I have received some really great answers on my previous questions. So now I am wondering has anyone converted light to matter or matter to light?  I am thinking in line of E=MC^2 it should be possible.
213107
Many people have, in every single nuclear reaction, whether in power plants or detonated nuclear weapons. Nuclear binding energy is generated by mass converted to energy which holds nucleons together. In nuclear reactions differences in binding energy between the reactants and products in atoms is released as light, thought not necessarily visible light.\n\nLight is also produced in particle-antiparticle annihialition. If an electron and positron collide, they annihialate each other and release 2 photon's of equal energy and momentum as the 2 original particles.\n\nIt is also possible to create particle-antiparticle pairs from photons fired into strong magnetic fields.
144984
To the extent that there was a conflict, it was resolved by Dirac. His was a quantum theory that directly included relativistic invariance. His equation is now the basis for our understanding of relativistic electrons. As of now, we don't have a way of reconciling quantum theory and *general* relativity, though.
275520
put simply its complete bullshit... lol, solidification is just the slowing of atoms/molecules, sonce light ALWAYS (dont even go tehre with the whole medium thing, its always) travels at teh same speed... like i said before solidified light is bs. :-)
309682
excellet question. This got much deeper meaning then most people understand.\n\nIts energy, you see photons.  You touch and feel photon/photon exchanges.\n\nSince E=MCC, All matter are energy also, Photons.\n\nPhotons are travel at excatly the speed of light, and that makes them see the universe as a zero volume dot.\nIt takes no time at all to a photon to go from one end to the other end of the universe.\n\nThe next great question will be, where did all this energy came from.
666818
A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question.       "Did God create everything that exists?"\n\nA student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"\n\n"God created everything?" The professor asked.\n\n"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.\n\nThe professor answered,  "If God created everything; then God created evil.    And, since evil exists, & according to the principle that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."\n\nThe student became quiet & did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition.   The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the religious faith was a myth.\n\nAnother student raised his hand & said,  "May I ask you a question, professor?"\n\n"Of course," replied the professor.\n\nThe student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"\n\n"What kind of question is this?  Of course it exists.  Have you never been cold?"\n\nThe other students snickered at the young man's question.   The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist.  According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat.\nEverybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, & heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.   Absolute zero (-460F) is the total absence of heat; & all matter becomes inert &  incapable of reaction at that temperature.  Cold does not exist.  We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."\n\nThe student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"\n\nThe professor responded, "Of course it does."\n\nThe student replied , "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either.   Darkness is in reality the absence of light.   Light we can study, but not darkness.   In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors & study the various wave lengths of each color.   You cannot measure darkness.   A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness & illuminate it.   How can you know how dark a certain space is? \nYou measure the amount of light present.   Isn't this correct? \nDarkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."\n\nFinally the young man asked the professor,  "Sir, does evil exist?"\n\nNow uncertain, the professor responded,  "Of course, as I have already said.   We see it\neveryday.   It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man.   It is in the multitude of crime & violence everywhere in the world.   These manifestations are nothing else but evil.\n\nTo this the student replied,  "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself.  Evil is simply the absence of God.    It is just like darkness & cold,  a word that man has created to describe the absence of God.\nGod did not create evil.  Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.    It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness\nthat comes when there is no light."\n\nThe professor sat down.
237315
LOL I like Mainworry's answer...not!\nCreate anything living without using matter that already exists.\nHe's right, I can't we all can't.... yet!\nBut maybe we will Create matter, out of energy one day.\nThen what will he say.\nBut I know something I can create right now...GOD.\nYes I can create GOD In my own image.
26055
No Way Man!  Photon-photon scattering?  Highly dubious.  Photons don't have charge. They don't self-interact, that's why the electro-weak theory works so well... right?\n\nResponse to Dr. Bob's response:\n\nI agree that this process occurs (although a photon that decays into a e+e- pair has to be close to another mass so momentum can be transfered; isolated photons cant decay into e+e-).  But in such a case, would you really say that "one light ray has bounced off another?" I'd say that it was "bouncing" off the electron/positron pairs.  Just semantics I suppose.
505527
In physics, matter is commonly defined as the substance of which physical objects are composed, not counting the contribution of various energy or force-fields, which are not usually considered to be matter per se (though they may contribute to the mass of objects). Matter constitutes much of the observable universe, although again, light is not ordinarily considered matter. Unfortunately, for scientific purposes, "matter" is somewhat loosely defined.\n\nSee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter for more information on matter.\n\nGood Luck!!!
416276
In theory, yes.  Because the light particles that were traveling slower than you would have been slower.  Very good question.  However, speeding past the speed of light would mean the fundamentals of E = Mc^2, would cease to make sense.
639498
I think the author of the article linked to in your referenced web page (it's the link below) explains it well. One of the many  fundamental constants, the Fine Structure Constant, may have changed very slightly -- or it may not have. The data acquired so far is not conclusive, especially as decided by the scientific establishment, which generally demands pretty overwhelming proof of such a radical idea. And as the author says, confirming evidence must be obtained not merely from more iterations of the same experiment, but from totally different kinds of experiment, and he adds that precision in these other experiment types is not yet high enough to be useful as a proof.
122567
Light of a form of energy. Energy is the only thing in universe. There are different forms for energy. Light is just another form of energy - A radiation. \n\n   Hope you know that matter (whatever it is) is just Energy got trapped in space. Matter produces energy in-order to maintain its stability. That may be a chemical reaction, a nuclear reaction or even annihilation. This released energy may contain light energy and so light is produced.\n\n  There are different theories to explain what is light.\n\n1. Newtons Corposcular theory - Light is a stream of corpusles (small balls) - and thus exhibit a particle nature.\n\n2. Hygen's Wave theory - Light is comprised of compressions and rare-fractions and thus exhibit a wave nature.\n\n3. Maxwell's Electro-Magnetic theory - Light is a combination of electrical and magnetic field perpendicular to each other - travells in a straight line in a constant speed.\n\n4. Max- Plank's Quantum theory - Light cotains packets of energy - called photons. The packets are called Quanta\n\nThese theories are quite old and some how relevent even in theses days. Today we know that light exhibits both particle and wave nature.\n\nLight exists for ever. - It is never created nor destroyed.\nIt only changes its form.
312524
CIH is spot on, but you should also realise from what he said that electromagnetic waves or particles are ways of describing and calculating what a photon will do, they are not the actual photon itself (whatever that is). \n\nSometimes it easy to think that the description of an object IS the object, especially if it fits it well. If it was possible to write an equation or model which fully described a motor vehicle, you still wouldn't be able to drive it to the shops, but you would be able to accurately descibe how it drove there.\n\nIsn't physics wonderful! Philosopy and science all neatly wrapped up in one unifying theory of lots of theories!
285974
No there is no 'summation' of speeds involved with light.  Light is Electro-Magnetic Energy, although light travels as particles as well as waves.  In this Universe the speed of light is a constant, roughly 186,000 miles-per-second, or 300,000 km/sec or 300 Mega-Metres / sec.  Unless some POWERFUL external force acts upon light, it cannot change speed.  This entails the gravity of black-holes and such. (Not even light can escape from them.)\n\nA vehicle might weigh somewhere in the neighbor-hood of 3,300 lbs. (Approximately 1,500 Kg, for those of you who have not learned to count properly, just yet ...)\nCheck out da' math ...\n\n60mph = 100 kmph = 27.77r mps. \n(1,500 Kg x 27.77r mps) / 9.81 mps = ~ 4,246 N\n\nI doubt, very seriously, that a little over 4,000 Newtons is enough force to even put a dent in the factor of light-speed.  For more info, look-up Einstein's Theory of Realtivity' (Although I believe 90% of it to be short-sighted ancient crap ...)  This subject is covered in it ...\n(umm covered in Einstein's Theory, not copvered in crap .. which err .. is the same thing at times ...
143806
You have to remember these are descriptions based on experiments. Light can act as both- as do other particles. Keep in mind that the map is not the territory.....
531674
Yeah, it's E=mc^2 and it relates energy and mass.  E is energy, m is mass, c is the speed of light (celeritas).  The equation could come useful in physics, like atomic physics.\n\nWhat did you wanted to know?
338767
First of all, since E = mc^2, you cannot have two massive, energyless bodies.  Secondly, by definition, they have a potential energy of \n.. R\n ∫(-GM1M2/R^2)dR, or GM1M2/R\n. 0\nwith respect to each other, so, again, they cannot be energyless.
287926
Light doesn't have a rest mass, that is an inherent mass that it would have it it were at rest relative to you, but it does have a mass equivalence due to its energy. \n\nE=MC^2 gives the relationship between mass and energy, so you can rearrange this to M=E/C^2 to find the mass equivalence of a given amount of light.  The energy of light can be calculated a number of ways, and then this number can be plugged into the mass-energy equation.  Needless to say, it takes a whole lot of light to add up to a significant amount of mass.\n\nEdit:  Sorry, Mathematician, you're incorrect.  Light does have mass and it can be calculated using the mass energy equivalence.  Your argument is basically circular since you're using the definition of light not having a *rest*\n mass to say that it has no momentum, and the statement that it has no momentum to claim that it therefore has no mass.  You're right in that it has no rest mass, but that's not the only kind of mass there is.  If you've ever seen a radiometer work you've seen direct evidence of the momentum of light.