Mass-Energy relation

Question

Einstein mass- energy relation states $E=mc^2$. It means if energy of a paricle increases then mass also increases or vice-versa. My question is that what is the actual meaning of the statement "mass increases"? Is really the mass of the particle increasing or what?

Answer 1

The rest mass of an object is, by definition, independent of the energy. But all other forms of mass are indeed increasing with the energy, as $E=mc^2$. With the relativistic interpretation of the kinetic energy, the total mass is $$ m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$ Here, $m_0$ is the mass measured at rest, i.e. the rest mass. The corrected, total mass goes to infinity if $v\to c$ and it holds for the following interpretations of the mass:

• the inertial mass, i.e. the resistance towards the acceleration, increases. For example, the protons at the LHC have mass about 4,000 times larger than the rest mass (the energy is 4 TeV), and that's the reason why it's so hard to accelerate them above their speed of 99.9999% of the speed of light and e.g. surpass the speed of light. It's impossible to surpass it because the object is increasingly heavy, as measured by the inertial mass

• the conserved mass. If you believe that the total mass of all things is conserved, it's true but only if you interpret the "total mass" as the "total energy over $c^2$". In this conserved quantity, the fast objects near the speed of light indeed contribute much more than their rest mass. If you considered the total rest mass of objects, it wouldn't be conserved

• the gravitational mass that enters Newton's force $Gm_1m_2/r^2$. If an object is moving back and forth, by a speed close to the speed of light, it produces a stronger gravitational field than the same object at rest. For example, if you fill a box with mirrors by lots of photons that carry some huge energy and therefore "total mass" $m=E/c^2$, they will increase the gravitational field of the box even though their rest mass is zero. Be careful, in general relativity, the pressure from the photons (or something else) creates a gravitational field (its independent component curved in a different way), too.

Despite this Yes Yes Yes answer to the question whether the total mass indeed increases, Crazy Buddy is totally right that especially particle physicists tend to reserve the term "mass" for the "rest mass" and they always prefer the word "energy" for the "total mass" times $c^2$.

Answer 2

The correct expression is

$$E=\frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1 - {v^2}/{c^2}}}$$

where $v$ is the velocity of the particle. The mass $m$ of the particle is a constant and cannot increase [*]. The energy of a particle increases with its velocity. For a particle at rest $v=0$ and $E=mc^2$.

[*] This is the modern concept of mass used in physics. For instance the mass of an electron is $m_\mathrm{e} = 9.10938188 \times 10^{-31}$ kg. Some answers here mention the old "relativistic mass" concept $m_\mathrm{rel} \equiv {m}/{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ and mention a supposed "rest mass". The term "rest mass" is a misnomer, for instance $m_\mathrm{e}$ is not the mass of an electron at rest and this term is still more misleading for particles such as photons (which are never at rest). For additional criticism see the recent Okun paper Mass versus relativistic and rest masses

Answer 3

Yes. You're somewhat (not whole part) right. But, The actual terminology of mass-energy equivalence is that, It gives the energy associated with a "massive" particle or the total energy content obtainable from the system.

But Nowadays, relativistic mass $$m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$ isn't considered as a good term by Physicists. Because, they're eager & more satisfied with the true rest mass $m_0$ and rest energy $m_0c^2$ they actually measure (with their goggles) rather than the apparent relativistic mass.

Moreover, there are satisfactory explanations that the rest mass does not vary with an object's inertial motion relative to the observer's frame of reference.

Answer 4

Yes, mass actually increases when energy increases. Though very slowly.

This is because the equation E=mc^2 says that a huge amount of energy is only equal to a small amount of mass. However it is still there.

However there are times when this energy can increase so drastically even mass is increased significantly. Rest mass usually does not increase for the most part because rest mass is internal however even this can impact mass and energy. The rest mass of a neutron is less in side an atomic nucleus than alone. This rest mass is then lost as a lot of energy. So even rest mass subjected to E=mc^2. Just not as much as other types of mass. Most of a protons or neutrons mass is not really rest mass but the kinetic energy of the quarks that actually make them up. Even true rest mass(the rest mass of fundamental particles) comes from the energy of the interaction between particles and the Higgs field.

Answer 5

That's not a relation, that's more like the equivalence between mass and energy. The main concept under this formula is that mass is a property of any energy and energy is the property of any mass, connected with a constant - $c^2$.

It means that if you have a body at rest with a mass of $m$, it would have energy $E=mc^2$.

For example, the rest mass of electron is $m_e=0.511\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$. And when electron and positron annihilates the photons with total energy of $E = 1.022\mathrm{MeV}$ is radiated.

So, about the question: yes, heavier elementary particles would have more energy under annihilation. But you can't make electron with bigger mass.

Answer 6

The mass-energy relation, $E=mc^3$, is a fundamental concept in modern physics. However, its derivation is based on a flawed premise. The Lorentz factor, $\gamma$, is incorrectly attached to mass, $m$, implying relativistic mass, which contradicts the principle of conservation of mass. Suppose a body having mass $m$ is transported between two points then value of mass transported depends upon the speed for lumped mass. As we know that speed is function of length and time, so it's depend upon relativistic length and time but mass is another fundamental physical quantity independent of length and time. See in relatistic speed expression, $\mathrm{u=\gamma\,u_0}$, $\gamma$ is linked to relativistic speed then how it's linked to mass in relativistic momentum, $\mathrm{p=\gamma\,p_0}$.

This wrong attachment leads to the derivation of $E=mc^2$,$$\displaystyle m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}=m_0\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{v^2}{c^2}+\frac{3}{8}\frac{v^4}{c^4}+\cdots\right)$$multiplying by $c^2$ makes it,$$\displaystyle E=mc^2=m_0c^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0v^2+\frac{3}{8}m_0\frac{v^4}{c^2}+\cdots$$ but it's based on a flawed mathematical manipulation. The correct understanding of mass and energy should not rely on this incorrect premise. Furthermore, the concept of rest mass energy, $m_0c^2$, is a misconception. It cannot be measured and seems more like chemical energy than mechanical energy. Mechanical energy is either kinetic or potential, and the idea of rest mass energy challenges its fundamental physical concept. The idea of expressimg function as a series expansion is for function about which we want to know how its behave nearby, but kinetic energy is integral of a function and its value doesn't depend upon how function evolve but how function align with path chosen. It is a scalar quantity and often have numeric value as given by limits, so it can't be expressed as series expansion intead of force.

Additionally, the Pythagorean relation for energy,$E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2$, is also incorrect. It implies that energy is composed of two independent components: rest energy and kinetic energy. However, this relation is flawed because $mc^2$ already contains all information about energy, and adding $pc$ implies $mc^2$ is insufficient, contradicting the concept of rest energy. Also, in pythagorean, components whose square summed are independent and thus exclude each other, means energy can be given in terms of either one only. Moreover, $pc$ is flawed, as $p$ already implies mass, making the distinction between massless and massive particles unclear.

In conclusion, the mass-energy relation, $E=mc^2$, and the Pythagorean relation for energy are based on flawed premises and mathematical manipulations. A correct understanding of mass and energy should not rely on these incorrect concepts.