mass change is immeasurably small for non-nuclear reactions, but the formula still holds. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 00:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
::::I have a problem with the wording of "The formula E=mc² has little relevance to situations where mass is not converted into energy such as chemical reactions or electrostatic interactions." (I believe this is part of "AugustO's version" but correct me otherwise.) The theory of relativity doesn't classify some types of reactions as "mass is not converted to energy". It says that whenever there is a change in energy, there is a corresponding change in mass. It doesn't matter if it's two deuterons sticking together to form a <sup>4</sup>He nucleus, or two refrigerator magnets sticking together. Yes, the mass change is immeasurably small for non-nuclear reactions, but the formula still holds. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 00:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Of course, you are correct that E=mc<sup>2</sup> applies to any change in mass. We need to address Andy's very interesting argument as to what happens when a person drinks a glass of water. To my knowledge, drinking a glass of water does not change from the prior state where the person is just holding a glass of water. In general, in most common day-to-day experiences (except for basking in the warmth of the Sun), any change in mass is so small that the energy released by everyday chemical reactions exceeds the energy released by converting mass into energy. Does Spielman have an alternative wording, or should we stick with the current "liberal claptrap" formulation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:48, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Of course, you are correct that E=mc<sup>2</sup> applies to any change in mass. We need to address Andy's very interesting argument as to what happens when a person drinks a glass of water. To my knowledge, drinking a glass of water does not change from the prior state where the person is just holding a glass of water. In general, in most common day-to-day experiences (except for basking in the warmth of the Sun), any change in mass is so small that the energy released by everyday chemical reactions exceeds the energy released by converting mass into energy. Does Spielman have an alternative wording, or should we stick with the current "liberal claptrap" formulation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:48, 22 February 2013 (EST)
*I hadn't realized that the page wasn't protected any longer. Now I performed the edit "to reflect the new consensus".
*E=mc² seems to be applicable to any situation - though it is only derived for special cases. Not only can mass be transformed to energy, energy itself shows the characteristics of mass, best demonstrated by photons in a gravitational field.
*We can only calculate but not measure the difference of mass before and after a TNT explosion - or the detonation of an atomic bomb: the mass differences are so tiny while the reactions are so powerful. But I don't think that this is a problem, we just have to look for more suitable examples. The same is true for quantum mechanics: we can apply the uncertainty principle to a speeding car, but it will have no practical consequences...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)