swansont Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 As yet I have not heard, how to transform energy into a matter You have to actually read the first dozen or so posts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlamir Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Swansont, I have. It is necessary a lot of energy to create one small particle of substance – one atom at least. One process is known. It is photosynthesis, but it has very low speed. Perhaps, it is possible to create atom from photons (not EM-waves). For example, to strike by four pulses from four powerful lasers into one point of empty space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlamir Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Just I have received a short explanation in Russian forum "Membrana": The EM-field (Å and Í) of photon is solenoidal (tubular and two-componental). Vector lines are closed, i.e. the photon has tubular structure. Photon is stationary, therefore the hypothetical observer should see stationary òîð from vector lines. The observer should see an electron, as the spiral, which is winded on torus ring, i.e. an electron (and any lepton) is a geometry of vector lines as a spiral from a magnetic field. Accordingly, the positron is winded on torus ring in the opposite direction. The photon is simply torus ring from a magnetic field. Trajectory of a free photon – a geodetic straight line. A trajectory of photon in electron – a circle. A trajectory of photon in baryon – a spiral, which is winded on torus ring, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajhill Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Breezing through this thread, I noticed a good deal of confusion about the issue of creating matter from energy. As several messages pointed out, the effect has not been demonstrated in the laboratory on a macroscopic scale because of the immense amounts of energy required (E=mc*c). However, pair production is observed routinely in the laboratory for photons, as well as for neutrinos, both massless particles. (Well, almost, in the case of neutrinos.) This process is, in fact, the basis for neutrino detection in the large neutrino observatories currently located or being constructed in the U.S., Japan, Antarctica .... Again, because of energy constraints, electron-positron pair production is most common, because these leptons are the lightest (stable) particles known, but heavier particle/antiparticle pair production is frequently observed by photons produced in high energy cosmic ray collisions. The "Star Trek" type of interstellar drive mentioned by Severian was first analyzed by a physicist named Miguel Alcubierre. While the "graviton" mechanism for generating the space-time warping is, I suspect, an embellishment added by the Star Trek writers, the principle of circumventing Einstein's speed limitation is valid. Objects cannot exceed the speed of light within the local space-time continuum, but, if that continuum's metric is somehow changed relative to the surroundings (i.e.: shortened in the volume of space immediately ahead of a spacecraft and lengthened behind it) then the vehicle can travel "faster" then light relative to distant objects, even while remaining motionless in its own local space-time. A similar circumvention of the Einstein limit is integral to the "inflation" hypothesis in cosmology, which explains the homogeneity of space over distances beyond the "light cone." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Swansont, I have. It is necessary a lot of energy to create one small particle of substance – one atom at least. One process is known. It is photosynthesis, but it has very low speed. Perhaps, it is possible to create atom from photons (not EM-waves). For example, to strike by four pulses from four powerful lasers into one point of empty space. Photosynthesis, low speed? This is not an example of creating an atom. Photons are EM radiation, and there is no "perhaps" about it. This is precisely what was discussed in the posts to which I referred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlamir Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Swansont, four questions to you: Mass is property of substance. Yes or no? The Sun radiates photons and at that loses own mass. Yes or no? The Earth absorbs photons and at that increases own mass. Yes or no? Photosynthesis is there is one of processes of absorption of photons. Yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Photosynthesis does not "turn photons into mass", so it really doesn't matter how you put together the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Swansont' date=' four questions to you:Mass is property of substance. Yes or no? The Sun radiates photons and at that loses own mass. Yes or no? The Earth absorbs photons and at that increases own mass. Yes or no? Photosynthesis is there is one of processes of absorption of photons. Yes or no?[/quote'] Yes to all. If you READ THE POSTS you would see that my argument has been that increasing mass is not the creation of matter, unless you have specifically defined the problem that way. I was viewing it as an increase in the number of massive particles. I don't think of any reshuffling of existing massive particles as creating matter. That's how I was defining the quantification. Which you would have seen if you had already READ THE POSTS. Your previous statement implied that photosynthesis creates atoms, which it doesn't, and also said it has "a very low speed" to which I responded I don't know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlamir Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 During millions years on the surface of the Earth photons fall. Cells of alive and flora absorb these photons. Really, are you firmly convinced, that this energy has disappeared completely? Then let's talk about other hypothesis of transformation of energy. Let's consider non–relativistic model of uniformly accelerated motion of electron in vacuum. Now I participate in Russian forum "Membrana", where we consider some offers on the geometrical shape of electron. Most frequently, authors of various hypotheses express opinion, that the electron has the shape of a ring of some energy. Energy goes along a ring with speed of light. Transverse oscillations of energy create electromagnetic effect. As you know, I support this idea. Besides, as I already spoke, I consider vacuum, as motionless time. In electric field such ring is oriented by the axis along the direction of force lines of electric field. In process of increase of speed of the ring there is a vector addition of two speeds – speed of the ring and speed of energy in the ring. But as speed of electromagnetic radiation in vacuum is a constant, hence, speed of energy in the ring will decrease (the ring, as though, rotates against movement of energy). This phenomenon is proved by transverse Doppler’s effect. In other words, the time in the ring will be slow down. When the ring–electron will achieve speed of light in vacuum, it … will disappear. Energy will be converted into vacuum, i.e. into the motionless time. At the same moment, to keep balance of energies and symmetry, from the parallel world of the motionless time the antiparticle of electron will be thrown into our world of the motionless space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 During millions years on the surface of the Earth photons fall. Cells of alive and flora absorb these photons. Really, are you firmly convinced, that this energy has disappeared completely? If by "firmly convinced that this energy has" you mean "perfectly aware that it hasn't", then yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 During millions years on the surface of the Earth photons fall. Cells of alive and flora absorb these photons. Really, are you firmly convinced, that this energy has disappeared completely? I'm firmly convinced that energy is conserved. (So, that would be a "No.") Then let's talk about other hypothesis of transformation of energy. Oh, let's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlamir Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Oh' date=' let's not.[/quote'] What a pity! I hoped to find interlocutors for discussion of two questions: Would it be possible to create matter from energy? Would it be possible to create anti-matter from energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 What a pity! I hoped to find interlocutors for discussion of two questions:Would it be possible to create matter from energy? Would it be possible to create anti-matter from energy? What discussion? The answer is yes. It's been talked about in the previous posts. READ THEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Despite any laziness or denial going on, this question has been answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts