The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: where did matter come from?  (Read 4923 times)

scienceofscience

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #50 on: 30/10/2013 07:31:42 »
I know i'm being lazy, but is there a written theory on our universe being created/started/came into being from another universe via a black hole? Or would this be a question for a new subject?
« Last Edit: 30/10/2013 07:38:30 by scienceofscience »

SimpleEngineer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #51 on: 30/10/2013 12:31:54 »
firstly.. a black hole is not a hole to somewhere else (although it may be mwhaha) its a densely packed mass witha gravity so strong that light cannot escape its gravitation field (or a better wikipedia definition of the same ilk)

Secondly, pmb, that article you posted is complete and utter codswallop.. he says one thing and then goes on to prove his statement is wrong without realising it. As do you in several points in the thread.

Energy IS the potential for doing something.. nothing does anything without energy.. whether you want to dress this statement up or not, this is what it boils down to. It may not be a useful something.. it may not be a visible something.. but something it is.. but then trying to dress energy up to be a tangible 'something' the idea of pure energy is pointless..

And you both stated E=Mc2 does not mean that you can convert mass to energy, yet both state mass is a form of energy.. so what you have pretty much said is that you cannot convert one form of energy to another.. which is funny.. because that happens a fair bit in the universe. The energy of mass (if i have studied correctly)is the inertia the mass has (i.e. ability to resist change <- see what i did there?) So its the ability for it to do something, (not specifically

For the question what is energy, I feel is the wrong question to ask, as energy is always intangible and all we can observe is what the energy allows to occur, with the premise that this (for example) electromagnetic wave contains x amount of energy.. where as the total situation would be this electromagnetic wave has the potential for doing x amount of work because lets face it we can only measure the energy content of things by observing the amount of work they do.. Inventing ideas to deny the fact that energy provides the potential for things to do work negates the entire principal of experimentation, as if you cannot observe it in any way at all (can only observe work) it may as well be 'GOD'.. unobservable, immeasurable and unknown.

dlorde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #52 on: 30/10/2013 15:58:37 »
Energy IS the potential for doing something.. nothing does anything without energy.. whether you want to dress this statement up or not, this is what it boils down to. It may not be a useful something.. it may not be a visible something.. but something it is.. but then trying to dress energy up to be a tangible 'something' the idea of pure energy is pointless..
Not all energy is available to do work, because for energy to 'do something', you need some kind of energy gradient, i.e. low entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). When a system reaches thermodynamic equilibrium and entropy is at a maximum, there is no longer any energy gradient; there is the same amount of energy present, but none available to do work. Energy that is available to do work is known, understandably, as 'available energy' or exergy.

Quote
...we can only measure the energy content of things by observing the amount of work they do..
You can calculate the energy (energy is conserved).

SimpleEngineer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #53 on: 30/10/2013 16:44:00 »
You missed the point dlorde, its not necessarily WORK that the something that energy gives the potential to do (many forms of it do) as an atom at rest can do no work, but energy gives it inertia (or something along those lines.. such as energy is inertia, inertia is energy) it has resistance to outside influences, which without any outside influences it does no work so its energy remains constant, but there is no 0 energy. The atom at rest can be hit by another atom and its system gains energy (exergy if you wish) and the system of now 2 atoms conserves all the energy involved. neither atom has lost mass or gained it, otherwise momentum and in turn energy would not be conserved.

We can only calculate to an arbitrary frame of reference. The conservation calculations work because the difference between 12 and 14 is the same as the difference between 2 and 4. if there was a +10 to each side the energy is still seen to be conserved.


dlorde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #54 on: 30/10/2013 17:32:23 »
... an atom at rest can do no work, but energy gives it inertia (or something along those lines.. such as energy is inertia, inertia is energy)
Energy is not inertia, and inertia is not energy. In theory (special relativity), mass having inertia implies that inertia is also associated with energy, but only to the extent that energy has a mass equivalence.

scienceofscience

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #55 on: 30/10/2013 18:00:39 »
Circumlocutory:)

Ultimately E is an effect...go back in time (if time=0) to 0, E had to of became in existence by a cause.
my hypothesis (loose term because it probably can't be studied further) is that something unknown to us created E from E/created...so this hypothesis is not accepted as a tangible means of science because science says something can't become from nothing.

The hypothesis / assumption that a black hole leads to nowhere also can't be proven...it will be many years before we're able to send a probe through one...the 1st probes being destroyed before they have a chance to get close...so of course the 1st probes will not be designed to go through one, but to analyze the matter/space/surroundings...but by then scientists will have more information on M & E just to get to a black hole.

Thoughts on E & M...I feel i'm beating this subject up, but E had to of been made after M matter, based on how we see it in action. IE: how E shows itself after a cause.

So if M matter precluded E energy...we're back to the (using a point 0 theory/ time=0) same quandary.
 
So after all the replies,......the result is still "we just don't know"...and because we reach a dead end we look at other things that can be further explored that hopefully can be understood..in little bits at a time, to add to other little bits of information, as PMB stated earlier...

Thanks for all the information everyone, it was interesting to say the least.



AndroidNeox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #56 on: 30/10/2013 20:13:09 »
so 'if' there was a point 0 (time - 0)...we're back to the chicken vs egg/matter vs energy or visa versa.

matter needed energy to become matter, and energy needed matter to manifest itself also?

There is/was an anomalous type of energy we have not discovered that obviously fired-up the boiler...using the point 0 theory.

but as I said before this is way over my head...but sooooooooo interesting.

Actually, all we need is information. It doesn't matter what form(s) it takes, so long as all the necessary quantities instantiate. That's my interpretation of Wheeler's "it from bit", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_from_bit#Wheeler.27s_.22it_from_bit.22. In fact, if somehow reality possesses some background state of infinite information content, that would be sufficient for every possible observation...  instantiation of every event for a multiverse. Just a speculation.

Given that causality seems to break at time = zero, perhaps there was a non-causal condition prior to the Big Bang (if words like "prior" have any meaning pre-time). Non-causality could contain boundless information, in countless interpretations.

It from bit combined with the assumption that there is a background of infinite information makes the observation of every possibility, for every possible set of physical laws, inevitable. But, I'm pretty confident that all observable systems would have to be purely causal. Q.M. requires that all observations must be causally consistent (in terms of physical symmetries).

Gödel’s Theorems show that purely causal, non-trivial systems (e.g. odd integers would be trivial) cannot be fully defined by a finite set of rules. There's always at least one possible state that cannot be predicted or fully described by the existing set of rules. However, a new rule, consistent with pre-existing rules, accounts for the new state. But, this would yield a complete and consistent system, and so Gödel showed it's an infinite progression.

Personally, I think the physical universe must qualify as a non-trivial, causally-consistent system. And, symmetry breaks, when new gauge symmetries appear, could very well correspond to unpredictable/indescribable states and the corresponding new rules in a Gödelian system.

Anyway, it provides for a self-consistent explanation for why we'd have a complete compliment of multiverses without needing any rules to start with. Given perfect chaos, every form of observable order could be inevitable.

I was about at this point in pondering when the spigot algorithm, Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe (BBP), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spigot_algorithm, was discovered. Using a fixed number of computations, any hexadecimal digit of pi could be determined. Theoretical physicists argued that it couldn't work because the necessary information set (infinite information) would have to be encoded in a finite, and small, quantity of information.

After BBP was proven to be correct, the physicists shut up. But I don't think they should have. They were right, I think. Somehow, spigot algorithms, maybe, access infinite information. In a sense, pi is fully defined at every point in space and time. If BBP were the only spigot algorithm I might accept that it worked because pi is built into the geometry of our universe. But, they keep finding new ones. There might be infinitely many spigot algorithms.

Personally, I find this model persuasive. It's not particularly aesthetically appealing but it is, at least, simple and explains observations.

Somebody earlier in this thread, I believe, asked if there might be some way to tell if we're existing in some Matrix-like reality. I think Wheeler's "it from bit" answers that. All you need is enough information "instantiating" (my word for "happen") and every observation from every observer under every possible condition should instantiate.

I suspect Einstein wouldn't like this because it suggests there's no real place for free will. Maybe.

Pmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #57 on: 01/11/2013 14:16:53 »
Quote from: SimpleEngineer
Secondly, pmb, that article you posted is complete and utter codswallop.. he says one thing and then goes on to prove his statement is wrong without realising it. As do you in several points in the thread.
Both assertions are incorrect. However if you're willing to make an attempt at proving your case I'll read it.

Quote from: SimpleEngineer
Energy IS the potential for doing something..
That's wrong and the paper explains why its wrong. I don't see you providing any counter arguement. Any physicist who really knows their stuff knows that fact. E.g. see An Introduction to Thermal Physics by Daniel V. Schroeder page 17 for further clarification. To obtain a copyu online go to http://book4me.org/

I won't address the rest of your comments because they're far from containing any solid science but merely beliefs of what you "feel" is true. There's no scientific arguement there

Pmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #58 on: 01/11/2013 14:53:28 »
There is an excellant paper about the mass-energy relation online

A re-interpretation of the concept of mass and of the relativistic mass-energy relation  by Stefano Re Fiorentin
, Found.Phys.39:1394-1406,2009 -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1170

It's a nice paper with some important points but is not error free. One important part about matter vs mass reads
Quote
It is also worthwhile to underline (...) that mass must not be confused with matter: all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass has the property of matter: mass is always conserved, matter not. We identify matter with rest energy: both the energy content and the inertial properties of matter are described by its mass.

From A Relativistic Misconception by C. Roland Eddy, Science 27, Sept. 1946, Vol. 104 no. 2700 pp. 303-304
Quote
It is evident, from many recent writings on the atomic bomb, that serious misconceptions still persists, not only in popular press but also in the minds of some scientists. The idea that matter and energy are interconvertible is due to a misunderstannding of Einstein’s equation, E = mc2. This equationi does not state that a mass, m, can be converted into an energy, E. But that an objeft of mass m contains simultaneously an energy, E.
   In nuclear reations there is never any actual change in the total mass content of the universe. […]
Mass is not destroyed but merely dispersed, just as potential energu originally contained in the fissionable nucleus is dispersed as kinetic energy of the particles struck by the fission fragments.

Ethos_

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #59 on: 01/11/2013 15:19:49 »
It has been speculated that the Big Bang occurred because of quantum fluctuations. Because quantum fluctuations are fundamental changes in state, they can be associated with what we understand as releases of energy. Energy is the capacity to initiate change. Because matter was produced following the Big Bang, and it is associated with the change in state, matter is a product of that change. Therefore, matter was produced from this change in state initiated thru a release of energy which may or may not have occurred because of a quantum fluctuation.


dlorde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #60 on: 01/11/2013 17:19:03 »
There is an excellant paper about the mass-energy relation online

A re-interpretation of the concept of mass and of the relativistic mass-energy relation  by Stefano Re Fiorentin
, Found.Phys.39:1394-1406,2009 -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1170

It's a nice paper with some important points but is not error free. One important part about matter vs mass reads
Quote
It is also worthwhile to underline (...) that mass must not be confused with matter: all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass has the property of matter: mass is always conserved, matter not. We identify matter with rest energy: both the energy content and the inertial properties of matter are described by its mass.

From A Relativistic Misconception by C. Roland Eddy, Science 27, Sept. 1946, Vol. 104 no. 2700 pp. 303-304
Quote
It is evident, from many recent writings on the atomic bomb, that serious misconceptions still persists, not only in popular press but also in the minds of some scientists. The idea that matter and energy are interconvertible is due to a misunderstannding of Einstein’s equation, E = mc2. This equationi does not state that a mass, m, can be converted into an energy, E. But that an objeft of mass m contains simultaneously an energy, E.
   In nuclear reations there is never any actual change in the total mass content of the universe. […]
Mass is not destroyed but merely dispersed, just as potential energu originally contained in the fissionable nucleus is dispersed as kinetic energy of the particles struck by the fission fragments.

Interesting stuff, thanks for that. So it's correct to say that a nuclear explosion converts a tiny amount of matter to energy, but not that it converts mass to energy.

scienceofscience

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #61 on: 01/11/2013 20:00:46 »
It has been speculated that the Big Bang occurred because of quantum fluctuations. Because quantum fluctuations are fundamental changes in state, they can be associated with what we understand as releases of energy. Energy is the capacity to initiate change. Because matter was produced following the Big Bang, and it is associated with the change in state, matter is a product of that change. Therefore, matter was produced from this change in state initiated thru a release of energy which may or may not have occurred because of a quantum fluctuation.

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Vacuum fluctuations revealed through spontaneous parametric down-conversion.ogv
 
The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

According to one formulation of the principle, energy and time can be related by the relation[2]
\Delta E \Delta t \approx {h \over 2 \pi} (<---see the actual on the original web page)
That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the particle number operators.

Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure."

Again, back to....what caused/gave birth to the Quantum Fluctuations...energy?!

« Last Edit: 01/11/2013 20:05:52 by scienceofscience »

Ethos_

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #62 on: 01/11/2013 20:57:26 »


Again, back to....what caused/gave birth to the Quantum Fluctuations...energy?!
That is the fundamental question isn't it. I believe personally that extra dimensional anomalies occur changing our space/time frame resulting in spontaneous eruptions of matter and energy. Proving this will obviously be very difficult if not entirely impossible.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 15:59:51 by Ethos_ »

Pmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #63 on: 01/11/2013 22:26:49 »
Quote from: dlorde
Interesting stuff, thanks for that. So it's correct to say that a nuclear explosion converts a tiny amount of matter to energy, but not that it converts mass to energy.
Yes, at least in that author’s opinion. In any case he has the right idea. Recall what I said above, that Einstein defined matter such that an EM field would be considered matter. In his viewpoint if an electron and a positron annihilated each other then the result would be two photons which are still defined as matter so that we'd start with matter and we'd end up with matter. But with just that we can say no more since there’s no quantity that we can refer to as a “quantity of matter.”

When I was thinking that this stuff had a chronic

This is very tricky stuff, isn't it? :)

This memory thing is really a good
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 02:34:58 by Pmb »

Pmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #64 on: 04/11/2013 05:42:13 »
Quote from: SimpleEngineer
Secondly, pmb, that article you posted is complete and utter codswallop.. he says one thing and then goes on to prove his statement is wrong without realising it. As do you in several points in the thread.
Is there a reason why you failed to prove the author of that paper wrong after I challenged you to do so? In the future please don’t make claims that you have no intention of backing up

There is not one iota of evidence to support your claim about that paper and there is also not one iota of evidence to substantiate your claim that I’ve said one thing and then go on to prove my own statement wrong. It appears that your problem is that you don’t read very carefully the arguments that you’re claiming to be wrong.

I have never did such a thing anywhere on this forum at any point in time since I became a member. Yet you haven’t been here more than five weeks before you’ve started making such false claims. That doesn’t speak well of you or what we can expect from you in the future.

I gave you a fair chance and challenged you to prove any of your claims true and you haven’t made any attempt to do so. You’ve been caught making false allegations now, so early on in your posting career here and that doesn't speak well of you. I recommend that you don't make anymore false allegations from herein.

I’ll explain why you’re so wrong in your claims: First off don’t claim a paper is wrong without offering at least a tidbit of an argument to support it. Such claims are useless in science since anybody can make such claims. Science demands proof.

Here’s a demonstration why you’re wrong. You’d have everyone here believe that energy is the ability to do work.  Your phrasing “the potential to do something” means the same thing but in a poorer way. An electron at rest in an isolated system has energy so what is it that you claim it can do in such an isolated system?

Let’s now consider the claim that energy is the ability to do work. The author of that paper explains the obvious problem with that statement, i.e. that it doesn’t meet the defining property of energy, i.e. that it’s conserved. That this is true is a version of the first law of thermodynamics – I.e. energy is conserved. It’s a defining property of energy. However “ability to do work” is not a conserved quantity.

Let's try to apply that poor attempt of a definition to an arbitrary system S: Suppose we determine the amount of work that the system S is capable of doing. Now we "extract" that energy by letting that system do its maximum amount of work that we said that it could do. After this is done the system S can no longer do work, right? Now let's compare that to the property of energy whereby its amount is conserved. As such the system should still have that same ability to do work. Since that system has already done its maximum amount of work we have a contradiction - Therefore the definition of energy being the ability to do work contradicts the first law of thermodynamics.

Quote from: SimpleEngineer
And you both stated E=Mc2 does not mean that you can convert mass to energy, yet both state mass is a form of energy..
You’re absolutely wrong. I’ve never made such an assertion. Please go back read again, this time more carefully.

The error you made here is that I never said that “mass is a form of energy.” What I actually[/I] said is in post #14
Quote
It’s rest mass that is a form of energy.
I highlighted “rest” so that nobody could make the mistake you just did.

Quote from: SimpleEngineer
energy gives it inertia
That’s vague. If you mean anything other than increasing the amount of energy in a body coincides with an increase in inertial mass then you’re wrong. When it is said that a system’s energy increases all it means is that there is a change in its internal configuration and when that change in configuration there is an increase in energy. But it’s the change in configuration that changes the inertia and not the “bookkeeping device” which keeps track of how the change happens. Nothing more. E.g. two charges can change how close they are to each other and that corresponds to the change in energy. But it’s the change in distance that causes the change in the inertial properties of the system.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2013 02:34:13 by Pmb »

AndroidNeox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #65 on: 05/11/2013 00:07:10 »
Quote from: SimpleEngineer

And you both stated E=Mc2 does not mean that you can convert mass to energy, yet both state mass is a form of energy..
You’re absolutely wrong. I’ve never made such an assertion. Please go back read again, this time more carefully.

PMB, maybe you didn't state it but you present the statement as authoritative: "The idea that matter and energy are interconvertible is due to a misunderstannding of Einstein’s equation".

Energy isn't a "thing" except that it's a conserved quantity we've identified. Energy is the universally fungible quantity... every form of matter is composed of energy but there is no unique form of matter that is just plain "energy".

Pmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #66 on: 07/11/2013 06:28:37 »
Somewhere along the line I made the mistake of associating the existance of a universe with no matter and zero energy as being consistent with a universe which has matter but still zero energy. I don't believe that's true at the moment. Later I'll come back to this when I talk to a friend of mine who's an expert on the subject. I think that gravitational potential energy can be transformed to kinetic energy and that means that matter, in the Einsteinian sense, can be created within the laws of physics.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2013 05:31:13 by Pmb »

woolyhead

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #67 on: 09/11/2013 14:00:07 »
Ok, we know matter equals "solid, liquid and gas"...and this includes (of course) heat, cold, warm, freezing...

Anything else is just space...nothingness....

Without matter, would space have a temperature?...without matter is there even 'space'?
The answer to the above questions is NO.

We know that matter can not be created from nothingness, so where did matter come from?
In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.

If you think beyond any type of big bang (because the big bang requires matter to exist to begin with bla bla bla...), and go back in time so far, picturing matter in space...what created matter from nothingness?

Has it always existed? Matter has existed for an eternity? Sitting in our shoes (we mere humans), there is infinity..it can't be disproven...or proven...except by faith either way.

Only stubborn minds will say matter came "to be" from nothingness...just like the stubborn minds who 'have faith' in the "theory" of evolution.

Mans mind is limited but yet so unlimited...are we supposed to know all the answers? Lol we can't, and never will until we accept some kind of "creator" created matter and all that it forms...Then we can learn everything we need to know...because the race for answers would be canceled and replaced with wisdom...and frustration with peace of mind...

But we seem to approve of ourselves instead of humbling...

The act of scientology (knowing/study of/knowing how to know) is mistaken to mean "study of what one wants to know"...in the context of one (a person) studying a particular subject that they are enthusiastic about studying...instead of...studying a particular subject on all aspects...with all possibilities. In plain English, some, or most people only want to study in what they 'want' to believe.

A true scientist will examine ALL aspects/realms of the subject in order to give ALL scientology a chance to show itself for a derivative answer....not just the answer he/she "hopes" for..."to be open to a conclusion that most answers the question" .

I believe colleges must not graduate students in scientology unless the students prove to be open for the most favorable answer that manifests through ALL aspects of study....and not show preferences of popular propaganda to improve their status in society. Anything else is a waste of time and money...

When will the true scientists put their foot down against these "status", "shallow", "self-serving" fools?
[/quote

In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 14:06:27 by woolyhead »

Pmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #68 on: 12/11/2013 00:51:26 »
woolyhead - Did you make an error in your last post? What were you trying to say?

Ethos_

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #69 on: 12/11/2013 01:00:54 »
woolyhead - Did you make an error in your last post? What were you trying to say?
I'm left wondering about that myself Pmb............Scratching my head??
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 01:04:19 by Ethos_ »

dlorde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #70 on: 12/11/2013 09:39:57 »
woolyhead - Did you make an error in your last post? What were you trying to say?
All but the last line was a quote from scienceofscience. Just before the last line is a corrupted end quote tag... QED.

Pmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #71 on: 12/11/2013 10:42:36 »
Quote from: woolyhead
In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.
At least that's how Einstein defined the term in his 1916 GR review article. I agree that his definition is a good one. However not everyone agrees as such as evidenced in this forum an in some places in the physics literature.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 893
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #72 on: 20/11/2013 05:30:18 »
Quote from: woolyhead
In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.
At least that's how Einstein defined the term in his 1916 GR review article. I agree that his definition is a good one. However not everyone agrees as such as evidenced in this forum an in some places in the physics literature.

Hi Pete

I hadn't read this thread up until now but your phrase "matter can be converted into radiation" has to be one of the most impressive responses I have seen. It sums the situation up succinctly. Full marks to you.

Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #73 on: 20/11/2013 06:24:32 »
I don't personally see the idea of something originating from nothing to be that problematic. If what you start with is a state of true nothingness, then the laws of physics and logic don't exist. If nothingness is unbound by rules, then absolutely anything can happen.

Pmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #74 on: 20/11/2013 07:08:51 »
Quote from: woolyhead
In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.
At least that's how Einstein defined the term in his 1916 GR review article. I agree that his definition is a good one. However not everyone agrees as such as evidenced in this forum an in some places in the physics literature.

Hi Pete

I hadn't read this thread up until now but your phrase "matter can be converted into radiation" has to be one of the most impressive responses I have seen. It sums the situation up succinctly. Full marks to you.
Thanks. Of course when using that one needs to keep in mind that the term matter does not refer to radiation in this sense. It refers to objects and particles which have non-zero rest mass.

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines