Photons with high enough energy do indeed create matter when they collide. This sort of thing is done in particle accelerators. See this link for some more info: http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammag...-tutorial.html
Neutralino;
Though many feel that the term mass and the word matter mean the same, I would strongly suggest you NOT USE MATTER as a replacement for MASS. Einstein’s equation quite accurately states that mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass. (neither are a destruction or conversion of actual physical matter substance) No reputable scientist should ever say that ENERGY can be converted to MATTER. Mass and energy are both terms of quantitative measure of a state of matter.
Calling matter mass, is the biggest misconception in science today. Challenge all your professors that make such statements that infer they are the same. Calling radiation energy does not alter the fact that it is still physical substance.
Would you like to explain just how the universe is a perpetual motion machine? The working definition is that a perpetual motion machine creates more energy than is put in. In the universe, energy-momentum conservation implies that the universe is not a perpetual motion machine. And please, don't quote the big bang, as the actual big bang model simply states that the "stuff" in the universe was once a lot more dense than it is today-- NOT that the universe "started with a bang" and matter was created from nothing.
The trouble with your analysis Neutralino, is the fact that we don't yet possess enough facts about the entire universe's mechanics, to make absolutely qualitative statements about the entire thermodynamics of an open system. Thermodynamics, as stated, pertains to closed systems, and the universe is an open system, so, stating the universe is a perpetual motion machine, is an a-priori statement of observation. We have no mathematics to prove it, but it's quite obvious that the universe is in perpetual motion of some sort. What that mechanics may be, we are investigating. I have stated for over two years, that it's zero entropy thermodynamically moving, and all low temperature physics experiments verify this fact, that is, as close to absolute zero we can go, with the experiments. Helium, at a billionth of a degree K, climbs the walls of the container, in the low temperature experiments, to date, one atom thick. Many industrial firms are making rather exotic filters with this very process. These are the finest filters ever designed. The experiments are still being interpreted by many physicists, around the world, as they realize helium is going through state changes, at least to He^3, if not higher states. My point is, the matter is still moving, as it approaches ever closer to absolute zero. There's a strange matter/energy factor working at this level, that very well may be perpetual motion, that just may be required by such low temperatures/motions.
But, as to the universe being a perpetual motion machine, thermodynamics of such an open system, would not violate standard thermodynamic laws of closed systems. Therefore, by using obvious a-priori logic, the universe, to me, is a perpetual motion machine, until further proven wrong...
Regards,
Lloyd
p.s.
BTW, I'm not in school, I don't care about my spelling errrors...
__________________ "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
How do you infer this? If I state that "The cosmos is constantly re-cycled', how do you then leap to me 'seeming' ...'that the Universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine'? Stop 'seeming', and find out!
Well what are you talking about then? You should also define all non-standard terms that you use, like "cosmic recycling."
Quote:
You could also try tidying up your presentation, as people will be more likely to take a more coherent notion seriously.
I don't really care who takes what I say seriously. Given that I am a scientist, people here will not take my views seriously for that precise reason.
Quote:
Your 'working definition' is contradictory, for the very reason that it posits two 'definitions' of the same thing ('perpetual motion' and 'constant re-cycling'), and goes on to treat them as 'separate'. They are not; it is wrong; and so are you, when you follow blindly instead of finding out the reality for yourself.
Nonsense. Well, at least your username is well suited to your character.
Well what are you talking about then? You should also define all non-standard terms that you use, like "cosmic recycling."
I don't really care who takes what I say seriously. Given that I am a scientist, people here will not take my views seriously for that precise reason.
Nonsense. Well, at least your username is well suited to your character.
Wow, all these very knowledgeable people come back with answers for you, having spent their valuable time with your questions, and all you want to do is defend your ego and insult poor little old me? That's not very scientific, is it?
This thread is about the 'cyclic universe', so why take offence at a simple term: "The cosmos is constantly re-cycled''? Are 'scientists' always so easily set off into such fits of inexplicable rage, for no apparent reason?
pif.
__________________ People look after the things they have affection for. It is thus essential that we learn to have affection for the planet that sustains us.
"The sense of threat from every quarter of what is known as the Establishment – which is to say, of modern civilization – is not altogether a put-on or an act for many of these young folk, but an actual condition of soul. The break-off is real, and what is being bombed and blown up outside are actual symbols of interior fears." - Joseph Campbell
Neutralino;
Though many feel that the term mass and the word matter mean the same, I would strongly suggest you NOT USE MATTER as a replacement for MASS. Einstein’s equation quite accurately states that mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass. (neither are a destruction or conversion of actual physical matter substance) No reputable scientist should ever say that ENERGY can be converted to MATTER. Mass and energy are both terms of quantitative measure of a state of matter.
Good point. I agree that my use of language was sloppy.
But, as to the universe being a perpetual motion machine, thermodynamics of such an open system, would not violate standard thermodynamic laws of closed systems. Therefore, by using obvious a-priori logic, the universe, to me, is a perpetual motion machine, until further proven wrong...
Ahh, ok, an interesting approach. It's certainly made your point above more clear than simply stating the universe is a perpetual motion machine.
Quote:
p.s.
BTW, I'm not in school, I don't care about my spelling errrors...
I'm not sure whether this is aimed at me; I never mentioned anything about anyone's spelling!
The conservation has nothing to do with the conversion of mass into relativistic energy is the point I thought was in question.
The mass doesn't change, can't be created or destroyed, but the kinetic energy can and it squares the rest mass.
In other words, there is more than enough energy to create the material/antimaterial universe, which would function as a pertual-motion system imo.
Can you use some equations so I know what you're actually talking about?
Anyway, I thought we were discussing creation of mass inside a black hole event horizon? This is not going to be a perpetual motion machine, since anything inside an event horizon cannot get out into the rest of the universe.
This thread is about the 'cyclic universe', so why take offence at a simple term: "The cosmos is constantly re-cycled''?
It would help if you actually defined what you mean by "the cosmos is recycled." Stating something like this, without definition, or any attempt at a proof, is equivalent to saying something like that sky is purple.
Quote:
Are 'scientists' always so easily set off into such fits of inexplicable rage, for no apparent reason?
But the Kinetic Energy changes phase when it does work, and that energy is then rendered useless for any more postive work. Hence it is only a one time usage...
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY
The conservation has nothing to do with the conversion of mass into relativistic energy is the point I thought was in question.
The mass doesn't change, can't be created or destroyed, but the kinetic energy can and it squares the rest mass.
In other words, there is more than enough energy to create the material/antimaterial universe, which would function as a pertual-motion system imo.
It would help if you actually defined what you mean by "the cosmos is recycled."
Which is exactly what I did. I cannot be responsible for your inability to read! - You have been talking about 'perpetual motion', quite readily, and I merely stated that 'cosmos recycled' is another description of the same thing. You are therefore squabbling needlessly about words, without understanding their meaning. A common problem for Humans, currently, so don't worry about it - you're one of 'us'!
Quote:
Stating something like this, without definition, or any attempt at a proof, is equivalent to saying something like that sky is purple.
__________________ People look after the things they have affection for. It is thus essential that we learn to have affection for the planet that sustains us.
"The sense of threat from every quarter of what is known as the Establishment – which is to say, of modern civilization – is not altogether a put-on or an act for many of these young folk, but an actual condition of soul. The break-off is real, and what is being bombed and blown up outside are actual symbols of interior fears." - Joseph Campbell
Linear Mode
