Energy into matter, transition particles?

[1bobwhite]

These are questions that I don't have theories for or proofs, but just speculations based on "observations".

 

Is there any evidence for or math for the "condensation" of energy back into matter? We know that in fission and fusion reactions, a portion of the yield is energy that does not have particles, "pure energy", but the remaining particles are matter. How are these elements formed in the first place? Where is the transition point?

 

What would be the conditions necessary for this transition?

 

Is it possible that the actions of fusion provide heavier and heavier and larger elemental nuclei with their corresponding electrons and they cool, with the remaining energy lost? Or does the energy as it disperses into the cold of deep space condense back into matter.

 

We know that combinations of temperature and pressure give all manner of changes to matter, for instance water when heated under pressure to its critical temperature and beyond into the supercritical temperature behaves such that steam and the liquid phase become indistinguishable.

 

Then is it also possible that this same condition can apply to matter at the much higher temperatures and pressures where particles of mass transition back and forth between mass and energy and are indistinguishable? Transitional particles of unknown properties would then exist under those conditions.

 

Would the neutron stars have those conditions? Would our own sun have those conditions?

 

Is it possible that the dark matter of space we've heard about is nothing more than the energy condensation that has clumped back together?

 

Just some thoughts of a fevered brain.

Bob

[ajb]

There is no such thing as pure energy. Energy is a property of "stuff".

 

You do hear statements like "matter + antimatter = pure energy" and similar but what is really meant is "matter + antimatter = photons".

[swansont]

In fission you get daughter nuclei, some neutrons and some gammas. All will have energy. When/if the daughter nuclei decay, you'll get some electrons and antineutrinos as well.

[1bobwhite]

Swansont, ajb,

 

If in all of these reactions all you get is more particles and their fragments, then what is being "converted". What does the E=... stand for in the math? More particles? Are gamma rays particles? What is binding energy, transition particles?

 

Also in the fusion reactions, if pressures are high enough, then is it possible that nuclei bombardment and x-ray, gamma ray energies recombine these nuclei in a reverse of the decay sequence to form the larger elemental nuclei?

 

Is that what is done when these powerful particle colliders momentarily produce new elements of extremely short half life with higher atomic numbers only seen in the lab? Lawrencium being the example.

 

Just more thoughts,

Bob

[ajb]

Think about nuclear fission.

 

One starts with a heavy fuel and ends up with lighter waste. The energy released comes from this difference in mass.

 

Mass defect = (mass of waste)- (mass of fuel) = (mass of unbound system) - (mass of bound system).

 

The mass defect is realised as the energy released due to the fission process. In other words we have

 

[math]BE =MD c^{2}[/math],

 

BE = binding energy, MD = mass defect.

 

This is the [math]E=mc^{2}[/math].

[swansont]

Or perhaps more simply, fusion. The mass of two neutrons and two protons is greater than the mass of He-4. Energy is released (probably in the form of photons) when you form a nucleus from its constituents — this is the binding energy and mass defect ajb mentioned. If you want to break it apart, you have to add energy.

 

When mass is converted to energy is fission, most of it shows up as kinetic energy if the fission products, but all of the particles released (this includes the gammas) have energy.

 

Fusion which forms heavier nuclei requires that energy be added. You can do this — it can happen in particle colliders; this is one way of synthesizing heavy nuclei for experiments.