Talk:Mass–energy equivalence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Mass–energy equivalence was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 16, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Relativity Taskforce.
 

Misinterpretation[edit]

The formula E = mc^2 was started from special relativity. It means that a particle of mass m has the energy content of mc^2. However, it does not mean that any type of energy is equivalent to a mass m = E/c^2. In fact, it has been proven that the electromagnetic energy alone is not equivalent to mass [1]. This misinterpretation was initiated by Einstein although he failed to prove that any energy has a mass equivalent for many years (1905-1909)[2]. This misinterpretation is responsible to overlooking the charge-mass interaction from the Reissner-Nordstrom Metric. This static repulsive force is crucial for the unification between gravitation and electromagnetism [1].

References: 1. C. Y. Lo, The Question of E = mc2 and Rectification of Einstein’s General Relativity, GJSFR Vol. 14, Issue 2, Version 1.0 (2014). 2. "Einstein's Miraculous Year" edited and introduced by John Stachel, Princeton Univ. Press (1998), p. 118. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChungYLo (talkcontribs) 23:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added a section header for your message. Please sign you talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Note that Wikipedia is not a place to promote our own work—see wp:PROMO and wp:FORUM. We can only add such content if our publications are covered and cited in the literature—see wp:Secondary sources. I can't find anything with Google Scholar and Google Books. Perhaps a few years from now. - DVdm (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Coversion confusion[edit]

The following two claims appear in the Efficiency paragraph: "mass cannot be converted to energy" and "the mass is not destroyed, but simply removed from the system. in the form of heat and light from the reaction"

Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though if it is first mass, and then heat and light, wasn't there a conversion? Maybe the article should just stay away from the word "convert" if the basic idea is that they are equivalent.192.249.47.204 (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that paragraph is definitely confusing. It should distinguish between rest mass (of the matter particles) and the total mass (inertia--gravitation) of the system (including that of any light or other forms of energy). Just as you wouldn't say "light can be converted to energy", you can't say "rest mass can be converted to energy"; it already is energy (namely in a form called rest energy). Rest mass can be converted to *other* forms of energy (light, etc.). From another point of view, the system as a whole exhibits its total mass (via inertia and gravitation phenomena) and this mass depends only on the total energy of the system; thus, because the total energy can't change, this overall system's mass can't change either. In other words the light or other forms of energy contribute exactly the same amount of mass to the system as did the matter they replaced.
DavRosen (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)