ilovephysics.com :: free online physics help, tutorials, forums, classes, misconceptions in / Matter = E ?

joules · 2007-02-23 15:58:32

Does Einstein's formula prove that matter is nothing more than energy... all the atoms, the table in front of you, the views from your window, and the air you breathe are just different configurations of one fundamental property: energy?

Please explain???

Bishop · 2007-02-23 20:15:02

All that einstien's formula does is show that they're *equivalent*. I think that the view that matter is a form of energy is one that a lot of people would agree with, but E=mc^2 does not prove this: there is personal interpretation involved. I think that we also involve ourselves with semantics when we start talking like this: e.g. why isn't energy really just matter? Why isn't the fundamental property matter?

BenTheMan · 2007-02-23 20:37:51

Bishop wrote:
why isn't energy really just matter? Why isn't the fundamental property matter?

Matter can be created and destroyed in collisions/interactions, while energy is always conserved. This suggests that it is energy and not matter that is the fundamental concept.

BenTheMan · 2007-02-23 20:52:08

joules wrote:
Does Einstein's formula prove that matter is nothing more than energy... all the atoms, the table in front of you, the views from your window, and the air you breathe are just different configurations of one fundamental property: energy?

Please explain???

This is an interesting question. I think it proves that the two are exchangable. But there is more than just that happeneing. For example, how does the universe know to create electrons from energy? In essence, the universe has to "know" about the matter that lives in it---this is what Einstein's equations tell us.

$R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{\mu \nu} = 8 \pi T_{\mu \nu}$

If you don't know anything about these equations that's ok---the point is that the left hand side of these equations tells us about gravity, and the right hand side tells us about matter. So it is all quite neat---space-time (or gravity if you like) knows everything about matter!

Does this help at all?

joules · 2007-02-23 23:41:28

You’re doing good (very interesting stuff, indeed); but, or course, true help would be a definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’

Amazing that you say the universe must “know” about the matter it creates! Could it be similar to the human body’s ability to create cells etc. - programmed, rather than conscious design? The circumstances of the universe, during its birth and the proceeding conditions, were conducive with the formation of quantum particles, atomic structures, time, and eventually life. From what I understand, there was only pure energy just after the big bang… matter was formed from this energy. Is that correct?

Perhaps matter isn’t destroyed at all, but simply converts back to a less dense form of energy? What do you think?

BenTheMan · 2007-02-24 04:08:01

programmed, rather than conscious design?

programmed in the sense that it obeys an equation.

matter was formed from this energy. Is that correct?

Yes.

Perhaps matter isn’t destroyed at all, but simply converts back to a less dense form of energy? What do you think?

Well, yes. There is only one type of energy. But, this is basically correct.

safertr · 2007-08-07 23:21:44

Einstein's original cosmological model was a static, homogeneous model with spherical geometry. The gravitational effect of matter caused an acceleration in this model which Einstein did not want, since at the time the Universe was not known to be expanding. Thus Einstein introduced a cosmological constant into his equations for General Relativity. This term acts to counteract the gravitational pull of matter, and so it has been described as an anti-gravity effect.
http://www.click2finding.com/click2.asp … Mechanics/

Why does the cosmological constant behave this way?

This term acts like a vacuum energy density, an idea which has become quite fashionable in high energy particle physics models since a vacuum energy density of a specific kind is used in the Higgs mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking. Indeed, the inflationary scenario for the first picosecond after the Big Bang proposes that a fairly large vacuum energy density existed during the inflationary epoch. The vacuum energy density must be associated with a negative pressure because:

ramphysix · 2007-08-11 13:24:41

you can find lots of good sources in the following link
http://www.whatusearch.net/Science/Physics/

Announcement

#1 2007-02-23 15:58:32

Matter = E ?

#2 2007-02-23 20:15:02

Re: Matter = E ?

#3 2007-02-23 20:37:51

Re: Matter = E ?

Bishop wrote:

#4 2007-02-23 20:52:08

Re: Matter = E ?

joules wrote:

#5 2007-02-23 23:41:28

Re: Matter = E ?

#6 2007-02-24 04:08:01

Re: Matter = E ?

#7 2007-08-07 23:21:44

Re: Matter = E ?

#8 2007-08-11 13:24:41

Re: Matter = E ?

Board footer