If matter is the same as energy, then...

"If matter is the same as energy, then...
...what accounts for the difference between matter and energy?"
Maybe you could look at it this way; " If water is the same as ice...then what accounts for the difference between water and ice?"
Both the same , yet one is a liquid, the other a solid, and in another manifestation it could be a gas. Do you comprehend that through the application of some external process, that "same" thing (H2O) can "exist" in different "states" of "matter" yet still remain the "same" thing (H2O)?
Maybe - and believe me I am stretching the meaning of maybe - you could possibly think of it as;
Matter = solid
Energy = gas
Plasma = liquid
These "maybes" are not in any way a proven scientific fact, I was just trying to come up with some form of analogy to for you to be able to solve your query. I hope this helps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, matter and energy are equal together with a coefficient of c^2 on the mass term... Do you know what a conversion factor is? It's a mathematical term where you change some quantity of something. I have now said this... three times. Perhaps more. Your analogies are embarassing simply because you don't seem to understand what this all means.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting that you are unable to answer my questions. Let's try again.

Is fire equal to gasoline? Are children equal to bananas?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The question is rhetorical, because we both know that your argument is a fallacy. The answer is of course no, they are not the same. When is a child equal to a banana? When is fire equal to gasoline?

The real question is, when is energy the same as mass... the answer is well known and the question is not a fallacious statement. They are equal when mass has a coefficient conversion factor. They are essentially the same however, because the conversion factor is just that... all it does is change the mass into it's more diffused state, energy.

 

Never! And when is energy EQUAL to matter? Never.

However, gasoline has an EQUIVALENCE to fire. Specifically, one gallon of gasoline is EQUIVALENT to 33.41 kilowatt-hours of energy when burned (i.e. fire.) To put it in mathematical form, E=(G*C) where G is gallons of gasoline, C is the conversion factor and E is energy in kilowatt-hours.

This does not mean that gasoline is equal to fire. (Or energy, or combustion.)

A pound of bananas is, very roughly, equivalent to .8 ounces of child. Digestion converts the bananas to sugars, amino acids and trace materials (vitamins) which are used to construct more child.

This does not mean that children are equal to bananas.

A kilogram of matter has an EQUIVALENCE to energy. One kilogram of matter, if converted completely to energy, would result in 9×10^16 joules of energy.

This does not mean that energy is equal to energy.

Want any more examples?

 

I am going to keep my cool because I don't think your brain can comprehend what E = Mc^2 means.


One last time... energy is equivalent to mass with the conversion factor of c^2. Since you keep denying this, your posts really deserve to be shoved in the psuedoscience area.


Good day.

 

You mean it has no physical interpretation? Anything can reduced to a coefficient?

You change quite a few things. What does it mean to multiply a mass by a velocity? And again?

billvon has simply illustrated the absurdity of mixing units, esp. while skipping the physical process whereby an apple becomes an orange.

IOW they can not be the same thing unless they actually are. If this continues to puzzle you, you might wonder why it's impossible to put a liter of water in your car's tank, and then--using your "conversion factor"--feed your engine out of the 90 billion kiloJoules of energy you have available. That comes out to about 700 million gallons of gasoline.

 

Yes, my poor brain that thinks that a laser beam is not equal to a steel rod. A steel rod isn't even a condensed laser beam. O the difficulty.

Yes! Finally! You got it! There is an EQUIVALENCY. They are not EQUAL.

To review:
There is an EQUIVALENCY between matter and energy. They are not EQUAL.
There is an EQUIVALENCY between gasoline and fire. They are not EQUAL.
There is an EQUIVALENCY between bananas and children. They are not EQUAL.

Now have a good weekend!

 

You're trolling, I've said this ALL along!

Energy is equal with mass when the mass term has a cofficient conversion factor. Mc^2 is equal to energy, they have exactly the same units.

 

Ah well.

Somewhere between senior year of high school and sophomore year of college many physics students have a sudden enlightenment - time is the fourth dimension! There's no difference; it's just another axis in space! What a stunning revelation! Think about what that means for time travel and how to see the universe!

Then they get a deeper understanding of time, the direction of entropy etc and they settle on a more useful and realistic model for time-space.

It just takes time for some people.

 

Mr. billvon, you stated; "one gallon of gasoline is EQUIVALENT to 33.41 kilowatt-hours of energy when burned ". Is this true for any quality/octane/grade of gasoline? Is this true for any and all type of burning, would it produce the exact same amount of energy in a low oxygen environment or when burned in a higher(or lower) pressure environment? Will gasoline burn without the presence of oxygen?
I was under the impression that the "m" in "e-m/c 2 (energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared)", referred to mass. During this discussion, it seems, to me, that you have freely used mass/matter interchangeably. The OP even titled this post; "If matter is the same as energy, then...".
So could not an answer to your queries; 1. "Is fire equal to gasoline?" and 2. "And when is energy EQUAL to matter?" be "when that matter/mass is burned.
You even stated; "However, gasoline has an EQUIVALENCE to fire", this is the definition of equivalence that i found at:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equivalence

" e·quiv·a·lence [ih-kwiv-uh-luhns or for 3, ee-kwuh-vey-luhns] Show IPA
noun Also, equivalency (for defs 1, 2).
1.
the state or fact of being equivalent; equality in value, force, significance, etc.
2.
an instance of this; an equivalent.
3.
Chemistry . the quality of having equal valence.
4.
Logic, Mathematics .
a.
Also called material implication. the relation between two propositions such that the second is not false when the first is true.
b.
Also called material equivalence. the relation between two propositions such that they are either both true or both false.
c.
the relation between two propositions such that each logically implies the other.
adjective
5.
(of a logical or mathematical relationship) reflexive, symmetrical, and transitive. "

I posit that if you allow that the words mass/matter are interchangeable, then should not the words equivalence/equal also be allowed to be interchangeable?

Is it just me? Does anybody else get the impression that some members like to use SciForums as some kind of personal abusive/emotional/egotistical playground?
Probably, just me.

 

It's not billvon that's trolling you, but all of science. Provided we go with your definition of the word.

You need only parse this sentence carefully to find your mistake.

 

All of that is irrelevant since that's a matter of fine precision while we are talking about the huge difference beween chemical energy (bond energy) and the mass-energy equivalence, which is entirely different.

Mass vs matter is irrelevant. "m" is mass in kg, if "E" is energy in Joules; they are not the same thing.

No, that's different. That's chemical energy (bond energy) not the energy associated with the mass itself.

No.

Some posters are convinced of things that are false and incorrect and get a little huffy when their errors are pointed out to them.

 

Work=force*distance
Power=work/time
Energy=power*time

Therefore:

Energy=((force*distance)/time)*time

If you operate a 100 Watt light bulb for 10 hours you have consumed 1 KW-Hour of ENERGY. You can not change that back into mass, and it is not equal to mass accelerating at c^2.

Energy is a measure of power*time, which is the same as saying Energy=((force*distance)/time)*time!

It is measuring system, it is not an explanation for what mass is or where it came from or what it's made of, or some phenomena that magically transforms mass into a time machine that you can return the light from the bulb and change it into mass. RIDICULOUS!!!

 

Your equations are incomplete. They only apply in special cases.

And, yes, energy can be converted to matter (mass) which is what happens in a collider.

 

BULLSHIT! You can not consume 1 kw-hours of energy and then transform that back into where it was derived from. Even if you could it would take more energy, because entropy is always positive. You want to change something back to the way it was? Then it is going to require more energy, and it will NEVER be the same!!!

 

As I said, matter is created in a collider from energy. The rest of what you said is irrelevant.

 

So you're saying you can burn a gallon of gasoline and then after it's burned you can change it back into a gallon of gasoline? First of all, even if you could change the heat back into the gas after it burned it would require more energy. You are trying to pull some f'n rabbit out of the hat to save your f'n hero's legacy, and it isn't going to work! The dude was an idiot!

 

Energy is equivalent to mass when there is a conversion factor of c^2. There is no fallacy in this statement, only over-eager blind participants in this thread, trying to find something which isn't there.

[Energy is equivalent to mass] is what Billvon quoted me saying and then disingenuously ignored the rest of what my sentence contained. It went like this, for this umpteenth time:


''energy is equivalent to a mass term when there is a coefficient conversion factor, namely the speed of light squared''


You are all in contempt of trolling this discussion by trying to elucidate that this sentence is wrong. There is nothing wrong with it and the more you lot try and argue it, the more embarassing it is watching you!]


Put it another way, if energy wasn't equal to matter where the mass term has a coefficient of c^2 then what you are all stating is

\(E \neq Mc^2\)

Which is absurd. Nonsense, trolling idiots.

 

No, I've said several times now: matter is created from energy in a collider. The rest is irrelevant.