Energy to matter converter


by Dual Op Amp
Tags: converter, energy, matter
alpha_wolf
alpha_wolf is offline
#19
Aug13-04, 08:42 PM
P: 166
Quote Quote by chroot
Quote Quote by alpha_wolf
we would likely first need to tap into the ZPE
Please refrain from posting unsupported or non-mainstream theories to the general physics forums.

- Warren
I was unaware that ZPE is not mainstream physics... If the problem is in the suggestion of tapping into it in the future, would you approve if the words "if possible" were added (they were implied)?

EDIT: The reason I ask is that I don't quite understand where your objection comes from. I suspect it comes from you missunderstanding my claims in that post. I would like to clarify, but unforetunately I cannot do so until you clarify your objection.
Nenad
Nenad is offline
#20
Aug13-04, 10:16 PM
P: 698
so a bond or an intermolecular interaction has mass. Doesn't that mean that something like gravity has mass?
alpha_wolf
alpha_wolf is offline
#21
Aug14-04, 03:11 AM
P: 166
Quote Quote by Nenad
so a bond or an intermolecular interaction has mass. Doesn't that mean that something like gravity has mass?
This is just an educated guess, but I think that for an object where gravity plays a significant role in holding its parts together, the answer would be "yes". More precicely, the gravitational binding energy would contribute to the rest mass of the object - if you split it into several parts, you should find that the sum of their rest masses is slightly less than the rest mass of the object. Again, this is just an educated guess.
Mk
Mk is offline
#22
Aug14-04, 04:00 AM
P: 2,057
Quote Quote by alpha_wolf
I was unaware that ZPE is not mainstream physics... If the problem is in the suggestion of tapping into it in the future, would you approve if the words "if possible" were added (they were implied)?

EDIT: The reason I ask is that I don't quite understand where your objection comes from. I suspect it comes from you missunderstanding my claims in that post. I would like to clarify, but unforetunately I cannot do so until you clarify your objection.
Its not been proven very well
Mk
Mk is offline
#23
Aug14-04, 04:01 AM
P: 2,057
Quote Quote by Mwyn
I wonder, If an atom can pop itself out of exsistence then how can it pop itself into exsistance?

I wonder... hey isn't that against the 1st law of Thermodynamics?
Nenad
Nenad is offline
#24
Aug14-04, 12:27 PM
P: 698
ya, cause I was thinking, like Chroot said, the bonding energy has mass. So the bonding energy of let say water has mass? The elecromagnetic force has mass? Polarity has mass? I has no idea that a force like electomagnetism has mass.
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#25
Aug14-04, 02:15 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,882
No one said that force has mass: energy has mass and force is not energy.
Nenad
Nenad is offline
#26
Aug14-04, 08:45 PM
P: 698
Quote Quote by HallsofIvy
No one said that force has mass: energy has mass and force is not energy.
what is a bond? It is a force holding two atoms together, like an oxygen atom and a Hydrogen atom. This force, according to chroot has mass.
chroot
chroot is offline
#27
Aug14-04, 09:49 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
A bond is not a force.

- Warren
what_are_electrons
#28
Aug15-04, 01:20 AM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by selfAdjoint
A large part of the mass of an atom is in the binding energy of the pion reactions that hold it together, just as most of the mass of the protons and neutrons is in the binding energy of the gluons that hold them together. This is measured as mass, i.e. resistance to acceleration. It also gravitates when a sufficient number of atoms are present.
With this picture, I can see that an electron with its 0.000511 GeV/c(2) mass should NOT contain any positive mesonic pions which have unit mass of 0.140 GeV/c(2). Does this mean that pions are mainly in the nucleus and not present in any electron-electron interactions?

Gluons, as I read, have effectively zero mass (0 GeV/c(2)). So where is the mass in the protons and the neutrons if not in the Gluons or the quarks?

Hypothetically:
If the mass of an atom is mainly in the binding energy, and if binding energy were defined as the interaction between a set of electromagnetic force fields, then is it better to define mass in terms of electromagnetic force fields?
...
selfAdjoint
selfAdjoint is offline
#29
Aug15-04, 08:02 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147
Quote Quote by what_are_electrons
Gluons, as I read, have effectively zero mass (0 GeV/c(2)). So where is the mass in the protons and the neutrons if not in the Gluons or the quarks?

Hypothetically:
If the mass of an atom is mainly in the binding energy, and if binding energy were defined as the interaction between a set of electromagnetic force fields, then is it better to define mass in terms of electromagnetic force fields?
The mass of the nucleons is in the potential energy of the binding; mass is a form of potential energy in relativity, so this is OK, and as I said (reread my post), this passes the tests for a mass, in regards to acceleration and gravitation. That's where it comes from, and it does all hang together.

About electromagnetic forces, the gluons do not carry EM, they carry the color force (nowadays aka the strong force). This force, unlike EM has three charge/anticharge pairs, and they interact according to the representations of SU(3), whereas EM interacts according to the group U(1). This stuff was discovered in the 1960s and 1970s and it checks out; QCD and the standard model have passed beaucoup tests, and the cottage industry of finding "physics beyond the standard model" experimentally has come up empty. The CP violation you hear so much about does not break the SM; it's more likely to falsify the supersymmetry extensions that have been proposed.
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#30
Aug15-04, 10:05 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,882
In fission, uranium breaks into Krypton and Barium. The total atomic weights of Krypton and Barium are slightly less that the atomic weight of uranium (even taking into account the two additional neutrons that are produced. That difference in mass is what is converted to energy.
Nenad
Nenad is offline
#31
Aug15-04, 10:34 AM
P: 698
if a bond is not a force, what is it?
chroot
chroot is offline
#32
Aug15-04, 03:15 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
A 'bond' is a condition in which two particles are energetically bound together. That's about all you can say.

The reason it's not a force is simple: forces accelerate things. If you have two stationary hydrogen atoms bound together, neither is moving -- so the net force on both must be zero.

- Warren
marlon
marlon is offline
#33
Aug15-04, 04:35 PM
marlon's Avatar
P: 4,008
Quote Quote by chroot
A 'bond' is a condition in which two particles are energetically bound together. That's about all you can say.

The reason it's not a force is simple: forces accelerate things. If you have two stationary hydrogen atoms bound together, neither is moving -- so the net force on both must be zero.

- Warren
keep in mind though that when the net force is zero, this does not mean there is no force. The mass of an atomic nucleus is determened by the sum of the mass of the constituent particles plus the mass equivalent to the binding energy between them...

A bound is just a state of potential energy associated with it. This energy is the binding energy. In GTR there even is no distinction between those kinds of energy...
regards
marlon
alpha_wolf
alpha_wolf is offline
#34
Aug15-04, 07:20 PM
P: 166
Quote Quote by chroot
A 'bond' is a condition in which two particles are energetically bound together. That's about all you can say.

The reason it's not a force is simple: forces accelerate things. If you have two stationary hydrogen atoms bound together, neither is moving -- so the net force on both must be zero.

- Warren
I would like to expand on this slightly. A bond is a state of stable equilibrium. For example, if you take a molecule of two atoms, and move those atoms a little closer or a little further away, a force would appear which would strive to return the molecule to its original state. The state of equilibrium involves a form of internal energy we call "binding energy" or "bond energy", and this energy contributes to the mass of the system.
Nenad
Nenad is offline
#35
Aug15-04, 09:08 PM
P: 698
k, thanx, so this equilibrium has a mass?
alpha_wolf
alpha_wolf is offline
#36
Aug16-04, 03:23 AM
P: 166
Nenad, reread the last sentence of my previous post:
Quote Quote by alpha_wolf
The state of equilibrium involves a form of internal energy we call "binding energy" or "bond energy", and this energy contributes to the mass of the system.
A state of equllibrium is just a state - a certain configuration that the sytem can acheive. It is not an actual physical entity like a particle or similar. So no, the equillibrium itself does not have mass. The mass contribution comes from the energy that is associated with that configuration of the system.

I hope this doesn't confuse you even further. Perhaps someone else can explain this better...


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Energy to matter General Physics 5
matter and energy Academic Guidance 1
If matter = Energy, and matter can be turned into energy... Quantum Physics 3
"Heat to energy converter" General Physics 12
matter to energy Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics 18