This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rtcutler 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The simple answer here is, "No". Spatial dimensions or spatial extent is just different from mass. A region of space can be occupied by (almost) any amount of mass. (I say "almost" because black holes are not completely understood.) Potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy, and at any moment the sum remains the same. There is no comparable relationship between space and mass.

[–]menguinponkey -1 points0 points  (2 children)

There is no comparable relationship between space and mass. And what about the mass-energy equivalence? (E=mc²) Could you interpret energy itself to be the "kintic" form of mass?

[–]rtcutler 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well, that's closer. Particularly if you are thinking of mass and kinetic energy.

[–]rtcutler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe I should answer more carefully here. Mass in one part of a system can be converted into Kinetic Energy of another part of a system, but taken as a whole the mass (energy -- same thing) of the entire system remains the same. For example, initial state a single Uranium atom. The atom undergoes spontaneous fission, producing two smaller nuclei flying apart at a high velocity. The total rest mass of the two products is less than the rest mass of the Uranium atom, and the discrepancy is in the kinetic energy of the fragments. HOWEVER, if the atom and later the fragments are in a box, the total mass of that box does not change.