The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-24-2011, 06:01 PM
sweeteviljesus sweeteviljesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Why is mass conserved in ordinary chemical reactions but not in nuclear reactions?

Or is it just a matter of the mass converted to energy is too small to be observed.

Thanks,
Rob
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 09-24-2011, 06:02 PM
ZenBeam ZenBeam is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 8,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweeteviljesus View Post
Or is it just a matter of the mass converted to energy is too small to be observed.
This.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-24-2011, 06:56 PM
Andy L Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenBeam View Post
This.
To elaborate - chemical reactions convert such a tiny amount of mass to energy that it's essentially undetectable but it does occur

Cecil discusses here http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...en-their-meals
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-24-2011, 07:02 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,274
Although actually, if you're careful and consistent about how you define your system, it turns out that all reactions really do conserve mass absolutely, even nuclear reactions and antimatter annihilation. For the simplest case, consider a positron and an electron, sitting at rest right next to each other. They annihilate, and produce a pair of hard gamma photons. Now, each photon, considered individually, is massless, but the system we're looking at does not consist of just one individual photon; it consists of both of them. And the mass of the entire system, consisting of both photons, is in fact still twice the mass of an electron.

This is counterintuitive, since we're used to thinking that the mass of a system is the sum of the masses of all of its constituents. And on the scales we usually work with, that's an excellent approximation. But it's only an approximation, and whenever you have things going at or near the speed of light, that approximation breaks down.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-24-2011, 07:06 PM
Andy L Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Although actually, if you're careful and consistent about how you define your system, it turns out that all reactions really do conserve mass absolutely, even nuclear reactions and antimatter annihilation. For the simplest case, consider a positron and an electron, sitting at rest right next to each other. They annihilate, and produce a pair of hard gamma photons. Now, each photon, considered individually, is massless, but the system we're looking at does not consist of just one individual photon; it consists of both of them. And the mass of the entire system, consisting of both photons, is in fact still twice the mass of an electron.

This is counterintuitive, since we're used to thinking that the mass of a system is the sum of the masses of all of its constituents. And on the scales we usually work with, that's an excellent approximation. But it's only an approximation, and whenever you have things going at or near the speed of light, that approximation breaks down.
Thank you for this detailed response. Would it be accurate to say "rest mass" is not conserved?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-24-2011, 07:11 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,274
"Rest mass" is synonymous with "mass". Any other meaning of the word "mass" is now deprecated in physics.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-24-2011, 07:13 PM
Andy L Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
"Rest mass" is synonymous with "mass". Any other meaning of the word "mass" is now deprecated in physics.
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-24-2011, 08:19 PM
DrCube DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Far be it for me to dispute a physicist (I'm pretty sure Chronos is a physicist), but I thought mass = energy, and is conserved absolutely. So a positron and an electron may annihilate each other in an explosion of "massless" gamma rays, but the mass inherent in the energy of the resultant photons equals the mass of the original two particles plus whatever energy they started out with. Which sounds like it agrees with your first post.

What throws me is the line about "rest mass" being synonymous with "mass". Doesn't that directly contradict your first post, Chronos? What am I missing?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-24-2011, 09:01 PM
Andy L Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Far be it for me to dispute a physicist (I'm pretty sure Chronos is a physicist), but I thought mass = energy, and is conserved absolutely. So a positron and an electron may annihilate each other in an explosion of "massless" gamma rays, but the mass inherent in the energy of the resultant photons equals the mass of the original two particles plus whatever energy they started out with. Which sounds like it agrees with your first post.

What throws me is the line about "rest mass" being synonymous with "mass". Doesn't that directly contradict your first post, Chronos? What am I missing?
If I'm understanding him correctly, the mass of the system which includes both gamma rays is equal to the mass of the electron and positron; it's only when you look at the individual gamma rays, each of which has a mass of zero, that you'd get confused, because by treating the gamma rays separately, you're ignoring some of the energy/mass.

I was mistaken when I mentioned rest mass, because that's the only kind of mass Chronos was talking about.

But I could be wrong - it's been a long day.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-25-2011, 09:43 AM
DrCube DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
If I'm understanding him correctly, the mass of the system which includes both gamma rays is equal to the mass of the electron and positron; it's only when you look at the individual gamma rays, each of which has a mass of zero, that you'd get confused, because by treating the gamma rays separately, you're ignoring some of the energy/mass.

I was mistaken when I mentioned rest mass, because that's the only kind of mass Chronos was talking about.

But I could be wrong - it's been a long day.
Yeah, but if rest mass is the only kind of mass, how does it follow that mass is conserved only for dynamic systems and not for each particle observed from a state of rest? Can a dynamic system be said to be at rest?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-25-2011, 10:37 AM
Asympotically fat Asympotically fat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Whether mass is conserved (in special relativity) just depends on how you look at it. Mass is the norm (i.e. the 'length') of the four momentum vector P. For an isolated system Psystem and hence it's norm |Psystem| is constant, i.e. the rest mass of the system considered as a whole is conserved

Let's say the system is made up of a number of n particles with momenta P1, P2, ....., Pn, then

Psystem = P1 + P2 + ..... + Pn

however the sum (which I just call M for convenience,not to imply that it's more proper to think of it as the mass of the system)

Msystem = |P1| + |P2| + ..... + |Pn|

(where P1, etc, are the rest masses of the individual particles) will not neccesarily be equal to |Psystem| and is not necessarily constant, i.e. it is not conserved.

In many ways most prefer to talk about the conservation of|Psystem| in terms of the conservation of energy (it's just the statement that the system's energy is conserved in it's rest frame) rather than describe at as the conservation of mass. On the other hand it's a much of a muchness: |Psystem| is conserved and M isn't conserved so if you choose to talk about the conservation of mass in terms of the former then mass is conserved and if you choose the latter it isn't conserved.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-25-2011, 10:40 AM
Asympotically fat Asympotically fat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Yeah, but if rest mass is the only kind of mass, how does it follow that mass is conserved only for dynamic systems and not for each particle observed from a state of rest? Can a dynamic system be said to be at rest?
Implicitly, each individual particle in the isolated system does not in itself constitute an isolated system and for this reason the statements we make about quantities that are conserved for isolated systems do not apply to the constituent particles.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-25-2011, 05:10 PM
Andy L Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Yeah, but if rest mass is the only kind of mass, how does it follow that mass is conserved only for dynamic systems and not for each particle observed from a state of rest? Can a dynamic system be said to be at rest?
A dynamic system has a center of mass frame of reference - and in the case of the electron and positron converted to gamma rays, the same frame of reference that has the electron and positron stationary initially is the center of mass frame of reference for the gamma rays. If you're calculating energy of the system before and after the annihilation, and you keep the same frame of reference before and after, you'll see energy/mass conserved - but if you switch reference frames (by, for example, considering each gamma ray photon individually) you won't.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-25-2011, 06:58 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,274
Also note that if you change frames like that, you won't find energy to be conserved in any form. This just underscores the importance of being consistent in your definitions of things like that.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-25-2011, 07:17 PM
Andy L Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Also note that if you change frames like that, you won't find energy to be conserved in any form. This just underscores the importance of being consistent in your definitions of things like that.
I thought that was true, but was afraid I was missing some obvious counterexample where changing frames wouldn't matter...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-25-2011, 08:49 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,274
Well, you could very carefully pick two frames which happened to have the same energy (i.e., two frames which are both moving at the same speed, but in different directions, relative to the zero-momentum frame), but in general, it'll be different.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-26-2011, 08:35 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
To elaborate - chemical reactions convert such a tiny amount of mass to energy that it's essentially undetectable but it does occur
This is only true for very small-scale chemical reactions. In fact, on a joule-to-joule comparison, chemical reactions and nuclear reactions exhibit the same E=mC2 energy-to-mass equivalency.

Case in point:
The space shuttle launches with massive quantities of hydrogen and oxygen on board. When the main engines finish their two-minute burn during the initial phase of the ascent, the resulting water weighs about two grams less than the total mass of hydrogen and oxygen they had on board. Those missing two grams are manifested as kinetic and potential energy of the space shuttle and as thermal energy (waste heat) in the hot steam being fired out the back of the main engines.

If you extracted the same total amount of energy from a nuclear reaction, you would expect to see the same two-gram mass change.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-26-2011, 08:50 AM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Which also means that with a good enough fusion reactor, you could launch a shuttle into orbit using just 2 grams of water.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-26-2011, 09:08 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Which also means that with a good enough fusion reactor, you could launch a shuttle into orbit using just 2 grams of water.
Only if you could somehow convert the entire two grams of water into pure energy. If you're talking about extracting the hydrogen from 2 grams of water and fusing it into helium, the energy you will get out of that is quite a bit less.
Hydrogen comprises on 11% of the mass of water. After that, you smash the hydrogen together into helium, and the resulting energy is equivalent to the difference in mass between the hydrogen fuel and the helium product.

In your fusion reactor, you would need to fuse enough hydrogen into helium to create a 2-gram mass difference - just like the SSME's do with their chemical reaction.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-26-2011, 02:11 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,274
On the other hand, though, most of the weight the Shuttle's engines are lifting is more fuel for the engines. Cut out almost all the fuel, and you could launch using much less energy.

And 2 grams is still undetectable, out of all of the many tons of fuel that went into the process. Especially considering that the water produced is scattered hither, thither and yon.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-26-2011, 02:52 PM
leahcim leahcim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
On the other hand, though, most of the weight the Shuttle's engines are lifting is more fuel for the engines. Cut out almost all the fuel, and you could launch using much less energy.
Yes, but the fuel is also the reaction mass for the rocket engines. You can replace the fuel with something without a lot of chemical potential energy, replacing that with the energy extracted from the total energy conversion of that two grams of water, but you still need to have a lot of spare mass to throw out the back to make the rocket go.

Unless, of course, you're planning to launch the shuttle from some kind of slingshot.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-26-2011, 02:58 PM
Terr Terr is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: ♂
Posts: 9,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by leahcim View Post
Unless, of course, you're planning to launch the shuttle from some kind of slingshot.
Hm - speaking of slingshots... I always wonder why the rockets are launched from standstill. Wouldn't it make sense to give the rocket the initial boost from something like a giant railgun?

Doing it for a vertical takeoff would probably be impossible, but an angled one could be done. Wouldn't that save a significant amount of reaction mass and increase payloads?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-26-2011, 06:14 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,274
An angled launch trajectory means you have to go through more atmosphere, which is bad news. You could straighten out to near vertical right at the end of your launching rail, but that would also cost you. And you've also got a lot of complicated infrastructure that would cost money to set up, and would be potentially subject to a variety of failures. I'm sure that NASA considered it, but rejected it in favor of less expensive methods.

EDIT: Oh, and as for reaction mass, that won't be the same for all launch methods. You could get away with less reaction mass, if you throw it out the back quicker. I don't know exactly by how much, but I'm sure you could get a significantly more efficient launch overall if you had some fuel that would annihilate completely, even if you did still need reaction mass on top of that.

Last edited by Chronos; 09-26-2011 at 06:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-27-2011, 08:35 AM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
I still don't get it. How is the mass of the system of two gamma photons still be the "rest mass"? Isn't the whole point that you can't measure the photons at rest?

And, anyways, what does no longer referring to rest mass accomplish? In other words, where is the rest mass concept deficient to the point where it has to be replaced? Is it just that the mass isn't always at "rest"?

BTW, it sure wasn't obsolete six years ago. What changed?

Last edited by BigT; 09-27-2011 at 08:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-27-2011, 08:45 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Hm - speaking of slingshots... I always wonder why the rockets are launched from standstill. Wouldn't it make sense to give the rocket the initial boost from something like a giant railgun?
Orbital velocity is somewhere in excess of 17,400 MPH. It would take a very large machine - and destructively large accelerations - to impart any meaningful initial velocity before the onboard rocket engines take over. Rather than build a long, complicated slingshot, it's easier just to put more fuel in the vehicle and let the engines run a bit longer.

However, there is a free boost that's available without any slingshot required. Ever wondered why NASA usually launches its rockets from Florida instead of Maine?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-27-2011, 10:26 AM
leahcim leahcim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I still don't get it. How is the mass of the system of two gamma photons still be the "rest mass"? Isn't the whole point that you can't measure the photons at rest?
Photons do not have rest mass, but they do have momentum. So you can imagine a frame in which the sum of the momenta of several photons is zero (e.g. if two photons of the same frequency are traveling in exactly opposite directions.) This is the rest frame of the system of photons. The photons are, of course, traveling at the speed of light, but the average of the system is at rest.

Chronos' point is that even though the photons themselves have no rest mass, the system, in the rest frame, does.

Quote:
And, anyways, what does no longer referring to rest mass accomplish? In other words, where is the rest mass concept deficient to the point where it has to be replaced? Is it just that the mass isn't always at "rest"?
I believe it is relativistic mass (i.e. the one that gets bigger as velocity increases) that is deprecated. Mostly because it is based on a Newtonian expectation carrying over to relativity. In Newtonian mechanics, if you thwack a particle with the same impulse over and over again it gets incrementally faster each time. In relativistic mechanics it doesn't, which is exactly what would happen in Newtonian mechanics if the particle got more magically more massive as it got faster. But that's just a crutch to maintain the validity of Newtonian intuition, not an actual worthwhile concept.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-27-2011, 11:59 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,274
The concept of rest mass is not considered deficient: It's just gotten re-named to the simpler word "mass". If you choose to continue to use the term "rest mass", your only punishment is that you're going to the work to say an unnecessary syllable.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.