Where did Matter come from if it cannot be created?

gammarayburst · Sep 28, 2006

If Matter cannot be created then where did it all come from? Deduction : Evidence is that Matter can be created because it is here. So Matter can be created but Matter cannot be destroyed, then could this be the reason for the expansion of the universe? If it can be created then did it happen all at once or over a long period of time. "Big Bang" or "Steady State"? If it can be created then who said matter has stopped being created? I predict that each star will be found to create Matter at the extents of their magnetic fields equator and at the extents of the magnetic equators of some highly radio active planets like Neptune "to create rings." Afterall, it was proven that energy can be manipulated by a magnetic field so the energy that escapes stars will eventually slow down when hitting its own magnetic field at 90°. The only place this is possible is at the extents of its own magnetic equator. This explains why all solar systems form in a disk shape. Deduction : Mercury is older than Pluto Because it was created first. When a star become a "black star" the only place where energy can then escape turns out to be the holes at each magnetic pole, thus changing the direction and strength of where Matter is created and then galaxies are born with spiral arms and the planets in the original disk turn into stars and start the matter creation cycle all over again and continue to rotate around the black star but at 90° to the spiral arms. This senerio was found to happen around the galaxy Andromeda. smile, something to think about. I will not come back to read your comments so please dont leave any. Thank you. rek1hrwm4 I know, I returned to read your comments. LOL hey stevehw33 are you steven hawking?

vogon13 · Sep 28, 2006

The current quantity of matter in the universe is constantly being diluted by the universal cosmic expansion, and quite possibly by proton decay. Eventually, the universe gets so dilute, and so many protons decay that the amout of matter in the universe = ~0. Then keep in mind, that time continues to pass for endless eternal enormous eons of infinity. (be thinking time scales /> 10^100^1000^10000^1000000^10000000^10000000. . . . . years) so actually, the current apparent blip in the amount of matter is just a micro anomaly in the big scheme of things and is nothing to really be concerned with at all. On average (looking at the big picture here) the amount of matter in the universe is so close to absolute nothing that we should just move on and work on other more significant problems. Like why can't anyone make a decent frozen pizza. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

bonzelite · Sep 29, 2006

^^^ LOL! agreed!

MeteorWayne · Sep 29, 2006

Since you're not coming back.... Who cares <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

yevaud · Sep 29, 2006

So far, no Proton decay has ever been detected. It is theoretically possible, per particle decay and Poisson statistics. However, the probability of such an event occurring is 3 per/year on a baseline "lifespan" of 1033 years. They're still looking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 29, 2006

It may be more accurate to say - after all the initial matter was created and the laws of physics in this universe were set, matter cannot be destroyed, only change its form. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Saiph · Sep 29, 2006

why can't the laws of physics hold during the "creation" of matter/energy? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

vogon13 · Sep 29, 2006

With or without proton decay, (and btw, if the half life of a proton is >10^50 years, we will never know), the dilution of matter will continue unabated. Most of the protons (whether they decay or not) are going to wind up in black holes and converted to Hawking radiation on time scales of 10^100 years in any regard. And the Hawking radiation itself is redshifted by the continued expansion of the universe, so the matter in the universe still gets erased. The dilution never stops, after longish periods of time, regions of space 10^100 lightyears across will only contain a single photon, drastically redshifted to ~0 energy. And then the universe continues to expand for another 10^100^1000^10000^100000^1000000 years . . . . . . On average, over infinite eternity, the universe is empty, massless, and nothing ever happens. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

vogon13 · Sep 29, 2006

Anyone besides me getting really depressed? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

vandivx · Sep 29, 2006

"If Matter cannot be created then where did it all come from?" a) matter can be created from energy - your query should have been more accurately phrased 'if energy is conserved, that is, if it can be neither created (ex nihilo) nor destroyed, where did it all come from?' b) the query in either your original or my corrected form is outside the bounds of rational inquiry that is because rational, that is non mystical approach dictates, per necessity, that we start our inquiry how the world works with something that we accept as a starting point or fact which we don't further question, reason being that otherwise we fall into a logical fallacy of infinite regression for argument's sake, suppose we would actually obtain the answer to the query 'whence all energy came', you could bet your shoes that some smart aleck would ask before long 'and whence came this something from which energy came?'... that 'something' could be God for example, who is claimed by believers to have created universe, that is, created all that exists and if that wasn't enough, he is claimed to have created it ex nihilo (the purpose of this cutoff being to fend off smart alecks who would want to ask heretical questions) and so you could on and on ad infinitum, in endless regression, getting bogged in mysticism from day one when you had asked whence the matter/energy came rational people therefore recognize that there are certain facts about existence called axioms from which all knowledge springs and which are not to be questioned, axioms are the foundation of knowledge and one such axiom is the recognition that 'existence exists' (freely rephrased from A. Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) 'existence exists' can be for our purpose here translated into 'energy exists', expressing an acceptance of the most basic fact about existence avoidance of that fact necessarily embroils the avoider in irrationality, tha <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

scepterium · Sep 30, 2006

I gues this is just speculation and probably way to early in humanity to suggest but.... Perhapes negative and positive energy is needed for anything to exist and did in the begining before matter existed because energy cannot only be negative or positive. So in the begining of the universe negative and positive energy attracting to each other eventually created matter, and all three combined eventually (when enough matter was created) caused the big bang, leading up to how the universe is today. So basically us and the universe exists today because negative and positive energy attracting to each other does stuff. Although this doesn't explain how the complex atom needed for the 3rd dimension to be as complex as it is today was created. Surely something like that cannot ever be made by chance. Which suggests that this energy in the begining before our universe was inteligent and only a concience can be intelegent so this concious is "God".

bushuser · Sep 30, 2006

Getting your head around this question feels like lying on the grass and describing what the clouds remind you of! I guess there are few satisfying answers when science and theology intersect. I know nature loves symmetry. Just as black holes gobble up matter, I can imagine the same matter being spewed out of wormholes elsewhere in the universe. Maybe that's the source of our mysterious GRB's.

vogon13 · Sep 30, 2006

Even the definition of 'matter', to me at least, is a little fuzzy too. It turns out the energy of motion of the constituent quarks and gluons in matter contributes most of matters 'heft'. So most of what we consider matter is in fact energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

green_meklar · Sep 30, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If Matter cannot be created then where did it all come from?<hr /></blockquote> Well, obviously, either it can be created, or the Big Bang was the beginning of time (remember, if there was no time before the Big Bang, then matter doesn't have to be creatable, because there has never been a time at which it didn't exist). I'm more incline to believe the former, based on things like quantum randomness and the possibility of multiple levels of existence. Oh, and even if you don't read my comment, at least someone else will. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Anyone besides me getting really depressed?<hr /></blockquote> Well, think about it this way: At least we have another 10^50 years or so in which to solve the problem!

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming! </div>

Kalstang · Sep 30, 2006

To me Matter is just another form of Energy. Only slowed down alot. So in a way It has been around just as long as energy <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. "Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~ Guns dont kill people. People kill people.Solar System </div>

gammarayburst · Oct 16, 2006

There is no proton decay? I do agree in a way. Do you mean the particles of decay are still present somewhere just not as matter? But the radiation / energy does move on and still exists. The particle that decays do not show loss of "weight" or mass. Is it because instruments cannot read something so small or that they do but still do not record a loss? If energy can make matter when it decelerates, as theorized, could this be the reason the Universe is expanding? If metal is heated until it is molten for one year, at the end of that year, does the metal weigh less or the same? Would the decay be measurable?

alokmohan · Oct 17, 2006

It is sort of mystic part of big bang theory that matter comes out from nothing.Most probably J.V .Narlikar ,Indian astronomer had stated it.

Leovinus · Oct 17, 2006

How do you know matter cannot be created? Einstein says E=mc2 which means you can create matter from energy. The universe contains infinite unknowns. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

casualphilosoph · Oct 18, 2006

Why the hell should metal weight less after being in a heated state?(besides evaporating). Regarding proton decay I am not sure as the normal decay function troughs tunneling over potential barriers so its based on energy levels and the potential function which I do not know.(Is energy time fuziness enough to overcome the energy difference between a proton and what it transform into after decay) Oh and energy can create matter, in fact when energy density is high enough, matter is created spontaneously as matter antimatter pair. In fact the energy densities at the beginning of the universum where incredibly high making matter creation an overwhelming process. Its theorized then that the normal matter today is that which survived as their is an insymmetry in matter and amtimatter if you move forward in time(You have to reverse charge, sides and time if I remember correctly to make antimatter particles and atoms work like normal matter ones.)

vogon13 · Oct 18, 2006

Proton decay becomes irrelevant for the distant epoch when most of the matter in the universe is ensconced in blackholes and then evaportated via Hawking radiation . . . And it appears most of the matter winds up in black holes, seems like just about the entire mass of our galaxy, for instance, will wind up in the central black hole via the process of gravititational radiation. Granted this takes a rather longish amount of time to complete . . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 18, 2006

And it appears most of the matter winds up in black holes, seems like just about the entire mass of our galaxy, for instance, will wind up in the central black hole via the process of gravititational radiation. Granted this takes a rather longish amount of time to complete . . . . That's putting it mildly. I have a Time Mag article from June 2001: "The Blackhole era extends from 10 to the 46th power years to 10 to 100th power years. When, after the proton decay, blackholes remain, and evaporate into photons and other radiation." "The Dark Era (after 10 to 100th power yrs.) consists of individual photons, neutrinos, electrons, and positrons. Occasionally, electrons and positrons meet, and form atoms larger than the visible universe is today." I don't quite understand this last statement. The author of the Time article is Michael D. Lemonick. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

casualphilosoph · Oct 19, 2006

Regarding the last statement, I suppose that either the temperature is so low that thedeBrogli wavelength becomes insanely large or the mass of the positron is so small that (classical spoken) the radius positron and electron orbit around each other is that large (no idea if its better described as a wave or a a particle in that state)

aetherius · Oct 19, 2006

We tend to take as given that everything must have a beginning and an end, yet we are quick to fall back on infinite bounds when using integral calculus to explain certain aspects of reality. Maybe we need to accept the premise that energy/matter has always existed in one form or another. There is really no difference between believing 'God is infinite' and accepting an axiom that says 'energy exists'. In the first case you are assuming God has always existed and in the latter you are assuming that energy has always existed.

alokmohan · Oct 21, 2006

But Big bang theory is not clear how the matter came.From nothing to something.This is mystic?

vogon13 · Oct 21, 2006

In a region infinitely ageless, and infinitely large, some minor, trivial, blip occured. Heisenberg would barely raise an eyebrow over it. Everything will be as it was in just a jot of time, only 10^100 years or so. Relax and let the eons flow past you. Seriously, the existence of matter is not a puzzle at all . . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

Where did Matter come from if it cannot be created?

gammarayburst

Guest

vogon13

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

yevaud

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Saiph

Guest

vogon13

Guest

vogon13

Guest

vandivx

Guest

scepterium

Guest

bushuser

Guest

vogon13

Guest

green_meklar

Guest

Kalstang

Guest

gammarayburst

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

casualphilosoph

Guest

vogon13

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

casualphilosoph

Guest

aetherius

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

vogon13

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page