Hmm ... it seems most of your 'energy to matter conversions involve an energy interaction WITH matter or particles that already exist, and not a pure 'energy only' conversion into matter. Can you clarify that more ?

You're absolutely right to point out the nuance here—most observed energy-to-matter conversions, like pair production, involve some interaction with existing matter or fields, rather than a "pure" conversion of energy alone into matter in a vacuum. This is a critical distinction, and I’ll clarify why this is the case and whether a truly pure energy-to-matter conversion has been achieved or is theoretically possible.
Clarification on Energy-to-Matter Conversion
Einstein’s E=mc2E = mc^2E = mc^2
implies that energy and mass are equivalent, so energy can, in principle, be converted into matter. However, in practice, the processes we observe involve interactions with existing matter or fields due to the requirements of physical laws like conservation of energy, momentum, and quantum mechanics. Let’s break it down:
Pair Production Revisited:
In pair production, a high-energy photon (pure energy) transforms into an electron-positron pair. However, this process typically requires the presence of a nearby atomic nucleus or strong electromagnetic field to conserve momentum. The nucleus absorbs some momentum but does not contribute mass to the new particles—the electron and positron’s mass comes entirely from the photon’s energy.

Why the nucleus? A free photon in a vacuum cannot spontaneously convert into matter because a single photon cannot satisfy both energy and momentum conservation simultaneously. The nucleus or field provides the necessary momentum "kick" to make the process kinematically possible.

So, while the energy of the photon is what becomes the matter (electron and positron), the process isn’t "pure" in the sense of occurring without any external influence—it relies on an interaction with existing matter or fields.

Particle Accelerator Collisions:
In high-energy collisions (e.g., at the LHC), the kinetic energy of colliding particles (like protons) can produce new particles. Here, the initial particles (matter) provide the energy, which is converted into the mass of new particles. Again, this isn’t a "pure" energy-only process, as it starts with existing matter’s energy (kinetic or rest mass energy) and involves complex interactions mediated by quantum fields.

The new particles’ mass comes from the energy of the collision, but the process is initiated by pre-existing particles, not isolated energy.

Theoretical "Pure" Energy-to-Matter Conversion:
A truly pure conversion would involve energy (e.g., photons) in a vacuum spontaneously turning into matter without any interaction with existing particles or fields. In quantum field theory, this is theoretically possible but extremely rare and constrained:
Two-Photon Collisions: If two photons with sufficient combined energy collide (e.g., gamma rays), they can produce an electron-positron pair without needing a nucleus. This process, called two-photon pair production, is a closer example of "pure" energy-to-matter conversion, as it involves only energy (photons) as input. However, this is exceedingly rare due to the low probability of photon-photon interactions in quantum electrodynamics (QED).

Vacuum Fluctuations: In quantum field theory, the vacuum itself contains fluctuating energy (via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), which can briefly produce particle-antiparticle pairs. These are typically virtual particles, but under extreme conditions (e.g., near black holes or in high-energy experiments), such fluctuations could theoretically manifest as real particles. However, detecting this as a controlled "energy-to-matter" process remains experimentally elusive.

These scenarios are closer to "pure" energy-to-matter conversion but are either rare or require extreme conditions, and they haven’t been directly observed in isolation to the extent of pair production near a nucleus.

Experimental Evidence:
Two-Photon Pair Production: Experiments in the 1990s at facilities like SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) demonstrated photon-photon collisions producing electron-positron pairs. For example, the E-144 experiment collided high-energy laser photons with electron beams, indirectly creating conditions where photon interactions led to pair production. This is one of the closest experimental confirmations of energy-to-matter conversion with minimal reliance on pre-existing matter, though the setup still involved complex interactions.

Breit-Wheeler Process: The theoretical process of two photons colliding to produce matter (named after physicists Gregory Breit and John Wheeler) has been indirectly inferred in astrophysical contexts (e.g., near pulsars or gamma-ray bursts), where intense photon fields exist. However, direct, controlled observation in a lab setting remains challenging due to the need for extremely high-energy photon sources.

No experiment has yet achieved a fully isolated "energy-only" conversion in a perfect vacuum without any external fields or particles, as the conservation laws and quantum mechanics make such processes difficult to isolate and observe.

Why Is "Pure" Conversion Hard?:
Conservation Laws: Energy-to-matter conversion must conserve energy, momentum, charge, and other quantum numbers. Photons, being massless and moving at the speed of light, require specific conditions (e.g., collisions or external fields) to satisfy these constraints when producing massive particles.

Quantum Fields: In modern physics, particles are excitations of underlying quantum fields (e.g., the electron field). Energy-to-matter conversion inherently involves these fields, which are present even in a vacuum. A truly "pure" process without any field interaction is difficult to conceive, as the vacuum itself is not empty but filled with quantum fields.

Practical Limitations: Generating sufficient energy (e.g., via photons) to produce even a single electron-positron pair requires gamma rays with energies on the order of MeV, and macroscopic matter creation would require infeasible energy scales (e.g., 101510^{15}10^{15}
times more for a gram of matter).

Has It Been Proven?
Direct Proof: The conversion of energy to matter is proven in processes like pair production and particle collisions, but these typically involve interactions with existing matter or fields to facilitate the process. Two-photon pair production is the closest to a "pure" energy-to-matter process, with experimental evidence (e.g., SLAC’s E-144) supporting it, though it’s not entirely isolated from other influences.

Pure Energy-Only Conversion: A completely pure conversion—energy in a vacuum turning into matter without any external particles or fields—remains theoretically possible (e.g., via the Breit-Wheeler process) but has not been directly observed in a controlled lab setting. Indirect evidence exists in astrophysical environments, and ongoing research with high-intensity lasers (e.g., at facilities like the Extreme Light Infrastructure) aims to test this more directly.

The lack of a fully isolated "pure" conversion is not a failure of E=mc2E = mc^2E = mc^2
, but rather a consequence of how physical laws govern interactions. The principle that energy can become matter is undisputed, but the conditions for observing it often involve some form of interaction with existing matter or fields.

Conclusion
While energy-to-matter conversion is well-proven, most observed processes (like pair production) involve interactions with existing matter or fields to satisfy conservation laws. The two-photon Breit-Wheeler process comes closest to a "pure" energy-to-matter conversion, with experimental hints from facilities like SLAC and theoretical support in astrophysics, but direct, isolated confirmation in a lab is still a work in progress due to technical challenges. If you’d like, I can dig deeper into specific experiments, the math behind photon-photon interactions, or ongoing research aiming to achieve purer conversions!

Try DeepSearch to research wider

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...

More than most ever wanted to know - but just the tip of the iceberg.

The conversion of matter to energy, in accord with Einstein's e=mc*c , is well documented and proven. Has the opposite of energy to matter been proven. I do not consider nuclear fusion to be an example, since it is an energy producing event - not an event that produces new matter from energy.

The conversion of energy into matter, the reverse of matter-to-energy conversion described by Einstein’s E=mc2E = mc^2E = mc^2
, has indeed been experimentally observed and proven, though it is less commonly discussed outside specialized physics contexts. Unlike nuclear fusion, which you’ve excluded as it primarily produces energy, the process of creating matter from energy is most directly observed in specific high-energy physics phenomena. Here’s a concise overview:
Pair Production: The most well-documented example of energy-to-matter conversion is pair production. When a high-energy photon (gamma ray) with energy exceeding 1.022 MeV (twice the rest mass energy of an electron) passes near an atomic nucleus, it can convert into an electron and a positron. This process satisfies E=mc2E = mc^2E = mc^2
, as the photon’s energy is transformed into the mass of the particle-antiparticle pair. This has been repeatedly observed in particle accelerators and cosmic ray interactions since the 1930s, with experiments like those using cloud chambers and modern detectors confirming the phenomenon.

Particle Accelerators: In high-energy collisions, such as those at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), energy from accelerated particles can produce new particles (matter). For instance, when protons collide, the kinetic energy of the collision can materialize into additional particles, like quarks or mesons, as predicted by quantum field theory and E=mc2E = mc^2E = mc^2
. These experiments routinely demonstrate energy transforming into matter.

Theoretical and Experimental Rigor: The conversion is grounded in quantum field theory, where energy fluctuations can create particle-antiparticle pairs, conserving energy and momentum. These processes are not speculative; they’ve been measured with high precision in controlled settings, such as in positron emission tomography (PET) scanners, where positron annihilation (the reverse process) indirectly confirms pair production.

Limitations: Creating macroscopic amounts of matter from energy is impractical due to the enormous energy required (since c2c^2c^2
is a huge factor). Most observations involve subatomic particles, as producing larger amounts of matter would demand infeasible energy inputs.

To address your condition, these examples avoid fusion-like processes and focus on direct energy-to-matter conversion. Pair production and particle accelerator results are the clearest experimental proofs, consistently verified since the early 20th century. If you’d like more details on specific experiments or the physics behind these processes, let me know!

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...

Zimbler0:

Re: “Then where does the matter which apparently spontaneously comes into existence come from?�From energy. The universe has a low but non-trivial background temperature due to energy. Make the universe's volume very small and it gets an enormously high temperature.

High temperatures and pressures cause energy to transform into matter - as occurs in linear accelerators but more so since our best linear accelerators produce negligible energies compared to what once, briefly was the norm throughout our universe. E=MC^2 also means that M=E/(C^2). Exceedingly high energy and pressure forms matter.

"Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve." - John Archibald Wheeler #space #spacetime #curves

Inertia is the cumulative gravity in the universe acting on a point. Gravity is the result of mass bending spacetime. Space is CREATED by gravity; if no gravity then no space.

Therefore, if the universe was infinite, inertia would be infinite...and nothing could overcome inertia...and nothing could move.

ipso facto, the universe is not infinite.

Following this line of logic, if all the mass in the universe disappeared, all the space, and all the gravity, and all the inertia would disappear. At the speed of light, of course. How could you move if there was no longer any space in which to move?

I'm about 99.9% I've got all that right. I am sure about the quote at the top, and Wheeler would know.

“I am only an egg.�
― Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

Decomposed > Have you ever heard that 'some infinities are bigger than others?' Yup.


I had not heard that before. So, I looked it up. And what I think I'm seeing something along the lines of 'there are more real numbers than integers' in the infinite set . . .

But, at the end of the day one can still add another digit to the 'infinite number' which why it IS Infinite.

It's late . . .

Zim.

Mad Poet Strikes Again.

Decomposed > He thinks that when everything is sufficiently spread apart, matter evaporates and the universe's state is identical to its state prior to the Big Bang.


If all the matter 'evaporates' . . .
Then where does the matter which apparently spontaneously comes into existence come from?

How about this. The Universe is infinite. Meaning there will be an infinite number of 'Big Bangs' and 'Big Crunches'. Each of the 'Big Crunches' will collect matter from 'neighboring' Big Bangs till it has enough to 'Big Bang' itself. Which in turn feeds the fodder to fuel the next big crunch(es).

With hundreds of Billions of years between the Bangs.

Zim.

Mad Poet Strikes Again.

Fiz > Where, exactly, did the "SUPER massive black hole" come from? I'm sure you were already aware of the weakness in your logic, but I am curious as to what you will say.


Think repeating cycle. Over hundreds of Billions of years. (Or longer.)

Where do black holes come from? Too much matter in too small a space causing a gravitational attraction so extreme not even light can escape? I understand the Milky Way Galaxy has one in its core.

So, one day maybe the milky way black hole will eat the entire milky way galaxy . . . Or maybe some day a much bigger black hole which already ate its galaxy will come along and eat our black hole for a snack.

I imagine it would take a long long long time for a black hole to consume enough matter and grow big enough to start eating galaxies . . .

And I suspect it would take a lot longer for it to eat enough galaxies . . . But I suspect eventually it would eat one too many and it would get a severe case of indigestion and blow apart. BIG Bang.

And I'll even freely admit that I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest I'm right.

But, the black holes are out there. And what is the upper limit to how BIG a black hole can get? And what happens when it exceeds it? Lastly, assuming entropy starts winding down the 'known universe' . . . what is there to keep the existing black holes from consuming all available matter and energy?

And I do find it mildly entertaining to ponder such questions.

Zim.

Mad Poet Strikes Again.

Decomposed > but immediately followed it up with something equally unsupported, that space is infinite and time has no beginning or end. I'm curious why you think that. Have you given those things as much thought as you have God?


Actually, I haven't thought a whole lot about God.

In my math studies there is the cartesian coordinate system with the axis (theoretically) running out to infinity. Geometric Rays and Lines going out forever. Solving equations - and having to use special notations that use the infinity symbol to properly answer them.

Space is infinite? That is the only thing that makes sense. If space is not infinite - then what is on the other side of the wall?

And Time. Time just keeps marching on. One second elapses, and there is another second right behind it. What was 'the beginning of time?' I don't think there was an actual beginning of time. One can pick the 'Big Bang' as the start of time . . . But I'm pretty sure there was something that could only be described as 'the passing of time' before the Big Bang.

If time and space are finite . . . then we must be in a box. And what is outside the box?

My universe only makes sense if it is Infinite.

But then I also live on a finite sized planet. And the reality of my life is that whether time and space are infinite or not really does not make much difference. And so life goes on.
Zim.

Mad Poet Strikes Again.

June 8, 2025

These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner

by Tyler Durden
ZeroHedge.com

Does your state support your 2nd Amendment rights or make it exceedingly difficult to keep and bear arms?

• Hawaii is the #1 worst state for gun owners due to strict purchasing and carry laws, as well as defying the Supreme Court on the individual’s right to carry.
• Massachusetts is the #2 worst state for gun owners due to its permit-to-purchase and reciprocity laws.
• California, New York, and Illinois take the #3, #4, and #5 spots in our list of worst states for gun ownership due to strict purchasing and carrying requirements.
• Ohio, North Carolina, and Maine take spots #25, #24, and #23 due to new restrictive legislation with some relaxed carry laws.
• Some states rank worse than others due to excessive infringements, additional taxes, and the current governors’ 2A statements.
• State and local laws defining “stand your ground� and “duty to retreat� vary, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

1. Current gun laws
2. Current purchase laws
3. Current concealed carry weapon (CCW) guidelines
4. Reciprocity between other states
5. Sales tax
6. Current governor’s voting history
7. Stand your ground laws

Zimbler0:

Re: “And, finally, Imaginary Numbers.�The weirdness continues. Have you ever heard that 'some infinities are bigger than others?' Yup. We aren't supposed to grok this stuff. We're just supposed to do it.

Fiz > FWIW, it would probably be helpful if you have at least a little idea what a "Complex number" is


Ahhhhh . . .
The square root of negative one. Usually written as '1 + i' or '5 + 7i' or even such strange things as '2.379 - 4.73i'

I STILL remember being told early in my Mathematics education "You can NOT take the square root of a negative number!" . . . And then learning that when one takes the square root - it should be 'Plus or Minus' the square root. And, finally, Imaginary Numbers.

And Vectors. Vectors and imaginary number arithmetic go hand in hand.

Interesting thing about Python (Programming) . . It seems to like complex numbers. I wrote some code to implement the quadratic equation . . and it gave me the answer - complex numbers and all.

Zim.

Mad Poet Strikes Again.

Blamed idiot button ... punched it. *w*

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...

Mexico’s president-elect just said: “If necessary, we’ll mobilize. We don’t want taxes on remittances from our fellow countrymen. From the U.S. to Mexico.�

A head of state openly calling for protests in the U.S. This is unprecedented.

micro:

Re: “Do the so called scientists all have to be atheists?�Absolutely not. Newton was perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived. He was also a devout Christian. It's said that he wrote more books about theology than about math or science.

As I see it, science is about following the evidence to obtain answers. Theology is about following your heart to obtain answers. Sometimes the two yield quite different answers to the same questions, but not always.

Here's the issue I have with your question. An atheist believes there is no God. Some scientists are atheists. A deist believes there is a God. Some scientists are deists. A Christian believes the Bible. Some scientists are Christians.

Your post suggests that a scientist who is not a Christian... or, even, a scientist who is not AS CHRISTIAN as you... is an atheist. Newton, as I said, was tremendously devout. But he may have been a Nontrinitarian. Uh oh! Does that make him an atheist? If you say "yes," you're definitely wrong. He believed in and worshiped God. (If you want to know more about this, you'll have to research it yourself. The book I read on Newton only went lightly into this.)

BTW, good job of thought-provoking!!!

micro:

Re: “DID you guys know that there are dinosaurs mentioned in the scriptures?�No - perhaps because there aren't. If you go to https://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/ and enter the word "dinosaur" you get "Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search."

This is one of those Bible facts that, if true, would be known to EVERYONE.Re: “Did you know that the scripture tells us about fresh water flowing thru the oceans?
Did you know that so called agnostic "oceanographers discovered fresh water streams running under the ocean in the Gulf Stream?�I addressed this earlier. What's flowing isn't water but silt.Re: “Did you know that every single Prophecy found in scripture has come to pass except ONE?�I am certain that if they were listed on this board, I would disagree that they've all come to pass.Re: “And that one is coming soon. ?�If "soon" is more than thirty years away, why should anyone on this forum care?


The truth is, I don't think the Bible is the truthful word of God. It's got too many flaws and is WAAAAAAY too vague. God would have no reason to deceive us with His book, would He? I think it's the OTHER guy who does that.