are energy and momentum the only quantities that are always conserved in our universe (by noethers theorem)? are there other quantities that are conserved (for ALL systems and processes)? What about mass?
> energy is conserved
> mass is equivalent to energy
> therefore mass is conserved
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
> mass is equivalent to energy
Brainlet take
instead of showing everyone how smart you are, maybe explain what's wrong?
Equivalent means that one can be transformed into the other. It explicitly means that mass is not conserved, as you can create matter from energy and vice versa. You have to include mass with all the energies if you want to use energy conservation.
Before relativity, mass was conserved as there was no way to generate or destroy mass.
To clarify, since I don't think you are going to understand my point. The value of mass is equal to the total energy in rest frame, regardless of the type of energy. If you heat up an object it gets more inertia, if you compress a spring it gets more inertia and so on. Mass is not one type of energy that gets converted into others.
We get tricky with semantics and deffinitions here and reaching to point to and define notions.
If you define Mass as: That which cannot travel light speed
Light only travels lightspeed therefore light is not mass
Most every thing we see, is made of mass. It can be destroyed, into light.
Movement is energy. Light cannot be stopped. Light is movement. Light is energy.
So what is being said by: Mass is destroyed into pure light;
Is that: An object that clumps in a gravity field, was made unclumpable
>Is that: An object that clumps in a gravity field, was made unclumpable
Mass is, that which can be relatively brought to rest in a gravity field.
EM waves cannot do this, so EM waves are not mass.
But EM waves and EM field are real substantial things that exist; they are just substances that do not interact with the gravity field in a way other substances, which we call mass, do.
It's not wrong. They are literally the same thing
This is not correct, mass does not need to be "converted" to energy, it is already energy.
If energy is the ability to do work, and at some point in the universe, or it is theoretically possible for all mass to be converted to energy; if all mass/matter was converted to only energy;
Where is the evidence that energy and energy alone can produce matter or mass? (All examples of using energy to create matter/mass requires the use of existing matter)
What work could be done if there was only energy? Or I geuss one would say work could be done, but without matter to do work on, no work could be done, so energy would be all that existed, and "the ability to do work" would not be possible
>or it is theoretically possible for all mass to be converted to energy
This is what you aren't getting (it's not your fault, it's how it is popularly described). Mass is not converted to energy. They are not distinct concepts.
When you hear something like "an atomic bomb converts mass to energy" you could equally well think of it as a reaction where the energy is coming from the difference in nuclear binding energies before and after the explosion. Conversely, in a chemical reaction like an explosion of dynamite, if you could somehow gather up all the products of the chemical reaction after the explosion you could in principle measure a tiny difference in mass corresponding to the energy released.
Energy is not equivelent to mass. It is to mass times the speed of light squared.
Speaking of, what does the speed of light squared have to do with anything?
Why the mass times c^2? A mass times the fastest velocity, and why squared(?), gives you the masses energy?
>choose units so c=1
>E=m
wooooow
c does not equal 1.
c equals the speed of light, and then in equation it's squared.
It's a real number, not put there for no reason was it? You have a mass, 10 grams, 10 grams times the speed of light squared is how much energy.
The Mass is what's preventing the mass in question traveling light speed.
The Quantity of the mass is times'd by speed of light square; because each mass accounts for why the object as a whole does not travel light speed.
The number is squared because, something to do with once for space one for time, or once for velocity and once as the registration of mass relation. Or once for the direction of travel and once for the .......
Or, one for the light itself, one for the mass, maybe this
>he hasn't taken the c=1 pill
ngmi
What gives you the right to label a figure as 1?
The speed limit on the highway is 1. The price of my groceries is 1. I am 1 year old. c^2 = 1
I bet you think specific-impulse is actually an expression of time.
ngmi indeed.
What about angular momentum?
Drops out of Noether's theorem when you use rotational symmetry
charge bro
electric charge is also conserved and also some other weirder quantum numbers