[No Matter]

How can we turn mass/object to energy?

I know that E = MC^2 but I have some questions:
1)What process should the object go through in order to all of his mass be turned into energy(for example if we posses a stone how would we turn it to energy -theoretically- does it need to walk in the speed of light or what?)?
2)Does the human race posses a method of doing so today?
3)If not when do you think it would be?

Any help would be highly appreciated.

[Daedalus]

1.) You would need to expose the stone to antimatter until every atom and subatomic particle is annihilated.

2.) Yes... but it would not be cost effective or practicle to create the amount of antimatter needed (see antimatter weapon).

3.) We will have to develop better techniques for creating antimatter which is not in the near future.

This post has been edited by Daedalus: 13 December 2011 - 01:20 AM

[JustinW]

A question that keeps popping up lately. If Energy equals Mass at twice the SOL, then would any mass turn into a form of energy once it reaches twice the SOL?

[imatfaal]

JustinW, on 16 December 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

A question that keeps popping up lately. If Energy equals Mass at twice the SOL, then would any mass turn into a form of energy once it reaches twice the SOL?

No - E = mc² is a statement of maths and shows how the two ideas are related, it is not the description of a necessary process; additionally, massive objects cannot travel at lightspeed, let alone twice light speed; and finally - it isn't 2c, its c²

[JustinW]

Ah, thank you for the correction. But I disagree about massive objects not being able to travel at the speed of light. Isn't the popular model of universe expansion directed towards expansion at similar speeds. And even though I was mixed up on c2, the question still remains. Does energy hold mass? And doesn't mass only exist because of energy? And if you were able to project mass to c2, would it then turn into some form of energy? physical process? And I know it can't be done, and there is probably no known answer to the question.

[StringJunky]

The cosmological expansion is an increase in space or distance between non-gravitationally bound objects ie between superclusters. The superclusters are stationary relative to the expansion...they experience no acceleration caused by it. You need to gen up on the balloon model.



This animation shows an expanding universe model with yellow blobs for galaxies and moving, redshifting photons. The animation starts at a redshift of 3 when the Universe was 4 times smaller than it is now, and finishes at the present. Taken literally, the ratio of the radius of the "balloon" to the Hubble distance c/Ho implies an Omega = 2 currently and Omega = 1.14 at z = 3. Note that the galaxies do not expand: bound systems are not affected by the expansion of the Universe. Also note that the speed of light relative to the nearby galaxies is a constant - if your browser is properly using the duration values in the animated GIF file.

http://astro.ucla.ed...t/balloon0.html

[Appolinaria]

Aren't they accelerating, though?

[StringJunky]

Appolinaria, on 16 December 2011 - 07:58 PM, said:

Aren't they accelerating, though?

If you mean astronomical bodies...no. They don't move because space is created between them. Apparently, the rate of increase in distance between bodies is not bound by any speed limit like moving massive objects are.

This post has been edited by StringJunky: 16 December 2011 - 09:25 PM

[Fish 40]

Is the proof that space is being created the fact that relativity is proven, therefore expansion must be due to space being stretched/created, otherwise the galaxy movement would violate relativity?

[keep_talking]

I thought an object with mass could never fully reach the speed of light?

[swansont]

keep_talking, on 9 January 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

I thought an object with mass could never fully reach the speed of light?

It can't. But space is not an object with mass.

[keep_talking]

swansont, on 9 January 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

It can't. But space is not an object with mass.

Space does not contain mass, this is correct. But the OP said how can we turn an object (assuming all objects have mass) into energy.

He suggested that the stone needed to move at the speed of light in order for this to happen. That is what I was referring too.

[swansont]

keep_talking, on 9 January 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Space does not contain mass, this is correct. But the OP said how can we turn an object (assuming all objects have mass) into energy.

He suggested that the stone needed to move at the speed of light in order for this to happen. That is what I was referring too.

(It wasn't clear to me which post you were referencing.) The idea that an object moving at the speed of light becomes energy, or that this is required, is a misconception that is all too common. You are absolutely correct that this is not possible, and not required, under relativity.

[ThomasFarley]

-Nevermind, misread it-

This post has been edited by ThomasFarley: 14 January 2012 - 02:28 PM

[Widdekind]

Daedalus, on 12 December 2011 - 11:22 PM, said:

1.) You would need to expose the stone to antimatter until every atom and subatomic particle is annihilated.

2.) Yes... but it would not be cost effective or practicle to create the amount of antimatter needed (see antimatter weapon).

3.) We will have to develop better techniques for creating antimatter which is not in the near future.

Assume that anti-matter must be created, by some process which converts available energy, into anti-matter. If you could create that conversion, with 100% efficiency, then your anti-matter would, including cost-of-production, be no more energy-efficient, than the process, with which you generated your anti-matter.

Er go, anti-matter would plausibly make a "super-potent, super-expensive rocket fuel", for specialized systems, e.g. military. However, anti-matter would not plausibly be a generally applicable power source, needing (assumedly) a prior, pre-required power-source "up-production-stream".