How can relativity theory relate relatively to the mass defects of  atoms?
403681
"23. MASS AND ENERGY \n  \n   The best known and the most used part of the theory of relativity, which in essence does not belong to this theory, refers to the field of physics which deals with the questions of mass and energy of bodies, as well as the questions of mutual relation of mass and energy. Many physicists strongly believe that the correctness of the theory of relativity is proved in the best and most convincing way just in this sphere. \n   The theory of relativity and its author became as popular as they are thanks to the realization of some possibilities predicted by this "theory". These unusual predictions referred to the possibility of obtaining huge amounts of energy through transforming mass into energy, which was later realized in nuclear explosions and nuclear reactors. With the explosion of the first nuclear bomb the popularity of Albert Einstein and his theory increased enormously. Many, those poorly informed, unjustifiably believe Einstein to be a creator of atom bomb. \n   In classical physics mass and energy are two completely different notions, which cannot be related. According to the theory of  relativity mass and energy are one and the same, but in different forms of existence. Mass can be changed into energy, and likewise energy into mass. If a body gains energy, then its mass is increased, and if it looses energy its mass decreases. Hence, mass is greater when a body is moving than when the body is at rest, it is greater when a body is heated than when it is cold, etc. \n  \n23.1 The classical way of determining the masses of an electron in motion \n  \n   The study of electrons in motion established, first in theory, and later by experiment, that its mass changes depending on its speed. Long before the theory of relativity, in his theory on electromagnetism, published in 1892, Lorentz laid the greatest significance on the question of the interdependence of an electron's mass and its speed. While moving, the electron as an electrically charged particle creates an electromagnetic field which surrounds its. The faster the electron moves, the greater the resistance of that electromagnetic field to further increase of electron's speed. The effect is the same as if with the increase of speed the electron's mass increases. That is why that mass was named "electromagnetic mass". \n   In 1901 Kaufmann [W. Kaufmann, Gesell. Wiss. Gött. Nachr. 143, 291, 1901.; W. Kaufmann, Physik Zeitschr. 4, 55, 1902.] experimentally confirmed that an electron's mass increases with the increase of its speed. Using an electrical field to accelerate the motion of an electron and an electric field as also a magnetic field to divert the electron from its direction of motion, Kaufmann found that the mass of the electron increases in relation to its speed and that the electron has two masses, the so called transversal mass and the longitudinal mass. These findings caused a great surprise among physicists since, to that point, only one mass was known. The longitudinal mass of the electron resists increases in velocity in the direction of its motion as mass does in classical physics. The transversal mass of the electron, however, resists the deviation of the electron from its direction of motion. \n   In classical physics there is only one mass. For example, in rotary motion a body will tend to move at a tangent to the circle, because that is, at every moment, its direction of movement. However, centripetal force compels it to move in a circle. Centrifugal force and also centripetal force are the result of the resistance of the transversal mass to move in a circle. At first sight it seems that every body has two masses, longitudinal and transversal. In the case of an ordinary body, however, these two masses are of the same magnitude, so that the body will react equally to increases in the velocity of motion and the velocity of deviation. As a result only one concept of mass existed until K
296792
Your experimental model is corrupt in terms of current known information about matter and energy in a space-time continuum.  No prediction or calculation can be applied.\nWith two point masses, the only force in the system would be do to gravity.  This is an assumption based upon multiple moving masses in what we would call the normal physical universe.\nIf the distance between their centers (d) was sufficiently small, the points would be touching one another and no force would be exerted on the masses.  If the distance was sufficiently large, then it is possible that the force would be so small that the masses would not move.  Only in a finite range of distances would any gravity possibly exist.\nOne can make no assumptions about G as a gravitational constant, since G assumes that one of the masses is the earth.  One would need additional information about the masses to solve the problem.
297054
heres the info:\n\nNobody has ever managed to ride a beam of light, although Einstein in his youth imagined what it might be like to do so. Such thinking eventually lead to the special theory of relativity. Although it is still impossible for anyone to travel on a light ray, physicists have managed to stop a laser beam in its tracks! This amazing result builds on earlier work by a research group led by Lene Hau in which light was slowed to 38 miles per hour.\n     Light in a medium travels somewhat slower than 300,000 kilometers per second, its speed in a vacuum. This effect, known as refraction, is responsible for the bending of light in passing from one medium to another. In an ultracold gas of sodium atoms, the index of fraction varies significantly with the frequency of light. The gas is normally opaque, but when the sodium atoms are bathed with secondary "controlling" laser light of a particular frequency, the medium becomes transparent and light can pass through it. Due to the varying index of refraction, a primary laser pulse slows down when it enters the gas. It also becomes greatly compressed. A pulse with a length of one kilometer gets squeezed into a tiny unit one one-thousandth of a meter in length. When the light pulse exits the region of sodium atoms, it expands back to its original length zooming off at 300,000 kilometers per second again. \n     To bring the light to a standstill, Dr. Hau and her co-workers turn off the secondary controlling laser light after the impinging laser beam has entered the ultra cold sample. The medium becomes opaque. One would think that the laser pulse would be absorbed by the sodium atoms. Instead, the information about the light wave is encoded in the atoms. When the controlling laser light is turned back on, the atoms reconstruct the laser beam. It continues its propagation though medium and then out the sample. If the time during which the beam is halted is not too long, the shape of the reconstructed beam coincides to a high degree with the original shape.\n     Imagine a train one kilometer in length consisting of thousands of cars traveling at 300,000 kilometers per second. Suddenly, the track becomes rough, causing the front engine and subsequent cars to come to a screeching slowdown. With the train now moving at 38 miles per hour, the cars pile up and are crushed to the size of an ant. Then a magician snaps her finger and the train disappears but leaves an imprint on the dirt between the tracks. With a second snap of the finger, the imprint vanishes while the ant-sized train reappears and moves forward at 38 miles per hour again. Then the train encounters smooth track. The engine speeds off at 300,000 kilometers per second, and as subsequent cars enter the smooth track region, they too rapidly speed off so that the entire accordion-like structure unfolds. Remarkably, little damage to the train occurs.\n     "Impossible!" You say. Well, in the case of a train, it is impossible because the deformation of metal is an irreversible process. But light is more accommodating and can be stretched or compressed more readily. Still, Dr. Hau's team has done what seems to be magical. Why isn't the light absorbed and lost? How can the atomic information reconstruct the beam? Why isn't the beam greatly distorted when it leaves the sample? The answers to these questions reside in the miracles of quantum mechanics, the dynamics that control the microscopic world of atoms and their interactions with light.\n     A major technological breakthrough has occurred. If low cost means are found to manipulate light in the above manner, then computers and communications will be revolutionized. One can imagine using light instead of electrons to perform computational processes. Such photonic machines would calculate at many times the rate of current computers.
445130
The theoretical physics equation E = mc2 states a relationship between energy (E), in whatever form, and mass (m). In this formula, c², the square of the speed of light in vacuum, is the conversion factor required to formally convert from units of mass to units of energy. In unit specific terms, E (Joules) = M (kilograms) · (299792458 m/s) 2.\n\nMeanings of the formula\nThis formula, which was discovered by Albert Einstein, proposes that when a body has a mass (measured at rest), it has a certain (a very large) amount of energy associated with this mass. This is opposed to the Newtonian mechanics, in which a massive body at rest has no kinetic energy, and may or may not have other (relatively small) amounts of internal stored energy (such as chemical or thermal energy), in addition to any potential energy it may have from its position in a field of force. That is why a body's mass, in Einstein's theory, is often called the rest energy of the body. The E of the formula can be seen as the total energy of the body, which is proportional to the mass when the body is at rest.\n\nConversely, a single photon travelling in empty space cannot be considered to have an effective mass, m, according to the above equation. The reason is that such a photon cannot be measured in any way to be at "rest" and the formula above applies only to single particles when they are at rest. Photons are generally considered to be "massless," (i.e., they have no rest mass or invariant mass) even though they have varying amounts of energy.\n\nThis formula also gives the quantitative relation of the quantity of mass lost from a resting body or an initially resting system, when energy is removed from it, such as in a chemical or a nuclear reaction where heat and light are removed. Then this E could be seen as the energy released or removed, correponding with a certain amount of mass m which is lost, and which corresponds with the removed heat or light. In those cases, the energy released and removed is equal in quantity to the mass lost, times the speed of light squared. Similarly, when energy of any kind is added to a resting body, the increase in the resting mass of the body will be the energy added, divided by the speed of light squared
951543
It is not mass that curves space time. Remember that mass is transformed between frames under relativity. Instead it is stress energy. This means that frame invariant combination of mass and energy, including the effect of the movement of the mass.\n\nAnd there is no prospect that these are mutual.
1008175
there is a important factor that appears in the theory of relativity:\nit's called "gamma" (we use the greek letter usually).\nFor a body moving with the velocity v, we have \ngamma=1/squareroot(1-v^2/c^2) , where c is the velocity of light.\nas you can check, as v increases (but always being lower than c), gamma becomes bigger and bigger, tending towards infinity as v tends to c. You can also check than when v=0, gamma=1.\n\nIn non relativistic theory, the mass of a rod for example is called "m" and its length "L". In the point of view of the rod, m and L are constant. For an outside observer also...\nBut what the theory of relativity shows is that for the outside observer, the mass and length of a rod moving with a velocity v is no more m and L, but gamma*m and L/gamma.\nThus, if the velocity is much smaller than c (everyday experience), gamma~1 and nobody can see the difference, if the velocity increased a lot, gamma->iinfinity, and thus the mass also tends towards infinity and the length tends towards 0...  for the outside observer!    If you are the rod, your velocity compared to yourself is 0, so your "own gamma" is 1 and your length and mass, in YOUR point of view, is constant.\n\nthe theory of relativity shows that "basic" things such as the length, the mass (and even the time between two events) of an object depends on the observer. \n\nI hope I've been a bit helpful. Go on with your reading, don't be afraid if you do not understand everything at the first and even the tenth reading, that comes with experience...
803150
check out this site for the answer\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
78675
The poster before me gave an excellent answer which is that nobody really knows. I just wanted to point you to a very cool experiment about how mass warps space.\n\nAnother very profound question to ask would be why are gravitational mass and inetial mass so nearly (if not exactly) equal?
1082808
mathematical dilemma. there is no answer to the question. Well at least none that are known. Just like the elements we know there out there but we have to figure them out first.  just like Einstein theory of fusion. its passable just not proved.
867914
According to Einstein's General Relativity Theory,light will be affected in the same way matter is affected by gravity. This is because under this theory, we should think of gravity not in terms of vector like forces, but as a consequence of the "shape" of the universe. \n\n--> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae661.cfm
418356
If you want somebody to explain the entire theory of relativity....then that will take a while.  For the basic E=mc^2, where E=energy, m=mass, and c=speed of light (3x10^8 m/s), then in simple terms it means that a small amount of mass can give off large amounts of energy.  Another way of seeing it is by saying that mass is simply highly compressed (or smashed together) amounts of energy.
1061816
Hai Shaumik\nBy Einsteins energy mass relation E=mC^2 , but mass is inversely proportional to velocity\nA body with small mass have high velocity compared to a body having greater mass. This implies that a body having zero mass moves fast. There is no such object having zero mass. so no body can move with greater or equal to velocity of light
588727
The equation E=MC2 is the derivation from Einstein's relativity theory. this is not a case of the classic mechanics. this equation explains the value of energy of an atom. \n\nE-> Energy\nM-> mass of the atom\nC-> speed of the light.\n\nin this only speed of the light is constant. the mass differs by frame to frame in accordance to theory of relativity. so the energy of the atoms also differs with frame to frame. but this equation is not fully correct and Lorentz had made corrections to it. \n\nAnybody who can prove this equation as a total wrong thing with strong evidences will be announced as the greatest of the universe..
593336
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
546523
Well according to Relativity Theory it is known that an Object of Mass (M) travelling at Velocity (V) would have a Change in Mass: ie\n        \n          Mass at Velocity (V)  = ( Rest Mass) / sqrt(1-(V^2/C^2) ) \n\nTherefore if we replace C^2 by V^2 then the Whole Equation becomes Infinite. in other Words You cannot Travel at the Speed of Light, because according to Physics an Object cannot have Infinite Mass.
292932
As others have said, it's relationship between energy and mass.  However, there are a few additional points about it which are interesting.  The mass here is the rest mass, the mass of an object when it is at rest relative to the person doing the measurement.  Some things, like photons, have no rest mass.  Their energy is give by E=(h-bar)(nu) where h-bar is Planck's constant divided by two pi, and nu is the frequency, in rad/sec, not Hertz. Additionally, E=MC^2 isn't the total energy for a particle, it can also have kinetic energy if it is moving with respect to the observer.  So, it's really E=MC^2+KE, where KE is the kinetic energy of the particle.    \n\nYou can also switch it around and consider that the mass, M is equal to the total energy divided by the speed of light squared.  In this case, you can calculate the mass for things which can vary based on the energy the object has, and not just the rest mass energy equivalence, but also the kinetic energy.  This is where much of the mass consumed in a nuclear reaction comes from.  Reorganization of nulcei to lower energy states gives them a lower mass, since the total energy is lower, and this change in mass is released as energetic radiation.  So, the core of a nuclear bomb contains ~ 10 kilos of highly enriched uranium, but only a tiny fraction of that is consumed in the explosion.  If all ten kilos were fully converted to energy, it would be enough energy to destroy the earth.  Instead, a tiny fraction of a gram is consumed when the nuclei undergo an out of control chain reaction, reogranizing and spitting out radiation, which destabilizes and causes the reorganization of neighboring nuclei, and so the reaction proceeds until most of the nuclei in the bomb core (called the "pit") have reorganized.  By this time, it's exploded and it would be very difficult to reassemble and weigh all the atoms left over from the reaction, but, if you could, you'd find the total would be less mass than the 10 kilos you started with.  \n\nChanges in mass when energy is absorbed or emitted is actually true for things other than nuclear reactions.  If you're running past me at 5 kilometers per hour, you actually weigh more than if you're standing stationary next to me.  However, given that the conversion ratio between mass and energy is the speed of light squared, which is a very large number, the amount of mass you gain by running at such a low speed is so small as to be unmeasurable.  Only if very large amounts of kinetic energy are involved does it become important.  If you were to fly past me at nine tenths the speed of light in a spaceship, and I could measure your mass as you passed, by, say, deflecting your path by bouncing something off you to see how much acceleration you gain for a given amount of force and using F=MA to calculate your mass, I'd find that you had a significantly higher mass.    \n\nSo, the simplest form of the statement, the one which calculates just the rest mass/energy relationship, is only part of the importance of this equation.
768008
Hi,\n\nFirst think about space as a big sheet of saran wrap. Then imagine that mass distorts the sheet, causing wells, or dents in it. now imagine that the photons need to travel along the saran wrap (i.e. traveling through space) and it makes sense that they would seem to change directions with respect to gravity. \n\nThat is a gross oversimplification, but I think that the analogy is roughly correct.\n\nHope that helps, \nMatt