Conversion of mass into energy

Introduction

It is actually wrong for me to post a post in this wiki with the heading Conversion of mass into energy, because it does not exist. Rather, this area is about the refutation of the same.

History and nuclear fission

In both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, however, such a transformation is assumed, known as the mass defect. But this cannot apply from the absolute mode of validity of E = m * c², underpinned by the equivalence of space and time. Correspondingly, the Conservation of Mass applies and therefore mass cannot simply be lost. The theory of the mass defect arises from a wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². This is interpreted in such a way that if I have a mass 1 and a reaction, then this mass 1 is converted into an energy 1. Mathematically completely wrong basic tool.

Refutation

Mathematically, if mass were to be converted into energy, the equation E + m = const. rather correctly, of course in a closed system. This of course also applies, since energy and mass are retained according to the energy conservation law and according to the mass conservation law, consequently E + m = const applies in the closed system. + const. = const. So far so good, but it is not the case that one can conclude from this, as in some cases in the English Wikipedia, that mass can be converted into energy and possibly vice versa. Let's look carefully at the equation. Here again, complete induction helps:

Complete induction and proof by contradiction

If we consider the case that the energy = 1 and the mass = 1, this is the only way E = m * c² is fulfilled, of course c is again equated with 1 according to the unit system.  Now, our first induction step, the mass is reduced by 1 and converted into an energy that is then 2.  Let us enter this into the equation E = m * c².  And see that should apply:

2 = 0 * 1 = 0

But 0 is not 2, so there is a contradiction here and accordingly our first induction step fails.

Conclusion

As a result of the method of proof by contradiction, the following applies: consequently mass cannot be converted into energy and also not vice versa. Rather, they are two images of a fact. The theory of the mass defect is completely wrong.

== Proof of the thesis through a thought experiment ==
One can also prove by a thought experiment that the conversion of mass into energy is wrong.  As I said, physical equations are not structured in the same way as chemical reaction equations.  Imagine a universe in which the current would be constant.  Such a universe is conceivable and thus it is sufficient for a thought experiment.  In this universe our U = R * I, i.e. Ohm's law, would be a law of the form U = c1 * R. Would that mean that voltage is converted into resistance and vice versa?  No!  At resistor 10, we would have the voltage 10 if we set c1 according to the unit system 1.  It would be clear to everyone that the voltage would not be 10 for the resistor 0 and the voltage would not be 0 for the resistor 10 either. Resistance generates voltage and resistance times current intensity is voltage.  A conversion does not take place here either.  This applies to all physical equations.  Accordingly, mass and energy are the same, separate from the constant c, but not identical.

== More detailed analysis ==
It is or was once rumored in the Wikipedias of this world that there is no mass conservation law, but only a combined energy and mass conservation law.  Even gifted students are taught something like this at the university.  Here one assumes the equation E + mc² = const.  As I said, this is not wrong, but with the Conservation of Energy it is very easy to set mc² = const.  reducible and then to m = const., the mass conservation law.  All other interpretations would mean a violation of the law of conservation of energy and are therefore wrong.  The equivalence of mass and energy according to Einstein would also mean that the equation E = mc² does not apply, but in strict mathematical and dogmatic terms E = const.  - mc².  Ultimately, the equivalence of mass and energy or the conversion of mass into energy would mean that the sum of the energy and the mass term is the same.  That would be E + mc² = const.  and not just in a closed system.  And that because transformation would mean when mass decreases, energy arises and vice versa.  As I said, converted that would be an equation like E = x (0) - mc² above.  Such a formula or its validity would be completely unknown to me.  Mass and energy are not equivalent, they are the same.  Einstein's statement regarding equivalence is to be understood from a purely technical point of view that one can convert an unusable mass or mass energy into usable energy by generating light or heat, for example in atomic fusion.  Strictly theoretically dogmatic, however, there is no equivalence, but an absolute equality.  Since mass and energy have different units, there is no identity.

== sketches ==

Sketch1 


 

Sketch 2 

Sketch 1 shows the wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c².  If mass could be converted into energy or vice versa, if E = m * c² were like a chemical reaction equation, then with increasing energy the mass would decrease, or with increasing mass the energy would decrease.  The graph would then look like an X in the positive. But this is wrong.  Sketch 2 shows the correct course: the more mass an object has, the more energy it also has, and the more energy it has, the more mass it has.  So E = m * c² is to be understood alone.