Can energy truly be converted into matter in our world?

AI Thread Summary
Energy can theoretically be converted into matter if the process is reversible, a concept rooted in relativistic particle physics. Particle collision experiments at facilities like CERN demonstrate this by smashing protons to create heavier particles, showcasing kinetic energy transforming into mass-energy. Conversely, larger particles often decay into lighter ones, illustrating mass-energy converting back into kinetic energy. Fusion processes that produce elements heavier than iron also exemplify this conversion, as the resulting mass exceeds the sum of the initial masses due to kinetic energy. Pair production further illustrates this concept, where gamma rays convert energy into particle-antiparticle pairs near a nucleus.
Any name will do
Messages
8
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
I am not a student; I have no homework to do; yet it's a research question I would like to ask to satisfy my own curiosity.

The question is: "We can turn matter into energy, by reducing the total mass in a nuclear fission, in which the loss of mass gets converted into energy according to the famous equation by Albert Einstein. However, have we, humans, ever produced an event in which energy turns into mass? Or have we ever observed such an event in which an energy loss creates matter? Do we have any theories how that may be done or caused to happen? and if yes, we do have widely-accepted theories by peers that describes how that could happen or be done, then could you please describe that event here as an answer, in terms that are understood by a physics-dilettante?"

I have prep school education in physics, which mainly involved classical physics (kinetics, mechanics, waves, harmonic motion, heat-pressure-volume equivalencies, etc.) I have no experience studying relativity physics or quantum physics. By prep-school education I meant that I finished grade 13 physics in Ontario in 1974, which at the time was an advanced high school subject, preparing pupils to enter university and take higher-level courses without the need to take prerequisites.
Relevant Equations
m=e/c^2
Theoretically possible, only if the process is reversible. But is it really. My knowledge base is insufficient to answer that. I need help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Turning energy into matter and vice versa is something of an imprecise statement of relativistic particle physics. In particle collision experiments (that are routinely done at CERN and other particle accelerators):

1) Particles with a small rest mass (e.g. protons) are smashed together to produce a particle or particles with a greater total rest mass. You could describe this as kinetic energy being converted into mass-energy.

2) The larger particles (which are often short-lived) decay into particles with less rest mass (and more kinetic energy). You could describe this as mass-energy being converted into kinetic energy.
 
  • Like
Likes Any name will do and Ibix
Fusion that forms anything heavier than iron results in atoms that have a larger mass than the sum of the masses of their inputs; the difference comes from the kinetic energy of the initial atoms/ions. So the production of about half the periodic table in supernovae is another example.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds, Any name will do and PeroK
Thank you, PeroK and Ibix. Your answers have fully satisfied my curiosity.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman, Ibix and PeroK
Not to ignore pair production wherein the energy of a (zero mass) gamma ray is converted into a massive particle-antiparticle pair in the vicinity of a nucleus.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Any name will do, Ibix and PeroK
kuruman said:
Not to ignore pair production wherein the energy of a (zero mass) gamma ray is converted into a massive particle-antiparticle pair in the vicinity of a nucleus.
Thanks also to you, Kuruman.
 
  • Like
Likes kuruman and berkeman
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Thread 'A bead-mass oscillatory system problem'
I can't figure out how to find the velocity of the particle at 37 degrees. Basically the bead moves with velocity towards right let's call it v1. The particle moves with some velocity v2. In frame of the bead, the particle is performing circular motion. So v of particle wrt bead would be perpendicular to the string. But how would I find the velocity of particle in ground frame? I tried using vectors to figure it out and the angle is coming out to be extremely long. One equation is by work...
Back
Top