The Potential: Harnessing Energy to Create Mass and Possibly Universes

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter member 342489
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of creating mass from energy, particularly in the context of Einstein's equation E=mc². Participants explore theoretical implications, including the possibility of creating a universe from energy, while addressing misconceptions about mass and energy as properties of systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that high energy density could theoretically create mass equivalent to that energy, but acknowledge potential losses.
  • Others argue that according to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, implying that any energy used to create mass must be borrowed from the universe.
  • A participant notes that mass and energy are properties of a system and are conserved in isolated systems, suggesting that mass should be considered a form of energy rather than something that is created from energy.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the nature of mass and energy, highlighting that energy alone does not equate to mass, as exemplified by light, which has energy but no mass.
  • There is mention of pair production, where photons can create electron-positron pairs, as a relevant process to the discussion of mass-energy conversion.
  • One participant reflects on the complexity of the topic, admitting to confusion and acknowledging the existence of prior discussions on the misconceptions surrounding E=mc².

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the ability to create mass from energy or the implications of such processes. Multiple competing views and interpretations of mass-energy relationships remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the origins of the universe and the nature of mass and energy, indicating that the discussion is speculative and dependent on various interpretations of physical laws.

member 342489
As I understand E=m*c^2 you can create mass from energy

In my imagination that means, that if you create a high enough energy density, then you will create mass equvilant to that energy. (with some loss i imagine)

That understanding have made me think, could we, in theory, create enough energy to create a universe?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, we could not technically do that because of the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created (or destroyed). Whatever energy we use to “create “ matter, we must borrow from the universe.

But, if we borrow the total amount of energy in the universe, it would indeed be exactly enough to form the universe.

Hope that answers your question.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 342489
LURCH said:
Well, we could not technically do that because of the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created (or destroyed). Whatever energy we use to “create “ matter, we must borrow from the universe.

But, if we borrow the total amount of energy in the universe, it would indeed be exactly enough to form the universe.

Hope that answers your question.

It does.I did realize, that it would be problematic to create our own universe from energy within this universe. I was only curiousity. Thnak you :-)
 
There are several threads in this forum already discussing the misconception of ##E = mc^2## that you somehow "create" mass from energy or vice versa.

Energy and mass are properties of a system and for an isolated system they are both conserved. The mass of the system is a particular combination of its energy and momentum and it would be appropriate to identify the mass with the energy in the rest frame of the system (up to the conversion factor ##c^2##). Neither mass or energy is any sort of substance. They are properties of a system and rather than saying that mass is "converted" into energy or vice versa, it would be more appropriate to consider mass a form of energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: David Lewis, Imager, dextercioby and 3 others
I'm not sure that your question is really answerable. Mass and energy are different things; simply having energy doesn't give you mass. There are a number of ways to explain that - possibly the easiest is to note that light has energy but no mass. ##E=mc^2## is a special case of a more general equation ##E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2##, where ##p## is momentum.

More fundamentally, we don't understand where this universe came from (or even if that question makes sense). So we have absolutely no idea how to go about creating another one.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 342489
Orodruin said:
There are several threads in this forum already discussing the misconception of ##E = mc^2## that you somehow "create" mass from energy or vice versa.

Energy and mass are properties of a system and for an isolated system they are both conserved. The mass of the system is a particular combination of its energy and momentum and it would be appropriate to identify the mass with the energy in the rest frame of the system (up to the conversion factor ##c^2##). Neither mass or energy is any sort of substance. They are properties of a system and rather than saying that mass is "converted" into energy or vice versa, it would be more appropriate to consider mass a form of energy.

I am sorry for creating an extra post with an already debated question, I should have performed a search first.

I do not doubt your answer, but cannot claim to fully understand either.

I have seen several articles claimeing, experiments transforming photons into electrons and positrons were underway. So that made me think about the creation of the universe, and how the particles formed to begin with.

Thank you for your time :-)
 
Arrgh sorry answers came while I wrote a reply...
 
Despite a lot of sloppy pop sci, describing light as energy is wrong. As Orodruin says, energy is a property of things, not a thing. It's like velocity - your car may have a certain velocity, but it is not velocity. Nor is anything "pure velocity" outside of Flash fan fiction.

Yes, we can turn things with a low mass and a lot of energy into things with high mass. That kind of thing is bread and butter for nuclear and particle physicists. As I say, we've no idea how the universe came to be, so whether or not this is relevant to that isn't known.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 342489
  • #10
Brian E said:
As I understand E=m*c^2 you can create mass from energy

No. In a reaction a system changes. Part (or even all in some cases) of the system's mass can become rest energy. All that's changed is that what you used to call mass afterwards you now call rest energy. Mass and rest energy are equivalent, so which name you decide to use is based entirely on tradition; these names were created before this equivalence was known.

In my imagination that means, that if you create a high enough energy density, then you will create mass equvilant to that energy.

What makes you think density has anything to do with it? That energy is a property of something, what is the something?

Brian E said:
I have seen several articles claimeing, experiments transforming photons into electrons and positrons were underway.

There was a Nobel prize awarded for that in 1948. It's called pair production. The photon-nucleus system that existed before the reaction is transformed into a system consisting of the nucleus and a matter-antimatter pair. The total amount of mass before the reaction equals the total amount of mass after the reaction. The total amount of rest energy before the reaction equals the total amount of rest energy after the reaction. Before the reaction the photon's energy was one of the things that made a contribution to the system's mass, afterwards that same contribution is now made by the nucleus and the pair. The same can be said of the rest energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 342489

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K