If matter is the same as energy, then...

Magical Realist

Magical Realist

Valued Senior Member
...what accounts for the difference between matter and energy? Why iow do they have different properties and obey different laws in these two different states? How do we conceive of that which is both matter and energy? Can matter be matter AND energy at the same time? Would plasma be an example of such? Signed, Just Curious..


5317145901_7ee2fd6e25_z.jpg
 
If you follow Einstein's Equation E=Mc^2 (where E is energy of mass M and c is speed of light), you will find the difference between mass and energy; though they are equivalent with the constant factor c^2.

It is the strong nuclear force which gives the mass/matter its property of inertia.
 
Consider the equation : $$E^2=(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2$$

If a particle is moving close to c, the $$pc$$ dominates and it behaves more like radiation. If it is moving more slowly, the $$m_0c^2$$, its rest energy, dominates, and it behaves more like matter.
 
And this image on a UOregon site looks quite similar to the one above:

space_time_energy.gif



Space-time and Mass-energy equivalence combine to give the curving of space-time by mass-energy, aka General Relativity
 
Your difficulty is a very basic one. Matter and energy are not the same thing.
 
If you think of how hard it is to convert one to the other, you'll notice that there is a huge barrier between them. Matter to energy takes a nuke and the reverse takes a collider. That barrier is what keeps all hell from breaking loose.
 
ChessMaster said:
Though loosely speaking, they are different forms of each other through a conversion factor.
Click to expand...

VERY loosely. A room full of hydrogen and oxygen is very different from room full of water. I guess you could say they are different forms of each other separated by a spark. But to say they are the same thing is incorrect.

Diamonds and ardvarks are both made of the protons, neutrons and electrons but a diamond and and ardvark are not the same.
 
Yes, but this is why a conversion factor is required, especially one of such huge magnitude (c^2). People generally agree that mass is nothing but a compressed form of energy while energy is a diffused type of matter. Using a more quantum mechanical definition, matter appears as a fluctuation of a goldstone boson from a mexican hat potential.
 
ChessMaster said:
People generally agree that mass is nothing but a compressed form of energy ...
Click to expand...

They do?

I noticed that your ramblings in the alternative theory section looked just like the ramblings of a fellow named reiku - most curious.
 
ChessMaster said:
People generally agree that mass is nothing but a compressed form of energy
Click to expand...

Hmm. No one I know thinks matter is "nothing but a compressed form of energy."

while energy is a diffused type of matter.
Click to expand...

Matter and energy really aren't interchangeable. Under the right conditions you can convert one to the other, but that doesn't mean that they are identical.
 
Billvon, it is generally considered that matter is a form of condensed energy. This has been in the literature for a very long time - the conversion factor in E=mc^2 proves that matter releases huge amounts of energy if you manage to split an atom. If matter was not a condensed form of energy, then you wouldn't have a massive amount of energy come from it. Energy is therefore a diffused type of matter at the expense of the conversion factor.

I advise you to read the book E=Mc^2 by David Bodanis who explains this very well.
 
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."--Albert Einstein
 
Magical Realist said:
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."--Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
ChessMaster said:
Billvon, it is generally considered that matter is a form of condensed energy. This has been in the literature for a very long time - the conversion factor in E=mc^2 proves that matter releases huge amounts of energy if you manage to split an atom.
Click to expand...

"Splitting an atom" does not release 1/2M*C^2 amount of energy. It actually releases a tiny fraction - about .1% - of the atom's mass. The only way you can get total conversion is with something like matter-antimatter annihilation, but we don't have any antimatter (and in fact it is incredibly rare in the universe.)

If matter was not a condensed form of energy, then you wouldn't have a massive amount of energy come from it.
Click to expand...

Matter is no more a "condensed form of energy" than gasoline is a "condensed form of fire" or bananas are a "condensed form of human children." Sure, you can convert tiny amounts of mass to energy with the right inputs and the right conditions, just as you can convert gasoline to fire in the presence of oxygen and high temperature, and just as you can convert bananas to human tissue through digestion. None of that implies equality.
 
You don't seem to have a clue about physics Billvon, or at least if you do, you don't seem to know much about the literature behind E=Mc^2.

Einstein said himself, if you missed the quote from our fellow poster. They are equivalent through a conversion factor. If you don't like that, I can't help you.

''"Splitting an atom" does not release 1/2M*C^2 amount of energy.''


I never said did it. Why have you got a 1/2 factor in the Mc^2?

Plug in the value for any quantity of mass you would like, even down to an atom. It releases a lot of energy. Do you know how to do that? It is just a matter of putting some numbers into the mass term, multiply that by the large number of the speed of light squared and viola! You may begin to understand.


edit: Splitting the atom doesn't mean we are halving the energy. It means that the mass which made the atoms transforms into an a very large amount of energy.


second edit: And yes, I am much more willing to believe all the professionals who have went out their way to explain that energy is a diffused form of matter and that matter is a concentrated form of energy. ''Concentrated'' mean there is a lot of it in a reduced form. E=Mc^2 has proven this time and time again. You are spouting pseudoscience if you disagree with this.
 
ChessMaster said:
You don't seem to have a clue about physics Billvon
Click to expand...

Of course! I find that there is a small set of people here who decide that I "don't have a clue" whenever I disagree with their beliefs. Ironically they are the same group of people who think I am a smart guy when I agree with them.

edit: Splitting the atom doesn't mean we are halving the energy.
Click to expand...

Correct! You are just converting some of that mass into energy. Fission is one way to do it. Fusion is another. Burning (oxidation) is yet a third. And still gasoline is not the same as fire.

And yes, I am much more willing to believe all the professionals who have went out their way to explain that energy is a diffused form of matter and that matter is a concentrated form of energy.
Click to expand...

That's fine! Believe whatever you like. Lots of people here have very strong beliefs.

E=Mc^2 has proven this time and time again. You are spouting pseudoscience if you disagree with this.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I am disagreeing with your claim that matter is "nothing but a compressed form of energy." Equivalency != equality.
 
billvon said:
I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I am disagreeing with your claim that matter is "nothing but a compressed form of energy." Equivalency != equality.
Click to expand...

There is an equality, with a conversion factor. I don't know how many times one needs to be told this! Einstein himself said the exact same thing!
 
ChessMaster said:
There is an equality, with a conversion factor. I don't know how many times one needs to be told this! Einstein himself said the exact same thing!
Click to expand...

So you believe matter is equal to energy?

Is fire equal to gasoline? Are children equal to bananas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top