Sci/Tech Atom smasher achieves 'Big Bang' collisions

Meh, they'll take about 10years to process the results of the little collisions

Still trying to find the Higg's field I bet -___-

E = m c^2

No where does it mention mass.
Matter has no mass, so something must have given matter mass.

SineCosine said:

Still trying to find the Higg's field I bet -___-

E = m c^2

No where does it mention mass.
Matter has no mass, so something must have given matter mass.

Click to expand...

In E = m c^2, m is mass. The Higgs field attempts to explain how some force mediating particles have mass and others do not.

But energy, by nature, has no mass.
Sure, the equation works.

But there's no mention of why energy can be turned into mass =/
Which is what I meant, horrible way to put it, now that I read what I typed, lol

SineCosine said:

But there's no mention of why energy can be turned into mass =/

Click to expand...

Turned into oO?
Mass IS energy -.-
Just to say it again: There is NO difference between the E and the mc².

What you can do, though, is turn other energies into mass, or turn mass into other energies.

Samael88 said:

Woah, imagine to do that to a hamster That would really be something amazing

Click to expand...

In fact, it would be particularly boring.
Perhaps once in a while, the hamster would move a little.
Then he would starve.

So this made a massive amount of energy, but no matter was formed?

Sorry for my ignorance, but I personally think that calling it a "Big Bang" collision is an overstatement.

Razalgrim said:

So this made a massive amount of energy, but no matter was formed?

Sorry for my ignorance, but I personally think that calling it a "Big Bang" collision is an overstatement.

Click to expand...

a)

SerraAvenger said:

BTW: Wikipedia says 7 TeV is about the kinetic energy of 7 flying mosquitos =D

Click to expand...

b) No this didn't make any energy - ever heard of conservation of energy?
c) I guess kinetic energy was transformed into matter.
d) I accept your sorrow. To the uncapable eye, colliding the energetic equivalent of 7 flying mosquitos might not be the biggest bang for the buck. But in fact, we're talking about speed here, this is what the whole thing is about.
Big Bang is what most scientists believe to be the origin of the universe. The job of the LHC is not to recreate the universe, it ain't a "Big Bang colllision". The job of the LHC is to recreate the situation right after the Big Bang, to give us more insight into how we (as a universe) came to life.

EDIT: Seems they were smashing protons even!

No, energy isn't mass and mass isn't energy.

Matter can be turned into energy, but is not energy itself.
Same goes for energy.

You'd need a lot of energy to turn it into matter.
And if matter is composed of energy while energy has no mass,
Why would matter have mass?

Mass is something that should not belong, but does.

SineCosine said:

No, energy isn't mass and mass isn't energy.

Click to expand...

sigh...
E=mc^2

You are so totally confusing everything... What you mean is MATTER. MASS!=MATTER.

And, quoting wikipedia...
"In cases where matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

Bleh, special relativity is a whacky thing. The issue with the matter, mass, and energy is really how we define these things. Mass in relativity can either refer to relativistic mass, which is no different than the relativistic energy of an object, or rest mass, which is a form of energy that we associate with the idea of "matter".

As it happens, matter can be "converted" into other forms of energy, but the total mass of the system will be unchanged; any "matter energy" winds up becoming some other form of energy, and since that energy has as much mass as that matter did, the mass does not change.

This is hard to visualize because in everyday life, it happens on scales which are hard to perceive, since in everyday life, the mass of matter energy seems more significantly than the mass of other forms of energy.

As an example, it takes roughly 4200 joules to raise the temperature of a kilogram of tap-temperature water by 1 degree centigrade. This means that if you take a kilogram of 0-degree ice out of your freezer and raise it to a boil of 100 degrees on your stove, you've added ~4.2*10^6 joules to the water. However, one kilogram of energy is equal to about 9*10^16 joules, so you've raised the mass of your water by all of about 4.7*10^-12 kilograms. You probably won't notice the difference if you lift the water up, particularly since this difference will likely have been far more than offset by the water leaving as steam.


But, matter can certainly be converted into other forms of energy. This happens when nukes go off; some of the bomb's matter is converted into heat, light, and all sort of other fun and horrifying stuff. However, despite the loss of "matter", the total mass of the bomb before a detonation, and the total mass of the (bomb + explosion) after the detonation will wind up being equal, because the explosive energies such as light and heat have mass of their own.

That little tidbit about how a single kilogram is equal to ~9*10^16 joules is thus why nukes are so powerful; to human perception, a small amount of matter is actually equivalent to what we would perceive as a LOT of energy in its other forms. To get the idea of just what that scale is, IIRC 20 megatons is roughly equal to 1kg.

I know that matter is not mass.
But matter is what is created with enough energy.

The MASS of the MATTER created by the ENERGY is defined by E=mc^2
BUT, matter should not have MASS, because ENERGY has no MASS.

The EQUATION only shows the relation between energy and mass.
What I want to know is the relation between matter and energy.

Jesus Christ, is there a language barrier?(I'm in school, lol)

[EDIT]
(Back home now)
Uh,
@uberfoop
Water supposedly would have its mass increased due to the added energy..
So, no matter is created but the mass still increases because of the "water's" capacity to contain that energy?
So that means hot stuff is heavy stuff? o.0

I didn't know heat and light have mass ._.
I thought the reason light goes on indefinitely is because it has no mass, and so, you can put as much energy as you like into a light ray or something..
Also, heat o.0

That's new, I'm intrigued, lol