User Panel
Posted: 12/9/2013 5:33:05 PM EDT
I know how you turn mass into energy (atomic bomb), but how do you turn energy into mass?
Googled it and got different answers that didn't really make sense to me. |
|
We don't know how to do it in any practical sense yet. Not even much in theory, either.
|
|
My computer screen sends photons of hot nekkid women to my eyes, and I gain some mass in muh pantz...
|
|
Quoted: this http://www.abetterbagofgroceries.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/junk-food-3.jpg equals this. http://gunbloopers.com/files/2012/03/1236337872_fat_guy_shooting_his_gun.gif View Quote Mad props, dude.......MAD props. |
|
The answer is.... We really don't know what mass is, so the question is currently unanswerable.
|
|
I'm not sure. I'm guessing that entropy makes it extremely difficult.
|
|
|
I split atoms for a living (Senior Reactor Operator at a nuke plant near Pittsburgh).
When we split atoms, a lot of energy is released, of course, and some of it takes the form of high energy photons. When those high energy photons pass near large nuclei in the core, IE Uranium atoms or other large fission products, a phenomenon called "pair production" can occur, where a positron (anti-matter) and an electron (matter) are created. Those typically quickly annihilate each other, though, so as has been pointed out, it is neither easy nor practical to create matter from energy. But simply, yes, we can create matter from energy, in places like nuclear reactors and particle accelerators. Hope that helps. Justin |
|
|
Quoted:
Just do not expect to use any typical scale to weigh the mass. It is usually inferred from a particle detector. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Particle colliders. m^2 = e^2 - P^2 Just do not expect to use any typical scale to weigh the mass. It is usually inferred from a particle detector. eV FTW |
|
|
|
Big bang. So theoretically, incredible energy density in a vacuum.
|
|
As mentioned previously, colliding particles in a high energy accelerator. The reason for accelerating particles to high energy levels is to provide a lot of kinetic energy in addition to the rest energy of the particles for the creation of new particles when two collide. Because of the c**2 factor in Einstein's equation it takes a lot of e to get any appreciable m.
|
|
What is energy?
I can't touch it, feel it, taste it, smell it, hold it. So does it exist outside of mass? Even the smallest subatomic particles contain mass, correct? |
|
Quoted:
What is energy? I can't touch it, feel it, taste it, smell it, hold it. So does it exist outside of mass? Even the smallest subatomic particles contain mass, correct? View Quote Depends on what you mean by mass. Photons have momentum (m * v) but a 'rest mass' of zero. That is why they can move at the speed of light. The momentum is inferred since even photons can be 'bent' by gravity (path altered). |
|
Quoted:
Depends on what you mean by mass. Photons have momentum (m * v) but a 'rest mass' of zero. That is why they can move at the speed of light. The momentum is inferred since even photons can be 'bent' by gravity (path altered). View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What is energy? I can't touch it smell it, taste it, smell it, hold it. So does it exist outside of mass? Even the smallest subatomic particles contain mass, correct? Depends on what you mean by mass. Photons have momentum (m * v) but a 'rest mass' of zero. That is why they can move at the speed of light. The momentum is inferred since even photons can be 'bent' by gravity (path altered). I see the connection but it is all a matter of perspective. My view is simple, if an outside force can act on an object of any kind, even a photon, & cause a change in vector, it has to have some amount of mass, however infinitesimaly minute. Just because we can not quantify it in relative terms doesn't mean it doesn't have mass. In the grand scheme of the expansivenes of the universe could a hydrogen atom be considered to have a substantial amount of mass? But a simple look at a star gives an exuberant "yes" to that question. It is like adding up five pounds of feathers... As to the original question: Energy is an entropic function. So to me that means it exists in a state of decomposition. Mass' s decomposition is that of the entropic loss of energy. Subatomic structure relies on entropic exchange of energy. The real question is where does the energy, with its infinitesimaly small amount of mass, "Go"? From that destination can mass be then possibly created? |
|
Quoted:
Photosynthesis is a chemical process, not a nuclear process. No mass is created, just simple chemical reactions, albeit driven by photons. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Photosynthesis. So easy a plant can do it. Photosynthesis is a chemical process, not a nuclear process. No mass is created, just simple chemical reactions, albeit driven by photons. Technically, no particles are created, but the resulting compounds do in fact weigh (a VERY tiny bit) more than they did before the reaction. For that matter, accelerating a particle will increase its mass, which is one reason it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light. Mike |
|
Quoted:
Technically, no particles are created, but the resulting compounds do in fact weigh (a VERY tiny bit) more than they did before the reaction. For that matter, accelerating a particle will increase its mass, which is one reason it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light. Mike View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Photosynthesis. So easy a plant can do it. Photosynthesis is a chemical process, not a nuclear process. No mass is created, just simple chemical reactions, albeit driven by photons. Technically, no particles are created, but the resulting compounds do in fact weigh (a VERY tiny bit) more than they did before the reaction. For that matter, accelerating a particle will increase its mass, which is one reason it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light. Mike You could make the same claim about ANY motion increasing mass. It is meaningless. |
|
All reality is collective thought-consciousness manifested. Namaste.
|
|
Interesting article I read yesterday.
http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/694773-supernova-in-a-bottle-will-help-create-matter-from-light/ |
|
Quoted:
I see the connection but it is all a matter of perspective. My view is simple, if an outside force can act on an object of any kind, even a photon, & cause a change in vector, it has to have some amount of mass, however infinitesimaly minute. Just because we can not quantify it in relative terms doesn't mean it doesn't have mass. In the grand scheme of the expansivenes of the universe could a hydrogen atom be considered to have a substantial amount of mass? But a simple look at a star gives an exuberant "yes" to that question. It is like adding up five pounds of feathers... As to the original question: Energy is an entropic function. So to me that means it exists in a state of decomposition. Mass' s decomposition is that of the entropic loss of energy. Subatomic structure relies on entropic exchange of energy. The real question is where does the energy, with its infinitesimaly small amount of mass, "Go"? From that destination can mass be then possibly created? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is energy? I can't touch it smell it, taste it, smell it, hold it. So does it exist outside of mass? Even the smallest subatomic particles contain mass, correct? Depends on what you mean by mass. Photons have momentum (m * v) but a 'rest mass' of zero. That is why they can move at the speed of light. The momentum is inferred since even photons can be 'bent' by gravity (path altered). I see the connection but it is all a matter of perspective. My view is simple, if an outside force can act on an object of any kind, even a photon, & cause a change in vector, it has to have some amount of mass, however infinitesimaly minute. Just because we can not quantify it in relative terms doesn't mean it doesn't have mass. In the grand scheme of the expansivenes of the universe could a hydrogen atom be considered to have a substantial amount of mass? But a simple look at a star gives an exuberant "yes" to that question. It is like adding up five pounds of feathers... As to the original question: Energy is an entropic function. So to me that means it exists in a state of decomposition. Mass' s decomposition is that of the entropic loss of energy. Subatomic structure relies on entropic exchange of energy. The real question is where does the energy, with its infinitesimaly small amount of mass, "Go"? From that destination can mass be then possibly created? No. A photon cannot have ANY "mass" and still travel at the speed of light - it's fundamental to the equations of General Relativity (or special? It's been a while.) It's not a matter of scale, but of definition. If you want to say that photons have some *property* that allows them to be affected by forces, sure. But it's not mass. |
|
There's another thread somewhere on arfcom about a blue glow that occasionally happens in nuclear reactors - some sort of radiation. The posters of that thread said it happens because in water, electrons move faster than light. which I simply don't understand either in concept or mechanism as to how they'd be propelled and why water - one would think a vaccuum would allow for quicker motion rather than a liquid medium....
Sort of spooked me given Genesis "the spirit hovered over the waters and God said, let there be light..." |
|
Quoted:
There's another thread somewhere on arfcom about a blue glow that occasionally happens in nuclear reactors - some sort of radiation. The posters of that thread said it happens because in water, electrons move faster than light. which I simply don't understand either in concept or mechanism as to how they'd be propelled and why water - one would think a vaccuum would allow for quicker motion rather than a liquid medium.... Sort of spooked me given Genesis "the spirit hovered over the waters and God said, let there be light..." View Quote Cerenkov radiation. When a particle moving faster than the speed of light in a medium (like water) it slows down. It is never faster than the actual speed of light (c) just faster in THAT material. |
|
ARFCOM physicists, please review.
At the event horizon of a black hole, all matter is accelerated to c. As such, its kinetic energy is turned into infinite mass. It remains motionless, relative to our frame of reference, and only when the black hole evaporates does it disappear from our universe. |
|
Quoted:
ARFCOM physicists, please review. At the event horizon of a black hole, all matter is accelerated to c. As such, its kinetic energy is turned into infinite mass. It remains motionless, relative to our frame of reference, and only when the black hole evaporates does it disappear from our universe. View Quote It isn't and can't be accelerated to c - infinite mass would have infinite energy. The event horizon is simply the point at which the escape velocity reaches c, preventing anything, even light, from escaping from a point "below" the horizon. Matter falling into the event horizon would reach it at some velocity less than c, and "excess" energy radiated off (EM radiation, such as X rays). Mike |
|
Quoted: It isn't and can't be accelerated to c - infinite mass would have infinite energy. The event horizon is simply the point at which the escape velocity reaches c, preventing anything, even light, from escaping from a point "below" the horizon. Matter falling into the event horizon would reach it at some velocity less than c, and "excess" energy radiated off (EM radiation, such as X rays). Mike View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: ARFCOM physicists, please review. At the event horizon of a black hole, all matter is accelerated to c. As such, its kinetic energy is turned into infinite mass. It remains motionless, relative to our frame of reference, and only when the black hole evaporates does it disappear from our universe. It isn't and can't be accelerated to c - infinite mass would have infinite energy. The event horizon is simply the point at which the escape velocity reaches c, preventing anything, even light, from escaping from a point "below" the horizon. Matter falling into the event horizon would reach it at some velocity less than c, and "excess" energy radiated off (EM radiation, such as X rays). Mike So matter is preserved and simply added to the overall mass of the black hole? |
|
Quoted:
So matter is preserved and simply added to the overall mass of the black hole? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ARFCOM physicists, please review. At the event horizon of a black hole, all matter is accelerated to c. As such, its kinetic energy is turned into infinite mass. It remains motionless, relative to our frame of reference, and only when the black hole evaporates does it disappear from our universe. It isn't and can't be accelerated to c - infinite mass would have infinite energy. The event horizon is simply the point at which the escape velocity reaches c, preventing anything, even light, from escaping from a point "below" the horizon. Matter falling into the event horizon would reach it at some velocity less than c, and "excess" energy radiated off (EM radiation, such as X rays). Mike So matter is preserved and simply added to the overall mass of the black hole? Maybe, but it is referred to as a 'singularity' since normal equations we use blow up. Think divide by zero problems. |
|
A black hole would convert energy to mass. Energy is basically a very tiny particle traveling along like a que ball and when that energy particle impacts a larger particle such as an electron it transfers some momentum to the particle that was struck. The electron speeds up or is knocked out of orbitting the nucleus. The energy particle maybe gets absorbed by the particle it struck (due to its minute physical mass would not register on a scale as an increase in the electron's mass) and or the energy particle changes its wave length ( spin if you will) and was deflected or caused new smaller energy particle to be kicked out from the electron and the new particle appears as a shift in wavelength to reflect the change in mass between the 2 energy particles. This is my opinion.
|
|
Chemical binding energy also corresponds to a mass deficit (but a much smaller one than nuclear binding energy).
If you break apart a chemical compound (by applying, e.g. energy from a heat source), you are creating a tiny amount of mass. The free atoms will have slightly more mass than the compound itself. Don't try to measure it on your reloading scale, though. |
|
Quoted:
Chemical binding energy also corresponds to a mass deficit (but a much smaller one than nuclear binding energy). If you break apart a chemical compound (by applying, e.g. energy from a heat source), you are creating a tiny amount of mass. The free atoms will have slightly more mass than the compound itself. Don't try to measure it on your reloading scale, though. View Quote I am thinking that the increase in the mass is due to the energy particles being absorbed by the atoms some where either by bonding with proton/neutron/electrons or some other particle. Maybe the energy particles themselves are captured in an orbit around the atom somehow/somewhere. |
|
Get drunk and pee into a Klein bottle. You'll get a real mess. Oh, wait; you said mass, not mess. Never mind.
|
|
Quoted:
You speed it up to c View Quote ^2, though if you accelerate a mass it gains mass as you near light speed IIRC so you CANNOT break the speed of light as energy required to accelerate the object increases exponentially as the object near c. So if you could take an object with mass and accelerate it to light speed it would be infinatly heavy. IE infinite mass being obtained from infinite energy. though you have used all the energy EVER to accelerate to c.. interesting question. ill ask Q next time I see him... |
|
that's what the god particle does, Provides the lattice work for energy to attach to become matter.
|
|
Quoted:
No. A photon cannot have ANY "mass" and still travel at the speed of light - it's fundamental to the equations of General Relativity (or special? It's been a while.) It's not a matter of scale, but of definition. If you want to say that photons have some *property* that allows them to be affected by forces, sure. But it's not mass. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is energy? I can't touch it smell it, taste it, smell it, hold it. So does it exist outside of mass? Even the smallest subatomic particles contain mass, correct? Depends on what you mean by mass. Photons have momentum (m * v) but a 'rest mass' of zero. That is why they can move at the speed of light. The momentum is inferred since even photons can be 'bent' by gravity (path altered). I see the connection but it is all a matter of perspective. My view is simple, if an outside force can act on an object of any kind, even a photon, & cause a change in vector, it has to have some amount of mass, however infinitesimaly minute. Just because we can not quantify it in relative terms doesn't mean it doesn't have mass. In the grand scheme of the expansivenes of the universe could a hydrogen atom be considered to have a substantial amount of mass? But a simple look at a star gives an exuberant "yes" to that question. It is like adding up five pounds of feathers... As to the original question: Energy is an entropic function. So to me that means it exists in a state of decomposition. Mass' s decomposition is that of the entropic loss of energy. Subatomic structure relies on entropic exchange of energy. The real question is where does the energy, with its infinitesimaly small amount of mass, "Go"? From that destination can mass be then possibly created? No. A photon cannot have ANY "mass" and still travel at the speed of light - it's fundamental to the equations of General Relativity (or special? It's been a while.) It's not a matter of scale, but of definition. If you want to say that photons have some *property* that allows them to be affected by forces, sure. But it's not mass. Then what is that "property"? I am having a hard time not seeing how the equivalent of a grain of sand in a million pound bag of sand has no mass. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.