[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 14 KB, 426x283, hasenohrl1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6543199 No.6543199[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

If energy is the same as mass why can't we convert mass into energy and stop using fossil fuels?

Has nobody thought of this before?

>> No.6543210

No

>> No.6543211

in case of the slim chance this isnt a troll,

>why can't we convert mass into energy
its called a nuclear power plant.

>> No.6543220

Burning fossil fuels does this, just incredibly inefficiently with a lot of waste mass. Pure matter to energy conversion [generally meaning matter+antimatter recombination] is problematic as getting/containing anti-matter wastes far more energy than you would get from recombination [and there are problems with sustaining/controlling the reaction as various papers about weaponization during the Cold War highlight]. Fission gets you better returns, but you still get a lot of leftover mass that is somewhat problematic and has a very bad reputation. Fusion gets you even better conversion, but is really hard to do.

>> No.6543221

>>6543211
gee, we liberate some binding energy, it's not like we annihilate any baryons an ting

>> No.6543225
File: 17 KB, 251x201, fma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6543225

Science: the act of understanding the structure of matter, breaking it down, then reconstructing it as something else. It can even make gold from lead. But science must follow the natural laws: to create, something of equal value must be lost. This is the principle of equivalent exchange. But I learned that night that some things cannot be measured on a simple scale. My brother and I knew the laws of science, of equivalent exchange. The game required sacrifice, that something had to be taken from us, but we thought there was nothing more we could lose... we were wrong.

>> No.6543226
File: 425 KB, 1280x761, Tsar_Bomba.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6543226

>>6543220
>but is really hard to do.
it's not that hard

>> No.6543228

>>6543211
or any kind of burning plant
when you burn coal the resulting mass will be slightly less due to the energy (ie. mass) holding the molecules together will also be converted to heat

>> No.6543231

>>6543228
>heat
which itself gives extra mass, so no mass is lost

>> No.6543283

>>6543199
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-scientists-year-quest.html#ajTabs

>> No.6543299

>>6543220
>Burning fossil fuels does this
No it doesnt.

>> No.6543302

>>6543299
>No it doesnt.

Yes it does. In fact any exothermic chemical reaction does.

>> No.6544477

>>6543228
i wanted to avoid shit like >>6543231, >>6543299. but it was above this cunt >>6543221 anyway, so it was for nothing.

>> No.6544520

>>6543199
Even chemical reactions make the atoms lighter, the energy for the reactions comes from that.
Chemistry is so low energy that the loss of mass is insanely small, so 19th century scientists never noticed, but today physical chemistry gives the theory how it happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass#The_mass_associated_with_chemical_amounts_of_energy_is_too_small_to_measure

>> No.6544525

>>6543199
no, energy is not the same thing as mass, and they are not interchangeable. They are different concepts. In relativity, mass squared is the square of four-momentum - which is a Lorentz scalar. This means that in a massive particle's rest frame, you have E^2 = p^mu p_mu = m^2 (I'm using c=1 and +--- signature.) This is the meaning of Einstein's formula. Nothing more.

Note to others: nuclear reaction are NOT, absolutely, categorically NOT, conversion of mass into energy, no matter how many people repeat this. Nuclear binding energy is converted to kinetic energy, as such internal energy of nucleons is overall smaller and thus mass lowers because of E=mc^2, and one measures a mass defect.

In annihilation of particle-antiparticle, energy of fermions goes into energy of photons. Energy is conserved. Mass isn't.

>> No.6544536

>>6544525
what the fuck? you sound like someone who has learned just enough physics to think he knows what he is talking about.

in relativity, mass is used to refer the all the energy in an objects rest frame, if the Nuclear binding energy does not count as mass, then there does not exist ANY mass, because ALL mass is just the result of kinetic and potential energy.

>> No.6544702

>>6544536

>you sound like someone who has learned just enough physics to think he knows what he is talking about.
that got pretty personal pretty fast

>if the Nuclear binding energy does not count as mass,
nuclear binding energy contributes to rest mass of nucleon. I did not contest this, reread my post.

>because ALL mass is just the result of kinetic and potential energy.
binding energy is not necessarily a potential, not at least in the standard sense. For example, quark binding energy in a proton.

>> No.6544737

>>6543228
well look who it is, how are those phlogistons hangin', Boyle?

>> No.6544759

>>6544702
>I did not contest this, reread my post.
I read your post about 20 times before responding and that was the best interpretation I could come up with, please try and write more coherently. but then what did the following mean?
>nuclear reaction are NOT, absolutely, categorically NOT, conversion of mass into energy

>binding energy is not necessarily a potential
its still a combination of potential and kinetic energy of the fields in/around the proton

>> No.6544772

>>6544759
>what did the following mean?
>nuclear reaction are NOT, absolutely, categorically NOT, conversion of mass into energy

it means that there is a transformation of energy from internal to kinetic, and thus mass decreases. It is not the case that mass has converted to energy. The energy was already there.

>its still a combination of potential and kinetic energy of the fields in/around the proton

there is no potential for the strong force. It is not a force field*.

*this means basically that the force is purely a function of quark configuration. It has nothing to do with the existence of a field mediating the force.

>> No.6544778

The activation energy is too high to be a feasible energy source with current technology.

>> No.6544780

>>6544772
so both points were just you arguing semantics? got it.

>> No.6544784

>>6544772
>there is no potential for the strong force. It is not a force field
noob here. is the lack of field directly linked to this wikipedia text?
"Unlike all other forces (electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational), the strong force does not diminish in strength with increasing distance"

>> No.6544787

>>6544772
internal energy is the mass
its not because of the gluon field, its because of the quark field.

>> No.6544798

>>6543199
>Has nobody thought of this before?
Ha.
Did you think it was that easy?

>> No.6544841

>>6544784
there is a field. It's the SU(3) gauge field - the gluon field. What I mean is the force is not a field in quark configuration space. This is in part because the strong interaction is violently nonlinear.

>>6544787
no, mass is not internal energy. And no, the quark field DOES contribute to internal energy. A lot, actually.

>> No.6544862

>>6544841
sorry I meant *gluon, not quark.

>> No.6544884

>>6543231
Just because mass and energy are physically interchangeable doesn't mean the words themselves are synonymous.