conservation of mass

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

olivebird111

Guest
if the law of conservation of mass says that matter and mass dont change regardless how it is acting, then if the big bang expand so huge and imagine all the mass of the stars and dust and ice and comet and every galaxy in one small tiny spot so small that if u drop it u wouldnt relaly see it but you can get it back cos it would be so heavy that it make a biggg hole out of where it land...that is pretty weird, but i wonder if thats possible though. <br /><br />give your thoughts! this is a free speaking world!<br /> for all will be considered!
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
Mass is only conserved if matter is not radiating. But it does.<br /><br />The sun loses mass not only through solar wind losses but also by the conversion of mass into radiation.<br /><br />E=mc^2=hv<br />Energy :: Mass Energy :: Radiative energy<br /><br />As for the big bang one must note the lack of binding energies at the very moment of the big bang. According to the Big Bang "theory", there was a period purely of radiation which preceeded the existence of mass. Of course, electromagnetic radiation implies the existence of an electromagnetic energies at the start of the Big Bang, and therefore of electric and magnetic fields.<br /><br />If you divide the distance light traveled since the Big Bang by the Planck length, you get a factor of 8.17722722*10^60.<br /><br />((1 / (70 ((km / s) / Mpc))) * (1 (light year / year))) / sqrt(((h / (2 * pi)) * G) / (c^3)) = 8.17722722 * 10^60<br /><br />If you cube this value, you get the factor by which the volume was smaller.<br /><br />(((1 / (70 ((km / s) / Mpc))) * (1 (light year / year))) / sqrt(((h / (2 * pi)) * G) / (c^3)))^3 = 5.4678702 * 10^182<br /><br />Try dividing the planck density by the current density of the universe.<br /><br />(5.1 * ((10^96) (kg / (m^3)))) / (5 * ((10^(-30)) (g / (cm^3)))) = 1.02 × 10^123<br /><br />Presumably, the density of the universe would have to be greater than the planck density at planck time, by almost 60 orders of magnitude. But scientists say otherwise. Knowing that the scientists are more likely to be right than I, can somebody explain why this result is different by almost
 
G

green_meklar

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>if the law of conservation of mass says that matter and mass dont change regardless how it is acting, then if the big bang expand so huge and imagine all the mass of the stars and dust and ice and comet and every galaxy in one small tiny spot so small that if u drop it u wouldnt relaly see it but you can get it back cos it would be so heavy that it make a biggg hole out of where it land...that is pretty weird, but i wonder if thats possible though.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The infinitesimal speck of matter at the beginning of the Universe is generally referred to as the Monobloc. And yes, it was extremely massive, containing essentially all the normal matter, energy and dark matter present in the Universe today (last I heard, dark energy may have come from somewhere else). As a result, yes, it was extremely dense. Infinitely dense, in fact, right at the beginning of the Universe. And still extremely dense for several milliseconds after that, while the Universe was still relatively small.<br /><br />Perhaps fortunately for us, nothing quite like it exists now. However, there is a substance called neutronium (matter composed entirely of neutrons) which is extremely dense and does exist inside neutron stars. Now, under most conditions any small quantity of it would immediately explode, but if we have some hypothetical way of keeping it together, it becomes a very interesting toy. It has a density of approximately 400000000000 kilograms per cubic centimeter. In other words, if a billion cars have been built throughout history, and they average two tonnes each, then the same mass in neutronium would fit in the palm of your hand. Each cubic centimeter of neutronium also weighs 8 kilograms for ever dollar in Bill Gates' bank account. As a result of its enormous density, a piece of neutronium, when dropped, would fall just as fast as anything else you dropped- but when it hit something, it would go on falling at the sam <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Not so. The conditions withing the Universal Monobloc were more likely to be a seething hell of energy, bound into one small region, until whatever set it loose occurred. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
G

green_meklar

Guest
But it still would have been really, really dense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>
 
S

search

Guest
Attention to what you are saying:<br /><br />"if the law of conservation of mass says that matter and mass dont change regardless how it is acting"<br /><br />Different from:<br /><br />The law of conservation of mass/matter aka Law of Mass Conservation, (The Lomonosov-Lavoisier law) states that the mass of a closed system of substances will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter changes form, but cannot be created or destroyed.<br /><br />Key elements to remember: <br />1. Matter changes form, but cannot be created or destroyed.<br />2. Closed system<br /><br />According to special relativity, the conservation of mass holds strictly true for closed systems as seen by single observers. However, it is only approximately true for systems when viewed from multiple different reference frames (as is done when adding the separate rest masses of system particles).<br /><br />Several forms of radiation are popularly said to show mass to energy conversion, in which matter may be converted into kinetic energy/potential energy and vice versa. However, such situations result from adding rest masses, to get total mass, an operation not allowed in relativity. For a single observer, all forms of energy in such conversions continue to have mass, and thus mass is conserved in nuclear reactions unless energy is allowed to escape.<br /><br />Tiny amounts of mass are thus gained or lost from systems when they lose or gain heat, or any kind of radiation, and this gain or loss is not taken into account. However, in many practical contexts, the assumption of conservation of mass is true to a high degree of approximation, even for systems which are not closed to radiation.
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Imagine the mass of the universe averaged over a spherical volume 10^1000000000000 lightyears across (a diameter the universe will eventually achieve due to the universal cosmic expansion).<br /><br /><br />The average is very, very close to zero.<br /><br /><br />There is no mass problem to explain.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY