# Thread: intermediate between matter and energy?

1. can anybody guide me here.

2.

3. No, I don't know. Matter and energy are just two forms of the same thing.

4. no they are not same, they can be complement but not same. you got it.

i give this state name>>>>>____ whatever.... but this state exists

5. Precious, there is no intermediate between matter and energy because they are not two separate things, they just have that appearence from our point of view. E=mC2, there is no intermediate stage. When we look at the very small the appearence of energy and matter being separate things breaks down and we see that light that usually is decribed as a wave also behaves like a stream of particles. The sage who said that "all is illusion" spoke more truth than he knew. All that we see and experience are but clouds of twisted up energy.

6. Propagation through space

7. Originally Posted by Sealeaf
Precious, there is no intermediate between matter and energy because they are not two separate things, they just have that appearence from our point of view. E=mC2, there is no intermediate stage. When we look at the very small the appearence of energy and matter being separate things breaks down and we see that light that usually is decribed as a wave also behaves like a stream of particles. The sage who said that "all is illusion" spoke more truth than he knew. All that we see and experience are but clouds of twisted up energy.
This is not provable.

Mass reduction for fusion does not imply a reduction of matter. Otherwise, one would need to prove protons or neutrons are destroyed. The poster has a point about the exchange mechanism of energy for mass but no reduction of matter particles.

8. Originally Posted by chinglu
This is not provable.
What is not provable?

Mass reduction for fusion does not imply a reduction of matter.
Who said it does?

The poster has a point about the exchange mechanism of energy for mass but no reduction of matter particles.
I'm not sure I understand that. In some reactions the energy comes from binding energy and there is a corresponding loss of mass. However, you can also directly convert mass to energy with a "reduction of matter particles" - e.g. matter/antimatter interactions.

9. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by chinglu
This is not provable.
What is not provable?

Mass reduction for fusion does not imply a reduction of matter.
Who said it does?

The poster has a point about the exchange mechanism of energy for mass but no reduction of matter particles.
I'm not sure I understand that. In some reactions the energy comes from binding energy and there is a corresponding loss of mass. However, you can also directly convert mass to energy with a "reduction of matter particles" - e.g. matter/antimatter interactions.
The issue is there is mass reduction but no matter reduction with fusion.

Can you explain that yes or no.

10. This thread belongs in the trash...it was poorly titled, the OP unrelated to the title, and hasn't even risen to the level of pseudoscience.

11. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
This thread belongs in the trash...it was poorly titled, the OP unrelated to the title, and hasn't even risen to the level of pseudoscience.
why do you feel the need to classify other humans?

are you God?

12. I'm not classifting other humans, just the worthless content of this discussion.

Why are you so sensitive?

PS, No I am not God...

13. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
I'm not classifting other humans, just the worthless content of this discussion.

Why are you so sensitive?

PS, No I am not God...
I am not sensitive.

I am talking about the OP.

Anyway, can you prove this statement is false ?

The issue is there is mass reduction but no matter reduction with fusion.

14. It is word salad, so there's no point.

15. Originally Posted by chinglu
The issue is there is mass reduction but no matter reduction with fusion.

Can you explain that yes or no.
I thought I just did. But never mind.

16. Originally Posted by chinglu
I am talking about the OP.

Anyway, can you prove this statement is false ?

The issue is there is mass reduction but no matter reduction with fusion.
a) That has nothing to do with the OP
b) Which proves your statement false; i.e. the issue [the subject of the OP] is NOT "there is mass reduction but no matter reduction with fusion".

17. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by chinglu
I am talking about the OP.

Anyway, can you prove this statement is false ?

The issue is there is mass reduction but no matter reduction with fusion.
a) That has nothing to do with the OP
b) Which proves your statement false; i.e. the issue [the subject of the OP] is NOT "there is mass reduction but no matter reduction with fusion".
Yes it is.

The OP was looking for, I think, the mediation between energy and mass reduction.

We do not have matter reduction under fusion, so the poster has a point.

You have not solved this.

18. Originally Posted by chinglu
The OP was looking for, I think, the mediation between energy and mass reduction.
I would like to see what the OP has to say about that.

We do not have matter reduction under fusion, so the poster has a point.
I'm not sure what you point is. We know where the energy comes from in fusion (and, equivalently, where the mass has gone). What has "matter reduction" (I assume you mean the total number of nucleons?) got to do with anything.

You have not solved this.
What needs to be solved? I pointed out that the mass changes because of the release of binding energy. What is the problem?

19. can anybody explain to me in simple terms (not any physics jargon) what is going on ?

20. Originally Posted by precious
can anybody explain to me in simple terms (not any physics jargon) what is going on ?
Do you mean in this thread or more generall?

In either case I have no idea!

I'm still not sure what you were asking about as intermediate between matter and energy. And I have no idea at all what chinglu is on about.

When you say "intermediate" do you mean "half way between" (which is what I initially thought).

Or do you mean intermediary, like a "go between"? Sort of, how does energy affect matter and vice versa?

21. ok. i am think about "half way between", like liquid is half way between solids and gases!

i have read that light exerts pressure on bodies (though negligible), if this is true than can we say that "light (energy) is not concentrated form of matter" and how energy and matter are from same nature. if they are same than from where they evolve?

22. and one point hre ::::: this intermediate from must/should have both the properties of matter and energy... (i am not talking about matter waves)

23. Originally Posted by precious
ok. i am think about "half way between", like liquid is half way between solids and gases!
Remember, there is not always an intermediate stage. Dry ice will convert directly to gaseaous CO2 without turning into a liquid (sublimation). This is not uncommon.

i have read that light exerts pressure on bodies (though negligible), if this is true than can we say that "light (energy) is not concentrated form of matter" and how energy and matter are from same nature. if they are same than from where they evolve?
Well, there isn't anything in between. But "it" (whatever "it is; mass-energy) can be converted from one form to another. Photons are particles that are "made of" electromagnetic energy. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc are particles that are "made of" matter (but really, matter is made of them).

Matter can be converted to energy: e.g. a particle and an antiparticle can annihilate and generate two photons. Or vice versa.

There are other particles which are the carriers of other forces (e.g. W and Z bosons) and so can be though of as energy although they have mass, so you could also think of them matter. At the level of quantum mechanics, I'm not sure that there is much distinction to be made. And as far as relativity is concerned, mass and energy have an equivalent gravitational effect (slightly complicated by the fact that pressure and momentum also contribute).

24. this new stage/form/level whatevere you say, should / must have properties of both matter nd energy. as our body cells are generte d from Stem Cells, than from where matter and energy are both generated? this stage may be intermediate stage.

25. Originally Posted by precious
this new stage/form/level whatevere you say, should / must have properties of both matter nd energy. as our body cells are generte d from Stem Cells than from where matter and energy are generated
Everything already has the properties of both matter and energy! Photons have energy but this can be expressed as momentum. They are quanta of electromagnetic waves but can be viewed as particles.

Electrons are particles of matter but they have a wavelength.

There are plenty of particles, e.g. neutrinos, that do not make up atoms, etc so they are not really matter (in fact they largely ignore matter) but they are not really energy either.

All is one!

26. @ strange yaar you are really good at science...

27. Originally Posted by Geo
Propagation through space

28. @strange