[katblakeslee (OP)]

The law of conservation of mass simply states that matter can not be created nor destroyed, but when we look at any object it had to have come from somewhere and must either have been created at one point or made by a higher power which also has to have been created at one point. Black holes are said to make matter disappear. It has also been said that an electron can exist in two places at the same time which would bring to the conclusion that not only can matter be created and destroyed, but must also come from another place, ie: another realm, universe, or somewhere closer. Does anybody have an opinion, i would really like to know. []

Kat Blakeslee []

[imatfaal]

Kat,

Conservation of mass is a very useful concept for earthbound instances within human experience; but once you get to nuclear physics, cosmology etc it is better to think in terms of conservation of energy.  Einstein's famous equation explains how mass and energy are equivalent - and in most circumstances conservation of mass/energy will explain everything.

There are some circumstances in the quantum world where this conservation is stretched - perhaps beyond breaking point for very short periods of time - but on the whole it remains true.  Black holes do not destroy matter - they take it out of our sight and ability to examine, but it is still there, in some form we don't yet know about perhaps, as the gravitational attraction remains.  Electrons might be one place or might be in another at the same time - but you never measure them to be in both places at the same time; so again there is no real problem for the conservation of energy.

Where all the energy (some of which is mass) comes from is an open question - personally I like the idea that the total sum of energy (bearing in mind the differing signs +ve/-ve) of the entire universe is ZERO

[Pmb]

The law of conservation of mass simply states that matter can not be created nor destroyed, but when we look at any object it had to have come from somewhere and must either have been created at one point or made by a higher power which also has to have been created at one point. Black holes are said to make matter disappear. It has also been said that an electron can exist in two places at the same time which would bring to the conclusion that not only can matter be created and destroyed, but must also come from another place, ie: another realm, universe, or somewhere closer. Does anybody have an opinion, i would really like to know. []

Kat Blakeslee []

Hi Kat

Just keep in mind that when mass/energy disappears from one place i reappears in another place. And contrary to what katblakeslee heard, an electron can never just appear in two places when only one electron was in the system. It would violate conservation of the conservation of mass if it didn't come from anyway. Black hole does not destroy matter. It just changes form.  When matter falls into the black hole he mass of the black hole increases by just enough so that the total mass of the black hole at the end is the sum of the mass of the black hole and the mass which fell in.

Regarding nuclear fission please see the website I wrote and put on my website which will explain why inertial mass is conserved.

[yor_on]

Depends on your definition Peter. Kat is right as far as I know. The electron can exist in two places simultaneously in a given system (superposition), and I believe I've linked two pdf:s discussing it, in a earlier thread. But as it is he* on wheels, ah, difficult I mean, finding that post I goggled instead, (I'm too lazy for my own good) .And those illustrates it from another perspective.

I don't think it violate the conservation laws though, as long as the 'energy' is the same? But it sure would be interesting if it did. At the quantum level it seems a lot of 'implausible' things are possible though, as long as they don't take too long time, whatever that would be, a Planck time perhaps?

"Quantum Microphone" Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once. and Can an Electron be in Two Places at the Same Time? 

Penrose seems to have an idea there?

"Penrose believes he has identified the secret that keeps the quantum genie tightly bottled up in the atomic world, a secret that was right in front of us all along: gravity. In his novel view, the same force that keeps us pinned to the ground also keeps us locked in a reality in which everything is tidy, unitary, and—for better and for worse—rooted in one place only."

[Pmb]

Depends on your definition Peter. Kat is right as far as I know. The electron can exist in two places simultaneously in a given system (superposition), and I believe I've linked two pdf:s discussing it, in a earlier thread. But as it is he* on wheels, ah, difficult I mean, finding that post I goggled instead, (I'm too lazy for my own good) .And those illustrates it from another perspective.

I don't think it violate the conservation laws though, as long as the 'energy' is the same? But it sure would be interesting if it did. At the quantum level it seems a lot of 'implausible' things are possible though, as long as they don't take too long time, whatever that would be, a Planck time perhaps?

"Quantum Microphone" Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once. and Can an Electron be in Two Places at the Same Time? 

Penrose seems to have an idea there?

"Penrose believes he has identified the secret that keeps the quantum genie tightly bottled up in the atomic world, a secret that was right in front of us all along: gravity. In his novel view, the same force that keeps us pinned to the ground also keeps us locked in a reality in which everything is tidy, unitary, and—for better and for worse—rooted in one place only."

Sorry. I forgot the difference between Fermions and Bosons. The wavefuntion of two Fermions can have the same quantum state. No so for fermions.

[imatfaal]

Depends on your definition Peter. Kat is right as far as I know. The electron can exist in two places simultaneously in a given system (superposition), and I believe I've linked two pdf:s discussing it, in a earlier thread. But as it is he* on wheels, ah, difficult I mean, finding that post I goggled instead, (I'm too lazy for my own good) .And those illustrates it from another perspective.

I don't think it violate the conservation laws though, as long as the 'energy' is the same? But it sure would be interesting if it did. At the quantum level it seems a lot of 'implausible' things are possible though, as long as they don't take too long time, whatever that would be, a Planck time perhaps?

"Quantum Microphone" Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once. and Can an Electron be in Two Places at the Same Time? 

Penrose seems to have an idea there?

"Penrose believes he has identified the secret that keeps the quantum genie tightly bottled up in the atomic world, a secret that was right in front of us all along: gravity. In his novel view, the same force that keeps us pinned to the ground also keeps us locked in a reality in which everything is tidy, unitary, and—for better and for worse—rooted in one place only."

Sorry. I forgot the difference between Fermions and Bosons. The wavefuntion of two Fermions can have the same quantum state. No so for fermions.

"The wavefuntion of two Fermions can have the same quantum state. No so for fermions."  so that's a sort of fermionic exclusion principle that both applies and doesn't apply!    []

As I am sure you know (apart from typo) Bosons can exist in same state whereas Fermions two cannot occupy the same state

[imatfaal]

Depends on your definition Peter. Kat is right as far as I know. The electron can exist in two places simultaneously in a given system (superposition), and I believe I've linked two pdf:s discussing it, in a earlier thread. But as it is he* on wheels, ah, difficult I mean, finding that post I goggled instead, (I'm too lazy for my own good) .And those illustrates it from another perspective.

I don't think it violate the conservation laws though, as long as the 'energy' is the same? But it sure would be interesting if it did. At the quantum level it seems a lot of 'implausible' things are possible though, as long as they don't take too long time, whatever that would be, a Planck time perhaps?

"Quantum Microphone" Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once. and Can an Electron be in Two Places at the Same Time? 

Penrose seems to have an idea there?

"Penrose believes he has identified the secret that keeps the quantum genie tightly bottled up in the atomic world, a secret that was right in front of us all along: gravity. In his novel view, the same force that keeps us pinned to the ground also keeps us locked in a reality in which everything is tidy, unitary, and—for better and for worse—rooted in one place only."

Yoron - I am not sure where these say that an electron can be measured/observed at two separate places at same time - the mass/energy conservation would proceed (at a real wild guess) with fractional masses at each point multiplied by the square of the probability at each point

[yor_on]

Take a look here.

Do electrons rotate.

[JP]

I'm not sure what the problem with an electron "being in two places at once" is.  The only way we can describe the results of certain experiments (the two slit experiment, for example) is that it is in two places at once--or at least a wave representing it is. 

The only time it can't be in two places at once is when you measure where it is--at which point it doesn't behave like an extended wave, but rather behaves like a point particle. 

But certainly something representing the electron is in two places at once at times.

[yor_on]

Yep, I think it can do so too. Which brings me to another thing that hurts me head Well, not really. If you define it as 'probabilities', and then define it as finding its 'reality' in your measurement, it doesn't hurt my head, that much. What really hurts is the way we don't find it macroscopically. It would be a neat way of doing a lot of things simultaneously, then deciding which one was the best, and let that one become the outcome. Like making that first everlasting impression on a girl

But then she could 'cheat' and use the same principle..
Da*

Ah well, but I just saw someone giving virtual particles, as 'photons' a mass. And that hurt my head terribly, in so many ways.

[yor_on]

What I mean is that a 'virtual photon/particle' is primary a mathematical artifact. It's 'needed' to describe certain things, in certain systems, but not in all as I understands it. Personally I believe much more in indeterminacy than in that concept.

Indeterminacy allows a lot of things, but do not fuzz about introducing the concept of a arrow, in that way it reminds me a lot of 'probability'. But as soon as I see virtual particles I start to wonder about 'propagations', and when I see people giving them mass?