∆m=∆E/c^2

Since the value of c is very high, the increase in mass ∆m is very small. For example, if we heat a substance, then the heat-energy given to this substance will increase its mass. But this increase in mass is so small that we cannot measure it even by the most sensitive balance. Similarly, if we compress a spring, its mass will increase, but we cannot confirm this mass-increase by any experiment.

Now the question is whether the change in mass as quoted in these two examples is reversible i.e. when the same substance of example one is cooled down, energy is produced equal to ∆m x c^2 (∆E=∆m x c^2) and in second example when we release the spring , energy is produced equal to ∆m x c^2 and initial mass is retained in both the cases ? Or the above changes are irreversible ?

I have seen a blog today by Maien on velocity, mass,gravity. He writes that mass is form of energy but not energy itself. I am also writing same ideas during the last fortnight. I am convinced that mass is the highest level of condensed state of energy and energy is highest level of subtle state of mass.

It now appears that the discussion is becoming more interesting.

One question may be raised, what is the difference between mass and matter? Either mass just represent some quantity of matter or more?

Warm regards

Anirudh

This is not the case at all. There were plenty of theoretical and experimental indications that the constancy of the speed of light is justified, like the Michelson-morely experiment and Lorentz invariance of the Maxwell equations.

More importantly, relativity is a falsifiable scientific theory. It makes precise mathematical quantitative predictions about reality that can be tested. You can't say that about a work of philosophy.

E=mc^2 is mathematiclly derived from the invariance of the speed of light. Just because you cannot understand how that is done does not justify calling it intuition – it is in fact a fairly surprising result.

Incidentally I never understand why people fixate on relativity. Quantum mechanics is a lot stranger.

E=mc^2 ! Fact, Fiction or Fantacy of Einstein which revolutionized the whole thinking process ?

Thank you dear aiusepsi once again for providing me an excellent opportunity of a very useful interaction

That's calculated by just plugging m = 1 kg, c = 3*10^8 m/s into E = mc^2. It's a simple calculation. m = E / c^2 is equally as valid, it's just a rearrangement.

There have been other particle accelerators in the past, too. The Nobel prize was won a few years back following the production and observation of the W and Z bosons at (from memory) the Tevatron. It also happens in energetic collisions due to cosmic rays.

If you want a derivation of E = mc^2 I suggest you get a textbook on the subject from your local library. It is a little involved to get into here.

There is no such thing as proof in physics, all you have is if your theory accurately predicts the outcome of experiments.

Relativity is based on the postulate that the speed of light is the same to all inertial observers, and then he derived from that all the consequences, one of which is E = mc^2. This is all now very, very well supported by over a hundred years of observation of physical phenomena.

The equation is E = mc^2. So the energy to create a kilogram of mass
(although you would get half a kg of matter, and half antimatter) is
c^2, 9*10^16 J. By way of comparison, that's about 10000 times the
world's power consumption in a second.

Creation of particles from energy is well established. This is how
they're going to try to observe the Higgs at the LHC. Smash two
protons together, and hopefully one of the particles created from the
energy will be the Higgs.

The reverse process, anihilation of matter and antimatter into energy
is even more commonplace – it underpins the medical PET scanner, for
instance.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make