You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I was reading the post E=MC2 and was wondering about one of the comments that matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter. Matter can be burned to create or release energy but how can energy become matter?
I know a plant uses light to make sugar, reptiles absorb heat to move, human skin absorbs UV rays and make vitamins but it seems to me that none of these organic forms are actually changing the energy into matter. They are simply absorbing it.
So is there something I am not thinking of? Some way that energy (EMR) is converted to matter?
Offline
No no there is no matter/energy conversion in any of these examples... they are all because of chemical processes, where atoms are rearranged - not created/destroyed/alterd - which releases or absorbs energy.
When you bond two atoms together, this bonding stores a certain amount of energy. Now if the atoms bonded one way that stores alot of energy, like the atoms in paper and the air, and then these atoms undergo reaction to form ash and carbon dioxide with a lower amount of stored bond energy, the difference in energy is released.
The form in which it is released or absorbs depends on the nature of the bond and the chemical reaction. Combustion usually releases it as thermal energy and light, whereas plants use light to make chemicals with a higher net bond energy (sugar) from substances with less, thus storing energy.
Only nuclear processies and matter/antimatter anniliation actually cause the conversion of matter into energy that you may encounter in everyday life.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
That's largely true but chemical processes do result in matter<->energy conversion as well. I'm not certain if it's actually been experimentally observed but the products of combustion whould weigh a tiny bit less than the products. Some of the mass is lost in the thermal energy that's released. The same mass loss occurs in nuclear reactions but is actually noticeable because of the much larger quantity of energy being released.
Offline
Ummmm no its not SBird... you might be thinking of an isotropic shift of some sort. Only nuclear reactions cause this change of mass, due to the change of nucleii binding energy.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I think SBird is right. It is just that the change in mass for chemical reactions is so tiny that it would be hard to detect even with sensitive detectors.
Offline
Sbird,
Some of the mass is lost in the thermal energy that's released.
Correct!
Energy has mass!!!!!!! Mass Has energy!!!!!!
Offline
GCNRevenger - Here's the first of several links I dound by doing a Google on chemical reaction mass energy conversion.
[http://www.chemsoc.org/exemplarchem/ent … page05.htm]link
The mass loss in a 100 kcal/mol reaction ends up being something like 10^-11 of the original reaction mass. It's way too small to measure with any existing instrument but conservation of mass/energy requires that even chemical reactions lose some mass.
ERRORIST - no, that's still not correct. Mass can BECOME energy and energy can BECOME mass but they're not the same thing. Mass doesn't have energy and energy does not have rest mass, as I've said at least 3 times to you.
Offline
Mmmm that depends on how the chemical bonds store their energy. If you call that mass because it isn't kenetic energy, then that would be a plausable statement.
Errorist, if you say this statement any more, I am going to say bad things that might get me kicked off this board. ENOUGH.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Ok, A certain amount of mass has a certain amount of energy and a certain amount of energy has a certain amount of mass. Is this better? Try to control yourself here GCNRevenger.
Don't lose it.
Offline
NO, this is not correct. You are being thick-headed and obstinate Errorist.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Ok, X amount of Mass = X amount of energy. Also, X amount of energy = X amount of mass.
Try to control yourself here GCNRevenger.
Don't lose it.
Offline
Errorist, there are now roughly one hundred posts spread over multiple threads that clearly say that your idea of the mass/energy duality based on conversion is nonsense. Simply restating your idea in different ways or inventing crazy applications does not constitute discussion. Since this is a discussion board and you are not discussing, your posts are therefore a waste of NewMars reasources AND our time and patience.
Unless you can clearly show how your rediculus discredited idea is right or disprove how the prevailing theory is wrong, you have no further reason nor right to post about this topic any more, any place, any time. Its time for YOU to control yourself and stop posting about this topic.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Ok think of it this way. The universe has X amount of mass. It is a finite number. This amount of mass has a X amount of energy in it. Conversly, the universe has X amount of energy in it. It is also a finite number. Therefore, this amount of energy has X amount of mass. Don't get bent out of shape over it! But it is true. It looks like there could be some average number to it,also.
Offline
ERRORIST! No more! Stop, cease, desist, can it.
Lets look at your contribution to the board over the past page or so...
You have now said the same exact thing four seperate times. Why? You have said this exact same statement in different wording a dozen times on various threads, even though other obviously better educated and versed members have shown that it is incorrect. Why? Saying the same thing over and over again, adding variables, ignoring equations, is worthless... hence, your posts are worthless, so you should stop making them.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Perhaps, in a few centennials you may understand.Sorry!!
Offline
Ahhh, call some quanity mass-energy and be done with it. It could be measured in Joles, killograms or some other quantity.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
I think that the most salient point is whether arguing with ERRORIST on this subject after hundreds of posts have clearly shown the futility of doing so is a good use of one's time...
Offline
Of course not. But do you come here to best ustalize your time anyway?
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Of course not. But do you come here to best ustalize your time anyway?
In the interest of utilizing my time to the best of my ability I've spent 1/2 an hour browsing New Mars, maybe an hour looking through emails, newsgroups etc., and for some reason only ten minutes looking for data on BSE/vCJD that I'm trying badly to write an article on.
Perhaps I should plan what threads to read in future :;):
There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
--Arthur Buller--
Offline
Well, there's wasting time in an educational and enjoyable way - which I would argue is not wasting time at all. Then there's wasting time. I'd say that GCNRevenger's doing the latter but who knows, maybe he enjoys debating with ERRORIST. Offhand, though, I'd say it's fairly safe to say that's not the case.
Offline
Yeah the whole "maybe in a century or two you'll understand" cinches it for me... waste of time.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Pages: 1