What is the difference between matter and energy? Is matter a classification of energy?

e=mc²

 

Energy is the ability to do work, matter is a form of energy.

Matter is a good way to store a lot of energy in a small stable configuration. It's why the universe has lasted so long. Without it the big bang would have dissapated into a homogenous cloud of plasma and there would be 14 billion light years of sparks. Maybe?

Just aman

The Big Bang did dissipate into a homogenous cloud of plasma, then after about 300,000,000 years, matter started condensing.

What I'm suggesting is that if matter was not this wonderful accident of nature, then entropy would have happened very quickly and the universe would have been a dud, but energy somehow got locked up in organized stable structures and were not sure exactly why yet. Waxing philosophic.

Just aman

I have heard mass/energy being referred to as both matter. I don't understand the definition of matter.

Energy doesn't have mass; it isn't matter.

Although the two interwind to an extent when u deal with wave particle duality where things display properties of both, like electrons have a measureable mass yet diffracting around atoms, or photons being affected by gravity yet having no measureable mass.

Thats because gravity warps space-time; mass is not required.

True, a better example of photons behaving like particles would be the compton effect where photons appear to colide elastically with electrons where the momentum, p, = hf / c

Originally posted by fafalone

Thats because gravity warps space-time; mass is not required.

 

Why, may I ask, isn't mass required?

 

It is required, for space-time to be warped. Think of a singularity/blackhole. When they're infinitely dense, they contain an infinite amount of mass. Hence, warping space-time. Otherwise, space-time wouldd be warped without the presence of "anything".

Light waves follow a straight path; locally it's straight, but to an observer its actually warped. The shortest distance from one point to another is not always a straight line. In order for a wave to compensate for a curvature in spacetime, it would have to change course, that simply doesn't happen in a vacuum.

But there isn't such a thing as a perfect vacuum. There are just mediums, so is it possible in mediums like this universe?

Energy can be stored in systems.like forces acting on an object is energy.

not stationary........A ball dropped from a height has Kinetic Energy when acclelrating and in turn loses an equal amount of Potential energy.

Sunlight is energy,as is coal.Empty space has least energy,and the sun has alot.E does not equal mc^2 however as one day the sun will burn out,i assume.What is the energy of a pile of rubble? It doesn't have any.

Energy can be stored in systems.like forces acting on an object is energy.

not stationary........A ball dropped from a height has Kinetic Energy when acclelrating and in turn loses an equal amount of Potential energy.

Sunlight is energy,as is coal.Empty space has least energy,and the sun has alot.E does not equal mc^2 however as one day the sun will burn out,i assume.What is the energy of a pile of rubble? It doesn't have any.

 

 

E=mc^2 holds. The caveat is that it doesn't guarantee that there is a reaction where all of the mass can be converted into other forms.

 

What if that pile of rubble is a nuclear reactor core?

e=mc²

 

Energy is the ability to do work, matter is a form of energy.

Matter is the ability to do work?

 

Follows the logic.

I would say mass is any form of energy traveling slower than the speed of light.

I would say mass is any form of energy traveling slower than the speed of light.

Would that definition of mass include plasma?

I think so. If plasma was moving at c, it would become energy, right?

I think so. If plasma was moving at c, it would become energy, right?

 

A plasma couldn't move at c, since it's comprised of massive, charged particles.

 

The idea that matter becomes energy when it moves at c is misguided. No such transformation takes place. "Would become" needs to be "Would have to become," and even then there are issues with the claim. (e.g. equating photons with energy)

Here is an easy-to-read essay by Frank Wilczek(who got the nobelprice 2004 for his work on quark confinement) related to this.

 

He notes that to an accuracy of 95% all mass is simply a form of "confined energy". The rest masses of quarks en electrons in ordinary mass is a small part. The mass of the neutron and proton in the atom nucleus are reduced to basically confined massless gluons, the quark rest masses beeing a minor part. Certainly the question is open regarding the remaining 5% but it's a good essay.

 

"The Origin of Mass"

--http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty_documents/wilczek_p@m03_FINAL.pdf

 

Wilczek also has a new (non-mathematical) book, "Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces"

-- http://www.amazon.com/Lightness-Being-Ether-Unification-Forces/dp/0465003214

 

that has been discussed here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36035

 

/Fredrik

Edited December 28, 200817 yr by fredrik

"Would become" needs to be "Would have to become," and even then there are issues with the claim. (e.g. equating photons with energy)

 

That makes more sense.

Energy can move at C, but mass can't. Since C is faster than less than C, mass is energy slowed to below C. If we assume the universe was originally energy, energy had to slow to below C, or mass would not be able to exist.

 

The question is, how can energy be slowed to below C to make mass? We can make matter and anti-matter from energy. This is one way to slow energy to below C. The two anti-particles step out of C-hyperdrive and slow into matter and anti-matter. From there they will either accelerate back into C-hyperdrive or if they are isolated, will shed the amniotic energy and slow more.

I like the idea that mass could be state of 'light' just like we have different states of matter (liquid, solid, gas).

 

Where:

 

Hadrons (quarks) are the most condensed state of energy (solid, 3D)

 

Leptons (i.e. electrons) are considered the (liquid state, 2D) of energy/mass

 

Bosons (i.e. photons) are the most energetic (gas state, 1D)

Edited December 30, 200817 yr by gre

Energy can move at C, but mass can't. Since C is faster than less than C, mass is energy slowed to below C. If we assume the universe was originally energy, energy had to slow to below C, or mass would not be able to exist.

 

No, not really. We slow light propagation down below c and it doesn't become mass. As I stated before, this whole exercise of equation energy and photons is flawed. Photons aren't synonymous with energy, and vice-versa.

 

The question is, how can energy be slowed to below C to make mass? We can make matter and anti-matter from energy. This is one way to slow energy to below C. The two anti-particles step out of C-hyperdrive and slow into matter and anti-matter. From there they will either accelerate back into C-hyperdrive or if they are isolated, will shed the amniotic energy and slow more.

 

Hyperdrive? Amniotic energy? I'm afraid I will need some references.