# Energy condenses into matter?

1. Feb 4, 2016

### 5echild

I don't know either, but I understand that there are people working on this.
For the sake of this discussion let us assume that energy does in fact condense into matter, and further let us assume that we have x amount of energy in watts. My question is how would one convert said amount of energy into matter? What is the formula? Any ideas? This would be most helpful with some work I'm doing.
Thank you much.

2. Feb 4, 2016

### Ronie Bayron

Watts is a unit of power while Joule is to energy. Anyhow, there's not much proof if matter in the form of energy will consequently reversed back to its original state without compromise. Prof. Shankar from Yale study this type of physics.

Anyhow, Einstein famous equation usually defines the absolute content of energy in a given x matter as you said. E=mc2, others oppose to this formula since, a fixed reference in the universe is not yet found or established. So, they are assuming that all mass in space has some momentum in it, therefore, the equation turns out to be like this

and by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that equation is not reversible.

3. Feb 4, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

We don't need to assume it. It is an experimentally confirmed fact. This is the operating principle behind particle collider's like the LHC.

Ronie posted the correct formula.

4. Feb 4, 2016

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
The thing about physics that you should be aware of is that practically EVERY concepts and ideas have underlying mathematical formulation or description, and because of this, these ideas and concepts are governed by a large set of rules.

I'm pointing this out to you, and to many who are not familiar with physics, so that you understand why there is a problem with your question. The word "condenses" has more definite meaning than what you are using here, and you may not be aware of it. For example, we say that steam condenses into water. This has very specific meaning and implication in physics, i.e. we simply can't throw out words like that without consequences. It implies that there is some sort of a phase transition, where certain parameters become "discontinuous". In other words, if one uses such a word, one must understand that THIS is what one is implying. That word, and my others, carry with them, certain "baggage".

If you wish to ask how "energy" can change into "matter", then ask that, rather than embellishing it as "condenses" into it. The latter simply adds more constraint to the question that turns it from a simple question, to something more complex.

Zz.