Energy and Speed of Light

[vijaywantstoknow]

Why do we use speed of light to calculate Energy? Please explaing in layman's terms.

 

[search]

Difficult in layman's term but I will give it a go:<br /><br />Everything in the universe is made either of matter or energy and they can interchange. <br /><br />You are used to see Matter changing into Energy everyday: the Sun is the perfect example.<br /><br />Not so common is Energy being coverted into Matter.<br /><br />This is where Einstein comes in. Einstein’s E=mc² says we can even turn energy into matter! <br /><br />Particle physicists make this kind of reaction happen every day in laboratories. This accomplished by accelerating ordinary particles up to <font color="black">very high speeds, close to the speed of light</font> and smashing them into each other. The result is a spray of new particles, many of which may be heavier than the original pair that collided. The energy of motion of the orignal particles has contributed to creating new ones. Some of these new particles are very interesting and exotic! Most only live for a short time before decaying into more ordinary stuff. <br /><br />E=mc²<br /><br />c² is also the conversion factor required to sometimes convert from units of mass to units of energy, i.e. the energy per unit mass. <br /><br />In unit-specific terms:<br /><br />E (joules or kg·m²/s²) = m (kilograms) multiplied by (299,792,458 m/s)2.<br /><br />A gram of mass could (theoretically) be converted entirely into approximately:<br />90,000,000,000,000 Joules (90 terajoules)<br />25,000,000 kilowatt-hours<br />The energy in 21 kilotons of TNT<br />Approximately 0.0000850 Quads (quadrillion British thermal units)

 

[six_strings]

Nice Search!<br />I'm impressed; even I could understand that, well kind of <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />When you say they accelerate ordinary particles to near light speed, what are ordinary particles? I think I'm still foggy on how energy is converted to matter actually. If the new heavy particles decay, you couldn't actually end up with anything?<br /><br />Hmmm, when we perfect this conversion, we all get food synthesizers like they had on the Star Trek - Enterprise? Just draw on a lot of energy and make some munchies? Haha<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

"<br />Not so common is Energy being coverted into Matter. <br /><br />This is where Einstein comes in. Einstein’s E=mc² says we can even turn energy into matter! "<br /><br />nope<br /><br />energy cannot be converted into matter. that is wrong. this never occurs in the universe nor anywhere. that is not what E=mc^2 describes.

 

[billslugg]

Bonzelite<br />Energy can be converted into matter. <br /><br />"More specifically, a magnetar is a neutron star whose surface field exceeds the critical field strength. Electric fields of energy densities exceeding that of the critical field decay spontaneously via electron-positron pair creation." here <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

E=mc^2 is a kinetic energy equation describing matter traveling at c. not equivalent to c. nor able to be converted from energy into matter. <br /><br />the equation was never derived with energy-to-matter conversion in mind. whatever occurs on a magetarian environment is not the spontaneous creation of matter from energy. following is for momentum of non-reflected light:<br /><br />p = E/c (momentum of light, p = it's Energy content/speed of c<br />p =mc (momentum of light, p = it's mass/speed of c<br />E/c =mc (first 2 lines are equated)<br />E =mc^2 <br /><br />there is no mass-to-energy conversion<br />

 

[search]

Ordinary particles are the standard particles used in the accelerators to produce the collisions (protons, electrons). Basically the ones we know.<br /><br />Fermilab LINK<br />"The collision of particles at high energy allows physicists not only to look at what's inside these particles, but to use the energy of their collisions to create different, more massive and more exotic particles of matter. To create such high-energy collisions, scientists must use very powerful particle accelerators, such as Fermilab's Tevatron.<br />When people think of high-energy particle collisions, they often imagine explosive power. Yet, at the Tevatron, the world's most powerful accelerator, the collision of two particles releases an amount of energy that is comparable to the energy needed by a mosquito to fly. Because they are concentrated in such a small space, they have the power to crack protons and occasionally to produce a pair of top quarks, which have about the mass of gold atoms. The illustration shows how such an event proceeds and how the short-lived top quarks decay into lighter particles."<br /><br />How do accelerators work?

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">nope <br /><br />energy cannot be converted into matter. that is wrong. this never occurs in the universe nor anywhere. that is not what E=mc^2 describes.</font><br /><br />LINK<br />"How can energy be transformed into matter, or vice versa? <br />Big meteorites traverse our solar system with a typical speed of about 30 km/sec. If such a meteorite enters the Earth's atmosphere, its energy of movement is converted into heat, reaching 100,000 Co or more and melting most of its material ('shooting star'). And the speed of light is 10,000 times greater than this – 300,000 km/sec!<br /><br />According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, no material object can be accelerated to the speed of light. But it is possible - using circular accelerators at CERN - to make single particles (like a proton, the nucleus of a hydrogen atom) go at 99.99999% of the speed of light.<br /><br />If two particles coming from opposite direction and at this speed collide, the huge amount of energy set free in the collision can be transformed into matter. This is the opposite of matter transforming into energy, the basis of energy production in nuclear power stations. But these are two sides of the same equation, E=mc2."

 

[bonzelite]

i nearly agree on all points except this one, which is false:<br /><br />"If two particles coming from opposite direction and at this speed collide, the huge amount of energy set free in the collision can be transformed into matter. "

 

[MeteorWayne]

What part of it don't you agree with? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[six_strings]

OK, thx for the links! <br />I guess, the important question is when do I get a darn food synthesizer?!! haha <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

the energy-to-mass conversion part <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> E=mc^2 does not literally equate mass with energy, as if they are interchangeable physically. it represents a kinetic equivalence.

 

[MeteorWayne]

What is "kinetic equivilence"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

p = E/c (momentum of light, p = it's Energy content/speed of c) <br />p =mc (momentum of light, p = it's mass/speed of c)

 

[six_strings]

tough audience, or bad joke?<br /><br />*shrug* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

OK joke, wrong room. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[search]

Food Synthesizer <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[search]

I would like to "rephrase" the question of MeteorWayne to make it simpler:<br /><br />What? Kinetic equivalence? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

You are right, I dont think there's any evidence any human ever transformed energy into matter. I said this before in another thread, but people start giving irrelevant examples of binding energies. Nuclear binding energy is kind of trnasformation from matter to energy, not energy to matter.<br /><br /><br /><br />If we convert one proton into energy we get 1.5x10^-10 Joules. If we drop a 1 Kg book on the floor from 1m height, we waste 9.81 Joules of energy. If we could convert this wasted energy into matter we could get 6.52x10¹⁰ protons in our hands. Try to make those protons, mortals<br /><br /><br /><br />I dont know if energy to matter conversion in this spacetime is possible or not. May be a future generation with super brains can accomplish that.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

right. it's very simple as you say. E=mc^2 is a kinetic energy equation only; does not equate mass with energy literally. the talk of "energy being converted to mass" is mythical and a misrepresentation of the equation. <br /><br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

I guess all those accelerator experiments that prove that mass is created from energy are just bogus then, eh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<i>"You are right, I dont think there's any evidence any human ever transformed energy into matter. I said this before in another thread, but people start giving irrelevant examples of binding energies. Nuclear binding energy is kind of trnasformation from matter to energy, not energy to matter."</i><br /><br />you got it +10<br /><br />an energy-to-mass "conversion" is so unexamined and taken for granted that it is tantamount to alchemy, a result of misrepresentation gone unquestioned. there is simply no such thing happening in our cosmos. E=mc^2 has nothing to do with that. the equation derives from simple momentum of light equations.

 

[bonzelite]

<i><br />I guess all those accelerator experiments that prove that mass is created from energy are just bogus then, eh?</i><br /><br />correct +10<br /><br />no such thing is proven by such experiments. any results that "prove" it, then, disprove E=mc^2.

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">I dont know if energy to matter conversion in this spacetime is possible or not. May be a future generation with super brains can accomplish that. </font><br /><br />CERN, Fermilab, SLAC, BNL...<br /><br />BaBar<br />Scientists Use Light to Create Particles

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well you've lost me. If your opinion is worth more than everybody from Bohrs to Einstein to all the thousands of scientists investigating the frontier of particle physics, then we have no more basis for a discussion.<br />Seeya. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>