is e=mc^2 a unairy mechanisim

[shmengie]

You may have heard e=mc² basically means one tiny piece of matter is equivalent to the speed of light (times the speed of light) in energy.

 

BBN theory basically states in order to convert all the energy of the universe into matter, it had to expand faster than the speed of light, after the time of God's great kickoff.

 

To my knowledge, this is the only mechanism known for converting energy into matter and therefore e=mc² is (or more specifically was) bipolar.

 

I tried, once upon a time to conceive a process to convert energy into mass. So far, no success, I failed.

 

I've heard about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)... I view that as large machine that shatters defenseless massive particles into dark matter, with no earthly means, nor intention, of ever putting all the little humpty dumpties back together again.

 

That view is slightly skewed by (my) tendency to hug trees and effort to comprehend how many trees aren't hugged by ability to build and operate machinery, such as the LHC. I think of a physicist as a very mathematically capable creature, yet this math precludes (or dismisses) any thought of climatological implication of such ability. (A topic for some other forum, elsewhere.)

I guess all the physicists, even w/all their math capabilities, haven't figured out how to make matter, so the pick a bunch of poor little bozons, just to crack 'em open and so they can mathematically re construct 'em...

 

Seems the ultimate consequence of the LHC will be the construction of a machine that might reverse the process.

 

Is there some laser project somewhere that has a bunch of lasers focused on a point that results in matter production?

 

Best Regards,

 

-crackpot

[ajb]

BBN theory basically states in order to convert all the energy of the universe into matter, it had to expand faster than the speed of light, after the time of God's great kickoff.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis?

 

It sounds like you are saying something about inflation maybe?

 

To my knowledge, this is the only mechanism known for converting energy into matter and therefore e=mc² is (or more specifically was) bipolar.

This is not really a mechanism, but the right way to keep track of the relation between energy and mass (in the rest frame of whatever objects you are talking about)..

 

I tried, once upon a time to conceive a process to convert energy into mass. So far, no success, I failed.

This happens all the time. Look up binding energy of composite bound systems.

 

 

Anyway, you other comments seem very naive. What is it you really want to discuss?

Edited April 28, 2015 by ajb

[Strange]

You may have heard e=mc² basically means one tiny piece of matter is equivalent to the speed of light (times the speed of light) in energy.

 

Firstly, that equation is about the relationship between mass and energy, not necessarily matter and energy.

 

Also, it may be worth pointing out that for of the equation is incomplete. As such, it is only valid for massive particles at rest.

 

The full equation is e² = m²c⁴ + p²c².

 

BBN theory basically states in order to convert all the energy of the universe into matter, it had to expand faster than the speed of light, after the time of God's great kickoff.

 

BBN?

 

More importantly, expansion is not a speed. It is a proportional increase in distance between points in space. As such, the relative velocity between two points depends how far apart they are. There are (and always have been) points that are sufficiently far apart that they are separating at greater than the speed of light. Conversely, there are points which are sufficiently close that they are not (and never have been) separating at the speed of light.

 

Finally, converting energy to matter, or vice verse, does not depend on speed.

 

To my knowledge, this is the only mechanism known for converting energy into matter and therefore e=mc² is (or more specifically was) bipolar.

 

There are many mechanisms for converting energy into mass, and mass into energy. What does "bipolar" mean in this context.

 

I tried, once upon a time to conceive a process to convert energy into mass. So far, no success, I failed.

 

ajb mentioned binding energy. There is also pair production: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

 

I've heard about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)... I view that as large machine that shatters defenseless massive particles into dark matter, with no earthly means, nor intention, of ever putting all the little humpty dumpties back together again.

 

There is no evidence (yet) that the LHC has created dark matter particles.

 

I guess all the physicists, even w/all their math capabilities, haven't figured out how to make matter, so the pick a bunch of poor little bozons, just to crack 'em open and so they can mathematically re construct 'em...

 

You might be interested to know that one of the people who did groundbreaking work in stellar nucelosynthesis (the source of all matter except hydrogen) was Fred Hoyle, a lifelong opponent (and namer) of the big bang theory (and very good friend of Lemaitre, the founder of the big bang model).

 

Is there some laser project somewhere that has a bunch of lasers focused on a point that results in matter production?

 

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion

[shmengie]

Every process, natural and man-made involving e=mc² is associated with the release of energy, that I know of.

 

Aside from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, I'm not aware of any process that synthesizes matter or specifically reverses release of energy, so I preclude e=mc^2 is unidirectional, outside of BBN.

 

The purpose of LHC is learn enough about matter to be able to construct it, if not physically, mathematically.

 

I have a naive view understanding of the LHC and all colliders, in general. I'm pretty sure they all attempt to supply enough energy particles to break cohesion. When I view pictures of shattered matter, I envision it as the point at which collided matter gains dark properties. -- I'd like to know if there's any truth in that statement.

 

Is there a process for synthesizing matter from energy?

I'm not really interested in fusion. If it happened at the LHC, that would be curious, but I don't believe that's an objective of a collider.

 

Fusion is a release of energy, AFAIK.

 

I want to know if anyone, has ever or still does create a protons or neutrons from energy.

 

I don't believe it's possible, but there are a lot of things I don't know...

[swansont]

You may have heard e=mc² basically means one tiny piece of matter is equivalent to the speed of light (times the speed of light) in energy.

 

You may have heard many things that are incorrect. This would be one of those things.

 

E=mc² says that mass is a form of energy.

[michel123456]

 

You may have heard many things that are incorrect. This would be one of those things.

 

E=mc² says that mass is a form of energy.

but they have different units. It is like saying banana is a form of umbrella.

[swansont]

Every process, natural and man-made involving e=mc² is associated with the release of energy, that I know of.

 

Aside from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, I'm not aware of any process that synthesizes matter or specifically reverses release of energy, so I preclude e=mc^2 is unidirectional, outside of BBN.

 

Then you should become aware of endothermic processes.

 

There was an experiment that showed that the mass of an isotope of iron increased when it absorbed a photon. E=mc2, but for absorption of energy.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278

 

The purpose of LHC is learn enough about matter to be able to construct it, if not physically, mathematically.

 

I have a naive view understanding of the LHC and all colliders, in general. I'm pretty sure they all attempt to supply enough energy particles to break cohesion. When I view pictures of shattered matter, I envision it as the point at which collided matter gains dark properties. -- I'd like to know if there's any truth in that statement.

No, not really.

 

Is there a process for synthesizing matter from energy?

 

I'm not really interested in fusion. If it happened at the LHC, that would be curious, but I don't believe that's an objective of a collider.

 

Fusion is a release of energy, AFAIK.

 

I want to know if anyone, has ever or still does create a protons or neutrons from energy.

 

I don't believe it's possible, but there are a lot of things I don't know...

Fusion is not inherently the release of energy. That's the area of interest for power generation, because you are interested in generating power.

 

In colliders neutrons and protons can be created. They are accompanied by their antiparticles.

but they have different units. It is like saying banana is a form of umbrella.

 

I assure you that mc² has the units of energy

[michel123456]

If you put mass on the X axis, c on the Y axis and c on the Z axis, the volume formed is energy.

mass would be a form of energy if c^2 was unitless.

 

What one could say is that mass is proportional to energy.

Because in the XYZ scheme, only mass can change since c is constant.

[MigL]

In the equation

 

inch = X*centimeter where X=2.54 cm/in

 

the units on either side of the equation are 'bananas' and 'umbrellas'.

 

It is the proportionality constant, X, which makes them equivalent.

 

I, and swansont, assure you that both the 'bananas' and 'umbrellas' are units of distance

[studiot]

 

I, and swansont, assure you that both the 'bananas' and 'umbrellas' are units of distance

 

Utter nonsense.

 

They are European Union Beaurocracy units of economic setaside.

 

[Strange]

I have a naive view understanding of the LHC and all colliders, in general. I'm pretty sure they all attempt to supply enough energy particles to break cohesion. When I view pictures of shattered matter, I envision it as the point at which collided matter gains dark properties. -- I'd like to know if there's any truth in that statement.

 

Is there any truth in that statement? No.

 

However, it is interesting to note that the LHC collides hadrons (the clue is in the name) specifically protons. The thing about hadrons is that they are composed of quarks and are held together by the strong force. The energy of the string force provides nearly all the mass of a proton (or neutron). Also, if you try to split a proton into its quarks, then the amount of energy required just causes more quarks to be created which then form new hadrons (such as protons). So there is an example of where energy (the kinetic energy of the protons) is converted to new matter.

[Mordred]

Every process, natural and man-made involving e=mc² is associated with the release of energy, that I know of.

 

Aside from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, I'm not aware of any process that synthesizes matter or specifically reverses release of energy, so I preclude e=mc^2 is unidirectional, outside of BBN.

 

The purpose of LHC is learn enough about matter to be able to construct it, if not physically, mathematically.

 

I have a naive view understanding of the LHC and all colliders, in general. I'm pretty sure they all attempt to supply enough energy particles to break cohesion. When I view pictures of shattered matter, I envision it as the point at which collided matter gains dark properties. -- I'd like to know if there's any truth in that statement.

 

Is there a process for synthesizing matter from energy?

 

I'm not really interested in fusion. If it happened at the LHC, that would be curious, but I don't believe that's an objective of a collider.

 

Fusion is a release of energy, AFAIK.

 

I want to know if anyone, has ever or still does create a uprotons or neutrons from energy.

 

I don't believe it's possible, but there are a lot of things I don't know...

.

 

No problem. I unfortunately, how one particle can decay into another follows numerous conservation rules.

 

Co conservation of momentum, charge, Lepton number,baryon number, isospin, energy. Just to mention a few lol

 

 

One of the better textbooks is particle physics by Griffith.

 

How particles change from one form to another follows varyious conservation rules. Many not commonlY known.

 

It's easy to think you understand until you study in depth.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Mordred

[imatfaal]

 

Is there any truth in that statement? No.

 

However, it is interesting to note that the LHC collides hadrons (the clue is in the name) specifically protons. ...

 

Just as a note the LHC also collides lead ions

[Spyman]

is e=mc^2 a unairy mechanisim

If you are asking whether energy can be converted to matter then yes, Patrick Blackett was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 1948 for amongst other things showing the "transmutation of light into matter".

 

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1948

Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett

 

Prize share: 1/1

 

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1948 was awarded to Patrick M.S. Blackett "for his development of the Wilson cloud chamber method, and his discoveries therewith in the fields of nuclear physics and cosmic radiation".

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1948/index.html

 

 

The discovery of the pair creation of electrons led, on the theoretical side, to the acceptance of two fundamental radiation processes of a reverse nature, which may be called transmutation of light into matter (represented by electron pairs) and vice versa.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1948/press.html

 

 

Photon to Electron and Positron

For photons at high-energy, (MeV scale and higher) pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics. If the photon is near an atomic nucleus, the energy of a photon can be converted into an electron-positron pair:

 

γ → e⁻ + e⁺

 

The photon's energy is converted to particle's mass through Einsteins equation, E=mc²; where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light. The photon must have higher energy than the rest of mass of an electron and positron (2 * 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV) for the production to occur. The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as a photon pair producing in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum. Because of this, when pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil. The reverse of this process is electron positron annihilation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production#Photon_to_Electron_and_Positron Edited April 29, 2015 by Spyman

[shmengie]

Grief! The more I learn, the less I understand...

 

So matter can be produced from electro-magnetic radiation.

 

Probability of matter forming from electro-magnetic radiation increases in proportion to the strength of the gravity field (supposition or I read it somewhere).

 

When matter forms independent of existing atomic particles, it forms in pairs, particle and anti-particle, presumably of equal mass.

 

When an atomic particle absorbs electro-magnetic radiation (say a photon), measurement is limited to electric force and weight. Where does the anti-particle aspect exist, or does it?

 

A photon consists of both electric and magnetic wave(s) perpendicular to each other. If mass forms as particle and anti-particle, from these waves, does it mean the particle is the electric field/wave and the anti-particle the magnetic field/wave or visa-verse?

 

I feel like I'm growing dumber than dumb. w00t.

 

--

I thought the higgs field was more or less verified by the LHC project. Doesn't that mean there is evidence of dark matter being produced?

 

-crackpot

[Mordred]

All forms of energy can create particles, keep in mind energy is a property of particles. Doesn't exist on its own.

 

The LHC works by speeding up hadrons,

This gives the hadron greater energy.

 

Particles other than the photon has rest mass, when you accelerate a particle it gains kinetic energy and inertial mass.

 

Particles can only decay into smaller particles, so to create the Higgs boson one must accelerate protons to sufficient energy larger than the Higgs boson. (Including its anti particle.)

 

We haven't found any form of dark matter in the LHC.

 

Anti matter has the exact characteristics as its normal partner, except they have opposite charge.

 

The reason they form in pairs is conservation of charge, how particles decay and form follows several conservation rules.

 

Lepton number, energy,color,flavor,charge, baryon number,parity, spin and isospin.

 

Might have missed one or two.

 

Here is a free cosmology/particle physics textbook

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

This article covers BBN extremely well in the same format as Scott Dodelson's "Modern Cosmology" textbook

 

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

 

these two articles provide a decent overview of cosmology.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

 

Here is one on particle physics in regards to GUT theories (covers indirectly how BBN works)

 

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES

 

As your also interested in relativity these articles are useful. The first is low level math strictly in Minkowskii metric form. (Excellent introduction level)

 

http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

 

This one is intermediate level, lengthy and high math. However it's an excellent reference.

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

 

my signature has numerous other articles on my webpage. I setup the page to help teach textbook Cosmology. I don't push any personal views on the chosen articles.

If particle physics is of interest this guide will be invaluable, (teaches primarily the related mathematics, in particular differential geometry, as well as lie algebra.) Part 2 also includes a good section on relativity.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2

[swansont]

Grief! The more I learn, the less I understand...

That's actually a good thing.

 

So matter can be produced from electro-magnetic radiation.

 

Probability of matter forming from electro-magnetic radiation increases in proportion to the strength of the gravity field (supposition or I read it somewhere).

Unless you have a really strong gravitational field, this would have a tiny effect.

 

 

 

When an atomic particle absorbs electro-magnetic radiation (say a photon), measurement is limited to electric force and weight.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you rephrase the question?

 

If an atom absorbs a photon, there are measurements that can be involved that have nothing to do with electric force (whatever you mean by that) or weight.

 

A photon consists of both electric and magnetic wave(s) perpendicular to each other. If mass forms as particle and anti-particle, from these waves, does it mean the particle is the electric field/wave and the anti-particle the magnetic field/wave or visa-verse?

No

[shmengie]

a lot of links

 

TY