JaKiri Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Mastermold Also, energy is created easily.. the reverse is what is very difficult. Matter can be converted into energy, but the question remains... how can energy be converted into matter? Nuclear fission results in loss of mass and that mass is converted to energy via Einstein's famous E=mC^2. If anyone has any articles about attempts t convert energy into matter... please post them. It would be very interesting. Energy is converted to matter just by moving (Lorenz transforms). Energy is converted to matter in collisions in particle accelerators. etc etc. There are no problems doing that. Matter is just another form of energy.
fafalone Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 How does moving energy not have mass in some cases?
JaKiri Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone How does moving energy not have mass in some cases? eh?
fafalone Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 If motion gives energy mass, how does energy move without mass?
JaKiri Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 The gained mass is a function of the rest mass.
fafalone Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 So some forms of pure energy have a non-zero rest mass?
JaKiri Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 What are you talking about? It's not what I was talking about, certainly (giving a mass kinetic energy).
fafalone Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Energy is converted to matter just by moving (Lorenz transforms).
JaKiri Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone I was referring to the mass rather than the energy.
Giles Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone So some forms of pure energy have a non-zero rest mass? 'pure' energy?
JaKiri Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Giles 'pure' energy? I think he means photons and gluons and the like.
fafalone Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 We were talking about the formation of matter from energy, not smaller particles of matter.
Radical Edward Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri gluons stick to photons, many of the other force carriers have mass. In fact it is their mass which is related to the fact that they only have a short range.
Radical Edward Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone How does moving energy not have mass in some cases? photons are an excitation of the electrical field. think of it in the same way as a water wave, drop a pebble in a pond and the energy travels to the edge of the pond, however at no point is there a general flow of water in the direction of the wall.
aman Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 As a water wave reaches a funneling channel its energy gets concentrated. Just like an energy wave passing by a black hole would have its energy concentrated as space is squeezed near the event horizon. This is where the phenomena of matter popping out of the void is theorized. Maybe an energy wave could be concentrated to the threshold of changing to a particle as it passes through space. Just aman
RAB Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Does light in a vacuum slow down , or is it only deflected, when it passes through a strong gravitational field?
JaKiri Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward stick to photons, many of the other force carriers have mass. In fact it is their mass which is related to the fact that they only have a short range. I wrote that post about 5 minutes before falling asleep from exhaustion. Forgive me master. Originally posted by fafalone We were talking about the formation of matter from energy, not smaller particles of matter. They are not mutually exclusive; indeed, they are complimentary topics.
PogoC7 Posted February 20, 2003 Posted February 20, 2003 http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/humsoc/philosophy/Time_Travel/lectures.htm ----Lecture Program about time travel. LONG, it's like taking a class. Have not looked at any of the lectures (17). Just seems to have large amounts of information. http://www.physics.gmu.edu/department/research/tachyons.htm -----claims to have possible experimental evidence for the existence of Tachyons http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html -----Tachyons and General Relativity http://dmoz.org/Science/Physics/Relativity/Time_Travel/ ------Many time travel pages. Good reading. http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1936/anderson-lecture.pdf ----The production and properties of Positrons (PDF) I know most of this is just theory, but I wanted to add something to the "Impossible to travel backwards in time" arguement. Might have been in another thread, but I thought this thread would be more appropriate.
ET Posted March 7, 2003 Posted March 7, 2003 Isn't time cause and effect? I mean Einstein theory wouldn't work unless time was cause and effect. The whole point is the curved geometry under gravity and under motion is the increased length between two points. So things like the future and the past aren't real dimensions. Without something happening there is no time, why time can be altered by other means other than just motion or gravity. If you freeze someone or something for instance you've slowed reactions (cause and effect) which is time. I think a lot of people view time as a flow or even a dimension, why there are notions of time travel. No matter how much mathematics you use to prove GR allows time travel the error is the improper use of time as a spatial dimension. Remember time is a reaction, cause and effect, not a line where by one can travel along like a dimension. Oh and I did see the PBS special with all the physics big wigs. The big problem using the wormhole, in GR at least, is the time dilation happens at the mouth of the hole and not to anything outside of the mouth. When the hole returns, it returns to the frame it had left! If you travel through the hole you would end up exactly where the hole is currently in time on earth. ET
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now