To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: The relationship between matter and energy
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Puzzling questions

supertodda
Hello,

I would like to ask the scientists out there about the relationship between matter and energy. It seems that the following is true… 1) Energy and matter exist, 2) energy cannot be created or destroyed (law of thermodynamics), 3) energy can turn into matter (particles) and then be destroyed back into energy. 4) The definition of energy is the ability to do work, more exactly Force x Distance.

Given that the above are true, my question is can energy exist if there is no matter to exert force upon?

For instance, if the universe ends up in Heat Death (all matter being turned into energy), then there is no matter to exert force on, so what happens to energy?

Philosophically, I think this is important, since we could say that matter is really just an illusion of energy.

So, this is my theory…

Perhaps the universe started in an unending field of energy, then though some random event the energy gets distorted and these distortions result in the formation of particles and as a result, the entire universe is formed (the big bang). Think of energy being a piece of unending rope and though some random fluctuations, the rope forms into a knot. On a sub atomic level, this knot would be a particle. If you took many of these tiny knots and put them as parts of a much larger knot, then you have a “universe knot” consisting of all matter and the energy trapped inside.

For my example to work philosophically, we must recognize that before the knot there is a rope (energy) and after you tie the knot there is a knot (particles/universe) and rope (energy). Since something cannot come from nothing (energy cannot be created or destroyed) we cannot say that the knot is separate from the rope, but rather an expression or state or illusion of the distorted rope.

So, the random distortion of energy creates the “universe knot” (big bang) wherein all of the laws of nature/physics are setup an obeyed – a closed system. Humans and our relationship to the universe is based off of the formation and manipulation of matter (can not observe anything unless it affects matter). So, from our point of view it is the illusion of the individual (matter) that drives our daily struggles, though ultimately we are all just manifestations of energy – I guess you could call this the oneness of the universe.

With this theory, the universe does not need a beginning, since the beginning of the universe is really just the start of the illusion that all matter is apart from energy / one another. It also gets rid of a creator and the Self for the same reasons. It respects all current laws of science since we are saying that matter is not invalid just because it is really the essence of potential energy, but rather really pretty important if you live inside the “universe knot”. Plus, the universe has a happy ending where we all get broken up back into its natural state of raw energy to go make random universes, particles, etc elsewhere.

So, that’s it. Kind of heavy I know. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
-T
Precursor562
QUOTE
energy can turn into matter (particles) and then be destroyed back into energy.


I'm not a scientist but one does not need to be to know the answer to these questions

Energy exists and matter exists. Energy doesn't turn into matter energy is the motion matter can have.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
energy can turn into matter (particles) and then be destroyed back into energy.


I'm not a scientist but one does not need to be to know the answer to these questions

Energy exists and matter exists. Energy doesn't turn into matter energy is the motion matter can have.

Given that the above are true, my question is can energy exist if there is no matter to exert force upon?


If there is no matter than there can not be any energy. Matter is a medium for energy to exists. It is the motion of matter and without such matter there is no motion so no energy. You say energy can't be created or destroyed and that is true. In order for a particle of matter of any size to slow down some other particle of matter must speed up. The sum of the energy between the two particles remain unchanged.

With that comes also that matter can not be created nor destroyed but can only change into smaller or larger forms of matter.

This is of course Particle Theory.
supertodda
QUOTE
Energy exists and matter exists. Energy doesn't turn into matter energy is the motion matter can have.


energy can turn into mass and vice versa. E=mc2 means that mass (atomic bomb, or material in the sun) can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass (like in particle colliders or during the big bang)

article relating to the question...

(sorry can't post the link, but if you google "Making mass from energy, Brown eyes at birth" then you'll find it)
Precursor562
QUOTE
energy can turn into mass and vice versa. E=mc2 means that mass (atomic bomb, or material in the sun) can be converted to energy


When a nuclear bomb goes off the Uranium or Plutonium atoms (matter) split into smaller atoms. When this happens some free particles are released and causes nearby Uranium/Plutonium atoms to split. The process is progressive for as long as there is Uranium or Plutonium. The matter is merely converted from one form of matter to another form matter. The deal is that the sum of energy the other matter has is less then the energy the uranium or plutonium had. Where did that missing energy go? EM radiation and kinetic energy.

So no the uranium or plutonium of an atomic bomb doesn't get converted into energy. It gets converted into smaller forms of matter (smaller atoms) and energy is released to other things as a result.
NoCleverName
I'm no expert on this, but I believe the end-products of a fission reaction actually do have a smaller rest mass than the original atoms ... it is this "missing mass" that is converted to gamma radiation.
supertodda
Although it may not be a totally efficient process, my only point was that matter COULD be turned into energy.

Just to clarify, if you went though this process enough times, can you turn a chunk of mass completely into energy?
Precursor562
QUOTE
I'm no expert on this, but I believe the end-products of a fission reaction actually do have a smaller rest mass than the original atoms ... it is this "missing mass" that is converted to gamma radiation.


What do you think that gamma radiation is. It's a neutron, a particle that has mass. Now unless you go with an atom being the smallest form of matter and that anything smaller than this is no longer matter that sure. I prefer to go with that all matter has mass and therefore any physical thing (particle) that has mass (all should) is matter. Energy is merely the motion/vibration that matter has. Even at absolute zero particles will still vibrate and it is this vibration that is what is called zero point energy.
Skum of the universe
What about electromagnetic radiation? Isn't that energy, but not matter? Or is that technically a particle and matter?
Precursor562
QUOTE
What about electromagnetic radiation? Isn't that energy, but not matter? Or is that technically a particle and matter?


EM radiation are photons. A particle. I suppose the question is do you consider the atom to be the smallest form of matter? And that everything smaller (including what makes up an atom) is energy. That raises another question which is if energy is comprised of those smaller particles what would the motion of those particles be? It can't be energy too. We've already established energy as being those smaller particles so the motion would have to be something else entirely. Also since a proton and such has mass (including rest mass) then energy has mass. This can't be true.

So I prefer seeing matter as being any and all particles. The energy is simply the motion these particles have.
supertodda
I guess to further simplify / refine my philosophy...

Since it seems that science backs up that matter was created from the energy of the big bang and there is a strong possibility that matter will convert back to electromagnetic energy at the death of the universe, it appears that there is this time in the middle where matter exists. Since humanity is made up of matter and our thoughts, ideas, etc. rely on matter (the brain), then it is important to acknowledge the impermanence of our being here and the illusion that we really came from somewhere meaningful and created.

I think that it is possible that electromagnetic energy is the "Rope" in my original argument. Is it possible for this energy to be here before the big bang? And if so, then how would we test for this? (Anybody know how we test for this? Has this already been disproved?)

I know we can make particles from light (Google "create particles light" for link - first result), but it takes a lot of energy. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, then doesn't it make sense that energy was here before the big bang and will be here when the universe dies? I'm also making the philosophical assumption that how we relate to the universe is though the relationship of matter interacting with matter and energy, so this is how we see the universe as a closed system.
Precursor562
QUOTE
Since it seems that science backs up that matter was created from the energy of the big bang


The big bang (a theory) would have (within the same theory) been a giant supernova. This meant that at one point everything in the universe either A- Existed as a super massive star or B- Existed as a super massive black hole. B has been the most adopted since a star that big would have most certainly collapsed to become a black hole under its own gravitational field. Much like the tiny black holes generated in particle accelerators it would have become too unstable to exist any longer.

Black holes of today would have been tiny in comparison and are also stable because of this. Their mass generates a gravitational field that counters any explosive forces that exist within such mass. The tiny ones created in particle accelerators do not have a strong enough gravitational field to contain the explosive forces and they explode. The super big one that could have created the universe as we know it today would have had such a large mass that the explosive forces would have been too much for the gravitational field to contain. The ones that exist and are stable do not grow because for everything they consume (which is composed of particles) there are low energy photons (low energy particles) that are released at the black hole's poles. The low energy of these photons give them a low mass and therefore (since mass is gravitationally attracted to mass) they are able to escape the immense gravitational force of the black hole.

So for the massive black hole that spawned the universe as we see it today must have originated by either the collapsing of a massive star or multiple black holes came together and added their mass together. Particles in suddenly became greater than particles out and the increase of gravitational forces as a result of this would have been strong enough to prevent the 'fountain' of particles at the poles to continue. This would then have a cascading effect where eventually the explosive forces within the black hole would have suddenly become greater than the gravitational field containing it.

Since both stars and black holes are matter based (stars being hot, highly compressed gasses and black holes being supper dense matter) that it is a given that matter existed before the big bang. Also when they explode particles are released. The energy is the motion that these particles have and it is the particles themselves that are matter. Unless you believe that the atom is the smallest form of matter.
supertodda
So, given that there is a good possibility that matter existed before the big bang, and the particles emitted from that matter created the matter in the beginning of our universe, then there is a definite possibility that that pre-big bang matter participated in a previous universe? (previous Big Crunch?) If so, could it be said that our universe is an extension of some great multi-verse cycle of expansion and contraction?

If this was the case, then we still need to account for the beginning of matter. Now, I can buy that time had no beginning in the current universe since it is my guess that our time is limited to our universe, so I’m not looking for time dimension to the rise of all matter, but rather a sequential beginning to matter (I guess sequence implies time, but I’m willing to accept negative time as part of this sequence).

Now, I understand that E=MC^2 does not mean the same, but rather an equivalence. An example… I know that say you have a ball and you push the ball then it does not mean that the ball itself has changed other then moving its position. What I am suggesting is this…

Say we start with a great field of energy, though some random event, that energy converges to create particles (mass) and so forth and so on until we have all the mass in the multiverse. Now, once that energy is trapped into maintaining the mass of the particle then its hosed- it must behave and follow all the physical rules governing matter (can’t speed it up to the speed of light, etc). Other energy can interact with that matter, heat it up, move it, break it apart into smaller mass (releasing some of the trapped energy), and so forth. In fact, the energy trapped in the matter will be moved, smashed, heated, chemically changed, and reconstituted into other matter over and over. Eventually, it could reach a state where the energy trapped in maintaining the mass of the particle is eventually turned back into just energy again (this is where I’m going to site E=MC^2). This could happen for all the matter in the multiverse. So, if this is possible, then you can say that mass is really just a manifestation of energy and it is an illusion that matter is separate from one another in the philosophical sense. Seem plausible?
supertodda
Of course this is really nothing new, Einstein himself has said as much in his own words that can be found here: (google "nova einstein big idea e legacy", second link) - click the box in the upper right.
Precursor562
QUOTE
So, if this is possible, then you can say that mass is really just a manifestation of energy


Reminds me of something a great man once said...

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death - life is only a dream - and we're the imagination of ourselves.”

Who you ask??? None other than Maynard James Keenan. tongue.gif
Shep
QUOTE (Precursor562+Mar 3 2007, 07:30 PM)

Reminds me of something a great man once said...

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death - life is only a dream - and we're the imagination of ourselves.”

Who you ask???  None other than Maynard James Keenan. tongue.gif

I was actually Bill Hicks who said it, he was a comedian who died of cancer several years ago. The songs Aenema and Third Eye are loosely based around Bill’s comedy. If you look at the inside cover of the Aenima disc you will see a drawing of Bill will his hands on Maynard's legs and a dedication to him. Listen to Bill's comedy if you get a chance, the man was very insightful and funny.
Precursor562
I'll do that. Thnx.
Kyle Miller
[FONT=Geneva][SIZE=6]ok i am not a scientist either, but, either way wouldnt this whole rope (energy) have to come from somewhere, and if matter can not be created or destroyed there was no begining, i think that there never was a begening but just a viscious cycle and humans can not comprehend this so they try to apply an answer by taking true facts and and ending up with a false statemeant. they take these certain facts and try to put a begining to everything when there was not one, i mean, they said it them selves energy can not be created nor destroyed, but only transfered into matter or other sub-atomic particles, so THERE WAS NO BEGINING so i think there should be no religions, which would end many wars, and realize that the answer to the unanserable question, where did it all begin, is that it never begun and will never end because it is but a cycle and cycles have neither beginings nor endings. overall there was no beginig for the rope {energy(all matter by converted energy)} because it can neither be created or destroyed, the facts are right there, you just have to put the puzzle peices together
atfpcop
Ok for the record matter exists because energy exists, with out one there is no other. The nuclear reaction you speak of is the art of forcing an atom to give up (fission) or take on(fusion) an electron which creates tremendous force(IE atomic explosion) that converts matter into pure energy in the form of shock waves and heat and light. All of these are you guessed it particles(minus the shock wave) so yes energy could be the explanation of the existence of matter but i believe this is where the religious zealots step in and say that "god" created energy so that matter could be formed. I say its a chicken and egg problem and unless some one was there when it all started which would make that person really old. there is no finite answer. Study the works of nuclear reaction and its results before trying to use them as examples.

Super todda, i would say you have a very philosophical view point on the subject of matter and energy, this is good it is how the Greeks and Romans got us to where we are today.



COP
Enthalpy
A few elements...

- Matter can be turned into energy and back, yes. The positon-electron annihilation creating two gamma rays is used on a daily basis by hundreds of positron emission tomography facilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography), for instance. The materialization of photons into particles is also seen daily, in particle accelerators or in gamma-rays containers radiography, for instance.

- Any energy means mass. The same number of water molecules have more mass before flowing down a dam than after. Nuclear reactions use the electrostatic repulsion (fission) or strong interaction (fusion) as a source of energy; both result in a mass variation as would chemical energy or kinetic energy or any one else result.

- Two masses attract one another, and their gravitational energy changes the mass of each one. So the sum of both masses changes with their distance. Around black holes or during initial phases of the big bang, this effect can be quite important. This is just an example to tell that conservation of mass+energy isn't always obvious.
Enthalpy
A couple more...

In a nuclear fission, most energy goes into the speed of the fragments.
A gamma ray is light, not a neutron.

What is matter, what is energy? Today, everything is seen as waves, and as particles when the waves interact. Physicists speak rather of fermions and bosons, based on their spin and on Fermi's exclusion principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

A fermion ("matter" if you want) doesn't need a mass. However, even neutrinos seem to have a small one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

Energy doesn't need any matter to act on. Most remote stars we now receive light from are long extinct. Light existed meanwhile in vacuum without interacting with matter, allowing it to arrive to us. Also made easily in a lab, in a shorter timescale.

Energy is what can be converted to work? I doubt it. Heat energy can't be fully converted, however I would describe all the heat as energy. And for the minimum vibration energy of a solid: how could it be converted, as it is the minimum energy?

Laws of thermodynamics... They are fine for building steam engines. One can incorporate newer knowledge in thermodynamics, but it becomes impractically complicated then. So we commonly use older, simple forms - just like a cook isn't interested in chemistry - but beware of their limits.

And anyway, thermodynamics is pretty complicated and leads to mistakes. Just an example: how would you define the temperature of a laser light? It can cut steel as well as cool atoms under the millikelvin range, and this is directly related to the light's property you may define temperature from.
Enthalpy
Emitting or absorbing an electron:

The emission is a beta radioactive decay, not a fusion nor fission. It can be beta plus - emitting a positon, also called antielectron - or beta minus - emitting a normal electron. In the nucleus, one proton turns into a neutron, on in the second case, a neutron turns into a proton. This happens with nuclides that are too unbalanced: too many protons or too many neutrons.

The absorption is an electron capture, not a fusion nor fission. An electron reacts with a proton, they transform into a neutron. Again by nuclides that have too many protons, and that are charged enough that some electrons (from the 1s shell) are close to the nucleus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity#Modes_of_decay
Enthalpy
Wow! Nobody has ever seen a black hole created in a particle accelerator.

Comparing the universe to a black hole is more confusing than useful, I fear.

Accretion disks around black holes emit some extremely energetic particles. These are photons and others; since they convert easily into another above a couple of MeV, what comes out is rather a mix.

Some particles escape because they are emitted by the accretion disk which is located outside the Schwartzschild radius, not because they are light or heavy. And I would say: only the most energetic massive particles - hence the heaviest - achieve to escape; every photon would have a chance, provided it sees clear sky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Ac...ks_and_gas_jets
AgeofMurdaNStorm
What about dark matter, black holes, and white holes?

You might like the book Conversations with God, it says that human as we know it is just slower vibrations of matter that have been so dramatically decreased that it produces mass and material- an outer shell.

“The universe wouldn’t need a beginning” that is too heavy for me man! My head is gonna explode! And yet I'll try.
What if the beginning and the end and right now are all really the same period. The co-existence of the three could mean the universe is happening in one moment and relativity, for us humans- who are really tiny in comparison to the whole universe- it gives us the illusion of an extended period of time; or that we are the imaginations of pre-cogs; or that the moment of creation is echoing simultaneously with the moment of destruction and we are just those echoes meeting.
Hell, maybe we are all in a virtual reality game like the Matrix and life is just the playing out of an intelligent universe that is willing humanity into existence in order to experience possibilities of physical and causal sensations; like we are the play-things of a God who is one and the same with us and we are just physical extensions of its thoughts. Or maybe we are the material manifestation of a sacred song that the universal energy is vibrating and we’re all variations of the same theme.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.