As we know, the mass to energy conversion low of A. Einstein's general relativity, that if the mass is highly accelerated then it would be converted into energy. But is the reverse process possible ?
There is something called pair-production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Vikash Pandey:-- I support your answer. In this article, the electron & positron creation is explained. But In case of photosensitive materials the electricity generates form photon flux illumination, there the electron-hole pair generates & the electricity produces. So there also having the generation phenomena 'from energy to mass'. But in the two cases this generation is not a suitable term, because the electron become free enough to move and it already exist inside the latices in both cases. So is it possible to refer the photocell as a pair-production system ?
Pair-production system as the name suggests is about production of particles. Photoelectric effect is mere transfer of energy!
Energy can be converted into mass, a single photon can be converted to en electron positron pair in theory.
When the electron generates the photon then partially its energy gets converted into the electromagnetic wave. But when 1 photon converts into the mass then it generates one electron & one positron. So is the energy conversion amount is more in case of pair production rather than the electron to photon generation ?
“Is it possible to convert an amount of energy entirely into mass?
- to answer on this question, or even to discuss such a topic (what is true in any other case, though) is necessary before to define properly – what are main terms in the question/ topics; here – what are “energy” and “mass”?.
To define here is enough to know that Matter in our Universe is a dynamical (uninterruptedly changing) system, where all/every material objects, including all/every particles, uninterruptedly change their states in Matter’s [5]4D absolute Euclidian spacetime [“empty container”], that is constituted by [2]1D time directions/axes and 3D spatial directions/axes.
In Matter there are possible two types of the changes: (1) - a change of a 3D spatial positions, and (2) – a change of internal states of the objects; that can be at absolute 3D spatial rest and at 3D spatial motion.
At that the energy is just the cause (and a physical parameter of the changes) of any change of every object’s state. The changes of the objects’ states is realized in Matter as uninterrupted motion of the objects in the Matter’s 4D spacetime with different 4D speeds in different 4D directions, but at that all speeds are identical by the absolute value that is equal to the speed of light, c, (and, correspondingly, all Matter is constantly moving along “5-th” “true time axis” with the speed of light).
Thus every material object has a momentum, P=mc and the energy E=Pc=mc2; where “m” is some coefficient that characterizes a capability of an object “to resist” for some impacts on the object to change of given object’s momentum/energy; and this coefficient in physics is called the “[inertial] mass”.
Thus all/every material objects have some energies/masses – and there isn’t and cannot be in Matter some “pure energy” without material objects (we don’t consider here the Matter’s Beginning).
Note, though, that in Matter there exists the “gravitational mass” also, and all/every material objects have such masses, that are equivalent, at least if an object is in 3D absolute spatial rest, to the inertial masses above.
Though, besides, in Matter two types of particles exist: “S-particles” and “T-particles”. T-particles are created by 4D momentums that have non-zero temporal component [in 4D spacetime]. At absolute 3D spatial rest they only change their internal states and so move only in the time[s], having minimal “rest masses”, the momentum m0c and the energy m0c2. If some other object impacts on a concrete object by a 3D spatial momentum, the objects moves in the space also with 3D speed V, having m=gamma*m0.
S-particles are created by impacts with purely spatial 3D momentums, i.e. that have zero temporal components; well known example – photons; correspondingly S-particles are always at rest in time and move only in the space with the speed of light.
But, again – S-particles have both [inertial and gravitational] masses also.
Thus the answer on the thread’s question can be as: in certain sense it is non-sensical, because of in Matter at every interaction of any material objects only some re-distribution of the energy of the objects and the corresponding re-distribution of the masses happens; when because of the energy conversation law total energy of/in Matter remains be const, or that is true at least in the spacetime scales of many millions of the light years.
More - see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
Cheers
Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics
It is indeed and is happening right now at the LHC, for example, where the protons attain energies 6500 times their rest energy. However this doesn't have anything to do with general, but with special, relativity.
What this means is that 12998 GeV are converted to other particles, the balance being the kinetic energy of these particles.
It's not necessary to ``highly'' (or lowly) accelerate matter: the decay of a neutron to a proton, electron and electron antineutrino is an example of a transformation that takes about 10 minutes and occurs at very low energy, e.g. in ion traps.
“…and occurs at very low energy, e.g. in ion traps…”
- probably “in neutron traps”- ?
and
“…In nuclear fission the difference in the mass excess is converted to energy…”
- in nuclear fission – and at any other interaction in Matter as well – only a re-distribution of both – of [inertial] mass and of energy happens; difference is only in constant c2.
Again, to talk about the mass[es] and the energy is necessary before to define/understand – what these notions/ physical parameters are; for that – see SS post on 1-th page.
Pages are so short in this thread…
Cheers
No, the trap is that of protons, e.g. http://www.nist.gov/pml/div682/grp03/neutron-lifetime-measurement-using-cold-neutron-beam.cfm
Transforming energy ``entirely into mass'' means that the products of the transformation are at rest-which isn't possible, since this would mean they wouldn't have any kinetic energy at all. It is, however, possible to reach very low temperatures; though the identification of the particles is possible, even though these aren't at rest.
The question is too deep :) : That reverse transformation implies that the real cone of Minkowski space is equivalent to the "curved" imaginary cone of pseudo-Riemannian space, which can happen only after the axiom of choice or at least the lemma of ultrafiltres holds. In other words, the "curved" is equivalent to the "straight" only "nonstandardly" in my modest opinion. And vice versa, those phenomena interpretable as those transitions should be considered as experimental corroborations of the nonstandard equivalence of both "curved" and "straight".
Who downvoted this question ? Tell me your name with the fault of this question. The anonymous downvoting is too bad.
Stam ~
The suggested experiment in the link in your post above seems as interesting; though it is suggested only till now; and, regrettably, after be made rather probably will result in a next neutron’s half-life value, which will be among other experimental values; which were obtained mostly by using neutrons traps “bottles”; at that - all had estimated experimental errors, but all, nonetheless, “are discrepant by several standard deviations” now.
“…Transforming energy ``entirely into mass'' means that the products of the transformation are at rest-which isn't possible…”
- here you seems use the notion “mass” as the “rest mass”; though the “rest mass” in Matter is the mass if a body is at absolute 3D rest only; and – in the Minkowski formalism – some convenient invariant parameter of bodies at analyzing of bodies interactions; but that seems more mathematics then physics.
Physically the notion “mass” is a measure of a physical phenomenon “inertia”, which depends on motion.
And, again – “Transforming energy into mass” doesn’t mean that really somewhere outside particles/material objects there exist some physical quantity “energy”, which can be “transformed into mass” – the energy is only some quantifiable physical parameter that characterizes states of concrete particles and systems of particles; and it is, in certain sense, something as an equivalent of the mass – see SS post above.
Cheers
Soudip, I don't know who has downvoted your question. I personally think that it is one of the most meaningful ones recently. Downvoting in science is a boast for I had read in an article in sociology of science that the most refuted scientist is Einstein according to the number of refuting articles published in scientific journals.
@ Soudip
Just to remind you.
What goes around, comes around. Causality in physics, also called as "Karma" in daily practice. This is what you did to others without accepting your mistake. An example is here:
Soudip Sinha Roy: " ... I should to downvote your answer."
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_anyone_explain_to_me_about_Gravitational_constant_G/1
Particle creation is a loss free process that converts all of the energy that is contained inside two photons into the mass of a particle and an anti-particle.
Vikash Pandey : I don't want to get any answer from you. Please keep silence yourself from me. Firstly gather the knowledge prominently & then make argue. If you don't have sufficient knowledge don't try to comment on someone's profile. Not only for me but also everyone. Now You are crossing your limit. It is the last reminder and warning to you, that don't make such comment & don't try to make the RG as a bad platform. A lot of professionals are there. You are making yourself very humble to them in your subconscious mind. Try to get your sense back.
@ Soudip
I would email the moderators. Trolling is illegal in this country, therefore this falls under their legal policy.
- Badges
- Science topic