does Einstein's E=MC2 break the law of conservation of mass?

Question

from what I understand of E=MC2, as velocity goes up so does mass, and if you are going light speed your mass is infinite. how does that not break the law of conservation of mass

Answer 1

There is sometimes confusion surrounding the subject of mass in relativity. This is because there are two separate uses of the term. Sometimes people say "mass" when they mean "relativistic mass", mr but at other times they say "mass" when they mean "invariant mass", m0. These two meanings are not the same. The invariant mass of a particle is independent of its speed v, whereas relativistic mass increases with speed and tends to infinity as the speed approaches that of light, c. They can be defined as follows:

mr = E/c2
m0 = sqrt(E2/c4 - p2/c2)

where E is energy, p is momentum and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed-dependent relation between the two is

mr = m0 /sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

Answer 2

First, in physics, mass IS A FORM OF ENERGY!!. As I understand, your reasoning "as velocity goes up so does mass, and if you are going light speed your mass is infinite" is correct. But the law of conservation of mass as you understand it is a simplify derived of the law of conservation of energy (both are correct and in most practical ways unbreakable). Einstein's equation states that a mass (a type of energy) will transform in another type of energy (light) at the speed of light. In other words, the more you approach the speed of light, you will start transforming in light and finally when you reach it, you will become light (which don't have mass)!!! So NO, Einstein's E=MC^2 do not break the law of conservation of mass (energy)

Answer 3

Here the basic essence is a relation between energy and mass... i.e mass and energy are inter-related according to e=mc^2. Thus, you can consider say Kinetic Energy to be inter-convertible to mass etc and at the speed of light that would happen.

You can also look at it this way : The body's inherent energy due to its existence is e=mc^2. It cannot posses energy greater than this or else it will cease to exist. Thus in an attempt to reduce the velocity and thereby the kinetic energy, mass tends to infinity since the maxiumum allowed velocity is c

Answer 4

You should not say that mass goes up with velocity. In modern usage, an objects mass is defined as its rest mass (which is what goes in the E=mc^2 equation). This does not change when you speed up. Introducing relativistic mass causes confusion. I answer a question along these lines every other day from someone who has picked up from somewhere the concept of relativistic mass without understanding it. So repeat: mass means rest mass. Mass is invariant. You don't get more mass by going faster. Repeat until you don't get the urge to be more massive at high speeds even if it does take more energy to accelerate you.

To answer your question, mass is not conserved. Rest mass can be converted to other forms of energy. To the best of our knowledge, energy is conserved.

Answer 5

Absolutely not, although it might seem that way at first glance. Fusion marvellously demonstrates that Einstein's famous E=mc^2 is correct; there is an equivalence between matter and energy. Adding energy to particles--that is, increasing their velocity and thus temperature--makes them more massive. Conversely, certain subatomic reactions (such as the mutual annihilation of an electron and antielectron [aka a positron]) can release tremendous amounts of energy by eliminating an equivalent amount of matter. In the standard fusion reaction exploited in H-bombs and fusion reactors, two different isotopes of hydrogen--one containing one neutron and one proton, the other containing two neutrons and one proton--are slammed into each other at sufficient energy to produce a helium nucleus containing two neutrons and two protons. The leftover neutron is emitted. From this simple explanation, mass would seem to be conserved (3N, 2P in; 3N, 2P out). But in fact the mass of the newly created He nucleus is less than the sum of the masses of neutrons and protons that went into it. The missing mass has been converted to energy; that energy is carried by the fast neutron emitted in the reaction. Thus neither mass nor energy, if they are considered strictly separately, are conserved in a fusion reaction. But the sum of mass and energy--which in relativistic physics is called rest-mass and is what the law of conservation of energy applies to--is absolutely conserved.

Answer 6

Neither mass nor mass-energy are relativistically locally conserved as such.

ds^2 = sqrt[(p_x)^2 + (p_y)^2 + (p_z)^2 - (p_t)^2]

is conserved. Velocity is relative. There is no local change in a relativistic body. An inertial observer sees time, length, and mass scale by

beta = sqrt[1 - (v^2)/(c^2)]

(That is only true for length coming right at your nose. If it whizzes by you will get Terrell rotation.)

In any case, you do not wish a body to go relativistic and watch it fly. You must pump in energy, as in a particle accelerator. If an electron massing 0.511 MeV/c^2 is boosted to 100 GeV energy, 195,700 times its rest mass equivalent, it is travelling deeply asymptotic to lightspeed. Adding 10 GeV more won't increase its velocity more than a tiny fraction of a sparrow fart - it will increase its apparent mass by 10 GeV/c^2.

Answer 7

In the previous days law of conservation of mass was defined as "the mass before and after the chemical change remains constant i.e. mass remains conserved in any chemical reaction". Later Einstein introduced his law of E=MC2...According to this law there is loss in mass during the conversion of mass into energy..So keeping Einstein's law in view law of conservation of mass was redefined as "the mass and energy are interconvertible"

Answer 8

E = MC2 has nothing to do with velocity. It says that mass and energy are the same. If you take mass and multiply it by a constant, (C2) you get the equivalent energy.

Answer 9

Yes, if we're talking about relativistic mass, the law of conservation of mass is broken. however, everything is fine because no massive object can travel at the speed of light

Answer 10

As a matter of fact, it did. But it replaced the classical law of the conservation of mass to the law of the conservation of mass-energy. There is such a thing, however, as standing mass, the mass of an object when it is at zero velocity relative to an inertial frame of reference, and this is still conserved.