Mass is energy
November 21, 2011 By Steve Nerlich, Universe Today
The USS Enterprise in 1964 (pre Zefram Cochrane era), during Operation Sea Orbit when it sailed around the world in 65 days without refuelling - demonstrating the capability of nuclear-powered ships. Credit: US Navy.
Some say that the reason you can't travel faster than light is that your mass will increase as your speed approaches light speed so, regardless of how much energy your star drive can generate, you reach a point where no amount of energy can further accelerate your spacecraft because its mass is approaching infinite.
This line of thinking is at best an incomplete description of whats really going on and is not a particularly effective way of explaining why you cant move faster than light (even though you cant). However, the story does offer some useful insight into why mass is equivalent to energy, in accordance with the relationship e=mc2.
Firstly, heres why the story isnt complete. Although someone back on Earth might see your spacecrafts mass increase as you move near light speed you certainly arent going notice your spacecrafts, or your own, mass change at all. Within your spacecraft, you would still be able to climb stairs, jump rope and if you had a set of bathroom scales along for the ride you would still weigh just the same as you did back on Earth (assuming your ship is equipped with the latest in artificial gravity technology that mimics conditions on Earths surface).
The change perceived by an Earth observer is just relativistic mass. If you hit the brakes and returned to a more conventional velocity, all the relativistic mass would go away and an Earth observer would just see you retaining with same proper (or rest) mass that the spacecraft and you had before you left Earth.
The Earth observer would be more correct to consider your situation in terms of momentum energy, which is a product of your mass and your speed. So as you pump more energy in to your star drive system, someone on Earth really sees your momentum increase but interprets it as a mass increase, since your speed doesnt seem to increase much at all once it is up around 99% of the speed of light. Then when you slow down again, although you might seem to be losing mass you are really offloading energy perhaps by converting your kinetic energy of motion into heat (assuming your spacecraft is equipped with the latest in relativistic braking technology).
As the ratio of your velocity to light speed approaches 1, the ratio of your relativistic mass to your rest mass grows asymptotically - i.e. it approaches infinite.
From the perspective of the Earth-based observer, you can formulate that the relativistic mass gain observed when travelling near light speed is the sum of the spacecrafts rest mass/energy plus the kinetic energy of its motion all divided by c2. From that you can (stepping around some moderately complex math) derive that e=mc2. This is a useful finding, but it has little to do with why the spacecrafts speed cannot exceed light speed.
The phenomenon of relativistic mass follows a similar, though inverse, asymptotic relationship to your speed. So as you approach light speed, your relativistic time approaches zero (clocks slow), your relativistic spatial dimensions approach zero (lengths contract) and your relativistic mass grows towards infinite.
But as weve covered already, on the spacecraft you do not experience your spacecraft gaining mass (nor does it seem to shrink or have its clocks slow down). So you must interpret your increase in momentum energy as a genuine speed increase at least with respect to a new understanding you have developed about speed.
When you approach light speed and still keep pumping more energy into your drive system, what you find is that you keep reaching your destination faster not so much because you are moving faster, but because the time you estimated it would take you to cross the distance from point A to Point B becomes perceivably much less, indeed the distance between point A to Point B also becomes perceivably much less. So you never break light speed because the distance over time parameters of your speed keep changing in a way that ensures that you cant.
In any case, consideration of relativistic mass is probably the best way to derive the relationship e=mc2 since the relativistic mass is a direct result of the kinetic energy of motion. The relationship does not easily fall out of consideration of (say) a nuclear explosion since much of the energy of the blast derives from the release of the binding energy which holds a heavy atom together. A nuclear blast is more about energy transformation than about matter converting to energy, although at a system level it still represents genuine mass to energy conversion.
Similarly you might consider that your cup of coffee is more massive when its hot and gets measurably less massive when it cools down. Matter, in terms of protons, neutrons, electrons
and coffee, is largely conserved throughout this process. But, for a while, the heat energy really does add to the mass of the system although since its a mass of m=e/c2, it is a very tiny amount of mass.
Source: Universe Today
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Why does light move?
1 hour ago
-
How to calculate the repulsion force between a permanent and an electromagnet?
3 hours ago
-
Why does light allow us to see things?
3 hours ago
-
Room temperature superconductivity
3 hours ago
-
Water flow question
6 hours ago
-
16 year old solves 300 year old problem set by Isaac Newton
7 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (22) |
51
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
16
|
Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots
(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of robots as a laser ...
Sound increases the efficiency of boiling
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.

Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 3.6 / 5 (11)
Which is pretty much summed up by the author description in the original article:
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (8)
I think clearing the stuff up is much more important than just showing another new looking discovery which has actually been discovered many years before but maybe in a slightly different version.
And i think physorg now totally recognized this.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
I love this stuff.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (4)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Of course, I'm just repeating what I learned watching Susskind's lectures on youtube, to the my best recollection. I think it's lecture 6 of the cosmology series he explains this.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
No, you don't pay it back. Even when slowing down you are still 'saving time' because you are still going faster than when at rest.
richgibula:
A megaton is a million tonnes (metric tons) of TNT, where the energy of a gram of TNT is defined as 4184 Joules (one kCal). A tonne a million grams, so that is 4.2x10^15 Joules.
C is 3x10^8 meters/sec, so C^2 is 9x10^18, which is ~2000 times bigger. So a 1 megaton H-bomb convert about 1/2 gram of matter to energy.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
http://www.youtub...e=relmfu
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
worst ever
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (4)
The problem a lay person has boils down to not appreciating a speed limit.
The best explanation would avoid any reference to a speed limit and fix the perceived problem from an alternate view point.
Look at velocity from the point of view of the traveler. Question: How long would it take me to fly to the nearest star which is 4 light years away?
Answer: depends how fast you go. Given a very powerful engine you could be there in a year, a month, a day, an hour or whatever.
Question: But what about the speed limit?
Answer: There is no speed limit you just have to speed up the universe to get there sooner and that uses a lot of fuel.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Maybe all accelleration applies to yourself pushing the universe. The faster you want to travel the harder you push.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Thank you for your response, but I have an additional question. You said:
"A megaton ...convert about 1/2 gram of matter to energy."
But the author said: "A nuclear blast is more about energy transformation than about matter converting to energy"
Is there a calculation for how much energy release each source contributes to the whole?
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
In a chemical explosion, it is the atoms' electrons that change configuration to release energy.
In a nuclear explosion, it is the protons and neutrons that are rearranged to release energy.
In either case the energy released is reflected by the reaction products (once cooled and at rest) having less mass than the starting material had. The change is very small - even in a hydrogen bomb the energy released is less than 1% of the mass of the nuclei involved.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
http://www.pitt.e...oof.html
We can understand it easily with using of water surface model of space-time. The energy introduced makes it undulating and elongated like the deformed carpet. This deformation slows down another particles of matter, which are traveling across undulating place, so it behaves like are of more dense matter. The E=mc^2 is therefore the relation between deformation of space-time and energy introduced into this deform and it's valid only for 4D space-time. At the 3D space-time it would correspond E=mc and so on. The introduction of extradimensions therefore changes the E=mc^2 formula and general relativity should account into it, when describing the hyperdimensional effects, like the dark matter.
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
The energy released in a nuclear blast (if I remember that lecture by Feinman correctly) is a rearrangement (transformation) of neutrons/protons from larger nuclei to smaller ones. The energy released is electrostatic energy. the number of protons and neutrons (and electrons) after a nuclear blast are the same as before. The energy content of those products is, however, less - since they are now rearranged into more stable configurations (and some neutrons flying off on their own)
So really we're not dealing with a 'nuclear' (force) bomb but with an 'electrostatic' bomb. The nuclear forces actually get a bit larger - they are a negative contribution to the energy output.
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
But most of the energy of a hydrogen bomb comes from fusion of hydrogen isotopes, typically deuterium and tritium.
Thus most of the energy of a 1-megaton bomb is from very small nuclei fusion into fairly small nuclei. In this the energy released comes from the strong nuclear force, with the electrostatic potential increasing.
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
If your mass increases with speed, does the energy contained in that mass also increase? And if so does the energy content of the propulsion fuel you carry with you also increase? Meaning that the energy you carry to propel your ship is always in proportion to energy needed to propel the mass of the ship? Does this mean that accelerating to light speeds is just a question of accelerating long enough without it becoming more difficult to accelerate at all, does it become easier (e.g. you need less fuel to accelarate even more the quicker you go)?
Just asking.
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
http://aetherwave...ent.html
It means, the mass of objects in motion increases with the mass of surrounding vacuum, which is dragged and shaken by their motion, not by mass of objects itself. The area of dense vacuum slows down the light spreading with respect to observer, so it participates to the relativistic length contraction too.
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
In dense aether model your relativistic speed is followed with area of dense vacuum, which increases your mass with respect to other observers. But when some observer is moving with relativistic speed in the same direction, like you, then you're both surrounded with the same area of dense vacuum and you cannot detect any gain in mass, after then. Because you're both surrounded with vacuum of the same relative density.
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Other than that, not sure why it is here.
About the length contraction thing, I wonder if as your relativisitc mass goes up you actually do something to the fabric of space-time that makes it harder for you to keep accelerating closer and closer to C.
jsa09, please don't do us any more "favors" in trying to make it easier to understand.
Nov 27, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Nov 27, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Basically because of geometry of energy wave spreading with limited speed. As usually in dense aether theory, the water surface analogy explains it well: http://www.aether...rnik.gif
The length contraction is the necessary consequence of the constant speed of light postulate of special relativity.
http://aetherwave...peed.gif
Nov 27, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
What you are referring to is the state of displacement of the aether.
Aether has mass. Aether is physically displaced by matter.
The faster an object moves through the aether the more aether the object displaces the greater the relativistic mass of the object.
Nov 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Therefore the inertial wave equation formalism can be applied to the vacuum as well. For example, when we undulate elastic material of final mass density, this material will increase its density for all waves which are passing trough the undulating place accordingly.
Nov 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
The elastic material is the aether. Aether has mass.
Nov 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
The elastic material is the aether. Aether has mass.
'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"
"Einstein's 'First Paper'"
"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."
Nov 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Nov 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle turns the associated aether displacement wave into chop, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.
Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
Nov 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Nov 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
A boat's bow wave is its water displacement wave. A moving boat physically displaces the water into the form of a wave.
A moving particle physically displaces the aether into the form of a wave.
Nov 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Nov 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
I've no connection to wpdwpd. It just illustrates, the aether model leads to the reproducible conclusions.
Nov 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
It's aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both.
Nov 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Nov 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
"The walkers wave is similar to the surface wave of a raindrop falling on a puddle"
A raindrop falling on a puddle creates a ripple because the raindrop displaces the water in the puddle.
The physical wave of de Broglie wave mechanics is an aether displacement wave.