Can Matter Be Converted to Energy Without Extreme Heat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Whitestar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Matter
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conversion of matter into energy as presented in "The Physics of Star Trek" by Lawrence Krauss, which states that achieving this requires heating matter to 1000 billion degrees. The conversation explores whether such extreme temperatures would be necessary for crew members to be converted into energy, as depicted in the show. It also raises the question of alternative methods for matter-energy conversion, highlighting current nuclear fission and potential future fusion technologies. Additionally, the discussion notes that while fusion, which powers the sun, operates at millions of degrees, it does not reach the billion-degree threshold suggested for matter conversion. The concept of matter-antimatter reactions, which theoretically convert 100% of matter into energy, is also mentioned as a more efficient method in the context of Star Trek.
Whitestar
Messages
90
Reaction score
4
In the excellent book entitled, “The Physics of Star Trek” by Lawerence Krauss, states that in order to convert matter into energy, one must heat it up to 1000 billion degrees!


1) If we were to accept the premise of the show, would heating the crew members up to 1000 billion degrees be necessary in order to convert them into energy?


2) Is there another way to theorically convert matter into energy without heating it up to such high temperatures?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nuclear reactors (fission now and fusion in the future?) convert matter into energy. Matter-antimatter reaction (used in Star Trek) converts 100% of matter into energy.

Fusion powers the sun and its interior temperature is in the millions, not billions.
 

Thread 'Why can't Solar panels be hemispherical, or a curved strip type?'

comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Can Energy Naturally Convert to Matter in the Universe?
Replies
21
Views
3K
I Energy Conversion With Supercritical Fluids
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Did I Just Create 2.5 Kilograms of Energy?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Temperature rise without heat energy?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Distinctions among the concepts: mass, matter, energy
Replies
1
Views
2K
HVAC Converting a Heat Source to Energy
Replies
4
Views
1K
B Would isolating the Solar System prevent its heat death?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Can a turbo expander convert more heat to work than a piston expander?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Q: Can Matter Be Converted to Energy with 100% Efficiency?
Replies
2
Views
3K
I Can Self-Running Heat Pumps Revolutionize Home Efficiency?
Replies
7
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top