Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 26
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...Page 5 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

So we see the universe expanding on a large scale though recent observations. What is going on is that the space between masses of matter we see as galaxies is expanding, not necessarily the space between the galaxies. Strings of galaxies can almost, I emphasize almost, can be thought of as coalescing. We see galaxies colliding, recent observations have pointed out that not only Andromada is heading for us, but maybe we have two other smaller galaxies that are already colliding with the Milky way. I don’t believe it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that all matter will dissipate its energy completely. Certainly a super massive black hole at the center of every galaxies gives us a lot more to think about.
“What if “ the center of every black hole is the same exact point in space time. Suppose these black holes are not just a building block of galaxies, but themselves are the remnants of the big bang, the one singularity at the beginning blown apart into billions of other black holes, and at the heart of each black hole is “THE” singularity. All of them being the same exact point in space time. The inevitable conclusion to all matter to be condensed back into this singularity which appears to be in billions of places, but isn't.
The only place where matter and energy truly exist as one entity. The face of God perhaps.
I like super string theory too, but the questions don’t stop at membranes, where did the membranes come from?
How did I do?

I don't know where to start here, but first of all, our galaxy belongs to a cluster of galaxies, as do most galaxies we have observed(not all galaxies). Collisions between galaxies are fairly rare. Black holes are thought to be common in the center of galaxies, but there are galaxies that we've observed that don't have very large if any black holes in their center. Rates of rotation near the center of galaxies is what we use to calculate the sized of black holes. What most people don't think about when they think of the universe expanding is that isn't just expanding at the edges, it is expanding everywhere. If what we have observed about the universe's expansion doesn't change in the future, there will be lots of matter at some point in time that is very cold, near absolute zero nothing else.

A side note here is that if gravity is as string theory predicts, LHC will be able to create very small black holes that will exist for just an instant.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 27
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/4/2008 5:24:08 PM
Either I'm not understanding what you are trying to say or you might look to an article like the following: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040522/bob9.asp
Anyway I'm not following what you are saying.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 28
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/4/2008 6:27:21 PM

wow

I can't believe the amout of bullshit I can read here. Guys, go take some physics and maths class before posting answers here.


set us straight
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 29
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/5/2008 9:01:46 AM

Something else that campe up. Dark matter. It already has been answered. The bottomline is that we don't know shit about dark matter yet.


Not exactly true, we know what it is not & we know how it must interact with other matter if it exists at all.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 30
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/6/2008 5:53:55 AM
Energy in physics is defined as the ability to do work. Work=Force x Distance
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 31
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/6/2008 7:44:04 AM
Where as Force = Mass x Acceleration
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 32
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/6/2008 2:27:42 PM
Heisenberg(father of matrix quantum mechanics&uncertainty principle) had two Jewish parents, but I'm sure, but he may have been an agnostic, Schrodinger(father of quantum wave theory) drew his inspiration from a woman that he took to the Swiss Alps over a six week holiday, Einstein was a humanist the didn't believe in a God that mettled in things(he also didn't believe much in quantum mechanics anyway, which pretty much lead him to waste the last half his life trying to develop a unified theory based on general relativity). Neils Bohr only contribution to quantum mechanics was his students. His claim to fame was a valiance theory of atoms which only worked for hydrogen. His theory was later modify to work for other atoms. These guy's were legends when they stuck to explaining the physical world with mathematics, not be of any supernatural beliefs the harbored. Having said that, I'm not following you.

As for Novas & Super Novas creating matter, they don't. They disperse it.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 33
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/7/2008 7:19:30 AM
One of the ways heavy elements are "created" by nucleosynthetic that occur during a supernova(r process). What happens here is that there are lots of neutrons bombarding existing elements. Matter isn't "created" is more of a transformation.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 34
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/7/2008 8:07:31 AM
Which is hindsight is somewhat similar to what collider do.
 Kelley-88
Joined: 2/7/2008
Msg: 35
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/13/2008 7:12:15 AM
The universe exists. Therefore, matter comes from nothing. Therefore, matter can be created and perhaps still is being created.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 NewSpirit
Joined: 3/27/2007
Msg: 37
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 4/30/2008 1:35:42 AM
That's a mighty big 'if'. In reality this is a mantra that has universal acceptance but no actual proof. What we have the right to say is that all known nuclear and chemical and physical processes are conservative. But it is more than arrogant to suggest or insist that new matter cannot come into being in some ex nihilo process when, in fact, we truly don't know what matter is in the first place.

NewSpirit
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 38
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 10/21/2008 9:42:08 PM

Neither matter, or energy, are ever destroyed.


Matter gets destroyed all the time in particle-antiparticle anihilation, for example, electron positron anhilation results in two gamma rays. Photons have no mass.
 lucaspa
Joined: 5/28/2006
Msg: 40
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 7/6/2009 7:37:08 PM
cometchc "wouldn't it mean all living things (including us) turn into some other kind of energy when they die? "

Or some other form of matter. And we do. We become food for scavengers, worms and microbes. Our proteins, DNA, starches, and fat are broken down to amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and lipids. These are either converted to energy + carbon dioxide + water by other life forms or incorporated into the proteins, DNA, etc. of the other life form.

Any part of our body not used for food is slowly oxidized to carbon dioxide + water (+ ammonia) and this releases heat (a form of energy).
 BowdenK
Joined: 11/29/2009
Msg: 41
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 12/17/2009 8:32:48 PM

If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...


Then I am crazy and my whole existance has been the distorted reality from the padded room of a loony bin... but hey, since my body doesn't degrade I'll eventually snap out of it.

Oh my, that means I had no beginning either... oh my... so I must be a flawed loop of ambient thought trapped in some sort of singularity anomaly.

Wait, wait... singularities are impossible! For all that is holy why would anyone pose this question????
 AtomicGogol
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 42
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 12/17/2009 8:51:42 PM

matter can be destroyed, it energy that cant be created or destroyed


Since matter is essentially compressed energy, then it would lead to the statement 'matter = energy' and thus nothing is created or destroyed. This doesn't take into account quantum mechanics or the whole zero point energy concept.
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 43
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 12/18/2009 12:53:15 PM

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how was it created in the first place?


It is true. The reason is because matter has always existed. There was no creation of it. It was just always there.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 44
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 12/18/2009 3:17:47 PM

wouldn't it mean all living things (including us) turn into some other kind of energy when they die?
Yes. It's called "matter".

RE Msg: 131 by NothingLeftToBurn:
If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how was it created in the first place?
Very good question. If you believe that everything is controlled by inanimate forces, then you have to accept that there was always a fixed amount of matter-energy in the universe, and that this was true even before there was a universe.

Of course, some people think the laws of conservation of momentum and the laws of energy were only ever "rules of thumb", that they are only the de facto argument, and can be overridden.
 Worbug
Joined: 4/23/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
History
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 12/7/2010 4:49:55 PM
If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how was it created in the first place?


"It is true. The reason is because matter has always existed. There was no creation of it. It was just always there"

Who or what put it there, everthing comes from somewhere.

If nothing sticks to teflon, how do they get teflon to stick to the pan? LOL Life is full of many questions, The origin is by far the biggest.
'
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 46
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 12/8/2010 7:09:00 AM
Of course, some people think the laws of conservation of momentum and the laws of energy were only ever "rules of thumb", that they are only the de facto argument, and can be overridden.

Those were ``rules of thumb up until about 90 years ago. Those aren't rules of thumb any longer. Through Noether's theorem or through examining the Killing vectors, it's straight forward to state exactly what is required for momentum and energy to be conserved (or not). In particular, conservation of energy doesn't hold if one cannot define a timelike Killing vector for a given metric. Since, in general, it will not be possible to define such a Killing vector in a curved spacetime, in general, one cannot define a conserved energy in a curved spacetime.

Alternatively, energy is the conserved Noether charge corresponding to invariance under time translations, so there is a rigorous definition of what conservation of energy means and one can know if it's possible to define a conserved energy. Analogously momentum is the conserved Noether charge associated with invariance under spatial translations which means that conservation of momentum s just a consequence of the lack of a preferred origin for the spatial coordinates. Angular momentum is the conserved Noether charge associated with invariance under spatial translations, which means conservation of angular momentum is a consequence of the lack of a preferred direction in space.

I am not sure whether a photon of mass can reconvert to energy If it did surely when in a wave form it is "energy" which has just been created.

It's impossible for a single photon to produce a massive particle because that would violate conservation of energy and momentum. It IS possible for a photon to scatter from a heavy nucleus or even from another photon to produce massive particles through pair production. The former case has been exploited to build gamma-ray detectors in which the gamma ray scatters from a heavy nucleus (like lead) and then converts into an electron-positron pair. The latter case has been observed in an experiment performed to show exactly that using lases. The experiment was done at SLAC and was designated E-144 if you want to google it and read about it.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 47
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 12/17/2010 6:53:55 AM

It is the interaction of the Gamma photon (a wave) with the laser photon (a wave) which causes the production of the electron positron pair.

Right. It's the inverse of electron-positron anihilation into two photons.

I thought that a very high frequency wave (Gamma) should have passed straight through the laser wave (lower frequency) with no effect.

Not so and the reason is straight forward. The minimum total energy required to produce the electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV (the sum of energy of the electron and positron masses, 0.511 MeV each). The laser photons and the gamma photons have those energies (frequencies) in the reference frame of the experiment, but in some reference frame, both the photons will be gammas of at least 0.511 MeV each. The gamma would be redshifted and the laser photon blue shifted for an observer moving at some velocity relative to the lab. Merely changing frames of reference cannot change whether or not the reaction occurs.

The reason one might want to do the experiment the way it was done is the following. You need a combined energy of at least 1.022 MeV. If you use two gammas that are each at least 0.511 MeV, you're talking about gammas that are a lot more energetic than x-rays. It's not easy to create an intense source of gammas with those energies. It's not easy to even create an intense source of x-rays with 1/10th that energy, but since you need that 1.022 MeV to create the pair, you need at least one source of gamma rays. If the gamma ray energy is high enough, you can use a (relatively speaking) low energy (i.e., frequency) laser for an intense source of photons. Since you have a lot of photons, you're more likely to have a collision take place and produce an electron-positron pair. The choice of a gamma ray and laser photon is a practical constraint.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 48
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 12/27/2010 7:48:24 AM

I noticed that if I rotated the bowl back and forward by c 10 degrees I could set up a strange S shaped wave with a node in the centre.

You can analyze that by asking how the wave is generated. In this case it's by the momentum inparted to the liquid through the shearing of the liquid by the edge of the bowl.

It struck me that it is similar to orbital shells in an atom.
The orbital electron model and the wave model of electrons do not appear to be perfect (to my understanding)

I'm not sure what you mean by ``perfect.'' From nature's perspective, the wave functions are exactly what they should be. From the perspective of a person who wants to calculate a result that replicates nature's perspective, exact analytical solutions to the equations are hard to come by although one can, in principle, write down the correct equations, assuming the model is correct.

If the outside of the atom electrons were vibrating in 3 D back and forward it might produce concentric spheres instead of concentric rings.

The model to which you refer sounds like the Bohr model, which was more or less an ansatz by Bohr to explain why matter is stable and electron orbits didn't decay such that electron spiralled into the nucleus within about 1 microsecond. In a quantum mechanical picture, the electron doesn't orbit (at least not in any classical sense), nor vibrate (in any classical sense). The electron has a probability of being found at a particular point in space or with a particlular momentum. The waves in quantum mechanics are probabilities, not physical waves. However, the solutions for the hydrogen atom are well known. The electron wavefunctions for atoms in general are specified by 3 quantum numbers: a radial quantum number, n, which tells you what the probability for finding an electron at any given radius is, an angular momentum quantum number l which tells you the angular momentum of the electron, and one component of the angular momentum, m, along some arbitrary axis (usually called the z-axis). If you include the electron and nuclear spin, you have to include other quantum numbers for those and then use various schemes to couple the spin and angular momenta.

The radial wavefunctions are given by Laguerre polynomials and the angular wave functions are given by spherical harmonics. For the hydrogen atom, the lowest energy state is given by n = 1, l = 0. So, the angular momentum is zero. It must be spherically symmetric, since no angular momentum means nothing is rotating about the nucleus. (This is confirmed by experiment). Therefore, the electron cannot be localized to any particular position apart from the probability of finding it there. The lowet energy state is called the 1s in spectroscipic notation. The n=2 level can accomodate angluar momenta of 0 and 1. (The spectroscopic notation would be 2s and 2p respectively. The s and p are not to be confused with the S and P you used to describe geological waves). The 2s is also spherically symmetric because again, l=0. The electron is just more likely to be located further frm the nucleus than in the 1s state. The 2p orbital is NOT spherically symmetric. There are pictures of various spherical harmonics here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonic
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 49
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/9/2011 1:20:30 PM
The general upshot is "matter plus energy, with the appropriate conversion factor, is a constant in this universe, over infinite time", and some even quote such authors with the Killvector, that makes a Nobel-prize winner swoon.

That would be ``Killing vector,'' after Wilhelm Killing, not ``Killvector.''

So scientists who say "matter and its energy form are indestructible" ought to add, "as far as we can tell with our evidence database."

Since a conserved energy is defined by the existence of a timelike Killing vector, it's straight forward to state under what conditions energy is conserved. If the metric admits a timelike Killing vector, energy is defined to be what is conserved by that Killing vector field. In general relativity, a conserved energy cannot be defined, for the simple reason that a coordinate transformation (which has only 4 degrees of freedom) is insufficient to eliminate the time coordinate from the 10 independent components of the most general metric.

2. with saying that science makes claims over what it can, it won't make claims over what it can't. Science makes two claims here in question: matter is indestructible, and there was a big bang.

Actually, science only makes the claim that matter is indestructable to the extent that matter is described by a Poincare invariant theory. In that case, the mass is a Casimir operator of the Poincare group, so that makes the statement a tautology.

The big bang is just a consequence of general relativity. If general relativity is wrong, then you need another theory that explains everything general relativity does and in addition, something that general relativity does not explain.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 50
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 2/21/2011 7:39:03 AM

And general relativity is not a consequence of the big bang.

Right - the big bang is a consequence of general relativity. General relativity predicts either an expanding or contracting universe. Observations show the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding, it had to be smaller in the past.

It is said that Einstein rewrote his theory of relativity overnight to add a cosmological constant actually he corrected for an oversight as the frame of reference for his test particle had no history and was static

Einsyein add the cosmological constant because general relativity predicted that the universe had to be expanding or contracting and at the time, everyone assumed the universe was static. That change the field equations from:

G_uv = 8 pi T_uv

to

G_uv + g_uv C = 8 pi T_uv

where the Einstein tensor, G_uv is given by the sum of the Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar:

G_uv == R_uv + (1/2) g_uv R

However, Einstein didn't change the theory at all. The equations with the cosmological constant are just more general than assuming the cosmological constant is zero. An analogous case is a family of straight lines with the same slope m.

y = mx

The lines,

y = mx + b all have the same slope. The one with b = 0 is the one that has a y-intercept of zero.
 R_O_U_S
Joined: 3/20/2011
Msg: 51
If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
Posted: 4/16/2011 1:12:40 AM
No matter how far we breakdown matter something forms. I imagine the behind of the universe as a manifold frequency of expanding dimensions begging to coincide to create the big bang in a spatial flux in-between, I opine.
Building the quasar the universe is non linear gliding onitself in forms beyond the simplest form. But like a folding piece of paper of exponential growth. Froma single point. Occupying this space is darkmatter and it's compression the death of a star.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > If it's true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...