Physics Education

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- How persistent are the misconceptions
Energy and mass misconceptions about force and motion held by college
students?
Hisham N Bani-Salameh
To cite this article: Peter J Riggs 2023 Phys. Educ. 58 035015
- University students’ conceptual
understanding of microscopic models of
electrical and thermal conduction in solids
Nataša Erceg, Lejla Jelovica, Zdeslav
Hrepi et al.
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
- Facilitating conceptual change in students’
understanding of concepts related to
pressure
Gulbin Ozkan and Gamze Sezgin Selcuk

This content was downloaded from IP address 80.224.87.112 on 10/04/2023 at 11:22


Phys. Educ. 58 (2023) 035015 (6pp)
Energy and mass
misconceptions
Peter J Riggs
Department of Quantum Science and Technology, Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
E-mail: peter.riggs@anu.edu.au
Abstract
Eight misconceptions involving energy and mass are identified and
corrected. Examples are included in order to illustrate errors in the presented
misconceptions. It is important to identify such misconceptions so that
physics/chemistry courses and textbooks do not perpetuate them.
Keywords: energy, mass, weight, physical misconceptions
1. Introduction
Energy and mass are accepted as obvious phys-
ical quantities in daily life. In classical physics, the
energy of a physical system is defined as the sys-
tem’s capacity to do work (i.e. to carry out a phys-
ical process). Mass, in classical physics, is taken
to be a measure of an amount of matter, i.e. ‘mass’
is understood as a quantification of the substance
comprising an object [1]. The significance of mass
is determined through its role in the equations
of physics and chemistry, where its magnitude is
empirically ascertained by well-established meas-
urement procedures.
There have been a large number of art-
icles devoted to the teaching of energy pub-
lished since the 1950s. Teaching the concept
of energy has always presented challenges with
there being a variety of approaches (for some
Original content from this work may be used
under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work
must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the
work, journal citation and DOI.
1361-6552/23/035015+6$33.00
PAPER
iopscience.org/ped
recent examples, see [2–5]). A proportion of these
articles from the last 70 years have attempted to
deal with a few of the issues raised in the cur-
rent paper (but not always successfully). Debates
over which approaches are most suitable will con-
tinue but what will be especially important for
the future of physics and chemistry education is
that past misconceptions about both energy and
mass are acknowledged and do not keep on being
perpetrated.
There are a number of misconceptions
frequently attached to energy and mass. This
paper highlights eight such misconceptions and
sketches out why these are incorrect. Examples
are included which illustrate errors in these mis-
conceptions. Readers are strongly encouraged
to follow up on the citations given as these will
provide additional confirmation of, and further
information on, these misconceptions.
2. Common energy and mass
misconceptions
Let us now consider eight misconceptions con-
cerning energy and mass which are readily found.
1 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
P J Riggs
2.1. There are many different forms of
energy
It is often claimed that energy exists in many dif-
ferent forms (or types), e.g. mechanical, thermal,
chemical, nuclear, gravitational, electromagnetic,
hydro, wind, etc. However, these are not actually
different forms of energy but are merely conveni-
ent labels attached to different sources of energy.
At a fundamental level, there are only two forms
of energy—kinetic and potential, i.e. energy of
motion and (for want of a better technical term)
stored energy, respectively [6–11]. (The issue of
mass as it relates to energy is discussed below.)
The other supposed forms of energy can all
be shown to reduce to kinetic and/or potential
energies. A well-known example which illustrates
this dichotomy is that of hydro energy, i.e. the
energy of flowing water. Since water always freely
flows ‘downhill’, gravitational potential energy is
transformed into the kinetic energy of the water
molecules in order for them to perform mech-
anical work, e.g. to drive a turbine. It is some-
times the case that more complicated reductions
to kinetic and/or potential energies are required,
e.g. for nuclear, as it needs the use of relativistic
and quantum relations.
2.2. Energy is a physical entity in its own
right
It keeps on being stated that some physical
processes, such as nuclear bomb detonations
or matter-antimatter annihilations, produce ‘pure
energy’ (e.g. see [12–17]), i.e. that energy is some
sort of physical entity which can exist independ-
ently of anything else. One reason for this atti-
tude about energy is that it can be transferred and
retained—characteristics usually associated with
entities. However, energy is not an entity in the
sense that it can exist in isolation. This can read-
ily be seen from an examination of the energies of
particles involved in nuclear decay reactions. Con-
sider the example of a neutron (n) at rest decay-
ing into a proton (p), an electron (e−) and an anti-
electron neutrino (ν):
n → p + e− + ν.
The left-hand and right-hand sides of the
above equation balance in terms of energy in
May 2023
accord with the law of energy conservation. All
the energy in the decay process is accounted for by
summing the rest energies using Einstein’s relativ-
istic mass-energy relation (i.e. E = m c2 , where E
is energy, m is inertial mass and c is the speed
of light in vacuum) and the kinetic energies of
the individual particles (see [18] for quantitative
details).
In any physical processes, all energy can be
kept track of through particle interactions and/or
by physical fields. Energy is not an independ-
ently existing physical entity but instead, is a prop-
erty of particles and of fields [19–22]. No energy
exists separate from particles and/or fields (see
also [23]). Another indicator that energy is a prop-
erty rather than an entity is that a given value of
energy in a physical process is not Lorentz invari-
ant on change of reference frame [24].
2.3. Objects gain and lose potential energy
Most physics textbooks state that objects can gain
potential energy such as when positioned at a par-
ticular height above the Earth (i.e. when an object
is raised up in the Earth’s gravitational field). The
object is then supposed to have acquired gravita-
tional potential energy. However, it is the case that
only physical fields have potential energy. Posit-
ing potential energy to objects in this way is a con-
venient ‘shortcut’ for what is field energy. This
‘shortcut’ method simplifies calculations in cir-
cumstances where a particle/object is within an
external field [25].
The situation is further complicated because
elementary particles themselves have associated
fields related to one or more of the fundamental
forces of nature (e.g. electrically charged particles
are surrounded by their own small electric fields)
and these fields too possess potential energy.
In addition, molecular bonds contain potential
energy (see § 2.7 below). These potential energies
are not what is being discussed here.
In order to make clear that it is physical fields
which have potential energy, consider the example
of an electrically charged particle placed between
two identical, conducting, parallel metal plates. If
a fixed voltage source is applied to the plates, an
electric field of constant strength will be generated
between them. Suppose that the charged particle
is deposited at rest between the plates and then let
2 P hy s . E d u c . 5 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 0 3 5 0 1 5

go. On release, the particle will accelerate towards
the plate of opposite charge to itself, i.e. it gains
kinetic energy and will continue to do so until it
collides with the plate.
Where has the particle’s kinetic energy come
from? The kinetic energy cannot have originated
with the particle itself as it was initially at rest
and its own small charge remains unaffected. The
only source of energy for the particle is the electric
field between the plates and this energy content is
readily calculable [26]. This field energy must be
potential energy and a small amount of it is trans-
formed into the particle’s kinetic energy (see also
[27]).
2.4. The amount of matter of a body is
found by weighing it
A body’s mass is determined in day-to-day situ-
ations and in most (non-atomic/non-nuclear) sci-
entific contexts by weighing the body. Weighing a
body is, of course, the technique of measuring the
vertically directed gravitational force exerted on
the body by the Earth (i.e. its weight). A value for
the body’s mass (which is conventionally taken as
a measure of amount of matter in the body [28]) is
then derived using its weight measurement and the
local gravitational acceleration value [29]. How-
ever, both the amount of matter in a body and the
energy of its fundamental constituents contribute
to its weight. This is because a body’s energy con-
tent also ‘gravitates’ as shown by the General The-
ory of Relativity [30].
Consequently, the assumption that the
amount of matter in a body is quantified by its
mass value is incorrect. A prime example is the
mass of an atom. The vast majority of the mass of
an atom (about 99%) arises from the kinetic and
potential energies of the quarks bound within its
protons and neutrons and not the amount of matter
which constitutes the quarks themselves [31, 32].
Further, a body that has had energy added
to it (e.g. by heating) will increase in weight
even though the amount of matter in the body is
unchanged [33, 34]. There is an important point to
acknowledge here—since a body’s internal ener-
gies contribute to its mass value, the mass may
change during a physical process but the amount
May 2023
Energy and mass misconceptions
of matter remain the same. Clearly then, the
amount of matter in a body is not given by its mass
value nor by weighing it, despite being so assumed
in everyday life.
2.5. Mass is a well understood concept
Although ‘mass’ is regularly used as a synonym
for ‘matter’ in ordinary language, they are concep-
tually distinct. Mass is a basic physical quantity as
much of physics and chemistry depends on mass.
Given the equivalence of inertial and gravitational
masses, inertial mass is also taken as a measure
of the amount of matter comprising a body. Iner-
tial mass is defined with reference to Newton’s
Second Law but this definition does not provide a
clear distinction between mass and inertia (i.e. res-
istance to acceleration). Moreover, as shown in §
2.4, the amount of matter in a body is not quan-
tified by its mass value. Difficulties in making a
coherent and consistent definition of mass have
been highlighted previously (e.g. see [35–38]) and
the reader is referred to the relevant literature for
background.
It remains the case that mass is not well
understood as a physical concept for there is still
no comprehensive theory of the nature and ori-
gin of mass in physics [39]. This is in spite of the
experimental confirmation of the Higgs Mechan-
ism in particle physics by which quarks, leptons,
and some bosons (formally) attain their mass
[40]. The Higgs Mechanism postulates a univer-
sal, scalar field. The interaction with the Higgs
field results in these particles resisting accelera-
tion which is interpreted as the gaining of inertial
mass [41]. However, the Higgs Mechanism may
also be considered as providing a degree of inertia.
2.6. Relativity theory shows that mass and
energy are inter-changeable
Textbooks regular assert that mass may be con-
verted into energy and vice-versa (e.g. [42]). It
is alternatively asserted that mass is a form of
energy. Debate over the interpretation of Ein-
stein’s mass-energy relation has been going on
for well over a century and depends somewhat
on how mass is conceived. We saw in § 2.2 that
3 P hy s . E d u c . 5 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 0 3 5 0 1 5
P J Riggs
energy is not a physical entity, and in § 2.4 that
mass value is not a measure of the amount of
matter. It then follows that mass cannot be, nor
be converted into, energy (as energy is not an
entity) so that energy and mass cannot literally
be inter-changeable. What Einstein’s relativistic
mass-energy relation provides is a numerical equi-
valence between quantitative values of energy and
mass in relevant physical interactions.
An example of matter-antimatter annihila-
tion, say of an electron and a positron, will serve
to clarify. This example is of particular con-
sequence as electrons and positrons are structure-
less particles and therefore cannot be ‘split’ into
constituents [43] which would otherwise carry
some energy away. The outcome of an electron
(e−) and a positron (e+) meeting at rest is oppos-
itely propagating gamma rays (γ):
e− + e+ → 2γ.
(At least two gamma rays are required in
order to satisfy conservation laws.) In this inter-
action, matter and antimatter are completely anni-
hilated whilst gamma radiation is generated—not
energy alone (recall that energy is a property of
particles and/or fields whereas gamma radiation
is a form of propagating electromagnetic field).
Neither matter nor antimatter is conserved here as
the particle pair (e− & e+ ) ceases to exist and no
other matter or antimatter particles are created in
their place.
If each particle has a mass value m then
the relativistic mass-energy equation for the
process is:
E = mc2 + mc2 = 2mc2 .
The above equation shows that the amount of
energy of the gamma rays equals the energy cre-
ated when the electron and positron are mutually
annihilated, i.e. equal to the rest energies of the
pair. Bearing in mind that energy is a property and
‘mass’ is not the same as ‘matter’ (or ‘antimat-
ter’), it must be emphasised again that mass is not
converted into energy. Rather the substance of the
pair is destroyed in a process which produces elec-
tromagnetic radiation of a specific energy (given
by the mass-energy equation), although this is still
not completely understood [44].
May 2023
2.7. Exothermal chemical reactions result in
a loss of matter
In chemistry, the mass of a substance is taken as
a measure of amount of matter (often expressed
in moles—the chemical SI unit of the amount
of matter). Occasionally it is claimed that the
heat produced in chemical reactions arises from
a very minute mass loss (i.e. a destruction of mat-
ter) [45], as quantified by Einstein’s mass-energy
relation. However, this heat comes from the cre-
ation of chemical bonds and not from any loss of
matter.
During the formation of a molecule, for
instance, a lowering of the total potential energy
occurs as chemical bonds (such as the covalent
bond) are created [46]. This change in potential
energy appears as heat which is given off [47]. The
amount of matter present remains constant. The
only physical processes where matter is destroyed
are nuclear and high energy particle ones.
The burning of carbon is a highly relevant
example, i.e. the reaction between the oxygen
molecule (O2 ) and the carbon atom (C). When
these two chemicals are freely combusted, they
form carbon dioxide (CO2 ). The creation of the
bonds in CO2 is strongly exothermic which is why
wood and coal fires have always been a source
of heat (and more generally of energy) for human
civilizations [48].
2.8. A body in motion increases in mass
Some physics textbooks (mostly older ones)
describe a relativistic particle as having an iner-
tial ‘rest mass’ (inertial mass in its rest frame)
and a ‘relativistic mass’ (inertial mass with respect
to reference frames other than its rest frame).
The relativistic mass increases without limit as a
particle’s speed approaches the speed of light in
vacuum and this increase is supposed to explain
why the speed of light cannot be reached.
If relativistic mass is used to provide a phys-
ical explanation then it cannot be merely a case
of definition or just a helpful pedagogical device
(as claimed by some physicists). A majority of the
physics community now accepts that the concept
of ‘relativistic mass’ is not physically valid [37,
49–52]. The only physically valid inertial mass
is a Lorentz invariant quantity which is a body’s
4 P hy s . E d u c . 5 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 0 3 5 0 1 5

inertial mass as measured in its rest frame [50, 53].
An increase in mass also erroneously suggests a
change must occur to a particle in motion [54].
The light ‘speed limit’ is explained by increases in
inertia (not mass) with increasing speed [52, 55].
3. Concluding remarks
It has been indicated why the above eight miscon-
ceptions about energy and mass are mistaken. In
the interest of promoting better understanding of
physical processes, these misconceptions should
be thoroughly discussed in the textbooks.
Data availability statement
No new data were created or analysed in this
study.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks the reviewers for their helpful
suggestions.
ORCID iD
Peter J Riggs  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
2673-0864
Received 11 January 2023, in final form 2 February 2023
Accepted for publication 1 March 2023
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/acc0c3
References
[1] Roche J 2005 What is mass? Eur. J. Phys.
26 225–42
[2] Williams G and Reeves T 2003 Another go at
energy Phys. Educ. 38 150–5
[3] Millar R H 2005 Teaching about energy
University of York Paper 2005/11 (available
at: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/129328/)
[4] Poggi V, Miceli C and Testa I 2016 Teaching
energy using an integrated science approach.
Phys. Educ. 52 015018
[5] Hartmann B and Priemer B 2018 Introducing
energy through observations and
measurements Phys. Educ. 53 065009
[6] Penrose R 2004 The Road to Reality: A
Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe
(London: Vintage Press) pp 431–2
May 2023
Energy and mass misconceptions
[7] Coopersmith J 2010 Energy: The Subtle Concept
(Oxford: Oxford University Press) p 330
[8] Quinn H, Schweingruber H and Keller T 2012 A
Framework for K-12 Science Education:
Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core
Ideas (Washington D.C.: National
Academies Press) pp 121–2
[9] Brown T L, LeMay H E Jr and Bursten B E et al
2018 Chemistry: The Central Science 14th
edn (New York: Pearson) p 16
[10] Guerra D, Rabuffo I and Romano A 2020 The
basic concepts of classical physics as a
useful path towards modern physics Mod.
Phys. A ed C Noce (Bristol: IOP Publishing)
pp pp 1–7
[11] EIA - 2022 Forms of energy U.S. Energy
Information Administration (available at:
www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-
energy/forms-of-energy.php)
[12] Clegg B 2009 Before the Big Bang (New York:
St. Martin’s Press) p 112
[13] Hawking S W and Mlodinow L 2010 The Grand
Design (London: Bantam Press)p 229
[14] Close F 2011 The Infinity Puzzle (New York:
Basic Books) p 276
[15] Kwon D 2015 Ten things you might not know
about antimatter Symmetry Magazine
(available at: www.symmetrymagazine.
org/article/april-2015/ten-things-you-might-
not-know-about-antimatter#:~:text=
Antimatter%20particles%20are%20almost
%20identical,they%20immediately%20anni
hilate%20into%20energy)
[16] Al-Khalili J 2016 Black Holes, Wormholes &
Time Machines 2nd edn (Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press) p 145
[17] Khan F A 2020 On the fission in nuclear
weapons Phys. Educ. 55 053006
[18] Williams W S C 2002 Introducing Special
Relativity (London: Taylor and Francis) pp
11–15
[19] Bunge M 2000 Energy: between physics and
metaphysics Sci. & Educ. 9 457–61
[20] Baierlein R 2007 Does nature convert mass into
energy? Amer. J. Phys. 75 320–5
[21] Hecht E 2007 Energy and change Phys. Teach.
45 88–92
[22] Flores F 2009 The equivalence of mass and
energy The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy ed E N Zalta (available at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME)
[23] Hossenfelder S 2021 The anti-universe: the
biggest jump in physics? Video discussion
(at 17.24 mins) Institute of Arts and Ideas
(available at: https://iai.tv/video/the-anti-
universe)
[24] Hecht E 2007 p 90–91
5 P hy s . E d u c . 5 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 0 3 5 0 1 5
P J Riggs
[25] Rindler W 2006 Relativity: Special, General,
and Cosmological 2nd ed (Oxford: Oxford
University Press) p 113
[26] Shankar R 2019 Fundamentals of Physics II:
Electromagnetism, Optics, and Quantum
Mechanics (Yale: Yale University Press) sect
7.1
[27] Sefton I M 2002 Understanding electricity and
circuits: what the text books don’t tell you
Proc. 9th Science Teachers Workshop Sydney
available at: URL=www.researchgate.net/
publication/255626544_Understanding_
Electricity_and_Circuits_What_the_
Text_Books_Don’t_Tell_You
[28] Brown T L et al 2018 p 19
[29] Fowles G R 1977 Analytical Mechanics (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston) pp 43
[30] Penrose R 2004 p 455
[31] Rafelski J 2015 Melting hadrons, boiling quarks
Eur. Phys. J. A 51 114 p 2
[32] Kneubil F B 2019 E = mc2 and the weight of
energy Eur. J. Phys. 40 015604
[33] Williams W S C 2002 p 14
[34] Hecht E 2011 On defining mass Phys. Teach.
49 40–44
[35] Jammer M 1961 Concepts of Mass in Classical
and Modern Physics (Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press)
[36] Jammer M 2000 Concepts of Mass in
Contemporary Physics and Philosophy
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
[37] Roche J 2005 p 239
[38] Lincoln D 2017 How things get heavy: the
nature of mass Phys. Teach. 55 401–5
[39] Hecht E 2006 There is no really good definition
of mass Phys. Teach. 44 40–45
[40] Lincoln D 2017 p 404
[41] Mann R 2010 An Introduction to Particle
Physics and the Standard Model (Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press) pp 17
[42] Serway R A and Jewett J W Jr 2016 Physics for
Scientists and Engineers with Modern
May 2023
Physics 9th edn (Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole)
pp 1217–9
[43] Bettini A 2008 Introduction to Elementary
Particle Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press) pp 19
[44] Pons D J, Pons A D and Pons A J 2014
Annihilation mechanisms App. Phys. Res.
6 28–46
[45] Treptow R 2005 E = mc2 for the chemist: when
is mass conserved? J. Chem. Educ.
82 1636–41
[46] Silberberg M S 2012 Chemistry: The Molecular
Nature of Matter and Change 6th edn (New
York: McGraw-Hill) pp 329
[47] Zumdahl S S 2009 Chemical Principles (Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin) p 411
[48] Schmidt-Rohr K 2015 Why combustions are
always exothermic, yielding about 418 kJ
per mole of O2 J. Chem. Educ.
92 2094–9
[49] Williams W S C 2002 p 49
[50] Bettini A 2008 p 3
[51] Helliwell T M 2010 Special Relativity (Sausalito
CA: University Science Books) pp 260–1
[52] Lincoln D 2017 p 402
[53] Hecht E 2011 p 41
[54] Jammer M 2000 p 54
[55] Riggs P J 2021 Inertia and inertial resistance in
the special theory of relativity Can. J. Phys.
99 795–8
Peter J. Riggs is a physicist and philosopher of science
in the Department of Quantum Science and Technology
within the Research School of Physics at the Australian
National University. His current research interests
include: the nature of space and time, the foundations
of physics, and special relativity. He has authored the
books: Quantum Causality (Springer Academic, 2009) and
Whys and Ways of Science (Melbourne University Press,
1992).
6 P hy s . E d u c . 5 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 0 3 5 0 1 5