It will be a great wonder in the history of science if energy can be converted in to mass. is it possible?
492443
It is theoretically possible, but highly impractical.  Think about the equation E=mc^2.  C is the speed of light - 186000 meters per second.  So from that equation, you can see that a tiny bit of mass is the equivalent of a huge amount of energy.  Conversely, it would take a huge amount of energy to make even a tiny amount of mass.
761488
Mass can only be converted directly to energy in very small quantities in nuclear reactions (like at the core of the Sun, or in particle accelerators). Burning something only releases the chemical energy in it, while leaving the atoms themselves alone. Since all the atoms are the same before the burn as after it, there are no nuclear reactions and E=mc^2 still holds.
394861
I have no idea. But Steven Hawking says we cant travel back in time, and Einstein showed that hitting the speed of light with a mass is pretty unlikely. But that has no effect on the massless.\n\nAnd E=MC2 is just the rest energy of a particle of mass M and has no time travel implications.\n\nI know Cal-tech has some research in this field... look into it.
641698
The total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.\nThis, however, was found to be untrue. It was later substituted for the conservation of Mass-Energy.\nThis was also disproven. In fact, if a tiny bit of energy is "borrowed" from nothing for a really short amount of time, it can create mass according to the equation:\nE*t = h/(2*pi) = 1.06*10^-34 Js\nOf course, for our pruposes, the conservation of energy works.
595034
A school student?\n\nNike and one other are very thorough.\n\nSimply:\n\nMatter can neither be created nor destroyed in ordinary chemical and physical changes, though matter may change its forms or shapes.\n\nExamples:\nPhysical Change of conversion of ice into water or vice verssa. The total mass remains constant.\n\nChemical change of burning of wood apparently shows loss of mass of wood when we find ash but if this change is brought in a closed system the weight of the system will remain unchanged.\n\nIn simple total weight of wood and oxygen will be equal to the total weight of ash, CO2, water vapors and other vapors of organic and inorganic substance coming out as a result of combustion.\n\nThere are two exceptions:\n\nIn nuclear reactions some of the mass of the substance, (radio active substances in present science of experiments) converts to energy and so mass is lost. But this change is on such a small scale that the change of mass can not be noticed. \nThe conversion of mass into energy is governed by the formula E=MC2\nApply the values say for 0.001 gram of mass.\n\nThe other exception is change of mass in bodies approaching velocity of light. This is yet theoretical as man has not been able to achieve such high speeds.
891994
Actually the opposite. Conservation of Mass says that Mass can not be created or destroyed, only converted to a new form of mass. The only exception is in nuclear reactions, in which Mass can become Energy and vice versa.
748191
There is a law in physics that states energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can only be changed.  Everything, including you is made of energy.\n\nThat's all I know for sure.  My gut tells me we have nothing to fear.
1087544
The energy contained with in an object of mass "m" is equal to that mass times the speed of light, squared.\n\nOr Energy = mass X speed of light X speed of light\n\nEinstein surprised the scientific world with this equation showing the equivalence of mass and energy.  Because the speed of light is such a large number (299 792 458 m / s), much larger when it is squared (8.98755179 × 10^16 m^2/s^2), a very small amount of mass can yield a huge amount of energy.  This is why nuclear reactions are so efficient - just a small amount of fissile material can power a city (or blow it up).  \n\nIt wasn't until 37 years after Einstein first published this equation that it was shown experimentally.  On December 2, 1942, man first initiated a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, and controlled it.\n\nIn 2005, the centennial of Einstein’s great year, a team made the most accurate test yet of his equation. They measured the tiny change in mass of radioactive atoms before and after the atoms emitted gamma-rays. And they measured the energy of the rays. The missing mass times c² equalled the energy of the rays to within 4 hundred-thousandths of one percent.)
293864
All matter is just a form of condensed energy.\nE=M*C*C, so energy and mater can be interconverted.\n\nRadio/heat/X-ray/microwaves/gamma rays/light  are all forms of electromagnetic energy. It is just a wave, it has no mass, but does have momentum.    Heat and radio waves are light,  your eyes \n\njust can see that wavelength.\nA (infinitely powered)flashlight left on in deep space will eventually begin to accelerate at a measurable pace, due to the momentum of photons expelled from the beam.\nLight has no mass, but does have momentum.\nIf EM light could be bent in such a way, as it would curl back upon itself ( around various phased momentary charges) into a semi-spherical shape, the momentum would trapped into the sphere.  If \n\nyou tried to change the velocity of the sphere, it would push back.  The contained EM momentum now has mass....\n\nSo before the big bang, there must have been an enormous amount of wave energy available.  Photon-Photon interactions don’t generally occur, but can under some extreme conditions.  Once a ( \n\nmomentarily charged)seed Pseudo particle was formed, the seed instantly began to store energy as mass. This quickly lead to the explosion and creation  of a shower of particles including protons ( \n\nhydrogen.  Eventually hydrogen condensed and ignited to form stars/Helium, which ran out of fuel, collapsed and exploded as supernova forging Iron/Calcium etc.\nThe universe has an infinite amount of time, for the unusual set of events to occur, therefore it must occur.\n\n\n\nEnergy can be readily converted into mass.\n\nThis happens in ordinary Endo/exothermic chemical reactions, electrons changing orbits etc. But is so small that the change in mass is difficult to measure.\n\nIt can however, easily be demonstrated in collider experiments, where a small charged particle ( electron for example) is accelerated, and imparted with a energy hundreds of  times its rest mass 511 \n\nk eV.\nAs the accelerated electron approaches the speed of light, its mass increases due to the energy added during its acceleration.  It can become very massive compared to other electrons at rest.  If it \n\nwere to collide with another electron, or high energy photon, this would change its relative speed, ( change in momentum) and convert the huge energy into a shower of particles, including other \n\nelectrons.  In the resulting spray of particles, would be electrons, and other particles adding up to the combined mass of the accelerated particle, and whatever it collided with.  You could very easily \n\nend up with many more electrons than when you started.\nFor each electron produced, you would also find anti-electrons( positrons).  Any charged particle that is formed, in this way always produces its anti-particle, as a particle/antiparticle pair which fly \n\naway in opposite directions, and opposite spins.\n\nOne rule,  conservation of charge. If you add up the charge of all of the particles before, and after, it must be the same.  IF you started with two electrons, then the overall result of the particle spray \n\nshould be -2.\n\nAustin_Semiconductor
15241
Well yes and no. According the the principal of conservation of energy there is a set amount of energy and it can only be converted, not created or destroyed. But as we look into more complicated realms of physics, we understand that matter can be converted  into energy, and vice-versa.
111016
The two would merge, theoretically.  But, keep this in mind.  In order for an object to be either immovable or irresistable, the masses would have to be infinite.  This is an impossible scenario, so we really can only theorize as to the results.  The result would be the opposite from what was described in the first answer.  Instead of energy  being turned into mass, I think you'd find that both the mass with irresistable force and the immovable mass would be both turned into energy, in the forms of sound, heat, light, etc.  Comprehend the results.  Infinite mass = infinite energy!!
420479
no - takes more energy to make than it produces. At this time it is good to research, but not mass produce.
791190
Only if E=MC^2\n\n... it follows that if there is a change in the rest-energy of a body, there must be a corresponding change in its rest-mass. For example, if a body is heated, and thereby absorbs a small amount of energy ΔE (as measured in the frame of reference in which the body is at rest), its rest-mass will increase by a very small amount equal to ΔE/c2. This increase is tiny because of the high numerical value of the speed of light. Indeed, for mid-sized objects, such an increase in mass would be too small to measure with even the most accurate balance. For example, if a 1 kg block of gold is heated so that its temperature increases by 10 °C, then, ceteris paribus, its mass would increase by as much as 1.4 × 10-14 kg; a cube of gold of this additional tiny mass would have sides smaller than one one-thousandths of a millimeter. Similarly, if a body emits an amount of energy ΔE, say in the form of light or heat, its rest-mass will decrease by a tiny amount ΔE/c2. In both cases, the important and novel claim made by SR is that the inertial mass of a body can change depending on whether it absorbs or emits energy. This is true, of course, not just for isolated mid-sized objects but for any physical system.
992623
By the law of conservation of energy, you cannot create or destroy energy, only change it from one form into another.\n\nDark or not, energy is energy. You cannot create it.\n\nAt the moment, dark energy and dark matter are theories which scientists have come up with to explain the "missing matter" in the universe.\n\nThere has been a dark matter galaxy "found" which supports this theory.
320753
Anything the energy can be converted to use for.\n\nUsually it is light and heat though.
39911
Just to expand on the answer by "twertyto", the answer to your question is "We don't know yet". This is one of the major questions in physics right now. There are some ideas but none of them have been proven either mathematically or in laboratory experiment. It is believed by most leading minds in physics that once we learn the exact relationship between gravity and the other known forces (electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear), we will then understand how gravity works. To understand this relationship will take what is called the "grand unified theory", which is not yet a theory at all but a hoped-for theory to be developed in the near future. The "grand unified theory" would explain how gravity is related to mass and energy and the "known forces" mentioned above, and would do for gravity what Einstein's "E=MC2" (relativity) did for understanding the relationship between mass and energy. (Some quick background: E=MC2 explained the exact relationship between mass and energy, showing they are both different aspects of the same thing, and can therefore be converted into each other). \n\nTo sum this up in a simple fashion: scientists believe that gravity, energy, mass and even time are all made of the same "stuff" at some super-fundamental level, but they haven't yet figured out this fundamental level. Once someone does (which would pretty much be a guaranteed Nobel prize), we will know how gravity works. Until then, we can only speculate.
140934
Energy = mass times the speed of light squared\n\nIt conveys that a very small amount of matter actually represents/can be turned into a very large amount of energy, as in nuclear power, or a nuclear explosion.