Can we change space into matter?

But you said if you speed up time it will look like the past. So, you are saying that you can alter time in such a fashion that the mass of the universe will all go back into a cubic meter of volume that it was in the past??

Now I see the problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. Your saying that. I'm agreeing with you in an extravagant way.

I'm now saying the universe does what you say already. It is not impossible for the universe to transform into a form of matter that could be held in what we consider today to be 1 cubic meter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

E=mc^2

m=E/c^2

These are 'equivalence' relationships . . . so why cannot energy turn into mass given the right conditions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all of the King's horses and all of the King's men couldn't put Humpty back together again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

“ Originally Posted by wlminex
E=mc^2

m=E/c^2

These are 'equivalence' relationships . . . so why cannot energy turn into mass given the right conditions? ”

MD: Because Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all of the King's horses and all of the King's men couldn't put Humpty back together again.

MD . . . . so, with an extremely high energy flux (say, 10^120 erg/cc) . . . via quantum fluctuations . . . probability . . . and the necessary (right) condtions . . . . energy can NEVER become mass, right? Does that mean IMPOSSIBLE? . . . or improbable? So, the equivalence relationship is thermodynamically only 'one-way' and m=E/c^2 is NOT a mathematically, or thermodynamically, valid relationship.

wlminex
.

 

Because that formula should actually be, \(E_o = mc^2\), where \(E_o\) represents the energy associated with the mass at rest... Leaving off the subscript has become a hold over from the early 1900s. Once something like that gets into use it is hard to correct. Most physicists, even when they drop the subscript understand that they are talking about the total energy of the rest state of a given mass.

However, in a way mass is transferred from atom to atom in the form of energy.., photons.., which have no rest mass of their own, but add or subtract from the mass of an atom when absorbed or emitted. That was the basis of Einstein's paper introducing the formula, within a relativistic context.

\(E\) generally represents total energy. In this equation, it represents the total energy associated with a given mass at rest, that is excluding any kinetic energy associated with velocity or temperature.

 

E=mc^2

m=E/c^2

OnlyMe: So . . . E=mc^2 now becomes . . . . E(o) = mc^2, and m=E/c^2
becomes . . . . m=E(o)/c^2? . . . I think I got it . . .

Any 'new' mass created by E(o) is 'at rest', and since E(o), presumably propogating at c, may possibly create (transcend to, via slowing to < c, perhaps?)?) new mass, that mass which then (if in motion) propogates at < c.

Query: Could you visualize an OOB speculation (mine) that an extremely high energy flux (see my previous post) 'existing' under possibly super-c conditions (perhaps as dark energy?) might, via a 'slowing' process (perhaps via dark matter?) . . create 'new' mass (i.e., observable) that then exists under sub-c constraints?

Thanks for your continued constructive (or destructive, as needed) comments!!

(Sorry if this post seems confusing)

wlminex

 

so if I have 100 cubic meters of empty space , this cube has the potential to change into matter ? just from space alone ?

seems kind of bizzare

 

I don't think so. I cannot see space by itself becoming matter. But there are a few different approaches within QM that suggest that the interaction of an object (matter) moving through space can create real photons from the virtual particles of vacuum energy — the Dynamical Casimir Effect, DCE is one case.

And then there has been some work involving inertia, as a function of a similar interaction, between a moving object and vacuum energy...

The problem is in the definition of space. Is it the empty box that matter and the virtual particles of vacuum energy are in or is it maybe the vacuum energy itself, a sea of virtual particles, so to speak? Something that is not quite matter, but interacts with matter...

 

actually there is no such thing as " empty space " never has been

chiral condensate

 

If you start with a 1 kg piece of wood, and you burn it and turn it into energy, you can NOT turn that energy back into a 1 kg piece of wood. If you try to turn it back into the 1 kg piece of wood using only that energy you will require some of that energy to restore the wood to it's original state. Since you started with a specific amount of energy, and you used energy to recreate the wood, the wood can not be as original, it will be less massive.

Do you understand that perpetual motion is not possible? What does that mean to you?

Remember, there is no Peter to rob from to pay Paul. You can't magically get energy from somewhere else to use to rebuild the wood. The universe has a specific amount of mass. That mass has a specific energy value. That mass is expanding and becoming less dense, in effect becoming closer to the state of equilibrium with the infinite volume of space. The closer to equilibrium the system is the less potential energy.

ALL physical processes are IAW the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy! Do you know what that means?

 

It is so cute when MD tries to explain physics.

 

It's downright beautiful if you ask me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I know that you feel that way - which is why I never feel bad poking you in the eye - you like most of your 'brothers in arms' can't feel it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What's really beautiful is that I am correct, and I explain it so that it's very understandable. I even give examples of reality.

Take your best shot. Tell me how you can recreate 1 kg of mass from the energy that comes from a 1 kg mass.

Let's hear Einstein's version of how perpetual motion is possible, which is exactly what he is saying. Let's hear his version of how he turns water into wine.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

MD: " . . . you used energy to recreate the wood, the wood can not be as original, it will be less massive. "

. . . so, you're saying, if one used "kinetic" energy, from an (yet) unobservable source (e.g., dark energy?) one COULD create new mass . . . .

Thanks for the supporting comment, MD

 

I said that even if you tried to turn energy into mass you would not be 100% efficient. Nothing is 100% efficient, as there are no free rides. Motion happens at a cost. Entropy!

 

I agree . . . no process is 100% efficient . . . it doesn't have to be 100% for a process to proceed. In the 'hypothesized' energy --> mass equilibrium process, the 'left-overs' could be a continuing (and ~ constant) CMBR source.

 

OK, so no process is 100% efficient, so basically the mass of the universe is being converted to energy, and over time the potential energy of the mass is getting less and less, because the mass is getting less dense and becoming closer to the state of equilibrium. It's basically like saying the mass of the universe is burning out. The potential energy is getting less. We are looking at the big picture. It doesn't matter if you can squeeze a sponge and make it more dense, the bottom line is that in order to squeeze a sponge and make it more dense you had to convert mass to energy. The potential energy of the universe gets less every time you squeeze the sponge. If you squeezed the sponge enough there would be no potential energy left in the universe, and you wouldn't be able to squeeze the sponge anymore.

As the mass of the universe gets less dense the potential energy goes down. The universe is becoming closer to being in equilibrium with its environment, which is the surrounding space (volume) in the big picture.

 

So if it is impossible to make mass then how did it come to be?