Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

clarice

(5,504 posts)
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 12:27 PM Dec 2015

A question for fellow geeks, re: E=MC2......

I was going to post this in the Science section, but it seems that no one has posted since 2012.
Ok, here goes.

I understand just enough about classical physics vs quantum theory to be dangerous. I have investigated
relativity and special relativity and read several attempts by various luminaries who try to explain in layman's terms
what it's all about. LOL even THEY have a problem explaining it !!!

The question.
I understand the basics of the equation E = MC2....energy = Mass x speed of light ...etc....
but I have had a hard time finding a WORKING example of how the equation can actually be applied to a real world situation.
I hope that I'm making sense. Can someone point me to a situation (or website) that can explain how the equation
can be applied?

Thanks in advance.

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A question for fellow geeks, re: E=MC2...... (Original Post) clarice Dec 2015 OP
Well, atomic weapons come to mind... Wounded Bear Dec 2015 #1
The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy, sarge43 Dec 2015 #27
Continuing the thought of the poster above.. aidbo Dec 2015 #2
Here is a 2 hour movie about the formula jakeXT Dec 2015 #3
EXCELLENT !!! Thank you. clarice Dec 2015 #4
Thanks a lot sharp_stick Dec 2015 #8
Only 1.3% of the uranium in the Hiroshima bomb hifiguy Dec 2015 #12
Downloading it now liberaltrucker Dec 2015 #24
The Science Group is quite active: Ptah Dec 2015 #5
ooooops. My mistake. I only looked at the.... clarice Dec 2015 #6
In a nuclear power plant the fuel waste has very slightly less mass than the original fuel. hunter Dec 2015 #7
Thanks Hunter, very informative......Since you are well versed.... clarice Dec 2015 #10
Only c is squared. hifiguy Dec 2015 #13
Thanks HiFi dude. nt clarice Dec 2015 #14
I suspect we can stay pretty much in the classical realm of physics with regard to solar flares. hunter Dec 2015 #15
Very cool....thanks so much. nt clarice Dec 2015 #16
It's all about Nutrinos. Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2015 #9
Those DARNED neutrinos. lol clarice Dec 2015 #11
I thought it was all about the Miticondria LynneSin Dec 2015 #21
Chronotons Are Pretty Cool Too ProfessorGAC Dec 2015 #28
Suppose a kilogram of matter is turned into energy.... Lionel Mandrake Dec 2015 #17
Well done....just what I was looking for. Thanks. nt clarice Dec 2015 #18
Google Convert is a useful resource for tedious conversions pokerfan Dec 2015 #23
Matt Strassler is overly pedantic. Lionel Mandrake Dec 2015 #26
Thanks, Lionel ProfessorGAC Dec 2015 #29
In Planck units, the equation is simply E=m pokerfan Dec 2015 #19
It's a Yoda thing - either you get it or you don't get it. There is no in between LynneSin Dec 2015 #20
Confused am I. nt clarice Dec 2015 #22
This is all I know: blogslut Dec 2015 #25
Bathroom graffiti OxQQme Dec 2015 #30

sarge43

(28,946 posts)
27. The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy,
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:53 PM
Dec 2015

contained a little over 77 pounds of uranium 235. The resulting blast is estimated between 15K to 20K pounds of TNT. It's also estimated that was only 10 to 12 percent of the potential energy.

 

aidbo

(2,328 posts)
2. Continuing the thought of the poster above..
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 01:02 PM
Dec 2015

Simplistically, when an atom's nucleus of a certain mass is fissioned the total mass of the two resulting nuclei adds up to less than the mass of the original nucleus. That difference in mass times the speed of light squared is equal to the energy released in the fissioning process.

That's the way I understand it.

ETA: Another case is when matter and anti-matter come into contact the result is a complete release of energy equal to the combined mass of the two particles times the speed of light squared.

jakeXT

(10,575 posts)
3. Here is a 2 hour movie about the formula
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 01:03 PM
Dec 2015

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html


I always think of anti matter

The existence of antimatter came as a surprise to physicists. This strange idea, however, reveals a much more fundamental idea about our universe: if particles of matter and antimatter can meet and annihilate producing energy, then matter itself can be changed into energy and vice versa!

Some scientists like to think of matter as being a 'frozen' form of energy. Under the correct conditions this energy can be recovered by 'unfreezing' the energy.

Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 summarises this idea. To find out how much energy is produced when a certain mass is changed to energy ('unfrozen!') simply multiply the mass by the speed of light squared (c2). As the speed of light is very large a tremendous amount of energy is released when a very small amount of mass is released.

http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/matter-and-antimatter/revise-it/use-of-e-mc2
 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
12. Only 1.3% of the uranium in the Hiroshima bomb
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 02:57 PM
Dec 2015

was converted to energy. It was loaded with 64 kg of uranium. Less than a kilogram underwent fission.

When you start multiplying by the square of the speed of light, massive numbers are unavoidable.

 

clarice

(5,504 posts)
6. ooooops. My mistake. I only looked at the....
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 01:52 PM
Dec 2015

date of the first post, and saw 2012. Need more coffee. Thanks

hunter

(38,334 posts)
7. In a nuclear power plant the fuel waste has very slightly less mass than the original fuel.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 01:59 PM
Dec 2015

Fission, the splitting of atomic nuclei larger than iron will convert a small amount of mass into energy. Some atoms are much easier to split than others; uranium 235, the atomic bomb stuff, is easily split. Some atomic isotopes are unstable and split spontaneously in a random way. The Curiousity rover on mars is powered by such an isotope, plutonium-238.


Radioisotope within a graphite shell
that goes into the generator
wikipedia

Fusing atomic nuclei smaller than iron releases energy too. The fused nuclei have less mass than the original unfused nuclei. Fusing smaller nuclei to produce energy is difficult technology. It happens in stars like our sun, and is made to happen in nuclear fusion weapons (so-called "hydrogen" bombs) using the energy produced by a fission (so-called "atomic&quot bomb.

Neutrons, protons, and electrons have a specific mass.

Looking at the periodic table of elements, and examining the mass of individual stable non-radioactive atomic isotopes, there is a generally increasing but slight deficit in the mass one might expect considering the number of neutrons, protons, and electrons in the atoms as we move up the table to iron. Beyond the element iron, the expected masses begin to increase again.

In the bigger picture, mass *IS* energy, and energy *IS* mass. That's what that equals ( = ) sign means.

From a quantum physics perspective, even the emptiest parts of the universe are a stew of particles and anti-particles, such as electrons and positrons, neutrinos, etc., blinking into and out of existence in a random, statistical manner.

As one pumps more energy into a system, in the electromagnetic spectrum for example starting with infrared, moving up through the radio spectrum, through the microwave spectrum, visible light, ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma ray... one increases the odds that increasingly stable matter will appear in the quantum soup. That's the sort of thing studied at CERN, where physicists pump huge energies into very small systems by accelerating charged particles and crashing them into targets, creating various quantum stews of energy and particles.

The same sort of energy-mass relationships exist in ordinary chemical reactions too, the carbon and hydrocarbons in a fossil fuel, and the oxygen in the air loose a bit of mass when combined to make carbon dioxide and water and "energy," let's say in a power plant or automobile, but the change in mass is many magnitudes less than one might measure in nuclear fission or fusion reactions.


 

clarice

(5,504 posts)
10. Thanks Hunter, very informative......Since you are well versed....
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 02:27 PM
Dec 2015

I think that I should clarify my question. What I was looking for was an actual mathematical example of how the
equation could be applied. For example...the amount of energy emitted by a solar flare. ( I don't need the EXACT figures)
just make some figures up.

E= MC 2


E= ?
M= ?
C = speed of light
also... regarding the squaring. Would you square only the C? or the product of MC?

hunter

(38,334 posts)
15. I suspect we can stay pretty much in the classical realm of physics with regard to solar flares.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 03:39 PM
Dec 2015
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory

Only the "C" is squared and that's an absurdly large number.

(299 792 458 m / s)2

If I was commander Scot of the Star Ship Enterprise, what's the difference between a gram of antimatter or ten grams of antimatter? If the containment fails everyone on the ship and anyone nearby (on planetary scales) is just as dead.

Messing with the speed of light, however, you might fuck up an entire galaxy or tear a new hole in the universe. The accelerations involved would pulverize everything into a high energy stew of elementary particles.

From a certain perspective "speed" is an artifact of our own perception. Particles traveling at the "speed of light," that is particles that have no mass, do not "see" the "dimension" of time, which leads to all sorts of experimentally proven and indisputable weirdness like the "spooky" behavior of entangled particles

My own philosophy is that everything is "moving" at C, nothing faster, nothing slower, and we are all interference patterns in the light.

Recently the idea that we live in a two dimensional "holographic" universe masquerading as a three dimensional universe has been challenged by some experimental evidence, but that doesn't upset me at all.

These things we humans call mass, gravity, and time are probably artifacts of our own biology, a "good enough" shortcut of existence discovered by evolution that enabled biological reproduction within very limited and peculiar environmental conditions.

That we humans found ourselves in a place where things like quantum physics have practical application to us, as in the computers and networks of the world wide web (invented at CERN, by the way...), that is a crazy miracle.

There may be lifeforms evolved in radically different environments (perhaps among the solar flares or the fusion fueled interior of the sun itself) who have a more "intuitive" understanding of E=mc2, twisty magnetic fields, and quantum effects, but no understanding at all of the cold chemical environment we humans inhabit.


Lionel Mandrake

(4,076 posts)
17. Suppose a kilogram of matter is turned into energy....
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:07 PM
Dec 2015

In MKS units:
M = 1 kg.
c = 3 x 10^8 meters/second
c^2 = 9 x 10^16 (meters/second)^2
and Einstein's equation says that

E = M c^2 = 9 x 10^16 joules,
where a joule is a watt times a second. Call it a watt-second.

Now I will ask someone else to convert watt-seconds into kilowatt-hours (KWH).
(Anyone who pays the electric bill should be familiar with KWH.)

pokerfan

(27,677 posts)
23. Google Convert is a useful resource for tedious conversions
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:12 PM
Dec 2015
https://www.google.com/search?q=watt-seconds+in+kilowatt-hours

I have just one nitpick. Special relativity recognizes the equivalence of mass and energy, not matter and energy. I remember my professor would become agitated when one of us would screw that up.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/mass-and-energy/

Lionel Mandrake

(4,076 posts)
26. Matt Strassler is overly pedantic.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:24 PM
Dec 2015

As a theoretical physicist with a PhD, I can assure you that "mass" versus "matter" is a distinction without an important difference.

You can use Google Convert if you want, but it is more instructive to do the conversion by hand:

1 KW = 1000 watts
1 minute = 60 seconds
1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds, so
1 KWH = (1000 watts) x (3600 seconds) = 3.6 x 10^6 watt-seconds

The last equation can be inverted to obtain
1 watt-second = 2.7778 x 10^-7 KWH

ProfessorGAC

(65,227 posts)
29. Thanks, Lionel
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:55 PM
Dec 2015

I was going to say the same thing. The mass of the matter is what we're using in the calculation, but it is matter just the same.

pokerfan

(27,677 posts)
19. In Planck units, the equation is simply E=m
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:11 PM
Dec 2015
Planck units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

How Planck units simplify the key equations of physics



In other words, Energy and mass are equivalent.





Latest Discussions»The DU Lounge»A question for fellow gee...