Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: ScientificBoysClub on 20/01/2009 07:05:30
-
What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !??? [:D] [::)]
-
It's amazing! I realised that the speed of light is the universal speed limit for matter and energy long before I heard it officially stated. Wish I said it back in 1995 when I was 14.
Anyways about the question. Mass is organized energy. Sub-atomic particles to me are forms of energy at another level. SO in other words, energy is a sub-sub-atomic particle. Write me if you want my theory.
-
What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !??? [:D] [::)]
We used to think you needed a bunch of energy and a nucleon present. Now we think that all you need is sufficient energy to produce the particle.
-
What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !??? [:D] [::)]
We used to think you needed a bunch of energy and a nucleon present. Now we think that all you need is sufficient energy to produce the particle.
yeah I know but after Big bang what made Energy to mass ?? is it dark energy ??
-
It is amusing that there is a huge delay between experimental discovery and scientific thinking. For example we used to think that all that stuff found downstream of electron positron collisions came out of stray nucleons; now we know that most of it is simply from the energy of the accelerated particles. But we haven't yet modified fundamental particle theory to accommodate the new findings. So if you have new insight into this it might be worth your study.
-
yeah I know but after Big bang what made Energy to mass ?? is it dark energy ??
If there was a Big Bang, all you need is the energy; no need for dark energy; we're not even sure that dark energy exists; right now it is speculation to explain why the universe seems to be gaining speed as it seems to expand.
-
What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !??? [:D] [::)]
Take a piece of paper and colour it in black, then put it under the light: it will absorb energy and its mass will increase, so you will have converted energy into mass.
-
What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !??? [:D] [::)]
Take a piece of paper and colour it in black, then put it under the light: it will absorb energy and its mass will increase, so you will have converted energy into mass.
VERY FUNNY BUT GOOD !!
BUT i NEED MORE BUT HOW IT HAPPENS IN WHAT CONDITIONS IT HAPPENED IN THE FORMATION OF UNIVERSE ??
-
What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !??? [:D] [::)]
Take a piece of paper and colour it in black, then put it under the light: it will absorb energy and its mass will increase, so you will have converted energy into mass.
VERY FUNNY BUT GOOD !!
BUT i NEED MORE BUT HOW IT HAPPENS IN WHAT CONDITIONS IT HAPPENED IN THE FORMATION OF UNIVERSE ??
If you talk about *all* the universe, then energy has always had mass and the other way around; no conversion has ever taken place; its total energy = its total mass*c^2
-
oh!
What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !??? [:D] [::)]
Take a piece of paper and colour it in black, then put it under the light: it will absorb energy and its mass will increase, so you will have converted energy into mass.
VERY FUNNY BUT GOOD !!
BUT i NEED MORE BUT HOW IT HAPPENS IN WHAT CONDITIONS IT HAPPENED IN THE FORMATION OF UNIVERSE ??
If you talk about *all* the universe, then energy has always had mass and the other way around; no conversion has ever taken place; its total energy = its total mass*c^2
could u tell me a new thing I know mass and energy relation !!
-
Any time you confine a photon of energy in a local area by whatever method, the photon becomes mass. This is true even if you confine it by bouncing it back and forth inside a mirrored box, or as lightarrow said by getting the photon absorbed by mass. The absorbed photon is bouncing around between atoms in the mass, and so is confined to a local area.
I can add some speculation of my own to that and say an electron is a photon of a certain frequency confined in a local area. Its like a resonating standing wave. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19366.0)
-
I should add; the photon could be bouncing around between atoms, or just contributing to the movement of molecules in the mass.
-
I have problems accepting momentum as invariant mass when you have a photon 'bouncing' inside a perfectly reflecting medium/box.
I know that both you Vern and Lightarrow find it so, but I still have problems with it.
I admit :) that it will transfer energy to the system though?
-
I have problems accepting momentum as invariant mass when you have a photon 'bouncing' inside a perfectly reflecting medium/box.
I know that both you Vern and Lightarrow find it so,
It's not *our theory* [:)] It's plain physics.
(However it's not correct to say "momentum as invariant mass"; momentum is momentum and mass is mass.)
I admit :) that it will transfer energy to the system though?
yor on, you are overestimating us, we can't look into your mind [:)]
What do you want to say?
-
I admit :) that it will transfer energy to the system though?
If you try to hold that light bouncing around inside a mirrored box does not contribute to the mass of the system then your physics starts breaking down. You get in trouble with mass-energy equivalence.
Then I can make it even tougher for you [:)] The light becomes mass if you allow it to continue the bouncing pattern but without the box. I don't think this is just my speculation but thought experiments like that did lead to my speculation about a photon-only universe. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19366.0)
-
Well Lightarrow, my mind is at times rather murky:)
As you might have noticed::))
But it goes back to how I think of 'invariant'.
If we define it as if a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference.
Then it is correct I suppose, but then it says nothing about what creates matter, does it?
And that is what I would like 'invariant mass' to define.
The aspect that differ 'matter' from 'energy'.
And telling me that for example, space, if set under intensive energy can create 'matter' doesn't explain it either.
It 'works' mathematically to define it that way, I understand that, but it does not explain it.
But you are quite correct, I should find a definition for matter that is unique.
Instead of misusing a already set definition.
Murky huh:)
And that's why I can accept that a photon will transfer a energy momentum to that box, but still insist that what we measure is not the same as something 'invariant'.
Somewhere when I first read about 'invariant mass' I must have thought about it as at all times the same.
So if we took an apple it would have the same unique properties in all frames, and not being bound as to be called... 'invariant in all frames, if transferred, 'in that same instant' .. which then seem to be the definition set here?
If we define it as that, then all matter is changing under times influence, and everything then seems 'invariant' to me (or nothing:)
As someone said 'nothing stays the same', ah, under times arrow that is.
But yes, it's me thinking in one way, although the correct definition says something else.
So in the case of that box I will go so far as to say that it is the momentum that transfers this extra energy that we then call mass, but that I surprisingly stubbornly :) refuses to put an equal sign between that and what I call 'matter'.
It was good of you to put me on the right track here .
I will blame 'it' on my friend, Mr Alzheimer:)
--------
Your message came in as I was writing Vern:)
-
Vern, that you will need to explain further?
Oh yes.
"The light becomes mass if you allow it to continue the bouncing pattern but without the box."
And I who thought that it was only me being an mystic here:)
-
Hi yor_on; maybe holding fast to a certain view while knowing another view is accepted by most every one else is a good thing. It took about 200 years for folks to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe. Advocates of the notion that the earth was not the center needed much stubbornness.
-
Vern, that you will need to explain further?
Oh yes.
"The light becomes mass if you allow it to continue the bouncing pattern but without the box."
And I who thought that it was only me being an mystic here:)
All you need is some mechanism to keep the light bouncing. I speculate that the mechanism is resonance and positive feedback. Positive feedback comes from bending the photon's path. Resonance comes when the bend is strong enough to complete a circle in one wavelength.
-
Vern, I agree:)
Stubbornness shouldn't be underestimated.
As long as one keep an open mind, that is :)
And , when remembering, I do try.
-
All you need is some mechanism to keep the light bouncing. I speculate that the mechanism is resonance and positive feedback. Positive feedback comes from bending the photon's path. Resonance comes when the bend is strong enough to complete a circle in one wavelength.
It seems interesting; can you make an example of how it could happen? However, if the space where the photon is confined would be little enough, maybe the gravitational field produced by it would be strong enough to bend it in a circle? (High speculations here!!)
-
Vern, that you will need to explain further?
Oh yes.
"The light becomes mass if you allow it to continue the bouncing pattern but without the box."
And I who thought that it was only me being an mystic here:)
So this should amaze you even more.
A single photon has no mass.
A system of two photons not travelling in the same direction HAS mass:
E2 = (Mc2)2 + (cP)2
E = energy of the two photons' system = E1 + E2 = 2E1, with two equal photons, where E1 is a single photon's energy (energy is additive).
M = mass of the two photons' system.
P = momentum of the two photons' system = P1 + P2 where P1 and P2 are the momenta of the photon 1 and 2, respectively.
A single photon's momentum is, in modulus: |P1| = |P2| = E1/c.
So, if the two photons are not travelling in the same direction:
|P| = |P1 + P2| < 2|P1| = 2E1/c
so
P2 = |P|2 < 4E12/c2 → -P2 > -4E12/c2
(Mc2)2 = E2 - (cP)2 = (2E1)2 - c2P2 > 4E12 - c24E12/c2 = 0
so
(Mc2)2 > 0
that is
M > 0.
There is no mysticism here, just algebra...
-
It seems interesting; can you make an example of how it could happen? However, if the space where the photon is confined would be little enough, maybe the gravitational field produced by it would be strong enough to bend it in a circle? (High speculations here!!)
I have put together a speculative scheme here. (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) And I have the photon-only universe thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19366.0) in the New Theories forum.
The one bend radius that would be stable would be one that would produce a circumference equal to the wave length of a photon of the frequency derived from the electron's mass. Here's a little table I worked out. Source Code (http://photontheory.com/mevs.c) written in C.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fmevs.jpg&hash=f8666195b5b4d739f2527429c6cf40a1)
-
Lightarrow.
Why "A system of two photons not travelling in the same direction HAS mass:"
And if they were traveling in the same direction then?
Why should that 'matter'.
Or not.
-
:)
---
The only reason I can see if mass was treated as a 'relation' between those two photons.
And then it seems even less to have to do with what i call 'matter'?
-
Lightarrow.
Why "A system of two photons not travelling in the same direction HAS mass:"
And if they were traveling in the same direction then?
Why should that 'matter'.
Or not.
-
:)
Their wave functions have to interact. It might be like an electron crossing electric field lines of another electron which creates photons.
-
Sorry missed your answer there but it seems to be what I thought?
A 'relation', but matter don't seem to need those restrictions.
Or?
----
That is if we want to treat mass as matter?
And that do confuse me:)
-
That is if we want to treat mass as matter?
And that do confuse me:)
I think mass and matter is just two names for the same thing.
-
Vern, I understand that according to your definitions matter is photons:)
And if you want, you could argue that matter is energy in mainstream science too.
Which when 'going down' to its ground state would be defined as photons?
But to me photons, even though they may transform into particles under high energy, and 'matter' is very different 'states'.
If I use Lightarrows example, I still wonder why a system with two photons not traveling in the same direction is seen to have mass, while the same system with photons traveling together would not?
Would you have an explanation for that?
-
Vern, I understand that according to your definitions matter is photons:)
And if you want, you could argue that matter is energy in mainstream science too.
Which when 'going down' to its ground state would be defined as photons?
But to me photons, even though they may transform into particles under high energy, and 'matter' is very different 'states'.
If I use Lightarrows example, I still wonder why a system with two photons not traveling in the same direction is seen to have mass, while the same system with photons traveling together would not?
Would you have an explanation for that?
Ok I red your comments dudes but its still to advanced for it's like advanced scientist debate .....
Well energy makes mass and mass makes energy .....
but there should be a condition for some density of energy to convert it's self to mass ... so, how a group of photons and make a milli gram of mass ( a small amount in a closed system ? think about the universe if it is closed system under a high compression of energy it might have created mass right ??
-
Lightarrow.
Why "A system of two photons not travelling in the same direction HAS mass:"
And if they were traveling in the same direction then?
Why should that 'matter'.
Or not.
-
:)
---
The only reason I can see if mass was treated as a 'relation' between those two photons.
And then it seems even less to have to do with what i call 'matter'?
The reason I can find now is mathematics: in a system of two photons not travelling in the same directions, you can always find a frame of reference where the two photons travels in opposite directions (this could be an exercize for you [:)]) and so their total momentum is zero. In this sense you can consider the system as "stationary"; now, you know that mass is nothing else than energy in a stationary system.
For a single photon or for photons all travelling in the same directions, the system has no mass because you cannot "see" that energy from a stationary frame of reference; it means that the energy is only kinetic.
In conclusion: if you have a body which is moving, part of its energy comes from its mass, that is the energy it has from the frame of reference where the body is sationary, and part is kinetic, that is due only to the fact that the body is seen from a specific frame of reference. So mass is an "attribute" of energy: mass is the energy when energy is stationary.
This is the better definition of mass that I can find at the moment.
-
If I use Lightarrows example, I still wonder why a system with two photons not traveling in the same direction is seen to have mass, while the same system with photons traveling together would not?
Would you have an explanation for that?
Hi yor_on; lightarrow's explanation looks good to me. I don't think I can add any clarification, although I have not seen the mass-creation mechanism described that way before.
Thanks lightarrow that adds great insight for me.
Dr. Robert Kemp (http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html) claims that mass is electromagnetic change. According to him anytime you are in a frame of reference where you can sense electromagnetic change, you sense mass.
-
Well energy makes mass and mass makes energy .....
but there should be a condition for some density of energy to convert it's self to mass ... so, how a group of photons and make a milli gram of mass ( a small amount in a closed system ? think about the universe if it is closed system under a high compression of energy it might have created mass right ??
When I read back through the posts I find the consensus to be that the only requirement to convert energy to mass is that the energy be put in such a state that its electromagnetic change is observable.
If you can sense the electric and magnetic change of the energy, you can sense it as mass.
-
Lightarrow:)
Vern:)
As it's Saturday and as I have some friends (strangely but true:) with, ah, fluids?
Dark brown with a taste of malt I might add.
I just don't dare to write anything trying to making sense anymore, if I ever did:)
But I just want to thank you , and all, for interesting thoughts.
As you say Vern, Lightarrow makes sense, as do you, and Chem, and Lady, And (obviously) SC and LeeE and Karen and....
(I'll stop here, otherwise I will write 'this' to an all too early grave)
But I just want to thank the founders of this site for a lovely forum.
Filled with interesting people.
:)
-
Lightarrow:)
Vern:)
As it's Saturday and as I have some friends (strangely but true:) with, ah, fluids?
Dark brown with a taste of malt I might add.
I just don't dare to write anything trying to making sense anymore, if I ever did:)
But I just want to thank you , and all, for interesting thoughts.
As you say Vern, Lightarrow makes sense, as do you, and Chem, and Lady, And (obviously) SC and LeeE and Karen and....
(I'll stop here, otherwise I will write 'this' to an all too early grave)
But I just want to thank the founders of this site for a lovely forum.
Filled with interesting people.
:)
Thanks yor_on; great discussion; go easy on the ale now [:)] [:o]
-
Any time you confine a photon of energy in a local area by whatever method, the photon becomes mass. This is true even if you confine it by bouncing it back and forth inside a mirrored box, or as lightarrow said by getting the photon absorbed by mass. The absorbed photon is bouncing around between atoms in the mass, and so is confined to a local area.
I can add some speculation of my own to that and say an electron is a photon of a certain frequency confined in a local area. Its like a resonating standing wave. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19366.0)
Whenever I hear this debate about mass formation from energy, I can't help but think about the way cold and hot air masses form tornados. As of this writing, it is still quite a mystery just how and why this phenomenon occurs. We understand a few of the required conditions neccessary for this event, but not exactly how they all interrelate. I personally think that something of a similiar nature is happening in the energy/mass conversion. Vern has offered the issues of circulation and resonance as contributing factors, and I see the same issues involved in tornado formation. An interesting analogy I must say!
Matter = Localized orbital energy flux.
-
G'day from the land ofozzzzz
Look at the ejected matter that comes out of jets and how it reforms back into matter.
Its as though it has a memory to reform. It is quite similar to the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory.
The Condensed Matter Physics of QCD
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0011333
Authors: Krishna Rajagopal (MIT), Frank Wilczek (MIT)
(Submitted on 27 Nov 2000 (v1), last revised 13 Dec 2000 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Important progress in understanding the behavior of hadronic matter at high density has been achieved recently, by adapting the techniques of condensed matter theory. At asymptotic densities, the combination of asymptotic freedom and BCS theory make a rigorous analysis possible. New phases of matter with remarkable properties are predicted. They provide a theoretical laboratory within which chiral symmetry breaking and confinement can be studied at weak coupling. They may also play a role in the description of neutron star interiors. We discuss the phase diagram of QCD as a function of temperature and density, and close with a look at possible astrophysical signatures.
The equation of state of dense matter: supernovae, neutron stars and black holes
Jul-94
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994NuPhA.574..217B
It is proposed that the dense matter formed in the collapse of large stars goes strange while still in the nucleon-meson (broken chiral symmetry) phase through kaon condensation. The K--meson energy is lowered, with increasing density, by the attractive vector mean field originating from the dense nucleonic matter. Once the K- energy comes down to the electron chemical potential μe, which increases with increasing density, the elec- trons change into K--mesons through the reaction e- --> K- + v. This is estimated to occur at a density ϱc ~ 3ϱ0, where ϱ0 is nuclear matter density.