Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

Is it that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, or that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any way known to mankind?

There's a mathematical proof which I think is called Noether Theorem which shows that, if the laws of the universe don't change, energy is always conserved (this is for any set of coherent laws, not just ours[/i]).

We can convert the two in both directions, but it's completely impossible to change the sum.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

By the very theory of the Big Bang, the matter was so condensed that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could escape the gravity pull.

Actually, based on current understanding of the universe, along with the big bang theory, the Universe should actually expand to speeds even faster than they are now.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

It had to have had a first cause, an initial push by a more powerful entity. (note: i am not a christian, so dont think im one of these good ol boy types or whatever.) If, by the very laws of the universe, matter cannot be created or destroyed, then the Big Bang cannot have happened by its own power. There WAS a creator involved.

I'm not a physicist, so explaining this would be troublesome for me, but luckily there is this.

A Universe From Nothing


A good video to watch for everyone I think. Oh, although I guess all of the points may have already been addressed, but meh.

Oh also, I read a few posts here and there from the thread so far and saw this:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The requirement of infinite energy causes the speed of light to be unattainable.

I've always been told the speed of light can't be reached by mass, etc., but Mr Krauss seems to say that it is possible, due to special relativity, to reach speeds even faster than the speed of light. If anyone could shed some light on this for me I would be interested.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Crap, this thread is old...

As it has probably been stated above, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but they can be converted back and forth. In nuclear weapons and such, a small amount of matter is converted to pure energy. Scientists at CERN and other facilities are also trying to get matter out of energy...not sure if they've succeeded yet or not.

I feel pathetic that instead of listening to my science professor and hearing about that, Dan Brown told me about it.

Originally Posted by guitarboy

I feel pathetic that instead of listening to my science professor and hearing about that, Dan Brown told me about it.

<3 Dan Brown.

Originally Posted by Sandform

A Universe From Nothing


A good video to watch for everyone I think. Oh, although I guess all of the points may have already been addressed, but meh.

That video is hawt.

How I enjoyed that video! "Forget Jesus! Stars died so you could be here today..." ingenious joke, among others... He speaks in a fine, clever language we can all understand if we're interested in the subject.

The presently accepted theory of gravity is mistaken. All attraction, including gravity, is caused by the absorption of emission via the emission field of an object. An emission field and an gravitational field are one and the same thing. To talk about gravity as only operating on the large scale is wrong.

Of even greater interest is the fact that nuclear binding (the nuclear force) is not simply an internal process. The nuclear force is actially the nuclear fusion process of construction which occurs within the context of the increasing density of impacting emission and the motion derived from the absorption of that emission.

The stability of atomic structure is relative to the density of the impacting emission. This was demonstrated with the Hafele-Keating atomic clocks experiment of 1971.

paradigm

Why does this guy's name sound familiar?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Why does this guy's name sound familiar?

I have no idea.

paradigm

So much talk about this thing called energy. Is it really anything more than matter is motion, and something that can be measured with an instrument?

When matter is destroyed is it not de-constructed into its parts, which includes the de-construction of its particles and sub-atomic particles, etc.

Do we really need the concept of energy to explain the Universe, if energy is de-constructing matter?

How can something exist and not be made of matter. Surely, the idea of anti-matter was taken from Star Trek.

The so called evidence for the existence of anti-matter is evidence for the impacting emission acting as pressure and causing particles to de-construct (explode).

Its not "energy" which binds matter into the elements and other higher forms of construction, but the attraction between the particles and sub-atomic particles which involves the absorption of emission which is made of matter.

Matter can be destroyed only in the sense that it;s reduced to its constitutent parts which are made of matter.

Matter is not one thing, because everything is made of matter.


paradigm

Originally Posted by paradigm

Its not "energy" which binds matter into the elements and other higher forms of construction, but the attraction between the particles and sub-atomic particles which involves the absorption of emission which is made of matter.

To be honest, what I see here is a bunch of linguistic obstacles standing in a way of common understanding of this things.

Originally Posted by Luanne

To be honest, what I see here is a bunch of linguistic obstacles standing in a way of common understanding of this things.

"linguistic obstacles"

A common understanding would be in realizing that it has been experimentally established that the stability of atomic structure is relative to the density of the impacting emission.

A common understanding would be in realizing that gravitational attraction is caused by the absorption of emission and that space is composed of the emission of everything.

A common understanding would be in realzing that when you put these two things together you obtain an understanding of how the Universe works.

Planets and stars are constructed from Hydrogen within the context of the absorption of emission which results in the building of the rest of the elements, and within the context of the movement which results from that absorption of emission which involves the increasing density of impacting emission.

A common understanding would go beyond the abstractions of physics to the real material nature of the Universe.

It's a fact that the integrated paradigm of science specifies the parameters within which the elements are stabile.

It's a fact of the integrated paradigm of science that Hydrogen has a fourth isotope "quadritium" which has been detected in the inter-stellar "space" and mistakenly interpreted as molecular Hydrogen.

It's a fact of the integrated paradigm of science that our solar system begun with 13 planets.

It's a fact that to believe that you can measure distance with the light from galaxies and stars is to engage in delusion.

These things are only "linguistic obstacles" if you do not understand the English language.

paradigm

Yes, you're right, I don't understand English completely. It's not my language. Making you want to reply my post is however what I wanted.

Me just learning; pls don't mind!

paradigm, perhaps you could enlighten us by explaining what you're trying to say without simply repeating the word "emission" without reference to what is being emitted by what and how this emission "explains everything."

Are the emitted quanta simply photons, or all bosons? If only photons, what makes electromagnetic interaction more fundamental than weak and strong? Are you asserting that gravity is not an independent force at all, but an expression of electromagnetism? Would you say the same for weak and strong forces? What makes the particle-like behavior of a photon more fundamental than the wave-like behavior?

You say "space is composed of the emission of everything." By "space" do you mean the entire cosmos or only areas with low densities of non-dark matter? Is "everything" emitting to space or from it? What does your statement mean?

If you're not just making word salad, convince us, because so far you might as well have said, "Everything comes from the Holy Spirit!"

Originally Posted by paradigm

I have no idea.

paradigm

ParadigmShift! That's it!

I agree, your posts are unusually vague...also, matter is essentially trapped energy, and the concept of antimatter isn't entirely science fiction. When two particles of opposite spin interact, they cancel each other out and release pure energy. They aren't "broken down into their constituents" necessarily. Atomic weaponry converts a very small portion of matter to pure energy. For sure, splitting an atom releases energy, and so does smashing them. But, it is totally possible to convert matter to energy, and visa versa.

You also seem to be confused about energy, and what exactly it is. Allow me to remedy this:
Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work.
Forms of energy:
Kinetic
Thermal
Potential
Chemical
Electrical
Electrochemical
Electromagnetic
Sound
Nuclear

Kosher?

You seem to be confused about matter.

My point is that all the types of "energy" can be seen as types and states of matter so that energy is made of matter.

The idea that matter is made of energy and that energy is, therefore, not made of matter is to propose that energy does not have a substantive basis.

The destruction of two particles is not a result of matter meeting anti-matter. It is a product of the emission of the each particle causing the other particle to explode.

As two particles can only approach each other if they have an inequivalence of emission, one of the particles must explode before the other.

If the particles had an equivalence of emission then they would repel each other.

paradigm

So, the emission...what gets it going?

Everything absorbs and emits as a product of its very existence, so nothing "gets the emission going".

paradigm

Originally Posted by paradigm

You seem to be confused about matter.

My point is that all the types of "energy" can be seen as types and states of matter so that energy is made of matter.

The idea that matter is made of energy and that energy is, therefore, not made of matter is to propose that energy does not have a substantive basis.

The destruction of two particles is not a result of matter meeting anti-matter. It is a product of the emission of the each particle causing the other particle to explode.

As two particles can only approach each other if they have an inequivalence of emission, one of the particles must explode before the other.

If the particles had an equivalence of emission then they would repel each other.

paradigm

Can you give a link which explains the "emission" stuff eloquently?

Originally Posted by paradigm

You seem to be confused about matter.

My point is that all the types of "energy" can be seen as types and states of matter so that energy is made of matter.

The idea that matter is made of energy and that energy is, therefore, not made of matter is to propose that energy does not have a substantive basis.

You seemed to be emphasizing the quantic side of the duality, as if there is some greater import in saying 'energy is matter' than 'matter is energy.' As when you wrote, "Do we really need the concept of energy to explain the Universe, if energy is de-constructing matter?"

If your point is it's erroneous to give either aspect greater weight than the other, agreed. If you really believe that there's no utility in distinguishing the two, that reality is all quanta and no fields/waves, all chunks and no gravy, that's just picking sides--an ideological, rather than scientific position.

Originally Posted by paradigm

The destruction of two particles is not a result of matter meeting anti-matter. It is a product of the emission of the each particle causing the other particle to explode.

As two particles can only approach each other if they have an inequivalence of emission, one of the particles must explode before the other.

If the particles had an equivalence of emission then they would repel each other.

paradigm

And again, what is this mystic, unitary non-force, "emission?" What is being emitted? What on earth (or otherwise) did you mean by, "space is composed of the emission of everything?" If you feel we have made an error, by all means clarify.

More clearly.

Perhaps start with, again, what specifically is being emitted.

Fields and waves are quantized and are not an un-differentiated stream. This quantization occurs through the convergence of waves and fields.

The absorption of emission is the cause of the force of attraction.

You can call that which is emitted “energy” as long as you see this “energy”, this “emission”, as being made of matter and as a process of the de-construction or “dispersion” of matter which is constructed onto fields and waves through the convergence of different levels of emission.

That everything emits and absorbs “energy/matter” is an inherent aspect of the Universe and so is un-caused in the same way as the rotation of particles and planets and stars is an un-caused (inherent) aspect of the Universe.

Space is composed of the emission of everything, and is not a vacuum as is sometimes claimed by physics.

The Earth is attracted to the Sun through absorbing the emission of the Sun via the Earth’s emission (gravitational) field.

An emission field and a gravitational field are one and the same thing. To measure the wavelengths of the light from our Sun is to measure its gravity waves.

The stability of matter, as constructed into its higher forms such as the elements, is relative to the density of the impacting emission.

As you travel away from our solar system, the density of the impacting emission (space) decreases resulting in an increase in the rate of atomic decay so that eventually you and your space craft would completely de-construct (fall apart).

If emission “energy” is not made of matter then nothing could possibly exist, because the higher forms of matter are constructed through the absorption of emission (matter) within the context of the increasing density of impacting emission which also involves the motion (attraction) that results from the absorption of emission.

The idea that the nuclear force (as the binding of matter) is solely an internal process is demonstrated to be wrong by the Hafele-Keating experiment.

paradigm

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Can you give a link which explains the "emission" stuff eloquently?

I don't know about the "eloquently" part but there is an essay located at: http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/forever.pdf

paradigm

paradigm, you grow more sense-making. Would you accept the restatement of your positions as follows: all forms, or material constructs, are interdependent, and inextricably connected.

If so, would it not follow that reality is equally approachable as a single field with local densities in flux, and no quanta having fixed values independent of position in that field?

If not, would you assert that there are a fixed number of elementary quanta at any point in time?