There has been lively debate in regards to whether E=mc^2 is an accurate mathematical equation to describe whether energy is actually being converted back and forth between mass and energy. No doubt many are likely to consider it outrageous to challenge considering who came up with the equation in the first place.
The following questions I want to ask are not only addressed to Stephen Lawrence, but to Dave Thompson and anyone else who would care to add their two cents worth: I presume no one disputes the fact that individual masses belonging to neutrons and protons contained within atomic nuclei become less as these sub atomic particles are "fused" that is, up to the element of Fe, iron. It is my understanding that Fe is considered to reside at the bottom of the so-called "energy well." As such, collectively speaking, protons and neutrons within Fe are presumably considered to be their lightest "mass" as measured individually. They can never exhibit less "mass" individually when measured within other non-Fe elements. I also presume no one cares to dispute the fact that individual protons and neutrons pertaining to nuclei greater than Fe suddenly reverse that trend. They begin to systematically increase in individual mass as elements gradually climb up the atomic number scale. I've never felt a desire to challenge these assumptions, and still don't. However, something *is* beginning to twitch in the back of my mind. First, the setup: When a highly unstable radioactive element such as U235 is suddenly created, such as when a single stray neutron invades the nucleus, we all know that the atom shatters violently creating a random collection of smaller nuclei, that along with a deadly collection of independent neutrons, thus the "chain reaction" is born. And here's my conundrum: When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe? WHAT KINDS OR WHAT RATIO OF LIGHTER ELEMENTS TEND TO BE GENERATED? On average which side of the Fe "energy well" are these lighter elements created on? I assume it's a very messy/random affair where all sorts of lighter elements are created, where many created elements are indeed less than the atomic number of Fe, but that's speculation on my part. I could be wrong. If, however, this *is* the case, where more elements lighter than Fe do tend to be created on average, it does beg a nagging question as to where the extra "mass" suddenly comes from in order to replenish the lost "mass" when these smaller elements are created from the demise of a U235 atom. On top of that, shouldn't all of the independently created neutrons ejected from the destroyed U235 atom also suddenly possess a much higher atomic mass, specifically that of an individual neutron? If memory serves me correctly the mass of an independent neutron is one of the heaviest (per individual neutron mass) in the table of elements. Where does all this "mass" come from, particularly since so much destructive radioactive energy is being released as U235 destroys itself. What am I missing here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
