/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6265082]

If you can turn mass into energy can you turn energy into mass?

[Anonymous No.6265090]

If you mean matter, then there's pair production.

[Anonymous No.6265092]

>>6265082
There's no way this is actually a question, please say you're not that retarded.

Also I doubt that's the Tsar Bomb, they look like tropical trees and it looks like it was taken on a small series of islands, so it's probably an American detonation.

[Anonymous No.6265101]

>>6265090
Yes, matter.

[Anonymous No.6265104]

Mass and energy aren't "things" in and of themselves, they are just properties. Any given body has both mass and energy, just like it has angular momentum and electric charge and so on. One type of energy that an object has, sometimes called "mass energy," is simply proportional to its mass: E = mc^2. But it also has kinetic energy K = 1/2 mv^2 (and, at relativistic speeds, higher-order terms), and electromagnetic energy, and thermal energy, and so on.

If by "turning energy into mass" you mean converting one type of energy into matter, then yes that is possible, if for instance two photons create a particle-antiparticle pair. Furthermore, endergonic nuclear reactions will convert energy from the environment into binding energy in the new nucleus, which is usually considered part of the nucleus's mass.

>>6265092
I think it's the Bikini Atoll test.

[Anonymous No.6265110]

It's actually a French test called "Licorne"
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/02/26/licorne-atomic-bomb-test-beautiful-and-scary/#!q6395

[Anonymous No.6265248]

When you accelerate an object, some of the kinetic energy it should have classically actually becomes mass.

So just push something across your desk and it has gotten more massive. (but only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the total energy).

[Anonymous No.6265259]

>>6265248
>When you accelerate an object, some of the kinetic energy it should have classically actually becomes mass.
That doesn't make sense. Mass and energy are equivalent. So either they are the same thing and one cannot "become" the other, or you define mass to more specifically mean the invariant mass, which by definition doesn't change.

[Anonymous No.6265269]

>>6265259
the inertial mass changes.

[Anonymous No.6265275]

>>6265259
also there is no invariant mass. You meant to say "rest" mass.

[Anonymous No.6265296]

>>6265269
The inertia of a body does not change by a "small fraction" of the total change in energy, it changes exactly proportionately to it, because mass and energy (in this sense) are actually the same thing. If you add 1 megaJoule to a system, you add about 11 nanograms to its mass, regardless of what form the energy takes. E = mc^2

>>6265275
No I meant invariant mass. For a single particle this is the same thing.