Conservation of Mass and EnergyConversion of mass to energy in chemical/nuclear reactionsCan non-free forces change the rest mass?Why does mass change in to energy during a nuclear change?Energy & Mass of a PhotonWhat is the argument for detailed balance in chemistry?Would impact angle matter on relativistic impactor?Hypothetical special relativity with mass conservationDoes the mass of object really increase?Some calculations on the energy consumption of a relativistic rocketIf mass and energy are same what will be the equivalent of a homogeneous ball in terms of energy and information?

Are all players supposed to be able to see each others' character sheets?

Outlet with 3 sets of wires

Would an aboleth's Phantasmal Force lair action be affected by Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and/or Slow?

Source permutation

Can one live in the U.S. and not use a credit card?

Can we track matter through time by looking at different depths in space?

Does Christianity allow for believing on someone else's behalf?

Are small insurances worth it?

Do items de-spawn?

Is it possible that a question has only two answers?

For which categories of spectra is there an explicit description of the fibrant objects via lifting properties?

Should I take out a loan for a friend to invest on my behalf?

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned

What will happen if my luggage gets delayed?

Is it possible to find 2014 distinct positive integers whose sum is divisible by each of them?

Power Strip for Europe

How to write a chaotic neutral protagonist and prevent my readers from thinking they are evil?

How does Ehrenfest's theorem apply to the quantum harmonic oscillator?

Can I negotiate a patent idea for a raise, under French law?

Help find my computational error for logarithms

Is it a Cyclops number? "Nobody" knows!

Why restrict private health insurance?

Giving a career talk in my old university, how prominently should I tell students my salary?

Windows Server Datacenter Edition - Unlimited Virtual Machines



Conservation of Mass and Energy


Conversion of mass to energy in chemical/nuclear reactionsCan non-free forces change the rest mass?Why does mass change in to energy during a nuclear change?Energy & Mass of a PhotonWhat is the argument for detailed balance in chemistry?Would impact angle matter on relativistic impactor?Hypothetical special relativity with mass conservationDoes the mass of object really increase?Some calculations on the energy consumption of a relativistic rocketIf mass and energy are same what will be the equivalent of a homogeneous ball in terms of energy and information?













1












$begingroup$


I was thinking about some physics (relativity in particular), when it suddenly occurred to me that all my life I had been balancing chemical equations assuming conservation of mass, but I was disregarding energy!



For example, consider combustion:
$$CH_4 + 2O_2 >>> 2H_2O + CO_2 + Energy$$



However, since energy was released, some mass should have been converted to energy right? Why is the equation reflecting a balance in mass?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    1












    $begingroup$


    I was thinking about some physics (relativity in particular), when it suddenly occurred to me that all my life I had been balancing chemical equations assuming conservation of mass, but I was disregarding energy!



    For example, consider combustion:
    $$CH_4 + 2O_2 >>> 2H_2O + CO_2 + Energy$$



    However, since energy was released, some mass should have been converted to energy right? Why is the equation reflecting a balance in mass?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      I was thinking about some physics (relativity in particular), when it suddenly occurred to me that all my life I had been balancing chemical equations assuming conservation of mass, but I was disregarding energy!



      For example, consider combustion:
      $$CH_4 + 2O_2 >>> 2H_2O + CO_2 + Energy$$



      However, since energy was released, some mass should have been converted to energy right? Why is the equation reflecting a balance in mass?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I was thinking about some physics (relativity in particular), when it suddenly occurred to me that all my life I had been balancing chemical equations assuming conservation of mass, but I was disregarding energy!



      For example, consider combustion:
      $$CH_4 + 2O_2 >>> 2H_2O + CO_2 + Energy$$



      However, since energy was released, some mass should have been converted to energy right? Why is the equation reflecting a balance in mass?







      special-relativity conservation-laws mass-energy physical-chemistry






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Aaron Stevens

      12.8k42248




      12.8k42248










      asked 1 hour ago









      Dude156Dude156

      1307




      1307




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Adding to TechDroid's answer, energy is also present in chemical bonds. When some higher energy (less stable) bonds are broken to form lower energy (more stable) ones (i.e. exothermic reactions), that energy difference can be released as energy.



          So, almost all of that "+ energy" is due to the energy being released from the bonds themselves, and not the matter.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




















            1












            $begingroup$

            It actually does, but the amount converted is so small it's considered insignificant in the real world context. Based on the Einstein's famous equation ($E=mc^2$), a lot of energy can be extracted from a really small mass, and the reaction of methane and oxygen produces relatively small amount of energy which equates to a lot more smaller merely insignificant mass. The atomic bomb testiments to the amount of energy just some few kilograms of mass can decay into.




            In addition the notion of the energy gained to achieve freedom for each atom reacting has to be given up to form a stable bond (that which sounds logical but I'm not entirely certain since I've not explored that domain very much) is also a solid argument to consider.







            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              scientificamerican.com/article/…
              $endgroup$
              – safesphere
              55 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              Well, Einstein has taken it all. But thanks for the link, it added something.
              $endgroup$
              – TechDroid
              17 mins ago


















            0












            $begingroup$

            All the energy released is in the form of potential energy (of the electrons) falling to a lower (in general closer average positions) to the positive nuclei. This is similar to an apple falling off a tree. When this happens photons are released (no mass), molecules/atoms speed up and vibrations within the molecules and atoms increase (kinetic energy). All your chemical equations will have an energy balance but in addition you will need to take into account hidden thermodynamics, such as increased pressure and expansion of gases for example. This stuff is first year university, you will also learn about entropy ( why does salt melt ice?) which is another thermodynamic related energy concept required to balance.



            In these reactions NO mass is converted to energy, mass is always conserved. In a nuclear reaction you again get photons, increased atomic/molecular motion but in addition you get high velocity sub-atomic particles like neutrons. Most (like >99% if I recall from wiki) of the mass is again conserved! You just get new types of atoms formed and isotopes (atoms that have absorbed a neutron). A few photons are indeed a result of a complex nuclear reaction where E=mc2 applies. But these are not of the same nature of the photons produced in a chemical reaction.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "151"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f465810%2fconservation-of-mass-and-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              2












              $begingroup$

              Adding to TechDroid's answer, energy is also present in chemical bonds. When some higher energy (less stable) bonds are broken to form lower energy (more stable) ones (i.e. exothermic reactions), that energy difference can be released as energy.



              So, almost all of that "+ energy" is due to the energy being released from the bonds themselves, and not the matter.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                2












                $begingroup$

                Adding to TechDroid's answer, energy is also present in chemical bonds. When some higher energy (less stable) bonds are broken to form lower energy (more stable) ones (i.e. exothermic reactions), that energy difference can be released as energy.



                So, almost all of that "+ energy" is due to the energy being released from the bonds themselves, and not the matter.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  Adding to TechDroid's answer, energy is also present in chemical bonds. When some higher energy (less stable) bonds are broken to form lower energy (more stable) ones (i.e. exothermic reactions), that energy difference can be released as energy.



                  So, almost all of that "+ energy" is due to the energy being released from the bonds themselves, and not the matter.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Adding to TechDroid's answer, energy is also present in chemical bonds. When some higher energy (less stable) bonds are broken to form lower energy (more stable) ones (i.e. exothermic reactions), that energy difference can be released as energy.



                  So, almost all of that "+ energy" is due to the energy being released from the bonds themselves, and not the matter.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 54 mins ago

























                  answered 1 hour ago









                  F16FalconF16Falcon

                  3007




                  3007





















                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      It actually does, but the amount converted is so small it's considered insignificant in the real world context. Based on the Einstein's famous equation ($E=mc^2$), a lot of energy can be extracted from a really small mass, and the reaction of methane and oxygen produces relatively small amount of energy which equates to a lot more smaller merely insignificant mass. The atomic bomb testiments to the amount of energy just some few kilograms of mass can decay into.




                      In addition the notion of the energy gained to achieve freedom for each atom reacting has to be given up to form a stable bond (that which sounds logical but I'm not entirely certain since I've not explored that domain very much) is also a solid argument to consider.







                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        scientificamerican.com/article/…
                        $endgroup$
                        – safesphere
                        55 mins ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        Well, Einstein has taken it all. But thanks for the link, it added something.
                        $endgroup$
                        – TechDroid
                        17 mins ago















                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      It actually does, but the amount converted is so small it's considered insignificant in the real world context. Based on the Einstein's famous equation ($E=mc^2$), a lot of energy can be extracted from a really small mass, and the reaction of methane and oxygen produces relatively small amount of energy which equates to a lot more smaller merely insignificant mass. The atomic bomb testiments to the amount of energy just some few kilograms of mass can decay into.




                      In addition the notion of the energy gained to achieve freedom for each atom reacting has to be given up to form a stable bond (that which sounds logical but I'm not entirely certain since I've not explored that domain very much) is also a solid argument to consider.







                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        scientificamerican.com/article/…
                        $endgroup$
                        – safesphere
                        55 mins ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        Well, Einstein has taken it all. But thanks for the link, it added something.
                        $endgroup$
                        – TechDroid
                        17 mins ago













                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      It actually does, but the amount converted is so small it's considered insignificant in the real world context. Based on the Einstein's famous equation ($E=mc^2$), a lot of energy can be extracted from a really small mass, and the reaction of methane and oxygen produces relatively small amount of energy which equates to a lot more smaller merely insignificant mass. The atomic bomb testiments to the amount of energy just some few kilograms of mass can decay into.




                      In addition the notion of the energy gained to achieve freedom for each atom reacting has to be given up to form a stable bond (that which sounds logical but I'm not entirely certain since I've not explored that domain very much) is also a solid argument to consider.







                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$



                      It actually does, but the amount converted is so small it's considered insignificant in the real world context. Based on the Einstein's famous equation ($E=mc^2$), a lot of energy can be extracted from a really small mass, and the reaction of methane and oxygen produces relatively small amount of energy which equates to a lot more smaller merely insignificant mass. The atomic bomb testiments to the amount of energy just some few kilograms of mass can decay into.




                      In addition the notion of the energy gained to achieve freedom for each atom reacting has to be given up to form a stable bond (that which sounds logical but I'm not entirely certain since I've not explored that domain very much) is also a solid argument to consider.








                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited 18 mins ago

























                      answered 1 hour ago









                      TechDroidTechDroid

                      60912




                      60912











                      • $begingroup$
                        scientificamerican.com/article/…
                        $endgroup$
                        – safesphere
                        55 mins ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        Well, Einstein has taken it all. But thanks for the link, it added something.
                        $endgroup$
                        – TechDroid
                        17 mins ago
















                      • $begingroup$
                        scientificamerican.com/article/…
                        $endgroup$
                        – safesphere
                        55 mins ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        Well, Einstein has taken it all. But thanks for the link, it added something.
                        $endgroup$
                        – TechDroid
                        17 mins ago















                      $begingroup$
                      scientificamerican.com/article/…
                      $endgroup$
                      – safesphere
                      55 mins ago




                      $begingroup$
                      scientificamerican.com/article/…
                      $endgroup$
                      – safesphere
                      55 mins ago












                      $begingroup$
                      Well, Einstein has taken it all. But thanks for the link, it added something.
                      $endgroup$
                      – TechDroid
                      17 mins ago




                      $begingroup$
                      Well, Einstein has taken it all. But thanks for the link, it added something.
                      $endgroup$
                      – TechDroid
                      17 mins ago











                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      All the energy released is in the form of potential energy (of the electrons) falling to a lower (in general closer average positions) to the positive nuclei. This is similar to an apple falling off a tree. When this happens photons are released (no mass), molecules/atoms speed up and vibrations within the molecules and atoms increase (kinetic energy). All your chemical equations will have an energy balance but in addition you will need to take into account hidden thermodynamics, such as increased pressure and expansion of gases for example. This stuff is first year university, you will also learn about entropy ( why does salt melt ice?) which is another thermodynamic related energy concept required to balance.



                      In these reactions NO mass is converted to energy, mass is always conserved. In a nuclear reaction you again get photons, increased atomic/molecular motion but in addition you get high velocity sub-atomic particles like neutrons. Most (like >99% if I recall from wiki) of the mass is again conserved! You just get new types of atoms formed and isotopes (atoms that have absorbed a neutron). A few photons are indeed a result of a complex nuclear reaction where E=mc2 applies. But these are not of the same nature of the photons produced in a chemical reaction.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$

















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        All the energy released is in the form of potential energy (of the electrons) falling to a lower (in general closer average positions) to the positive nuclei. This is similar to an apple falling off a tree. When this happens photons are released (no mass), molecules/atoms speed up and vibrations within the molecules and atoms increase (kinetic energy). All your chemical equations will have an energy balance but in addition you will need to take into account hidden thermodynamics, such as increased pressure and expansion of gases for example. This stuff is first year university, you will also learn about entropy ( why does salt melt ice?) which is another thermodynamic related energy concept required to balance.



                        In these reactions NO mass is converted to energy, mass is always conserved. In a nuclear reaction you again get photons, increased atomic/molecular motion but in addition you get high velocity sub-atomic particles like neutrons. Most (like >99% if I recall from wiki) of the mass is again conserved! You just get new types of atoms formed and isotopes (atoms that have absorbed a neutron). A few photons are indeed a result of a complex nuclear reaction where E=mc2 applies. But these are not of the same nature of the photons produced in a chemical reaction.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$















                          0












                          0








                          0





                          $begingroup$

                          All the energy released is in the form of potential energy (of the electrons) falling to a lower (in general closer average positions) to the positive nuclei. This is similar to an apple falling off a tree. When this happens photons are released (no mass), molecules/atoms speed up and vibrations within the molecules and atoms increase (kinetic energy). All your chemical equations will have an energy balance but in addition you will need to take into account hidden thermodynamics, such as increased pressure and expansion of gases for example. This stuff is first year university, you will also learn about entropy ( why does salt melt ice?) which is another thermodynamic related energy concept required to balance.



                          In these reactions NO mass is converted to energy, mass is always conserved. In a nuclear reaction you again get photons, increased atomic/molecular motion but in addition you get high velocity sub-atomic particles like neutrons. Most (like >99% if I recall from wiki) of the mass is again conserved! You just get new types of atoms formed and isotopes (atoms that have absorbed a neutron). A few photons are indeed a result of a complex nuclear reaction where E=mc2 applies. But these are not of the same nature of the photons produced in a chemical reaction.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          All the energy released is in the form of potential energy (of the electrons) falling to a lower (in general closer average positions) to the positive nuclei. This is similar to an apple falling off a tree. When this happens photons are released (no mass), molecules/atoms speed up and vibrations within the molecules and atoms increase (kinetic energy). All your chemical equations will have an energy balance but in addition you will need to take into account hidden thermodynamics, such as increased pressure and expansion of gases for example. This stuff is first year university, you will also learn about entropy ( why does salt melt ice?) which is another thermodynamic related energy concept required to balance.



                          In these reactions NO mass is converted to energy, mass is always conserved. In a nuclear reaction you again get photons, increased atomic/molecular motion but in addition you get high velocity sub-atomic particles like neutrons. Most (like >99% if I recall from wiki) of the mass is again conserved! You just get new types of atoms formed and isotopes (atoms that have absorbed a neutron). A few photons are indeed a result of a complex nuclear reaction where E=mc2 applies. But these are not of the same nature of the photons produced in a chemical reaction.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered 24 mins ago









                          PhysicsDavePhysicsDave

                          94547




                          94547



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f465810%2fconservation-of-mass-and-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              -conservation-laws, mass-energy, physical-chemistry, special-relativity

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Word for a person who has no opinion about whether god existsWord for having a definite opinion while simultaneously withholding judgment?What's the opposite of “newcomer? Is ”veteran" OK?What do you call an “atheist” who might believe in an afterlife?What's a word for someone who wants to voice opinions but not have them challenged?Word for someone who dismisses contrary opinions as irrational?Somone who thinks they are overly special/out of the ordinaryIs there a word, phrase or idiom for “a person who is incapable of thinking about the future”?The belief that a god is human-likeA word for a non-famous person/thing you have heard a lot aboutAdjective for a person who enjoys taking care of their appearance

                              What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?What was this set of RPG tools called?As a first-time DM should I let my players play complex character classes and roles?Nymph's Kiss and the RelationshipWhat was the name of this Cleric Prestige Class that shapes metal with its bare hands?Are the 3.5e Dragonlance books third party or official works?What's up with the domain Vile Darkness?What was this 80s book about RPGs?What was the name of this Werewolf band?What book had Rituals to “upgrade” animal companions to keep them viable at higher levels?What was this RPG that had rules for player-owned businesses?

                              2017 IndyCar Series Contents Series news Teams and drivers Schedule Season summary Footnotes References External links Navigation menu"INDYCAR: Initial 2018 bodywork concepts unveiled"the original"IndyCar confirms switch to Performance Friction brakes in 2017""AJ Foyt Racing will switch to Chevy"the original"Carlos Munoz, Conor Daly will drive for AJ Foyt Racing""Zach Veach's Indy 500 Debut Confirmed with Foyt""No mass exodus from Honda after Ganassi switch""Ex-F1 driver Sato joins Andretti Autosport for 2017 IndyCar season""IndyCar's Ryan Hunter-Reay, sponsor DHL paired through 2020""hhgregg and Andretti Autosport announce partnership for key races in 2016""INDYCAR: Rossi re-signs with Andretti"the original"McLaren Formula 1 - Fernando Alonso to race at Indy 500 with McLaren, Honda and Andretti Autosport""Shank will finally take part in Indy 500 with Harvey, Andretti | MotorSportsTalk""Andretti adds Jack Harvey to Indy 500 field""Ganassi switches to Honda power for 2017""INDYCAR: Chilton returns to Ganassi"the original"IndyCar silly season: Who's going where in 2017?""INDYCAR: Kanaan, NTT Data return to Ganassi"the original"Kimball to remain at Ganassi for 2017""Coyne confirms Bourdais for 2017 IndyCar season""Davison to sub for Bourdais in Indy 500"the original"Gutierrez confirmed for Detroit IndyCar debut""Gutierrez returns with Coyne for rest of 2017 season""Vautier to drive for Coyne at Texas"the original"INDYCAR: Coyne confirms Jones for 2017"the original"Pippa Mann returns to Coyne for Indy 500""Karam, Dreyer & Reinbold teaming up again for Indianapolis 500""Pigot to return to Ed Carpenter Racing""Hildebrand confirmed as full-time Ed Carpenter driver""Veach to replace injured Hildebrand at Barber"the originalNew Team Harding Racing Enters Chaves for 101st Indianapolis 500"Juncos Racing Announces Entry in 101st Running of the Indianapolis 500 :: Juncos Racing""Juncos confirms Pigot for Indy 500""Saavedra confirmed in Juncos' second 500 entry"the original"Lazier confirms Indy 500 run after son's USF2000 debut"the original"Claman DeMelo to race for RLLR at Sonoma"the original"Rahal signs Servia and ace engineer for 2017""IndyCar: Aleshin returns with Schmidt"the original"Aleshin replaced by Saavedra for Toronto""Jack Harvey will pilot SPM No. 7 car at Watkins Glen, Sonoma""Jay Howard confirmed in Tony Stewart's supported SPM Indy entry""INDYCAR: Newgarden to wave the flag at Penske"the original"Pagenaud opts for No. 1 in 2017"the original"Penske confirms Newgarden for 2017""Montoya to stay with Team Penske in 2017""Target leaving IndyCar after 27 seasons with Chip Ganassi""Cavin: IndyCar could see complete driver/team shakeup in 2017""End of the road for KV Racing?""KV Racing confirms closure, equipment sold to Juncos""Juncos confirms IndyCar Series entry"the original"Juncos readies IndyCar program, aims for '17 500"the original"Harding Racing to add Texas, Pocono to schedule"the original"Sato signs with Andretti Autosport for 2017""INDYCAR: Aleshin in Doubt at SPM"the original"Long Beach notebook: JR Hildebrand breaks hand""Hildebrand cleared to return at Phoenix"the original"Bourdais to undergo surgery on multiple fractures""Aleshin loses Schmidt Peterson IndyCar ride""Saavedra in at SPM for Pocono, Gateway"the original"Bourdais to make return at Gateway"the original"The IndyCar Grand Prix no longer is sponsored by Angie's List""2017 IndyCar Series rulebook""2017 Verizon IndyCar Series Official Rulebook"Official websiteeeeee