Ok, so I don’t know how to do superscript in a title.
But you physics people know the reference. So here’s me question: Using that…formula, is it correct to say M = E/c[sup]2[/sup]?
What I want to do is make something incredibly heavy, like, really really heavy, and stationary. Can I do that by releasing massive amounts of energy into a confined space? Like, if I had the means to contain the energy, could I somehow harness a matter/antimatter annihilation and convert the resulting energy into mass?
You are misunderstanding the equation. You can’t turn energy into matter or matter into energy; just that certain numerical values are equivilent given the relationship in the equation.
If you harnessed a matter/antimatter reaction and somehow turned the energy back into mass, the resulting mass would be the same as the mass of the matter and antimatter you reacted in the first place. So, no net increase in mass.
Actually, the OP has it right: If you have a really whopping huge amount of energy, and you somehow manage to contain it in a stationary container, the container will contain a mass equal to E/c^2. Just don’t ask how you’re managing to contain the energy.
My thinking was along the lines of Star Trek holographic machines that take some amount of energy and create some equivilent form of matter. I suppose in the spirit of the OP, one could take one of these and tweek the Power knob to HI, the volume knob to LOW, and get an extremely dense object strictly from energy. However, I don’t know if we have that yet.
I think the gist of it is matter and energy are the same, so there is no abuse, no hard feelings no next day regrets when you wake up after a night of drinking next to the other knowing you did exchange matter for energy.
Well, matter does still have to sneak home in the same clothes it wore yesterday. Fortunately, it gets to sneak home at the speed of light squared so the chances of getting caught are slim…
Not only that, but the matter would likely be in the form of particles and their anti-particles since we’re pretty sure mass is conserved and baryon and lepton numbers are “mostly” conserved. In this case if you contained them, they’d generally annihilate and convert back to energy.
Here’s where I’m going with this, maybe y’all can help. You know that iconic image of gravity that makes things look like balls sitting on the down comforter that calls to me even now? Well what if Space/time is folded up like the sheets in the closet?
So instead of a ball making a huge dent in the blanket it sits on, what if we made something really, really heavy but still relatively small? So rather than just “denting” space/time, it actually pokes a hole in it and we end up on another layer of the sheet? I’m trying really hard to do this with E=Mc[sup]2[/sup], but so far all I’m doing is messing up the garage.
As to OP, there’s confined energy all over the place. When I lie in a suntanning sarcophagus, I’m supporting a slightly heavier mass than before, am I not?
Well, there’s yer problem — you went and brought gravity all up into it!
We know matter and energy are equivalent. We have a lot of this worked out in QM and GR, but once you go poking gravitational holes, from energy or matter into spacetime itself, you should be thankful only your garage is getting messy. Many have lost an eye trying to crack that one.
Also, the “sheet” analogy for the curvature gravity has on spacetime doesn’t quite give the full feeling of the geodesics (the shortest path from point to point in curved geometry) involved in its warpage.
So, there wouldn’t necessarily be more “sheets” below the gravity-well if you poked through, like with a singularity at the center of a black hole.
I have some favorite hypothesis that attempt to flesh out what’s really going on beyond that threshold (strains of “complex spacetime”), but that’s a whole 'nuther ball of string.
