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

                              Frič See also Navigation menuinternal link

                              Identify plant with long narrow paired leaves and reddish stems Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What is this plant with long sharp leaves? Is it a weed?What is this 3ft high, stalky plant, with mid sized narrow leaves?What is this young shrub with opposite ovate, crenate leaves and reddish stems?What is this plant with large broad serrated leaves?Identify this upright branching weed with long leaves and reddish stemsPlease help me identify this bulbous plant with long, broad leaves and white flowersWhat is this small annual with narrow gray/green leaves and rust colored daisy-type flowers?What is this chilli plant?Does anyone know what type of chilli plant this is?Help identify this plant

                              fontconfig warning: “/etc/fonts/fonts.conf”, line 100: unknown “element blank” The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In“tar: unrecognized option --warning” during 'apt-get install'How to fix Fontconfig errorHow do I figure out which font file is chosen for a system generic font alias?Why are some apt-get-installed fonts being ignored by fc-list, xfontsel, etc?Reload settings in /etc/fonts/conf.dTaking 30 seconds longer to boot after upgrade from jessie to stretchHow to match multiple font names with a single <match> element?Adding a custom font to fontconfigRemoving fonts from fontconfig <match> resultsBroken fonts after upgrading Firefox ESR to latest Firefox