Conservation of Mass and Energy












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:
$$rm CH_4 + 2O_2 to 2H_2O + CO_2 + {Energy}$$



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











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/… ?
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    25 mins ago
















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:
$$rm CH_4 + 2O_2 to 2H_2O + CO_2 + {Energy}$$



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











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/… ?
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    25 mins ago














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:
$$rm CH_4 + 2O_2 to 2H_2O + CO_2 + {Energy}$$



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:
$$rm CH_4 + 2O_2 to 2H_2O + CO_2 + {Energy}$$



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 5 mins ago









rob

41.2k974169




41.2k974169










asked 2 hours ago









Dude156Dude156

1307




1307












  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/… ?
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    25 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/… ?
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    25 mins ago
















$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/… ?
$endgroup$
– Shufflepants
25 mins ago




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/… ?
$endgroup$
– Shufflepants
25 mins ago










4 Answers
4






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
      1 hour ago










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



















    1












    $begingroup$

    Let's do an analysis and see how much of a difference this makes.
    The relevant enthalpies of formation are




    • Methane: −74.87 kJ/mol

    • Oxygen: 0

    • Water(vapor): −241.818 kJ/mol

    • Carbon dioxide: −393.509 kJ/mol


    Therefore:
    $$rm CH_4 + 2O_2 to 2H_2O + CO_2 + 802.3 text{kJ}$$
    The mass of the products and reactants not worrying about the energy would be:
    $$12.01 + 4(1.01) + 4(16.00) = 80.04text{g/mol}$$
    Now checking the energy released:
    $$m/text{mol} = frac{E/text{mol}}{c^2} = frac{802.3text{kJ/mol}}{3.0times 10^8 text{m/s}} = 8.9 times 10^{-9}text{g/mol}$$ or just a bit more than 1 part in $10^{10}$.



    So the amount of mass that is missed by not considering the energy is well below the level of precision that is normally used. The amount of mass lost in reactions can generally be ignored until you reach nuclear energies.






    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









      $endgroup$













        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

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        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 1 hour 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
                  1 hour ago










                • $begingroup$
                  Well, Einstein has taken it all. But thanks for the link, it added something.
                  $endgroup$
                  – TechDroid
                  45 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
                  1 hour ago










                • $begingroup$
                  Well, Einstein has taken it all. But thanks for the link, it added something.
                  $endgroup$
                  – TechDroid
                  45 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 47 mins ago

























                answered 1 hour ago









                TechDroidTechDroid

                60912




                60912












                • $begingroup$
                  scientificamerican.com/article/…
                  $endgroup$
                  – safesphere
                  1 hour ago










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


















                • $begingroup$
                  scientificamerican.com/article/…
                  $endgroup$
                  – safesphere
                  1 hour ago










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
















                $begingroup$
                scientificamerican.com/article/…
                $endgroup$
                – safesphere
                1 hour ago




                $begingroup$
                scientificamerican.com/article/…
                $endgroup$
                – safesphere
                1 hour ago












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




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











                1












                $begingroup$

                Let's do an analysis and see how much of a difference this makes.
                The relevant enthalpies of formation are




                • Methane: −74.87 kJ/mol

                • Oxygen: 0

                • Water(vapor): −241.818 kJ/mol

                • Carbon dioxide: −393.509 kJ/mol


                Therefore:
                $$rm CH_4 + 2O_2 to 2H_2O + CO_2 + 802.3 text{kJ}$$
                The mass of the products and reactants not worrying about the energy would be:
                $$12.01 + 4(1.01) + 4(16.00) = 80.04text{g/mol}$$
                Now checking the energy released:
                $$m/text{mol} = frac{E/text{mol}}{c^2} = frac{802.3text{kJ/mol}}{3.0times 10^8 text{m/s}} = 8.9 times 10^{-9}text{g/mol}$$ or just a bit more than 1 part in $10^{10}$.



                So the amount of mass that is missed by not considering the energy is well below the level of precision that is normally used. The amount of mass lost in reactions can generally be ignored until you reach nuclear energies.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$


















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  Let's do an analysis and see how much of a difference this makes.
                  The relevant enthalpies of formation are




                  • Methane: −74.87 kJ/mol

                  • Oxygen: 0

                  • Water(vapor): −241.818 kJ/mol

                  • Carbon dioxide: −393.509 kJ/mol


                  Therefore:
                  $$rm CH_4 + 2O_2 to 2H_2O + CO_2 + 802.3 text{kJ}$$
                  The mass of the products and reactants not worrying about the energy would be:
                  $$12.01 + 4(1.01) + 4(16.00) = 80.04text{g/mol}$$
                  Now checking the energy released:
                  $$m/text{mol} = frac{E/text{mol}}{c^2} = frac{802.3text{kJ/mol}}{3.0times 10^8 text{m/s}} = 8.9 times 10^{-9}text{g/mol}$$ or just a bit more than 1 part in $10^{10}$.



                  So the amount of mass that is missed by not considering the energy is well below the level of precision that is normally used. The amount of mass lost in reactions can generally be ignored until you reach nuclear energies.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$
















                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    Let's do an analysis and see how much of a difference this makes.
                    The relevant enthalpies of formation are




                    • Methane: −74.87 kJ/mol

                    • Oxygen: 0

                    • Water(vapor): −241.818 kJ/mol

                    • Carbon dioxide: −393.509 kJ/mol


                    Therefore:
                    $$rm CH_4 + 2O_2 to 2H_2O + CO_2 + 802.3 text{kJ}$$
                    The mass of the products and reactants not worrying about the energy would be:
                    $$12.01 + 4(1.01) + 4(16.00) = 80.04text{g/mol}$$
                    Now checking the energy released:
                    $$m/text{mol} = frac{E/text{mol}}{c^2} = frac{802.3text{kJ/mol}}{3.0times 10^8 text{m/s}} = 8.9 times 10^{-9}text{g/mol}$$ or just a bit more than 1 part in $10^{10}$.



                    So the amount of mass that is missed by not considering the energy is well below the level of precision that is normally used. The amount of mass lost in reactions can generally be ignored until you reach nuclear energies.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    Let's do an analysis and see how much of a difference this makes.
                    The relevant enthalpies of formation are




                    • Methane: −74.87 kJ/mol

                    • Oxygen: 0

                    • Water(vapor): −241.818 kJ/mol

                    • Carbon dioxide: −393.509 kJ/mol


                    Therefore:
                    $$rm CH_4 + 2O_2 to 2H_2O + CO_2 + 802.3 text{kJ}$$
                    The mass of the products and reactants not worrying about the energy would be:
                    $$12.01 + 4(1.01) + 4(16.00) = 80.04text{g/mol}$$
                    Now checking the energy released:
                    $$m/text{mol} = frac{E/text{mol}}{c^2} = frac{802.3text{kJ/mol}}{3.0times 10^8 text{m/s}} = 8.9 times 10^{-9}text{g/mol}$$ or just a bit more than 1 part in $10^{10}$.



                    So the amount of mass that is missed by not considering the energy is well below the level of precision that is normally used. The amount of mass lost in reactions can generally be ignored until you reach nuclear energies.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited 4 mins ago









                    rob

                    41.2k974169




                    41.2k974169










                    answered 26 mins ago









                    BowlOfRedBowlOfRed

                    17.5k22743




                    17.5k22743























                        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 52 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







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                SQL Server 17 - Attemping to backup to remote NAS but Access is denied

                                Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

                                Restoring from pg_dump with foreign key constraints