Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I may be confusing things here...But If Energy can be converted into matter and vise versa...Does this violate the laws of thermodynamics sayng that energy and matter can not be created?

If "energy" is the ability to move matter...Then how can matter be energy and vise versa?

Please post a link explaining this,Or explain it to me.

 

[Vortex]

I may be confusing things here...But If Energy can be converted into mass and vise versa...Does this violate the laws of thermodynamics sayng that energy and mass can not be created?

No, conversion does not equal creation. No violation of thermodynamics.

If "energy" is the ability to move matter...Then how can matter be energy and vise versa?

Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa per the famous equation... it works.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Re: Re: Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

No, conversion does not equal creation. No violation of thermodynamics.

Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa per the famous equation... it works.

The laws of thermodynamics state that the amount of matter and energy in the universe remain the same.

If they are "interchangable" then they do not remain the same,You either have more matter and less energy in one instance or more energy and less matter in one instance.


So that explanation does not work.

 

[The Don]

I think what Vortex was saying is that the total energy in the system (the free energy plus the energy tied up in mass) remains the same.

As the amount of free energy reduces, the amount of mass would increase. As the amount of mass reduces, the amount of free energy would increase. There is still no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

It's like saying that the amount of money you have at the moment is fixed, You have £10 in your pocket and £100 in the bank. You can put the £10 in the bank and have none in your pocket, or you can take money out of the bank, but there'll never be more than £110 in total

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

The laws of thermodynamics state that the ammount of matter and energy in the universe remain the same.

If they are "interchangable" then they do not remain the same,You either have more mass in one instance or more energy in one instance.


So that explanation does not work.

That is not quite what they state, they state that energy is conserved (1st), the direction of the conversation (2nd) and the 3rd is that absolute zero is not obtainable.

Perhaps it is better to view "matter" as "stored" energy?

 

[Vortex]

Re: Re: Re: Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

The laws of thermodynamics state that the ammount of matter and energy in the universe remain the same.

If they are "interchangable" then they do not remain the same,You either have more mass in one instance or more energy in one instance.


So that explanation does not work.

They aren't interchangeable, they are convertible. The amount of matter and energy doesn't change. Combined, the equation remains the same.

 

[H3LL]

This is an interesting link:

Thermodynamics, Relativity, and Gravitation:
Evidence for a Close Link Between the Three Theories

Also remember that science is ever-changing as new evidence befomes accepted as "the best we have to describe this observation".

Also it is a matter of choosing the best tool for the job. Although relativity is applicable in the movement of a bullet, you would not normally use e=mc2 in ballistic calculations.

There is no FACT in science. It's not ID where they believe the have the final answers to everything. Science does not collapse if a part of it is shown to be wrong or can be explained better.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think what Vortex was saying is that the total energy in the system (the free energy plus the energy tied up in mass) remains the same.

As the amount of free energy reduces, the amount of mass would increase. As the amount of mass reduces, the amount of free energy would increase. There is still no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

It's like saying that the amount of money you have at the moment is fixed, You have £10 in your pocket and £100 in the bank. You can put the £10 in the bank and have none in your pocket, or you can take money out of the bank, but there'll never be more than £110 in total

Energy is defined as anything that can do work(move matter),How can energy be "tied up in mass" ?

 

[Brian the Snail]

Strictly speaking, the way in which the first law of thermodynamics was originally presented was that energy is always conserved. E=mc<SUP>2</SUP> does violate this.

The way of getting around this is to generalize the first law to say that mass/energy is conserved (where the conversion between the two is given by E=mc<SUP>2</SUP>) so that the total amount of mass and energy in the system is constant.

By the way, even this isn't correct, since through the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics energy/mass conservation can be violated over short enough periods (e.g. spontaneous creation and annihilation of particle/antiparticle pairs).

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

That is not quite what they state, they state that energy is conserved (1st), the direction of the conversation (2nd) and the 3rd is that absolute zero is not obtainable.

Perhaps it is better to view "matter" as "stored" energy?

No,They state the amount of energy in the universe is constant,so is the amount of matter.



Also,How can matter be "stored energy" when energy is just an objectification of the observed effects of matter upon other matter?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

They aren't interchangeable, they are convertible. The amount of matter and energy doesn't change. Combined, the equation remains the same.

Explain to me the difference between "interchangable" and "converted".

If you convert matter to energy then the amount of matter reduice while the amount of energy increases. Is this not interchanging them?

 

[Darat]

Energy is defined as anything that can do work(move matter),How can energy be "tied up in mass" ?

Like I said it may be helpful to think that matter is just stored energy. A very poor analogy is frozen water compared to liquid water.

Don't forget when trying to use English to explain a theory of physics you are translating from physic's precise language of mathematics to a language that was created to explain things like "Look! Meat-on-legs, kill meat-on-legs, eat meat-on-legs".

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

No,They state the amount of energy in the universe is constant,so is the amount of matter.

...snip...

As BTS says above that is how they were expressed at one time however things move on as new facts come to life...

 

[Soapy Sam]

Energy is defined as anything that can do work(move matter),How can energy be "tied up in mass" ?

Dustin- where did you find this definition?

Energy and matter are two aspects of the same thing.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Energy is defined as anything that can do work(move matter),How can energy be "tied up in mass" ?

Dustin- where did you find this definition?

Energy and matter are two aspects of the same thing.

Every physics book and webpage I have read has said that Energy is the capability to move matter(do work).

And "energy" is just an objectification of what happens when matter acts upon other matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

http://bioweb.wku.edu/courses/Biol280/280mat.HTML

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/denise/Spring03/Feb11/Feb11.htm



Well...I could go on forever with google,But the fact is,I have not found one single defenition that is opposite of that.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It seems I may be misundering what it means to "Convert".


When they "convert" energy into matter,Where does the energy go? I mean...Energy is just the ability to move matter,So how can something like the "ability to move matter" which is not really a something physical be converted into something that is physical?

and when they "convert" matter into energy,Where does the matter go? "Poof" nowhere?

 

[The Don]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

No,They state the amount of energy in the universe is constant,so is the amount of matter.



Also,How can matter be "stored energy" when energy is just an objectification of the observed effects of matter upon other matter?

IIRC the laws of thermodynamics were defined years before anyone was aware of the convertability of mass and energy.

As has been pointed out by Brian the Snail the laws of thermodynamics should be amanded to say mass/energy

It must also be noted that, by and large, this energy/mass conversion does not happen in normal circumstances to any measurable degree

 

[The Don]

It seems I may be misundering what it means to "Convert".


When they "convert" energy into matter,Where does the energy go? I mean...Energy is just the ability to move matter,So how can something like the "ability to move matter" which is not really a something physical be converted into something that is physical?

and when they "convert" matter into energy,Where does the matter go? "Poof" nowhere?

Essentially, yes. When you look at the mass and energy involved in high energy interractions you will notice that some of the mass has gone missing and energy has been emitted. Thats E= mc2 in action.

I though energy was the ability to do work.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

and when they "convert" matter into energy,Where does the matter go? "Poof" nowhere?

It changes to energy - see the sun or nuclear weapons for examples.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does e=mc2 violate thermodynamics?

IIRC the laws of thermodynamics were defined years before anyone was aware of the convertability of mass and energy.

As has been pointed out by Brian the Snail the laws of thermodynamics should be amanded to say mass/energy

It must also be noted that, by and large, this energy/mass conversion does not happen in normal circumstances to any measurable degree

Something does not seem right here...You seem to be saying that conversion of energy to mass and vise versa does go against thermodynamic laws.
But this does not seem right...Since the laws remain the same,Obviously it does not otherwise it WOULD of been amanded.


Also...Does the thermodynamic laws take place only in classical mechanics? And not quantum mechanics? Or what?

Im missing something here...I just don't know what. Because I know energy can't be created or destroyed. and I know that "converting" the two would cause one or the other to be created or destroyed.