If energy turns inot mass per Relativity Theory,whould the mass becomes many neutrons lumped together?
369557
lol tahts simple and im 12! its not energy to mass its mass to energy! and atoms dont swell they simple crush together forming heat. as they hit light speed they disinegrate... or as thosse scienticsts say...
114259
In short, yes. But E=mc^2, is so much deeper than chemical reactions. Actually, it relates mass to energy. It lead to the concept of nuclear fission. It says that if you have a small amount mass, say 30 AMUs, and you multiply that by the speed of light squared, you will get a TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ENERGY. It was derived in Einstein's paper on relativity in 1905.
904549
There is no easy answer to this.\n\nHowever, one possibility is that on the whole there is no net mass-energy in the universe.\n\nRelativity shows that mass and energy have an equivalence - the famous E = mc^2. So we can really only talk about the mass-energy of the universe, and we need to keep track of signs as we account for this.\n\nNow as we pull two bits of matter apart against gravity it costs us energy - so we give the bits of matter an energy debt if you like. The question is then, is the gravitational energy debt of all the matter in the universe less than or equal to the energy equivalent of the matter's mass itself (it can't be more, or the universe would never have expanded).\n\nIf it is equal then - in effect - the universe on the whole has no net mass-energy.
715843
B: Some mass is converted into energy in order to split the unstable nucleus into two, smaller, stable ones.\n\nC: Their nuclei are too big to remain in one lump of mass. Particles (alpha, beta, gamma, etc) start shooting off in all directions, to bring the nucleus down to a smaler size. It's all about the smaller size.\nAlso, no atom can have more than one nuclues, because then it would be two atoms. More or less elctrons make an atom into a charged ion, not an isotope. Neutrons are what make isotopes.
537611
Do you know Einstein's theory e=mc(^2)? In theory (taking out the relevant c for these purposes), it means energy and mass are the same thing ("e" is energy, "m" is mass; a packet of light is considered a particle, etc). Mass and energy are never created or destroyed, simply "change" from one to the other. For example, you get up in the morning and you eat a carrot. I don't know why you'd do that, but say you do; where does that carrot go? G-rated/simply speaking, that mass is translated into energy for your body to use. Your body gives off energy through things like motion and heat when you move, but the mass/concept of the nutrients you received from that carrot weren't lost, were merely translated into an equivalent amount of energy, which your body then gives off. If you go from mass --> energy --> mass, hypothetically, repeatedly, hundreds and hundreds of times, you will end up with the same amount of mass/energy each time.
331142
If you sum up the masses of individual neutrons, protons and electrons in an atom and compare it to the mass of the atom itself you will find it to be slightly higher. This difference in mass is called mass defect. The 'missing' mass is actually the energy required to bring together the individual protons, neutrons, electrons to form the atom. Energy can be calculated using Einstein's formula E= mc^2, where E- energy, m-mass defect, c-speed of light
987522
The equation was a result of the mathematics involved in explaining the Special Theory of Relativity.  \n\nAfter the theory was published, a mother and son team of physicists (sorry but I forget their names), were performing fission experiments.  Fermi was the first to have performed a sustained chain reaction.  When this team split an atomic nucleus, they found that the parts left over after the split did not add up mass or matter-wise to the mass of the original atomic nucleus.  Where did this mass go?  It was converted into energy.  Energy and matter are transmutable.  At what rate does matter convert into energy in a fission  reaction?  c^2\nEnergy [E] is equal to mass [m] * the speed of light [c] squared.
609227
I'm anxious to hear if any scientists have an answer to this question.  To me, it sounds like you're asking "Who initiated the Big Bang?" or "Why does gravity cause matter to be attracted to other matter?"  It seems to me like the question of "Why?" neutrons have neutral charges is kind of a God question.
475765
oh, wow, this is a physics question.\n\nto start, we remember E = mc^2\nthe problem gives 4 grams matter and 2 grams antimatter.\nmy solution would be that 2 grams of matter and 2 grams of antimatter annihilate to produce 4c^2 (2 + 2 = 4) energy.\nthe excess 2 grams of matter remains unaffected.\nthe answer is D.
891994
Actually the opposite. Conservation of Mass says that Mass can not be created or destroyed, only converted to a new form of mass. The only exception is in nuclear reactions, in which Mass can become Energy and vice versa.
68476
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. It means that mass contains a huge amount of energy, which is why just a tiny amount of plutonium results in a huge nuclear explosion.
761488
Mass can only be converted directly to energy in very small quantities in nuclear reactions (like at the core of the Sun, or in particle accelerators). Burning something only releases the chemical energy in it, while leaving the atoms themselves alone. Since all the atoms are the same before the burn as after it, there are no nuclear reactions and E=mc^2 still holds.
38506
yikes, everyone is giving you the wrong formula. it's not e=mc^2. that would be converting energy into mass and back which is done like when subatomic particles crash into each other really fast and such... the mass dialation formula you are looking for is \nm'= m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)\nwhere m' is the mass you would be not moving at the high velocities, m is the mass moving at the high velocities, v is the velocity you're traveling at, c is the speed of light, sqrt means we're square rooting everything in those parenthesis, and ^2 means squared. if you were to plug numbers in for velocity, you can see that this effect is absolutely neglagible unless you are moving very very close to the speed of light. and it is impossible to actually move at the speed of light, because then v^2/c^2 would be 1, and 1-1=0 so you would have a 0 in the denominator of that equation, which is impossible.  that equation is actually very interesting in that it is part of the lorentz factor which also effects time and length. in fact, as you increase speeds close to the speed of light, not only does mass increase, but time moves slower for you and length shrinks.  I've had to derive these equations in physics class, it's very interesting to do it yourself and come up with the equation proving that things like velocity, mass, and length are affected by velocity.  but again, you need to be going very very close to the speed of light for the velocity to have any effect on these things.\n\nas far as practicality, instances of the lorentz factor have been proven. there are these particles that have a certain lifespan before they disintigrate.  so now, we know how fast they are going and we know how long before they disintegrate, so theoretically, we should easily be able to figure out how much distance they cover before they disintigrate, right? but somehow, the particles go a lot farther than they should... if we plug their velocity into the lorentz transformation formula however, and put in how far they should travel (but don't), they we come up with how far they actually do travel.  this proves the validity of the lorentz factor.\n\nthere is no practical application of the mass increase since objects of great mass would require way too much energy to accelerate to speeds great enough to see this effect, so therefore it can't really happen.. if ever it did though, the only thing this mass expansion would serve to do would be to limit time travel. i mean, if time is slowing down for us at high speeds, technically we could make it slow down so much so that it would be going slower for you than everyone else and so you could basically travel forward in time. but if your mass was expanding and length shrinking, then either the pressure would kill you, or your blood would get so dense it couldnt carry oxygen to your cells and that would kill you, so there goes the time travel thing.
10449
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.  It's a formula used to calculate the conversion between mass and energy.  For example, an atom has positive protons and neutral neutrons in the nucleus, so how do the protons stay together? well, there's binding energy which actually comes from the mass.  Also, particle physicists have been crashing particles together in a particle accelerator at very very high velocities, and the resulting particle is often bigger than the sum of the two original particles.  This is because some of their energy was converted into mass.  It takes a huge amount of energy to make a very small increase in mass.
360222
Interesting question.  I'll give a hand waving argument.  Assume the Theory of Relativity is true.  I'm not so sure I believe it, but assume it is true.\n\nYou start your trip with a certain amount of fuel, which you thought would be sufficient using the ordinary laws of classical physics. As you accelerate you have to use fuel.  To you there is no increase of mass, no increase in fuel.  You feel the acceleration, and that is all.  However, after awhile it seems that you are not gaining velocity relative to the "stationary" stars as you thought you should be.  You keep using up your fuel, of whatever type you brought with you, and you continue to feel the same force of acceleration that you did, but it seems to be having less and less effect in getting you up to the velocity you want.  Eventually you run out of fuel, at something less than the speed of light relative to the earth you left.  What went wrong?  It takes more and more energy to increase velocity with respect to the earth, because with respect to earth your mass has increased, though as far as you are concerned you cannot measure any increase in your mass.  It is just the fundamental paradox of the Theory of Relativity.
86810
When you talk of the possibilities of Matter and Anti-Matter...we already have them.\n\nProblem in lies that if you seperate matter and anti-matter and combine them to forn energy, you have to find a way to contain the energy (there is alot from a small cumbustion)  There is the problem.  So my thoughts are not yet ready for warp technology.
42478
I think you have the wrong idea.  The reconciliation between the theory of relativity and Newtonian physics is intrinsic to relativity itself.  When you consider the theory of relativity in the limit of small magnitude velocities, you recover classical mechanics.\n\nI think you mean to ask whether there has been a theory combining the standard model of particle physics with the general theory of relativity in a manner that predicts both, and the answer is no.