-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I have a quick physics-type question
- Thread starter Spot
- Start date
Lixivium
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,689
There's this thing on the internet called "Google". Try it some time.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html
Seed of Sorrow
Smash Champion
Yes it is possible. I am not sure how accurate this is in modern history but : light is made of both waves and photons. At high temperatures and energy levels, photons react with other photons to create particles. Likewise, vice versa may occur so matter may become energy.
You have it backwards; fusion converts matter into energy.
Volasko
Smash Ace
Emm you often need energy to create matter (certian chemical reactions require high temperatures) or use matter to create energy (fuel, atomic bomb, etc). The conversion of pure energy into something that is matter I believe is impossible.
Eternal phoenix Fire
Smash Hero
Well,I know that the polymerization of matter can create energy,but lets see...
It could be possible,depending if we are talking about a chemical reaction(Maybe?>_>).I think it varies on how each specific element reacts against one another.
Nuclear Fusion could be a good example of this(mostly in stars)
But I really cannot name anything specific on the matter,I can only state examples.
I really don't even think i'm right.>_>
It could be possible,depending if we are talking about a chemical reaction(Maybe?>_>).I think it varies on how each specific element reacts against one another.
Nuclear Fusion could be a good example of this(mostly in stars)
But I really cannot name anything specific on the matter,I can only state examples.
I really don't even think i'm right.>_>
pikachun00b7
Smash Lord
Yes, but you need a hell of a lot of energy.
fusion is being done on earth already, just not at the scale of the sun.
Also he had it right with the sun, in the process of creating larger elements such as helium from hydrogen it releases energy.
A 100% conversion can be done by putting matter and antimatter together
Next most efficient is nuclear (I think)
then chemical
EDIT: oops I had it backwards... even when I saw someone else have it backwards lol.
Well, when covalent bonds are broken, energy is stored as a small amount of mass. This can be seen in "cold packs". I'm not sure if there are any other ways.
Also he had it right with the sun, in the process of creating larger elements such as helium from hydrogen it releases energy.
A 100% conversion can be done by putting matter and antimatter together
Next most efficient is nuclear (I think)
then chemical
EDIT: oops I had it backwards... even when I saw someone else have it backwards lol.
Well, when covalent bonds are broken, energy is stored as a small amount of mass. This can be seen in "cold packs". I'm not sure if there are any other ways.
If you want to get down to the knitty-gritty:
The amount of total energy in a mass is given (after many details and combining) by E=Ymc^2. However, the value for why is dependent on the reference from of the mass, namely whether or not the mass is moving in respect to them. When there is no movement (v=0), Y is equal to 1 so we now get E=mc^2, the famous equation that we all know and love. From a non moving reference system this is the greatest amount of energy that a certain mass can produce. Chemical and nuclear reactions can tap into some of this energy, but it is almost unnoticeable compared to the total amount.
However, as far as we know this process is not reversible which is one of the reasons why the universe will eventually turn into nothingness in due time (mass may become energy, but it will not return).
The amount of total energy in a mass is given (after many details and combining) by E=Ymc^2. However, the value for why is dependent on the reference from of the mass, namely whether or not the mass is moving in respect to them. When there is no movement (v=0), Y is equal to 1 so we now get E=mc^2, the famous equation that we all know and love. From a non moving reference system this is the greatest amount of energy that a certain mass can produce. Chemical and nuclear reactions can tap into some of this energy, but it is almost unnoticeable compared to the total amount.
However, as far as we know this process is not reversible which is one of the reasons why the universe will eventually turn into nothingness in due time (mass may become energy, but it will not return).
No, he had it wrong. I was asking about converting energy into matter, not matter into energy.
Yeah I was wrong xD. Well, it's not that hard to converting energy into matter. You just do the opposite of creating energy out of matter. Have you ever seen the mass/nucleons graph? Example: when you break a Pb molecule into 2 smaller molecules you just created mass. The mass/nucleon in Pb is lower than the 2 molecules you've just created, so that means that mass is getting bigger. To break a Pb molecule, you need energy(and alot, I believe), so there you have it, energy into mass.
The Mad Hatter
Smash Ace
Cool, more 7th grade science questions!