Where did Matter come from if it cannot be created?

[search]

Touche was used by another member and I believe he likes the theories I mentioned (I hope I am not getting names wrong here). <br /><br />'matter cannot be created nor destroyed'...<br />This such a simple phrase that tends to be used, miss used and some get confused.<br /><br />Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (in mechanics often expressed as the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy) in an isolated system remains constant. <br /><br />In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. In modern physics, all forms of energy exhibit mass and all mass is a form of energy.<br /><br />In thermodynamics, an isolated system, as contrasted with a closed system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is presumed that asymptotically (the term asymptotic means approaching a value or curve arbitrarily closely) flat spacetimes exist.<br /><br />No one is denying that it cannot be different but evidence points in another direction.<br /><br />So saying that in the universe "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" means that the universe for study purposes is considered an isolated system. That is one of the reasons that Dark Energy is needed to explain acceleration of the universe since acceleration in an isolated system would mean that energy is entering the system.<br /><br />The meaninglessness of the language is the result of the meaninglessness of trying to find answers to a questions which at the present stage of our developmeny we cannot answer.<br /><br />We can go as far back as the Big Bang because we have data that allows us to presume what must have happen but nothing (hardly anything) before. We can go as far in the future based on what the past and present universe did or is doin

 

[yevaud]

Can't improve on what you said, SEARCH.<br /><br />Science is always a work in progress. It's easy to see what it <i>has</i> determined as arrogant and misleading, since the novice easily focusses on the failures and not the successes.<br /><br />Obviously the failures mean the successes are shams and delusions.<br /><br />In defense of mainstream science, is that if it truly knows nothing, and is deluded, how are the naysayers communicating with us now using a computer - a device that incorporates aspects of Quantum Physics within it's design?<br /><br />Mystery to me. Mystery to me. <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>

 

[search]

Touche'

 

[kmarinas86]

The laws of quantum mechanics are accurate enough to allow us to build computers. They do not dictate what the ultimate underlying reality is although they obviously explain parts of overt reality. It could be seen as a delusion if it were necessary that true (truthful) physical laws were a matter beyond the current reach of our understanding. People saying that quantum mechanics is deluded think that the approximation is not a truth, even if it explains what we know empirically. Being responsible for major advances in technology and industry is not part of their definition of "truth".<br /><br />Some people think of theories as hodgepodges and believe that the underlying reality can be summarized more succintly. Some of these people think the current theories are "unbeautiful" and need some revision. Unfornately for them, the field is huge and much has been derived from quantum mechanics. Keep in mind that some parts of quantum mechanics, such as QCD, have nothing to do with how today's computers run (although lattice QCD computations involve massive computers), leaving them aside from the batch of quantum mechanics that is actually involved in electronic-circuit/semiconductor-based computing.<br /><br />Their sentiment about the truthfulness about quantum mechanics is not to be confused with a sentiment about the utility of quantum mechanics. Meanwhile, holding both ideas is apparently an unstable ground for those holding a pragmatic point of view.<br /><br />I am just using my intuition in this post. I don't know I am a coming off sounding right.

 

[search]

Steve did you wake up in a bad mood again...<br /><br />I agree photons have no mass...but yet do they have mass?<br /><br />This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons are really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2. The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions of mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a "relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength.<br /><br />The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this definition a beam of light, is massless like the photons it is composed of. However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured - in principle at least - either by an increase in inertia when the box is slowly accelerated or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.<br /><br />If the rest mass of the photon was non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalizable; also, charge-conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have vanishing rest-mass. However, whatever theory says, it is still necessary to check theory against experiment.<br /><br />It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment which would establish that the photon rest mass is exactly zero. The best we ca

 

[derekmcd]

<i>"Sadly, some think that reading on the internet makes them knowledgeable in an important area of learning."</i><br /><br />Very true indeed. I always find it humorous reading 'cut and paste' responses passed off as their own from the first site that google lists on a search. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I once asked a certain now long-banned member who was prone to do that, "oh yeah? You're online right now. Answer these questions without Googling the answers."<br /><br />He couldn't.<br /><br />[mirth] <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>

 

[vandivx]

"photons have NO mass"<br /><br />mass is a measure of inertia, photons have inertia (they have momentum), ergo they 'exhibit mass' as claimed in the preceding post (although they do not have rest mass)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[search]

For derekmod:<br /><br />Obviously your comment was towards my post but even if it was not I cannot say less than your comment is correct except in one thing<br />It was not my intention to plage. I send the post regarding the post of steve which as usual instead of being polite prefers to attack. <br /><br />Usually, and only if you do not read my post you do not know, I post either the website or the author. I do believe that what people write should be respected and the last thing I want is to take credit for others work or thoughts.<br /><br />In this case I did not write the authors website so only I can be blamed for that.<br /><br />I do not take the words of others as my own but I do take the context as the one I perceive.<br /><br />Be advised that after searching for the correct website (since I could not find it in the word document that I used) I found that I was not the first to use this and that others have used it before since you can find more websites with the same wording including wikipedia (to my surprise).<br /><br />This is not an excuse but a reposition of the thruth. Derekmod is right in what he is saying but wrong in what he is assuming.<br /><br />To correct my fault and respect the authors rights here is the website I used.<br /><br />http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html<br /><br />The context of the post remains and I hope from now on if plaging occurs it will be reported although I adivise to remind the person first so there is a chance to correct the post.<br /><br />For Yevaud: <br />If the intention is to ban me please advise me and I will respect the forum moderators decision. I can guarentee that I will not came back with a different name. My decision to be in this forum is based solely in the fact that I enjoy the caractheristics of the forum and that I can not only learn as well I can share my knowledge. <br /><br />M

 

[yevaud]

Huh?<br /><br />I have no intention of banning you, whatsoever. I was merely being conversational with Derekmcd was all, in reference to some people's gleaning all of their "expert" knowledge from the Googling the Internet. <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>

 

[search]

Good<br />We are clear.<br />Lets move on.<br /><br /><br />If an idea's worth having once, it's worth having twice.<br />Tom Stoppard (1937 - )

 

[search]

Regarding the photon.<br />From Sergej Reissig:<br />http://absimage.aps.org/image/MWS_MAR06-2005-002177.pdf

 

[yevaud]

Oh, I should have included this in my prior post to you: I was in no way implying you, when I made my comment to Derek. Sorry. <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>

 

[search]

Its ok<br />derek is right either regarding me or anyone else. It should not happen.<br />At least you read the link above?<br />

 

[yevaud]

I actually haven't been following the thread much. I was only briefly entering it, made an off-the-cuff comment, and departed. Moderator stuff can be busy; I have less time to enjoy a long read and involved participation than formerly.<br /><br />However, I'll try to go back and read it all, a bit later, if I can. <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>

 

[newtonian]

gammarayburst - On the opening post: matter can be created from energy.<br /><br />Others, such as SEARCH, noted the law of conservation of matter and energy.<br /><br />Considering the matter-energy equivalent total, if our universe is an isolated system (and closed thermodynamically) then this total would be constant.<br /><br />As to where it came from - the standard answer would be: the big bang.<br /><br />Now, where the big bang got the energy from (matter preceeded energy) - there are many models.<br /><br />The Biblical model has the energy coming from God, and being fine tuned for life as we know it in our universe. For example, Isaiah 40:26 links the existence of stars with plural (Hebrew ohnim) forms of God's dynamic energy and power.<br /><br />It certainly did not come from nothing, but rather from energy accoriding to the scientific principle of cause and effect and the law of conservation of matter and energy.

 

[newtonian]

Muscles - good post on space, time, matter, energy.<br /><br />I am not so sure about time having a beginning or not. <br /><br />Certainly our universe specific space-time was created at the origin of our universe.<br /><br />However, for our universe to be created by cause and effect in harmony with the law of conservation of matter and energy, there would have to have been time independent of our universe specific space time.<br /><br />I call this primordial time.<br /><br />There is another choice besides infinite past time with infinite past causes and effects.<br /><br />It is simply: a first cause.<br /><br />Such a first cause is taught in the Bible as a source of energy.<br /><br />Thus energy would always have existed in the First Cause.<br /><br />This teaching is in harmony with both the scientific principle of cause and effect and the law of conservation of matter and energy.<br /><br />In other words, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion - though I understand how your reached it and I do not know whether primordial time had a beginning or always existed.

 

[newtonian]

SEARCH - good posts and research as usual. <br /><br />How do you propose our universe was caused to exist without pre-esisting time?<br /><br />As I posted above, I consider this impossible since cause and effect cannot proceed without time, and our universe was a product of cause and effect.<br /><br />Note my post above: I postulate primordial time during which our universe and other universes were created.<br /><br />If nothing exists outside our universe - how did it get into such a thermodynamic state which it is evolving from according to the laws of thermodynamics, notably entropy?<br /><br />I agree we are not sure how our universe was created - e.g. by a collision of branes model at a point of intersection between dimensions involved that resembled a singularity (one of my favorite models) or some other model.<br /><br />I do not agree these models are meaningless - rather, one can compare observations, extrapolate back in harmony with the observed laws, properties and principles, and limit the possible models in harmony with said observations.<br /><br />I suspect we will further narrow things down as our data increases.

 

[vandivx]

"our universe was a product of cause and effect."<br /><br />since you state that so positively can you enlarge on that? <br /><br />and since you say 'our' universe can you supply proof of other universes? I think if you say 'our' that you should speak of multiverses, there can be only one universe if words are to have any meaning (uni means one or encompasing everything...)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[search]

http://absimage.aps.org/image/MWS_MAR06-2005-002177.pdf<br /><br />The Relativity of the Photon Mass SERGEJ REISSIG, <br />EFBR — In the standard model of the electromagnetic radiation, a <br />photon is mass-less. In [1] it was showed that the puzzling question <br />– whether a photon does or does not have a zero mass – can be how- <br />ever answered. According to the new viewpoint, photons can exist in <br />two states: 1) photons have energy and collide neither with a medium <br />nor with surfaces; 2) photons collide with a medium or a surface. In <br />the first case (1), photons possess latent or potential energy and are <br />invisible. In the second case (2), they are visible Wirkungsquantums <br />according to the Planck’s quantum theory. The energy of a photon <br />could in case (1) be determined by Planck’s equation E1p = hf and in <br />case (2) by Einstein’s formula E2p = mc2 . By a collision (Wirkung) <br />between a photon and a medium or surface, an energy transformation <br />takes place: the mass-less and invisible light particle (phantom) with <br />latent energy, is converted into a visible photon, which now possesses <br />an impulse mass and energy. For the case that the photons “bomb” <br />a surface, which moves with a velocity v into the same direction as <br />the photons, a new equation for the photon mass has been derived: <br /><br />For equation see website above

 

[bonzelite]

matter cannot be created. <br /><br />the universe was not created. it is in a constant state of becoming. it always was.

 

[search]

Regarding your post:<br /><br />"matter cannot be created. <br /><br />the universe was not created. it is in a constant state of becoming. it always was."<br /><br />Did I write somewhere that the Universe was created? Or your post was for another member?

 

[yevaud]

Implied in the thread topic title, I think. For matter to have been created, the universe must have been as well.<br /><br />Just guessing at what Bonz is getting at. <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>

 

[newtonian]

VanDivX – Well, yes, I consider many universes likely – and I also have in mind a model based on a Biblical statement. Would you like me to post details on said model?<br /><br />Many scientists, although espousing different causes for our universe as an effect by cause and effect, consider it likely that our universe is not the only one so caused. [E.g. Linde involving scaler fields; etc.]<br /><br />I use the English word universe because it is common usage as well as common scientific usage.<br /><br />However, the word universe is not found in the Bible. No word equivalent with a singular prefix like “uni” in English is used for heaven(s) in the Bible – instead, heaven is often found in the Hebrew plural.<br /><br />Simply put, without detailing the Biblical model, there are plural heavens.<br /><br />As we cannot observe other universes, unless dark energy is propagated in another universe, proof would have to be indirect.<br /><br />The most obvious evidence does involve various causes espoused for the big bang as many of these models involve a cause and effect mechanism that would likely be repeated over primordial time. <br /><br />BTW – I refer to time independent from our universe specific space/time, and pre-existing our universe specific space time, as: primordial time.<br /><br />The simplest proof is that our universe could not have been created from nothing, therefore something had to exist other than our universe from which our universe was created.<br /><br />Some details can be deduced from the specific way our universe is fine tuned for life, such as the fine tuning of the ratio of strengths of the four forces of physics, as well as the fine tuning of the expansion rate of our universe, as well as the existence of laws and precise math ratios like e=mc^2, etc.<br />

 

[newtonian]

SEARCH- good post on photon models.<br /><br />First, to repeat in different words:<br /><br />How do you propose our universe, with its energy into matter, was caused without the existence of primordial time before said event?<br /><br />Now, on those phantom photons – is this a generally accepted model – because I don’t remember it!<br /><br />I am familiar with the particle/wave duality – but not a phantom state – is that similar to virtual particles?<br />