Weird quantum physics stuff...
Okay, they are essentially spending energy to make photons from nothing. Photons are matter. They are making matter from energy. Awesome.
...
Okay, they are essentially spending energy to make photons from nothing. Photons are matter. They are making matter from energy. Awesome.
Matter creates energy and energy creates matter. That's something physicists have known for years, that's nothing new in and of itself. However, this particular experiment is pretty cool and sounds like it was a unique approach to further validating quantum physics.
I also find it hopeful that the scientists are saying "no comment until peer reviews are done", which increases the chance of this not being a hoax by a lot
...
Okay, they are essentially spending energy to make photons from nothing. Photons are matter. They are making matter from energy. Awesome.
Matter creates energy and energy creates matter. That's something physicists have known for years, that's nothing new in and of itself. However, this particular experiment is pretty cool and sounds like it was a unique approach to further validating quantum physics.
fifth grade science told me that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
fifth grade science told me that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I thought that held true for matter as well, as matter is a finite resource, and it can only be rearranged.
*shrug* I'm no physicist, but the article is interesting nonetheless.
hey Jharii what's poppin slime?
LOL. Nothin' Five.
How about you?fifth grade science told me that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I thought that held true for matter as well, as matter is a finite resource, and it can only be rearranged.
*shrug* I'm no physicist, but the article is interesting nonetheless.
It can indeed be destroyed. It then becomes energy. Likewise, in this case the energy is being transformed into matter. Or something. I don't understand the whole of it, by any stretch of the imagination.
fifth grade science told me that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I thought that held true for matter as well, as matter is a finite resource, and it can only be rearranged.
*shrug* I'm no physicist, but the article is interesting nonetheless.
It can indeed be destroyed. It then becomes energy. Likewise, in this case the energy is being transformed into matter. Or something. I don't understand the whole of it, by any stretch of the imagination.
Its a proof of some quantum physics laws that deal with zero point energy. Something about particles being created and destroyed in a vacuum. The mirrors are some how absorbing the particles and then re-emitting them as energy before they can be destroyed.
It can indeed be destroyed. It then becomes energy. Likewise, in this case the energy is being transformed into matter. Or something. I don't understand the whole of it, by any stretch of the imagination.
I do not believe it is actually being destroyed, though. Simply converted. Rearranged, reorganized, redistributed. It may not be recognizable from its original form, but it's all there somewhere. E = mc2
fifth grade science told me that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Fifth grade science told you wrong. If matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate each other, thus creating energy (I don't really like the term annihilate, though, since the matter is just converted to energy). Likewise, energy can create matter, generating particles and antiparticles.
fifth grade science told me that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Fifth grade science told you wrong. If matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate each other, thus creating energy (I don't really like the term annihilate, though, since the matter is just converted to energy). Likewise, energy can create matter, generating particles and antiparticles.
Yeah, quantum physics blows fifth grade science out of the water...
It also reads like a religious book: "You can't know the velocity or the position of a quantum particle at the same time, its one or the other"
"Until you pin it down a quantum particle occupies all space except where you look for it" or something like that... it gets really really weird...
hey Jharii what's poppin slime?
LOL. Nothin' Five.
its taken me two MONTHS to get someone to do that!!!11!!!
Yeah, even if you understand the stuff in theory it's pretty hard to wrap your head around it all. Even Einstein couldn't accept some of the implications of quantum improbability.
Personally I just think their instruments are not fine enough to measure at that level and some of them are going to have a rude awakening when we get there technologically...
Yeah, even if you understand the stuff in theory it's pretty hard to wrap your head around it all. Even Einstein couldn't accept some of the implications of quantum improbability.
Personally I just think their instruments are not fine enough to measure at that level and some of them are going to have a rude awakening when we get there technologically...
That was Einstein's position as well. He insisted that just because we were not able to measure a particle's exact speed and position did not mean that it didn't have one. And yet he was proven wrong and so far the theories of his opponents have borne out. Perhaps you should do some more reading on the subject, some of the experiments show that there's a lot more to it than needing better instruments.
hey Jharii what's poppin slime?
LOL. Nothin' Five.
its taken me two MONTHS to get someone to do that!!!11!!!
I aim to please! LOL.
We can turn matter into energy fairly easily, but turning energy into matter... well, that's a bit more difficult.
But yeah, interesting news nonetheless...
...
Okay, they are essentially spending energy to make photons from nothing. Photons are matter. They are making matter from energy. Awesome.
Matter creates energy and energy creates matter. That's something physicists have known for years, that's nothing new in and of itself. However, this particular experiment is pretty cool and sounds like it was a unique approach to further validating quantum physics.
I know of a whole lotta ways to make energy from matter. Going the other way? Not so much.
If we could really turn matter into energy the energy crisis would be over. It's ridiculous how much energy you can generate by truly converting a gram of something into energy, rather then just some spare electrons. (Electrons if I'm not mistaken anyway... it's been a few years)
Actually turning matter into energy isn't all that easy either..
Yes it is.
A fire is turning matter (wood or whatever) into energy (heat and light).
So, yeah, it is pretty easy.
Yeah, even if you understand the stuff in theory it's pretty hard to wrap your head around it all. Even Einstein couldn't accept some of the implications of quantum improbability.
Personally I just think their instruments are not fine enough to measure at that level and some of them are going to have a rude awakening when we get there technologically...
That was Einstein's position as well. He insisted that just because we were not able to measure a particle's exact speed and position did not mean that it didn't have one. And yet he was proven wrong and so far the theories of his opponents have borne out. Perhaps you should do some more reading on the subject, some of the experiments show that there's a lot more to it than needing better instruments.
It also has to do with the fact that measuring anything requires the object of the measurement to interact with something and anything you do to measure one of the two impacts the other. SO if you are measuring speed you are effeccting the things position and vice versa and the more accurately you are measuring them, the more it is having to interact with your measuring 'tool' (which could be something as simple as another particle) and the more inaccurate any calculation of the other becomes.
Now at macro scales, the effect is pretty much unnoticable. There probably isn't an instrument in the world that could measure the tiny impact that the radar gun that a cop is using to measure your speed is going to have on your car's position. But at the scales of atomic particles and their constituent parts, the effect is quite noticable. Though I still think it would be funny, next time I get stopped for speeding to answer the cop's obligatory "Do you know how fast you were going?" question with "Yes officer, but I have no clue where I am" just to see the look on the cop's face before he tased me.
Actually turning matter into energy isn't all that easy either..
Yes it is.
A fire is turning matter (wood or whatever) into energy (heat and light).
So, yeah, it is pretty easy.
Ah. Yeah, if you count that, then sure. Although as far as I know, no actual matter is converted into energy. Matter is converted into different matter, and energy stored within the matter is released.
I'm not a physicist, but I'm pretty sure no matter actually is converted at all.
And you are wrong... which isn't surprising.
There is no "stored energy" in wood. Some of the wood matter is turned into energy, releasing heat and light. The rest of the wood matter simply changes form of matter... from wood to smoke and ash.
Nothing in the wikipedia page on "combustion" references matter/energy conversions either. And all of the scientific reactions indicate that the "before" and "after" state of the combustion have the exact same elements. Which means that all matter still exists, only in a different form.
Notice that there is no energy on the left of the equations.
If you read this and still don't get it, there's nothing I can do for you.
Also,
"The heat of combustion (ΔHc0) is the energy released as heat when a compound undergoes complete combustion with oxygen under standard conditions."
CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O + energy
Then if we add all the matter on the left, we get 1C, 4H, 4O. And if we add all the matter on the left, we get 1C, 4H, and 4O.
What matter, exactly, do you propose was converted into energy?
I'm not sure if I'm wrong, getting confused by the english language, or have the US high school system to blame here
No, you're definately not a physicist... but I learned what I just told you in High School.
In my experience high school (can) give you a good basis for most applications, but a very piss poor understanding of how things are actually working.
So I'm not sure that's a good basis for asserting correctness.
Not saying you're wrong (or right), just saying that what they teach you in high school is often "close enough" but not actually right.
Combustion, like in a fire for example, has no matter -> energy convesrion. What you are doing is simply taking the energy that is already there in the chemical bonds, and releasing it in the form of light and heat as you form different chiemical bonds.
Right energy and matter each changing forms... conversion between the two is ummm post high school.
I could be wrong. I've only watched the kiddie videos that explain it on PBS and Nova. Sounds like junk science to me, but if they've proven it sceintifically using the scientific method, then sure...
Lies to Children