• This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).

    If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
    1. the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
    2. the thread will be closed to further posts.
    3. the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
    Thank you for understanding.​

Energy becoming Matter: examples please?

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
One often hears how "energy and matter are interchangeable" etc ... and I understand the part where stars fuse hydrogen into energy, bombs fuse plutonium into disturbingly loud bangs, etc ...

But I'm having a brain-lock at the moment, so can someone help here?

Could anyone give me a few real-world examples of energy spontaneously becoming matter?

I started to tell someone that the Big Bang was an example of that, but then I thought: well, can anyone back that up with anything but assumption and "theory" ???

We cannot say what form of energy existed pre-Big Bang until we work out the Theory Of Everything, right? No one understands how the cosmic forces and energies were unified, so we cannot use Big Bang as an example.

Is Vacuum Energy an example of matter being created from nothing, or is it just energy (and the example demands actual matter, some "we can build something out of this and use it as a paperweight" sort of matter)

So ... are energy and matter interchangeable in the real world, or does it just work nicely on a blackboard equation ... but doesn't seem to actually happen in the real world?

Anyone gots examples of energy-becomes-matter ???
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
You aren't likely to find examples of energy spontaneously converting to matter here on earth.

The main reason is the ENORMOUS amounts of energy that is equivalent to a single gram of matter. Those amounts of energy aren't found easily.

It's amazing the things that occur in nature (we even have a natural nuclear reactor here in Australia) but I'd be surprised if you can find an example locally.

Mac
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
You aren't likely to find examples of energy spontaneously converting to matter here on earth.

Oh, well, maybe I was too vague when I wrote 'real world example' ...

I mean, an example from anywhere in the Universe! Black hole stuff (Hawking radiation? Or is that still just theory and not demonstrated yet?) or any sort of cosmic event or some particle that exists longer than some annoyingly billionthof a billionth of a second before it stops, looks around, says "What the hell good is this reality?" and moves on to another universe? :)

It just chilled me to think I couldn't give an example of a scientific "fact" I'd never really questioned: if energy and matter are interchangeable, when did anyone ever see it happening in both directions? Never?

Anyway ... I just meant 'real world' in the sense of non-theory, I didn't mean to limit the examples to "occurring on planet Earth"
 

kdnxdr

One of the most important people in the world
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,900
Reaction score
843
Location
near to Dogwood Missouri
Website
steadydrip.blogspot.com
I know absolutely nothing about this sort of thing but I thought I would give it my best guess. The first thing that came to mind was volcanoes, maybe something to do with gases. The second thing that came to mind was a supercollider and how they can derive subparticles of matter from atoms, or am I making that up?

Hope you get some real answers.

kid
 

brer

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
313
photosynthesis. (Think plants.)
And there are chemical processes that add energy to one set of molecules to convert them to another set.
And there are nuclear-type processes that add energy (photons) to like isotopes or stuff or like create something that has more total energy or something, err, I'm lost. sorry ... But then I'm always lost.

Could anyone give me a few real-world examples of energy spontaneously becoming matter?
Oh, sorry. I didn't answer your question. For some reason I thought you wanted an example of energy to matter conversion (i.e., photon absorption).

I guess you want something like those funny experiments where photons travel through a funny fog and then sometimes the photons disappear and there are a pair of short paths which indirectly indicate the temporary existence of charged particles, or something like that? Nope, I haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about. Yeah, I'm too lazy to google. ... nothing like a lazy Friday Night.
 
Last edited:

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
Photosynthesis ... hmmm. Didn't think of that.

Would the physics-wise among us agree with that as being a useful example then?

Or is photosynthesis something more like using energy to convert one form of matter (rain, soil, etc) into another form of matter (flowers, sugars) that we eat and metabolize to grow our own bodies etc?

I was thinking more along the lines of a future science that could build its civilization out of sunlight (well, you know, some sort of high-hallucinatin' sort of sci-fi image ;)) ... but if you guys think photosynthesis is a valid example, that's cool too!

Is photosynthesis actually energy becoming matter, or just energy powering a change of matter into different matter?

Or am I losing myself in a false distinction there?

Anyway ... glad to hear more ideas or info about it!
 

brer

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
313
photosynthesis = The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using light as an energy source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a byproduct.

Fine. I'm too tired to do anything meaningful. :)

photosynthesis basically "absorbs" photons, which is a form of raw energy, kinda. So the resulting molecules have more chemical energy. I guess. Whatca think, that sound kinda okayee?

Mass is a relatively stable way to store energy. A nucleus can absorb energy (photons) and thus increase in mass. Its mass (weight) increases. A proton plus an electron plus photons (energy) equals a neutron. i.e., A neutron has more mass than the sum of a proton plus an electron. So, a neutron has more "energy" than the sum of those other two ... and, err, ya can kinda get a fission if ya go far enough in that direction, when some of the "bonding" mass is converted back to energy (photons). i.e., "boom." A nuclear explosion via a fission bomb. (Ya kind get booms via a fusion process, too.)

Is this what ya looking for?

Careful. There a hawks on all lines. Men in bland outfits might visit ya now. Or men with funny english and bad hats might visit ya too. :eek:
 
Last edited:

brer

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
313
Is photosynthesis actually energy becoming matter, or just energy powering a change of matter into different matter?

Yep. And, yep.

i.e., yes to both of your questions there.
 

brer

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
313
Would the physics-wise among us agree with that as being a useful example then?

What's gym class got to do with this? :Shrug:

... err, just kidding. :D ... gym class is physical education class is "Phyz-Ed Class" is physics class ... yeah, bad joke. sorry.
 
Last edited:

brer

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
313
Or is photosynthesis something more like using energy to convert one form of matter (rain, soil, etc + CO2 ) into another form of matter (flowers, sugars) that we eat and metabolize to grow our own bodies etc?

Yea, I guess ya could think of it like that. That animals basically convert high energy types of matter into low energy types of matter, and that process (mostly chemical) releases energy which we need to power ourselves.

Plants do the opposite. They convert low energy types of matter, by combining them with photons (energy, which could be sunlight), and thus produce the high energy types of matter, which we animals need--see above paragraph.

Well, kinda, generally, this post is kinda true. ...
(... but, but .... a little voice says, but, proteins are a source of high energy, ain't them better than plant food? Get lost little voice, get lost.)
 
Last edited:

DocBrown

Hopes to one day write for food.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
1,433
Reaction score
254
Location
In the foothills of nowhere...
Using sunlight in the photosynthesis process to create matter seems a bit suspect in terms of creating energy into matter, but I am no biologist so I have no counterargument if people seem to think that is the case. I just don't know enough about the process to be able to tell for sure.

I am surprised that everyone has missed the obvious in terms of transferring matter into energy, i.e. Radioactive decay.

Isotopes release electromagnetic energy when the nucleus breaks down into simpler elements.

EDIT: OOPS! Sorry, it is late. I misread the title and original post. I thought people were looking for both energy to mass and mass to energy examples.

EDIT 2: Upon further consideration, since matter and energy are interchangeable, if you want an example of energy being converted to mass you don't really need to look any further than your stove top. Heating up a pan will increase the temperature and thus increase it's mass as well.

To see this, merely pretend the pan is a closed system and recognize that as you add heat you're increasing the total energy of the pan. Since matter and energy are interchangeable the mass must also increase. Of course, it would be on a scale far too small to measure, but the mass would nonetheless increase.
 
Last edited:

oscuridad

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
378
Reaction score
52
put enough energy into some matter and it will liberate into more energy - striking a match for example
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
Heating up a pan will increase the temperature and thus increase it's mass as well.

To see this, merely pretend the pan is a closed system and recognize that as you add heat you're increasing the total energy of the pan. Since matter and energy are interchangeable the mass must also increase. Of course, it would be on a scale far too small to measure, but the mass would nonetheless increase.
This isn't right. Being able to convert one from the other means that you can CONVERT one from the other - you don't have both at once. So if you could easily convert the energy (from the pan's heat) into matter - you wouldn't have the thermal energy anymore - it would be CONVERTED into matter. Sure, you could start quoting energy in 'grams' (which is effectively what the unitless 'natural' system does, where E=M) but it doesn't mean much.

In particle colliders, of course, we can convert energy into mass - but making a stable atom is more than just pumping energy into it ... which means that particles (or sub-particles) created last just fractions of a second.

If you want details, juts google 'Energy to Matter conversion'.

Good luck,

Mac
(PS: Unfortunately, the match example above is also wrong - it isn't a matter to energy conversion, just a chemical reaction)
 

DocBrown

Hopes to one day write for food.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
1,433
Reaction score
254
Location
In the foothills of nowhere...
Actually, you're right Mac H., I was thinking in more general terms.

Being a mathematician my view on physics needs to be corrected from time to time. I read through some material and I am now convinced that, for now, energy to matter outside of very specific conditions, is not a natural process. Which again, shows that people need to be careful when applying mathematics to real life examples. It is actually quite common for simple mathematical ideas to be used to describe something, but then something else that does not have a simple physical explanation creeps into the theory because it is valid mathematically.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
Photosynthesis ... hmmm. Didn't think of that.

Would the physics-wise among us agree with that as being a useful example then?

Or is photosynthesis something more like using energy to convert one form of matter (rain, soil, etc) into another form of matter (flowers, sugars) that we eat and metabolize to grow our own bodies etc?

I was thinking more along the lines of a future science that could build its civilization out of sunlight (well, you know, some sort of high-hallucinatin' sort of sci-fi image ;)) ... but if you guys think photosynthesis is a valid example, that's cool too!

Is photosynthesis actually energy becoming matter, or just energy powering a change of matter into different matter?

Or am I losing myself in a false distinction there?

Anyway ... glad to hear more ideas or info about it!
It's my understanding that ALL "stored" energy manifests itself as an increase in mass. Some chemical reactions release energy (burning is a classic example), and the total mass of the resulting chemicals (the CO, CO2, the ash) is less than the original materials (oxygen and wood, for example). Likewise, other chemical reactions absorb energy, and this increases the mass. This went on unnoticed for centuries because the amount of mass change is too small to be detected. I think under the right conditions with careful measurement it could perhaps be detected (I vaguely recall reading about this being done with a seed in a sealed glass environment, then with the resulting plant several months/years later), but generally, the mass change is way too small to be measured.

Nuclear reactions have a more noticable mass change because the energy involved vs. the total mass is so much greater. A uranium atom splitting/decaying into smaller atoms loses something like a tenth of one percent of its mass. Hydrogen fusing into helium (as in a Hydrogen bomb or in the center of the Sun) is much more energetic, and the resulting helium (all of these are rough figures, from my memory from many years ago) has about three percent less mass than the original hydrogen. The collision of matter and antimatter (which is real, but only extremely small amounts have been generated in particle accelerators) causes a 100 percent conversion of matter to energy.

To answer this: Is photosynthesis actually energy becoming matter, or just energy powering a change of matter into different matter? I think the answer is both. And yes, a spring under tension has more mass than the same spring without tension, because it has had energy added to it. Unfortunately, the change in mass of a typical spring is probably in the 14th decimal place, far less than the best scales can resolve. You can use Einstein's famous equation to calculate how much energy becomes how much mass, but I don't know what units to use or exactly how to do it offhand. I just know it takes a heck of a lot of energy to make a small amount of change in mass.
 

oscuridad

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
378
Reaction score
52
(PS: Unfortunately, the match example above is also wrong - it isn't a matter to energy conversion, just a chemical reaction)

I was being a bit facetious - I did not mean that this was a conversion - otherwise I guess just stepping outside to light a cigarette would not be sufficient to protect the health of your co-workers...
 

Pthom

Word butcher
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,013
Reaction score
1,207
Location
Oregon
the match example above is ... just a chemical reaction)
Once it's started, yes, but there in order for that to take place, energy has to be injected into the system--by rapidly rubbing the match head along the sand paper. Mechanical energy (friction) —> heat —> chemical reaction.

At least, I'm pretty sure that's the situation. :)
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
It's my understanding that ALL "stored" energy manifests itself as an increase in mass.
That is wrong. I'm sure there is some bad science book somewhere which has claimed it, but it is totally wrong.
Consider an example - I have a metal lump on a precision scale.

I turn on an electromagnet nearby - the metal lump now has more 'potential energy' - because, if released, it will move in the magnetic field towards the electromagnet, gaining kinetic energy.

So, in this thought experiment, the scale should show an increase in mass.

However, the AMOUNT of potential energy doesn't just depend on the strength of the magnetic field where the metal lump is - it depends on the distance the magnetic field extends to before the lump will collide with the magnet. Since there is no way for the metal lump to 'know' how far the field extends, there is no way for it to 'know' how much to increase the mass by.

Despite the fact we talk about the potential energy of an object - it is NOT actually a property of the object. It is a calculation about the remote environment as well as the object itself.

A spring under tension has more mass than the same spring without tension, because it has had energy added to it.
Again, no.


Unfortunately, the change in mass of a typical spring is probably in the 14th decimal place, far less than the best scales can resolve.
You'd be suprised.

While George Washington was president, a scientist named Cavendish was measuring the amount of gravity between two lead balls. He had to do it with a telescope outside of the building so he didn't stuff up the measurements.

Mac
 
Last edited:

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
Energy

If I remember correctly, our bodies turn matter into energy when we eat, but also turn this energy into matter as we grow.
 

JimmyB27

Hoopy frood
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
925
Age
42
Location
In the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable e
Website
destinydeceived.wordpress.com
If I remember correctly, our bodies turn matter into energy when we eat, but also turn this energy into matter as we grow.
I'm reasonably certain this is wrong. As someone mentioned up-thread, the amount of energy you get out when you transform matter is very large. Consider Einstein's famous formula e=mc², where e is the energy in joules, m is the mass in kg and c is the speed of light in m/s.
So, you eat one kilo of food, and we get e = 1 x 299,792,458². Which means that, if we are turning matter into energy, the total energy we get from one kilo of food is 89875517873681764 joules, or some 90,000 terajoules. We're talking nuclear explosion territory here.
As I understand it, what our bodies are doing when we eat is actually converting energy that is already energy into a different type of energy. We take the chemical energy stored in the food and convert it, ultimately, into kinetic energy, heat and electrical energy.
Here's an article about an experiment attempting to create matter from energy.

PS - This is all a mixture of back-of-the-envelope science and stuff I remember from books and school. In short, I may be wrong :)
 

DocBrown

Hopes to one day write for food.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
1,433
Reaction score
254
Location
In the foothills of nowhere...
If I remember correctly, our bodies turn matter into energy when we eat, but also turn this energy into matter as we grow.


No. No nuclear reactions occurring within the body. The processing of food is transferring chemical energy to thermal energy and electrical energy and so much more, but no nuclear creation or destruction of matter.
 

Ordinary_Guy

Industrial Strength
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
473
Reaction score
54
Location
Burbank, CA, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
Hooked on Physics (worked for me)

Lots of interesting observations here...

Now, I'm no physicist – I don't even play one on TV – but you might want to consider a few things as you contemplate "matter replicators" or other Star Trek-style doohickies.

We can start with Old Faithful: E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP]. Energy (in the big "E" joules) is equivalent to matter (in kilograms) times the speed of light, squared. Cool, right? We're all comfortable with that one? QFT?

If we actually pry into that equation, we realize that it's definitely not E=m. It's not a 1=1 formula. In fact, in order for energy to have become matter in the first place, it had to have a great deal more energy poured into it (hence the "c[SUP]2[/SUP]"). If you need to know more about the whole "speed of light" thing, check out this article...

What does this mean for your writing (and, for that matter, the world around you)?

It means it's a lot easier for matter to create energy than the other way around. Even when matter does create energy, it's usually only the tiniest slice being released. A fission reaction (as in "from a bomb") releases only 0.1% of plutonium's mass in the split. FYI: fusion releases only 0.5%. These are pretty big bangs.

Going the other direction is even more difficult. Even nucleosynthesis is stars isn't really creating matter from energy, it's adding energy to lighter forms of matter (hence "fusion" and not "creation").

Where, realistically, could that much energy come together to form matter? That I'm not sure, though "the Big Bang" may well have been it. On the bright side, that was a whole lotta matter and should be able to tide us over a while.

...That doesn't mean this that E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP] is only theory, though: experiments at the SLAC did in fact create something from effectively nothing in 1997 (unlike creating something from nothing in politics, which has been happening for as long as man has existed). Note, though, that a humongous amount of energy was poured into it and only a wee little particle came out of it.

End conclusion: creating matter from scratch is not trivial. Not impossible, but definitely not trivial.
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
Thanks for all the info and thoughts and discussion, everyone!

I followed up on some of the research some of you suggested, and one of the tidbits I ran across (though now I'm wondering if I wasn't delirious and imagined I read it, or rather dreamt I read it) was the statement that all of the energy our Sun produces, if converted back into matter, wouldn't add up to the mass of a cheeseburger.

Not surprisingly, hearing that confused me again (and now I cannot find that article again to re-read it) :)

I suppose talk like that would've gotten Galileo into deeper trouble with both the Church (who, let us remember, basically sentenced him to go home and stay there and eat cheeseburgers) and the cutting-edge Scientific crowd who thought the Universe revolved around the Sun attached to perfect crystal spheres!

Anyway ... thanks for the interesting ideas!
 

Red Robin

Veni Vidi Scripsi
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
120
Reaction score
18
Location
Toronto, Canada
If we actually pry into that equation, we realize that it's definitely not E=m. It's not a 1=1 formula.

I'm not sure what you mean here. E=mc2 is a linear equation. The c is a constant, so double the m and you double the E.


Where, realistically, could that much energy come together to form matter?

I've heard some people propose that in the future we will be able to aim hundreds of high energy lasers at the same point in space, and the energy density will be so high that matter and anti-matter will be produced. In that way we could produce anti-matter fuel.

I can't find any references for that, unfortunately.
 

Higgins

Banned
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
414
One often hears how "energy and matter are interchangeable" etc ... and I understand the part where stars fuse hydrogen into energy, bombs fuse plutonium into disturbingly loud bangs, etc ...

But I'm having a brain-lock at the moment, so can someone help here?

Could anyone give me a few real-world examples of energy spontaneously becoming matter?

I started to tell someone that the Big Bang was an example of that, but then I thought: well, can anyone back that up with anything but assumption and "theory" ???

We cannot say what form of energy existed pre-Big Bang until we work out the Theory Of Everything, right? No one understands how the cosmic forces and energies were unified, so we cannot use Big Bang as an example.

Is Vacuum Energy an example of matter being created from nothing, or is it just energy (and the example demands actual matter, some "we can build something out of this and use it as a paperweight" sort of matter)

So ... are energy and matter interchangeable in the real world, or does it just work nicely on a blackboard equation ... but doesn't seem to actually happen in the real world?

Anyone gots examples of energy-becomes-matter ???

Oddly enough, all of the examples in this thread so far are energy to energy conversions, except for Fusion processes in the Sun. Energy to matter conversion happens in processes (more or less by definition) in the atomic to subatomic range and not at the molecular level (eg. photosynthesis, which just re-arranges photon energy into molecular bond energy)

Energy to matter conversions are common and happen in stellar/solar fusion and also in particle colliders on earth and in thermonuclear bombs.

A nicer, more everyday example happens when a powerful packet of electromagnetic radiation (photons of a very short wavelength) as in

http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast02sep98_1.htm

hits something.


Some aspects of the Big Bang are very well known and the Standard Model works well enough to explain the cosmic abundance of Helium and possibly some Lithium isotopes:

http://kicp.uchicago.edu/~odom/compton_files/compton_lecture_01_handout.pdf
 
Last edited: