Matter will be created from light within a year, claim scientists

a reply to: roguetechie

what are you talking about?
what does the food and drug administration have to do with lasers?

What's the hype here? A couple of high energy photons into an electron positron pair? I would be far more impressed if they were to coax out a hydrogen atom... There is still no commonly agreed theory on how to knot space to produce a proton which has a mass 1836 times that of a single electron. Instead we got a useless bunch of bosons and fermions from collision experiments...

I was far far more impressed with coaxing a photon out of nothing... Link

a reply to: alienjuggalo

It is not possible to make matter from light. Will not happen in a million years.

Don't worry about it.

The so called "scientific news" of this type is a measure of desperation of the West to prove theories which have been proposed.

originally posted by: sirhumperdink
a reply to: roguetechie

what are you talking about?
what does the food and drug administration have to do with lasers?

As weird as it sounds the FDA is responsible for the regulation of Lasers.

Does FDA regulate these new powerful laser "pointers" and are they hazardous?

FDA regulates all laser products, even handheld, battery-powered lasers that are available for purchase FROM manufacturers, importers, assemblers, dealers or distributors in the United States and its territories. This includes lasers manufactured or obtained on a continuing basis for the purpose of sale or resale.

FDA requires that manufacturers of these lasers limit the power of the laser light to 5 milliWatts (often abbreviated as "mW") or less. The labeling or packaging must allow the purchaser to know the power of the laser, its hazard class, and its wavelength before the laser is purchased. Even online advertisements must display this information for the purchaser.

Even the smallest handheld, battery-powered lasers are capable of emitting laser light at hazardous powers. Larger models, the size of a small flashlight, can burn skin and pop balloons. More importantly, consumers should assume any size handheld battery-powered laser they do not directly control has the potential to blind or permanently affect eyesight.

One way to determine if such a laser has been manufactured to regulatory power and hazard class limits is to find labeling. The labeling that comes with the laser (and online labeling) must display the power, hazard class, and wavelength. The wavelength is a number that describes the color of the beam.

The label must display the laser power. It must be 5 milliWatts or less. The label must display the hazard class. It must be Class I, Class IIa, Class II, Class IIIa or Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3R.

Specifically -
FDA - Radiation-Emitting Products

Radiation-emitting electronic products (medical and non-medical), such as lasers, x-ray systems, ultrasound equipment, microwave ovens and color televisions, are regulated by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH).

Click links for remainder of articles.

I would imagine the FDA responsibility first started in the medical / construction realm and went from there.

a reply to: GargIndia

LOL. You should know better if you are from India. The Rigveda claims that light and ultimately matter is created by 'stirring' empty space. It also claims space is expanded by the propagation of light in space. On the other hand, it also claims that all is maya, or nothingness, illusion. So I wouldn't be so quick to judge the 'western desperation to prove their proposed theories right', actually we are proving that the Rigveda and the Hindu cosmology is correct. Where do you think Einstein and other leading physicists contemporary to him got their inspiration from in the 30s?

a reply to: Xcathdra


dude this doesnt make sense on so many levels
i need to look into this more
5mw limit? the diode in your blu ray burner far exceeds that already
im assuming until i read more it means they regulate anything over 5mw which is still god damn insane
and how would the fda have regulatory powers over medical devices? and how does that translate into regulatory powers over dual use technologies that happen to be used in medical devices?

By the looks of things, it almost seems like their trying to test out the whole E=MC² equation.

Matter and energy are somewhat the same. They say they want to use pure light. But all light really is, is energy. And if you can harvest pure light(energy), then you should be able to create matter out of it. It would take a very large amount of energy to achieve this, and it's not like you'll end up with a large chunk of matter. But it should be successful.

Interesting stuff. I guess we'll have to wait and see what goes down.

This is (likely) a baby step towards a nearly unimaginable future where reality coalesces around us at our whim... reminds me of an old Michael Moorecock short story where future humans have abilities like gods (or the beings on the old TV shows "I Dream of Jeannie" and "Bewitched" ).

Matter from energy... cool. Can't wait for the X-Box 172... but maybe we're all already there, in some future reality, immersed in a sim called "21st Century Dystopia"

There's matter created from light all the time. It's called conception.

The spark when sperm meets egg.

However taking out of the equation the sense of emotions and feelings in climax removes imho an important part from the life created.
Hence why I am against genetic modification and artificial insemination.

Read it again before you reply giving me crap please. It's imho a clue.

a reply to: jazz10

What does this have to do with light?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Biigs
No. Because when we burn things we are not converting matter to energy, we are changing one form of energy to another. We are changing energy stored in chemical bonds into light (and heat). There is no mass lost. The original mass is still there.

Not true in chemical reactions mass is lost as energy, its just a very tiny amount.

originally posted by: Dr X

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Biigs
No. Because when we burn things we are not converting matter to energy, we are changing one form of energy to another. We are changing energy stored in chemical bonds into light (and heat). There is no mass lost. The original mass is still there.

Not true in chemical reactions mass is lost as energy, its just a very tiny amount.

No its mass is all there just somtimes its hard to figure out where it went. in a fire some of the decomposed material is released as volatile gases. We know these gases as smoke. Smoke is compounds of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen. The rest of the material forms char, which is nearly pure carbon, and ash, which is all of the nonburnable minerals in the wood (calcium, potassium, and so on). The char is what you buy when you buy charcoal. Charcoal is wood that has been heated to remove nearly all of the volatile gases and leave behind the carbon. That is why a charcoal fire burns with no smoke.

Now remember earlier when i said something rusting is merely a fire (just really slow) the compound molecules break apart, and the atoms recombine with the oxygen to form water, carbon dioxide and other products. In other words, they burn.No mass is lost it just becomes something else.

a reply to: dragonridr

wrong, the mass is converted (into photons) from the binding energy of the system.

lin k

originally posted by: Dr X
a reply to: dragonridr

wrong, the mass is converted (into photons) from the binding energy of the system.

lin k

Ergo E=MC2.....

Geeze why make something so complicated when it can be as elegant as that?

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

yes I agree! E=mc^2 holds for all energy creation even chemical reactions.

a reply to: Dr X

What mass is converted to energy in a chemical reaction?
Here's a simple one, lets burn carbon and release some energy.

C + O2 = CO2

atomic mass of C = 12.01070 g/mol
atomic mass of O2 = 31.99880 g/mol

12.0107 + 31.099880 = 44.0095 g/mol

molecular mass of CO2 = (wait for it...) 44.0095 g/mol

No loss of mass. Where did the energy come from?

www.webqc.org...

chemical energy is bonding energy of the electrons shared between two or more atoms. the energy liberated by nuclear energy is the proton binding energy/radius of the strong force. interestingly if you had atoms made of smaller particles than protons neutrons and electrons (something that is as of now only somewhat plausible) the bond length would be shorter and the energy in those bonds available for even chemical reactions would approach that of nuclear reactions or even antimatter reactions of ordinary baryonic matter.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
chemical energy is bonding energy of the electrons shared between two or more atoms. the energy liberated by nuclear energy is the proton binding energy/radius of the strong force. interestingly if you had atoms made of smaller particles than protons neutrons and electrons (something that is as of now only somewhat plausible) the bond length would be shorter and the energy in those bonds available for even chemical reactions would approach that of nuclear reactions or even antimatter reactions of ordinary baryonic matter.

Correct!

And the exact example I was thinking concerning the question at hand.

Star for you!

Peace,

Korg.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: Dr X
a reply to: dragonridr

wrong, the mass is converted (into photons) from the binding energy of the system.

lin k

Ergo E=MC2.....

Geeze why make something so complicated when it can be as elegant as that?

Korg.

Chemical reactions no mass is turned to energy the energy that is produced in chemical reactions is due only to the change in the enthalpy of the system.

chemistry.osu.edu...

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: Dr X
a reply to: dragonridr

wrong, the mass is converted (into photons) from the binding energy of the system.

lin k

Ergo E=MC2.....

Geeze why make something so complicated when it can be as elegant as that?

Korg.

Chemical reactions no mass is turned to energy the energy that is produced in chemical reactions is due only to the change in the enthalpy of the system.

chemistry.osu.edu...

I know... I miss read what I was replying to...

My comment about E=MC2 is in direct relation to the original post.

Peace,

Korg.