Can a  mass  be be converted into energy components only if it moves at the speed of light?
954004
No, not at all.\n\nProcesses in perfectly stationary nuclei turn mass into energy. For instance, the energy an emitted alpha particle has in alpha decay from a staionary nucleus is reflected by a tiny fall in mass of the nucleus.\n\nConversely, as you accelerate a particle towards the speed of light, more and more of the energy you give to the particle gets converted to mass. In fact, you can never get the particle to the speed of light - its mass will go to infinity first. This is quite measurable in a particle accelerator.
34913
It is not possible for any particle that has mass to travel faster than the speed of light. The reason has a lot to do with relativity. Because the faster you go, the slower time passes for you. So if you are at 80% of the speed of light, and launch a projectile in front of you at light speed, because of your slow passage through time, it will still appear to you to travel at light. Everything is relative, and because of that, certain constants like the speed of light never change.\n\nAlso, a particle with mass would achieve infinite weight at light speed. Since you can't obviously exceed infinite weight, you can't exceed light.\n\nThe ideas behind things like "warp speed" don't propose actually traveling faster than light. What they propose is taking shortcuts through space, kind of like skipping a stone across the surface of the water. Even "warp speed" is subject to the laws of relativity.
468549
This is an impossibilty.  The more you accelerate, the more mass you attain.  The more mass you attain, the more energy needed to accelerate you until the required energy becomes infinite (before you reach light speed).  However, if you are a massless person, travel at light speed would be possible but the laws of physics remain stable as massless particles have little power of interaction with the universe around them.  If you were massless, and could withstand the cold, the laws of relativity state that time would pass normally for you but you would observe the universe evolving around you at an incredible rate of speed.  At absolute zero, most of the molecules in your body will have undergone a phase transition, eg all gases (oxygen, carbon dioxide etc) will have turned into a liquid and all water would have crystallized long ago.  I would suggest wearing a set of thermal long johns before attempting this venture!
877605
Well, there are two parts to this.  While light doesn't have mass, it most certainly has energy.  And according to Einstein's relativity, energy and mass are equivalent.  Further than that, in Einstein's general relativity (his theory of gravity), the source of his gravity was not just mass, but all energy (and momentum even).\n\nBut, it turns out that this only matters in terms of creating gravity, and not being affected by it (at least, if you listen to general relativity again).  According to general relativity, energy "warps" space and time.  What this means, in short, is that lines you think are straight aren't really.  When space and time are warped, you can keep moving in what as far as you know is a straight line, unaffected by any forces, and still somehow end up where you started (this is essentially what an orbit in general relativity is).  So anything exists, basically, should be affected by gravity.  To make an analogy, I'm sure you've seen either a painting/drawing like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Escher%27s_Relativity.jpg) or some cartoon where there's a scene with characters running all over such a place;  the people on those stairs certainly think they're right side up and not making any weird turns or such, but clearly they've gone and done it anyhow.  It's weird, but that's how it's interpreted and such.\n\nI hope I managed to help a bit.
989387
The only thing that can travel at the speed of light is light. So basically yes.
390389
What is says is that energy and matter are one in the same.  Energy can be readily converted into matter, and vice versa.  The speed of light squared is the proportionality constant between energy and mass.
557798
The rest mass of a photon is zero.\n\nTherefore its mass cannot increase whatever the speed it goes.\n\nBut its energy of motion increases.\n\nWhen it attains the speed C it has an energy of motion = h (Nu).\n\nSince energy can be converted to mass and mass can be converted to energy, this energy is equivalent to a mass mc^2.\n\nIn other words, the mass equivalent of photon is m = h (Nu)/ c^2\n\nIf you compare it with the motion of a mass, we can see some difference between the two. \n\nFor materials the rest mass is not zero. It has some initial mass m0. It increases with speed.\n\n The initial energy of this mass m0 is called energy of body and it is equal to m0 c^2; whereas for light it is zero. It has no energy of body.\n\nWhen the mass has reached a velocity V, let the mass be m. m > m0. \n\nNow the energy of body is mc^2. This is greater than m0 c^2;\n\nThe kinetic energy of the object is mc^ - m0 c^2. Note that it is not ½mV^2. \n\nWhen light is moving with this speed V, its energy of body is again zero. But its kinetic energy is h (Nu) C^2/ V^2.\n\nThus we see that the motion of an object is entirely different and cannot be compared with the motion of light. Yet we can find the mass energy relation by the formula mc^2.
1042298
No it can't.\n\nLaser light goes at exactly the speed of light.
462106
Its called "law of conservation of Energy".. \nYou can covert matter of mass M into energy  (and energy will be MC^2).. but you can not create either.\n\nEnergy will chenge from one form to another form like heat, work, pressure...etc. All these are one way or the other  form of energy.\n\nFundamental concepts of classical physics will give you much better idea about this concept.Try it!
182197
Disregarding the pseudoscientific ramblings above, use Einstein's energy equation which states that the energy of a particle is the magnitude of its momentum 4-vector, E^2 = (mc^2)^2 - (pc)^2. Since the photon is massless, this becomes E^2 = (pc)^2, and we get the momentum of a photon as directly proportional to its energy p = E/c. \nDon't be reluctant to use the equations, and don't try to shoehorn Newtonian mechanics where it does not belong (speeds at or near the speed of light). In this case, you are using the fallacy that classical momentum mv applies to a relativistic object. For more information about similar fallacies, see the second source below.
690012
the equation is as simple as the elegant and simple universe.the equation means that any type of energy can be converted into mass and vice versa. it means that at speed of light the enrgy becomes infinite(to accelerate it actually)and thus mass becomes infinite(special relativity)provided the generation of light in both the cases. the actual equation is e(kinetic energy)=mc^2/underroot(1-v^2/c^2).the e=mc^2 equation is still applicable for objects moving or stationary meaning that both the equations are true.
28019
no. and light does not have mass. light is made up of little packets of energy called photons which are massless.\nthis is why it can't: lightspeed is the ultimate speed limit of the universe. nothing can go faster then the speed of light because in the formula for time dialation(time slows down for an object moving close to the speed of light) t'=t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where t' is the time passing for an outside observer, t is the time that passes for the object going at the high velocity, v is velocity, speed is the speed of light and ^2 is squared. (note: this formula is definately correct, it's part of einstein's theory of relativity and I've had to derive it myself for class) so if v was bigger than c, you would have a number greater than one and therefore a negative number under a square root, which is impossible.
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.
313900
Think of this\nwhen it comes to space the constant thing is the speed of light. Speed is the TIME it takes something to travel set distance.\nAt the moment we are moving through space. An hour ago we were a few hundred thousand miles from where we are now. If you were sitting still where we were a few hous ago, you would be slightly older than us.\nThis is because the constant thing in space is the speed of light. As we get closer to the speed of light either time gets smaller or distance gets smaller.\n\nIf this does not seem possible, just think of a unit of time as one vibration of an atom. Go faster, atoms vibrates slower, your time is therefore slower than some one who is still. (this is a metaphor people can comprehend, not quantum fact)\n\nSo question 1. Light is travelling at speed of light. Time and space do whatever they have to do to accomodate this.\n\nQ2 No, see Q1. You also would no be strong enough to throw the ball\n\nQ3. The closer one gets there first. just like anything else.\n\nQ4. What fuel? It would accelerate exponentially as the mass decreased. Top speed comes dowon to rates of accelerate, motor efficiency, drag, ect. Then as you got really fast your mass increases. Mass increases (again I'll use a compehendable metaphor and not quantum physics) because distance decreases, things are closer together, denser, heavier. Then your rate of fuel consumption would increase exponetially and your velocity would barely change. Then you'd run out of fuel
364291
No, because according to Einstein's equations, to accelerate anything towards the speed of light would require more energy than exists in the universe (after converting all matter to energy).\n\nThere is a theoretical particle that never goes slower than the speed of light, but it has not been experimentally proven. They're called tachyons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
437310
Every mass in motion is said to have mechanical energy.\nHowever a mass is also structure ed with atoms wich are also moving with mechanical energy. The is the energy of the structure. You can represent it a the total mass  time velocity of light squard. Usally in the motion of masses the mass changes are very small. Hence you can consider mass as a constant. The mass time the final velocity squared of the moving mass is the mecahnical energy of maas in motion. assuming there is no friction. if there is friction you must substract the energy loss due to friction.
644825
According to Special Relativity Theory, when you are transporting a mass at a speed near lightspeed, the energy needed to increase your speed rises to infinity. We can't provide the system with enough energy to reach the light of speed.\n\nEnergy, though, can travel at the speed of light because it has no mass. If we could transform a mass in energy (remember: E = m c^2) and re-create it at destination, travelling at lightspeed would be possible.\n\nBut, as Dark Helmet said, speed of light is too slow. We need ludicrous speed!