Conversion Of Energy Into Mass

[SOXBLOX]

Heh. Google "laws of thermodynamics" .

[K^2]

4 hours ago, wumpus said:

Nobody has made dark matter...

Nobody has detected anything that has been identified as dark matter. First of all, it's not conclusive that dark matter isn't just ordinary matter that we aren't accounting for in our standard models of stellar evolution. Yes, scientists are starting to lean away from it towards something more exotic, but since we've never observed any directly, it's not conclusive.

Now, if it is not ordinary matter, given that we haven't detected any, it ought to be interacting very weakly, if at all, in all fields besides gravity. Something that interacts with ordinary matter this weakly would also be produced in high energy experiments with ordinary matter very rarely. Which means that very occasional mass defect we'd see in experiments that actually have produced something like this would be well within error bars and would be indistinguishable from noise.

So I don't know if it's fair to say that we never made any, because we wouldn't know if we did. That said, whatever's responsible for dark matter might also be very massive. Be it a new particle or something like tiny black holes. In that case, yes, none of our accelerators would have energy to have made any. But there's no way to know. We might have made some dark matter and not notice it or we might not have capability to make it at all. We're going to have learn way more about what it actually is before we can say.

[Spacescifi]

7 hours ago, K^2 said:

Nobody has detected anything that has been identified as dark matter. First of all, it's not conclusive that dark matter isn't just ordinary matter that we aren't accounting for in our standard models of stellar evolution. Yes, scientists are starting to lean away from it towards something more exotic, but since we've never observed any directly, it's not conclusive.

Now, if it is not ordinary matter, given that we haven't detected any, it ought to be interacting very weakly, if at all, in all fields besides gravity. Something that interacts with ordinary matter this weakly would also be produced in high energy experiments with ordinary matter very rarely. Which means that very occasional mass defect we'd see in experiments that actually have produced something like this would be well within error bars and would be indistinguishable from noise.

So I don't know if it's fair to say that we never made any, because we wouldn't know if we did. That said, whatever's responsible for dark matter might also be very massive. Be it a new particle or something like tiny black holes. In that case, yes, none of our accelerators would have energy to have made any. But there's no way to know. We might have made some dark matter and not notice it or we might not have capability to make it at all. We're going to have learn way more about what it actually is before we can say.

 

Yess... I remember that fiction can date itself badly when they rely on theories that are little more than educated speculation, or guesses.

Like even the first Marvel Avengers movie has Loki ask Thor how much 'dark energy' did it take to travel to Earth since the Bifrost bridge was crushed by Thor movies ago.

It's rather odd to ask, since a race as advanced as Asgard should know very well what dark matter or energy is.

It would no longer be a mystery to them. Nor would exotic energy or matter be called that likely.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Spacescifi

[Nightside]

10 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Yess... I remember that fiction can date itself badly when they rely on theories that are little more than educated speculation, or guesses.

Like even the first Marvel Avengers movie has Loki ask Thor how much 'dark energy' did it take to travel to Earth since the Bifrost bridge was crushed by Thor movies ago.

It's rather odd to ask, since a race as advanced as Asgard should know very well what dark matter or energy is.

It would no longer be a mystery to them. Nor would exotic energy or matter be called that likely.

Are there any laws of physics in the Marvel universe?

[Spacescifi]

25 minutes ago, Nightside said:

Are there any laws of physics in the Marvel universe?

 

Um... bits of thermodynamics are followed rigorously (gotta have big flashy explosions) but that is unsurprising.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

15 hours ago, Nightside said:

Are there any laws of physics in the Marvel universe?

Yes, it's oneiroid physics.

[K^2]

On 8/1/2020 at 6:52 AM, Nightside said:

Are there any laws of physics in the Marvel universe?

No, but there are Disney lawyers, and they terrify me far more.

[Ryan@123]

If we combine Albert Einstein famous Equation E=MC²,it definines Energy but NO MATTER CAN BE FULLY CONVERTED INTO ENERGY AS PER THE 1ST LAW IF THERMODTHERMODYNAMICS.E=MC² is also known as a hypothetical defination of energy.BUT no matter can be 100% converted to energy BASED ON THE sole reason that NO CONVERSION IN THE WORLD IS 100% EFFICIENT.

 

If we combine Albert Einstein famous Equation E=MC²,it definines Energy but NO MATTER CAN BE FULLY CONVERTED INTO ENERGY AS PER THE 1ST LAW Of THERMODYNAMICS.E=MC² is also known as a hypothetical defination of energy.BUT no matter can be 100% converted to energy BASED ON THE sole reason that NO CONVERSION IN THE WORLD IS 100% EFFICIENT.

Now  coming to your question THE SOLAR ENERGY REQUIRED TO CONVERT  1 TON OF HYDROGEN INTO ENERGY SHOULD BE GREATER THAN 3*10^11Joules.Now The value which I said is only possible in the case of complete conversion of the energies with efficieny 100%.

 

NOTE: I AM IN CLASS 8 hence if I made any mistakes plz correct me.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Ryan@123

[kerbiloid]

The whole idea of "matter" is just a puny attempt to describe the reality in terms of monkey food.
The matter is what the monkey can "touch", "smell", "taste", i.e. interact with it with short-range electromagnetic forces.
The monkey's "vision" is a long-range electromagnetic interaction.
The monkey's "hearing" is a short-range electromagnetic interaction with particles of media after a chain of their collisions. I.e. long-into-short.

So, the whole idea of "energy-matter conversion" makes no sense.
The "matter" is just a specific pattern of energy-momentum distribution describe in vulgar human monkey terms.

[Codraroll]

5 hours ago, Ryan@123 said:

BUT no matter can be 100% converted to energy BASED ON THE sole reason that NO CONVERSION IN THE WORLD IS 100% EFFICIENT.

The losses due to imperfect efficiency tend to come in the form of waste heat, i.e. energy. So if your goal is only to release energy, the inefficiencies would be towards that goal as well, so you'd get 100% efficiency. That's why electric heaters are 100% efficient; they are all about releasing heat, which is a process that cooperates very nicely with entropy. 

The other way around would probably send waste heat in all directions, though. Energy-to-matter would be a very inefficient process indeed.

[magnemoe]

On 7/31/2020 at 2:56 PM, Hannu2 said:

All large particle accelerators which create new particles, for example LHC, convert kinetic energy of projectile particles to mass. For example 2 protons with mass of about 1 GeV and kinetic energy of several TeV hit and produce a Higgs boson with mass of 125 GeV (and bunch of other particles too). But I understood that Spacescifi meant conversion from electromagnetic field (photons) to massive particles. As far as I know it has not yet seen in laboratory.

Excellent point, yes we have created particles using high energy protons but as you say the energy was in the kinetic energy of the protons. 
Or rater relativistic energy and its bit hard to create photons with this energy levels and I question if it would be stable anyway.