Is Matter Just Energy? Exploring the Possibilities

[anantchowdhary]

Could someone explain why all atoms can absorb and/or reflect the visible spectrum (just one example of many interactions between matter and energy)?

Hmmmm...now coming to the atom.You would have studied that electrons in an atom exist at DEFINITE energy levels.Now, when a photon hits an electron,the electron gains energy.

Now if $$hf=\Delta E$$ then the electron jumps up an energy level and quickly comes back to its original level emitting a similar photon with energy
$$hf$$.So this is how visible spectrum is 'reflected' off
atoms.(Here $$\Delta E$$ is the difference between binding energy of the two energy levels)


And your question about matter's interaction with energy.Why would you think it isn't possible.The photon imparts momentum and energy to the electron when it strikes it.Also the photon disappears as a photon without energy can't exist(all its energy has been given to the electron and imparts momentum to the electron).

You could have a look at

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=157576

Cheers

 

[energy]

Thanks A.

So, you're saying that atoms consist of energy constituents, and we know with certainty that there are also other properties inside them that are not derived from energy i.e. completely distinct entities?

Also, would it be fair to say, at least, that energy is a necessary component of matter?

 

[anantchowdhary]

Thanks A.

Hey,my pleasure!

So, you're saying that atoms consist of energy constituents, and we know with certainty that there are also other properties inside them that are not derived from energy i.e. completely distinct entities?

Yes.Energy and mass are distinct.They give the same effect but they must not be confused to be the same thing.

Also, would it be fair to say, at least, that energy is a necessary component of matter?

Energy and mass are interchangable and have the same effect as i have said.But according to me,energy is not a NECESSARY component of matter.But matter can have some forms of energy associated with it.But it isn't necessary

$$E=m_0c^2\gamma$$
Now if the mass is at rest the equivalent of the energy would be with $$\gamma = 1$$
But if it is in motion,then the equivalent energy is with $$\gamma >1$$

 

[energy]

but according to me,energy is not a NECESSARY component of matter.But matter can have some forms of energy associated with it.But it isn't necessary

Thanks, I was under the impression that all electrons had energy. How did I get that idea? I wasn't even aware atoms could exist without comprising of energy. Must have been snoozing during that class :zzz:

 

[anantchowdhary]

umm...all electrons do have energy u know!
kinetic energy

But they can't be said to be only constituted of energy.

many people confuse the photon and the electron

 

[energy]

umm...all electrons do have energy
kinetic energy

Thank goodness, that's what I thought! I would be in real trouble if I didn't even know that.

So, then, it 'IS' fair to say that energy is a necessary component of atoms (matter)! Glad to see you agree ;)

But they can't be said to be only constituted of energy.

But can it be emphatically stated that electrons aren't (i.e. can they dissect the little suckers, and have a peek inside?)? Or, is it a case of guilty until proven innocent? :tongue2:

 

[anantchowdhary]

well,there isn't really any way to observe an electron you know,and electrons have a charge.So they cannot be said to be just energy like photons

Also,atoms have kinetic energy,but wouldn't u wonder if atoms were at rest...Well this cannot be as nothing can reach absolute zero

 

[energy]

well,there isn't really any way to observe an electron you know,and electrons have a charge.So they cannot be said to be just energy like photons

So it's an assumption, then? Wonder why they don't consider electrons to be a separate part of energy? Especially considering their behavior regarding photons!



Throughout the universe there are positives and negatives, if there were just one substance that everything's made from (energy) it would only have itself to interact with; creating a perfect balance of equally opposing forces and actions... I would think...

It would be infinite for that reason, too; as nothing could affect it 'negatively' but itself. Just my opinion, though

 

[anantchowdhary]

hmm there's much more to that.Ill try to tell u l8r(sry my exams r coming up)

 

[energy]

Thanks for tolerating me thus far, A.

Good luck with your studies

 

[anantchowdhary]

Thanks for the luck.And not at all.Its my pleasure to tell sum1 interested sumthing i know

 

[Hootenanny]

well,there isn't really any way to observe an electron you know,and electrons have a charge.So they cannot be said to be just energy like photons

Sorry, just need some clarification here. What do you mean by 'we can't observe electrons'?

Also,atoms have kinetic energy,but wouldn't u wonder if atoms were at rest...Well this cannot be as nothing can reach absolute zero

Even if we could attain 0K, all particles would still have some energy, zero point energy.

 

[anantchowdhary]

I meant kinetic energy in that case.

Also i meant it isn't possible to see electrons clearly

 

[ZapperZ]

I meant kinetic energy in that case.

Also i meant it isn't possible to see electrons clearly

..and you'll be asked "what do you mean by "see""? As in using a very limited detector called the human optical system?

I've just had this silly "discussion" in Philosophy about "seeing" and "detecting", where people simply forgot that our eyes-optic nerve-brain system is ALSO a "detector", and in many apsect, a very BAD detector. Yet, people are actually using this very bad detector as the criteria for something to either be real, or to exist, or to be considered as truly verified beyond just a "theory". This is absurd.

Zz.

 

[anantchowdhary]

what i meant by saying 'seeing' was that its position couldn't be determined accurately .Now is that ok?

 

[ZapperZ]

what i meant by saying 'seeing' was that its position couldn't be determined accurately .Now is that ok?

How accurately do you want this? I can make it hit a CCD and have its position determined more accurately than what you can with your eyes when you see a tennis ball whiz past you. Yet, you don't make such a statement about tennis balls.

Zz.

 

[anantchowdhary]

ok the act of SEEING is finding about the nature of the object we are refferring to.Not the nature such as charge and stuff.But the determining its position momentum shape size etc...Not accurately

Also,if u try to see an electron it changes its position as u hit it with a photon.So in my opinion and from my learning when we tried to see the electron we see it just like a hazy cloud.Now am I wrong?

 

[ZapperZ]

ok the act of SEEING is finding about the nature of the object we are refferring to.Not the nature such as charge and stuff.But the determining its position momentum shape size etc...Not accurately

Also,if u try to see an electron it changes its position as u hit it with a photon.So in my opinion and from my learning when we tried to see the electron we see it just like a hazy cloud.Now am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. The "hazy" cloud that you are referring to is the "wavefunction" of the electron before a measurement. If I make a measurement of its position, let's say, then the accuracy of that measurement depends entirely on the accuracy of my instrumentation. This has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle! I can make an electron pass through as small of a hole as I can make. In fact, in quantum dots, I can confine an electron extremely well and know it's position better than how well you know the location of your own fingers!

I think this is now verging on another of the misunderstanding about the HUP. You may want to browse through PF and see what has been discussed about this already.

Zz.

 

[energy]

Firstly, I hope this post isn’t violating any guidelines.

I respect Admin's decision to delete my last post about the gravitational constant, even though I feel it was pertinent to this discussion; I concede that it would be difficult to see where I was going with that line of reasoning. I’d like to invite anyone who wants to discuss this subject further to contact me via private message. This is probably my last addition to this thread, as I'd prefer to travel the path of least resistance.

Interestingly, I’ve already had a number of messages since this thread started. Seems that there are a few out there wanting to say yes to the original question: matter = E ?, but preferring to avoid the onslaught of public criticism for their beliefs.

Thanks to all for an informative discussion.

 

[ZapperZ]

Seems that there are a few out there wanting to say yes to the original question: matter = E ?, but preferring to avoid the onslaught of public criticism for their beliefs.

And that's what it had to be: beliefs, because that's the only way that one can ignore the violation of the conservation of spin and charge and other mess that comes with that.

If you only care about finding those that agree with your "beliefs" regardless of the physical inconsistencies, I can point out to you several other forums that deal with such crackpottery where you can find even more fans.

Since you are now having sufficient and, presumably, a more accommodating, dialog via PM, this thread is done.

Zz.