[ScientificBoysClub]

What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !???  [] []

[demadone]

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.

[Vern]

What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !???  [] []

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.

[ScientificBoysClub]

What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !???  [] []

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 ??

[Vern]

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.

[Vern]

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.
   

[lightarrow]

What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !???  [] []

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.

[ScientificBoysClub]

What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !???  [] []

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 ??

[lightarrow]

What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !???  [] []

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

[ScientificBoysClub]

oh!

What conditions do we require to convert Energy to mass ? just it happened after Big Bang !???  [] []

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 !!

[Vern]

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.

[Vern]

I should add; the photon could be bouncing around between atoms, or just contributing to the movement of molecules in the mass.

[yor_on]

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?

[lightarrow]

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?

[Vern]

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.

[yor_on]

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:)

[yor_on]

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:)

[Vern]

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]

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.

[yor_on]

Vern, I agree:)

Stubbornness shouldn't be underestimated.
As long as one keep an open mind, that is

And , when remembering, I do try.