steevey

But can't I just put the atoms in a higher energy state just by moving them or accelerating the substance?

Why would they care what energy state they are in? Or whats making them drop back down? If black body radiation for some weird reason can't have electrons simply go from higher to lower energy levels only in black bodies for some weird reason, why is it that we can use the information of spectra to calculate what elements are in which stars? The only way we could do that is if electrons were going from higher to lower energy orbitals in specific ways, because if electrons were more freely traveling like an electric current, there wouldn't necessary be a pattern distinct to a metal at varying temperatures.

Substances emit radiation because the electrons drop back down an energy level, but why do they drop back down? Why don't they keep staying at a new energy level if already they don't just fall into the nucleus?

No I completely understand why it would "look" that way, I'm just not entirely sure that it is actually that way since I can see the same principal with a static object. If I look at the certain comb completely parallel to the ground, then I see that the brussels close to the center aren't that separated by distance, and then the further I get away from the center, the further the brussels seem to be from each other, even though they are all equidistant from each other form region to region and there's a concrete center of the comb part (like lets say 6 form a hexagon with 1 in the center. The distance from the center ones for all the ones that make vertices are equidistant from the center one, only theres multiple hexagons and overlapping). There's also the fact that the universe is really big, and if we are near the center, it might be leading us to see that matter is equally scattered everywhere around us or in every direction, which it would be.

I get how it would work mathematically, but aren't there photons that have like 10^27 electron volts generated by supernova and jets from black holes? And just to clear up: Both matter and energy have mass (well I mean light can bed the fabric of space), and in the case of something like matter and anti-matter annihilating, the matter would be gone, but the energy and mass would be left over? Like if there were still Higgs Bosons left over?

I understand what physicists in real life say, just not anyone who is a staff member here and its probably because they haven't had as much experience explaining it to people well.

Well thats also weird that the observations happen to be that way, because studies by NASA claims to see the entire universe when it was some 300,000 years old using the microwave background, so I don't see why they don't just say that the reason we can't see a center is because the universe is a REALLY big place now, there'a matter everywhere and there's bun millions of interactions with galaxies changing their courses.

Now I'm getting even more confused. Ok, they just give normal matter enough energy and instead of forming a plasma state it forms anti matter which isn't from that matter just a result? Can someone who's like, not a staff member answer these questions? Because they seem to only give answers that I don't understand.

Scientists create antimatter in a lab by colliding particles right? Well what does colliding particles do to create it that causes the opposite spin and the opposite charge? Why does that change it?

That doesn't answer my question in any way shape or form...

Well they don't collide, but by occupying the same space at the same time, they interact in a way so that they become entangled. Also, would you have any other idea on what makes an anti particle become the opposite of matter? When they create anti-matter in a lab, what are they doing that causes normal matter to all of a sudden have opposite charges and opposite other things?

Ok, I want you to image something. You have a piece of paper and you take a finger and periodically poke up at it from underneath it. It should form a protrusion like a paraboloid. Now, push down on it from the upper part, you should see the same thing, but on the opposite surface. Now, push in both directions at once, and what happens? No protrusion, and all thats happening is the energy your putting into the process is escaping. That seems to perfectly fit whats happening with matter and antimatter, and I could have swore you can describe wave properties with things other than "Oh look, its most likely to exist there when its localized". After all, So if it wasn't created, it was there all along, and it got released because the matter disappeared which fits perfectly with my analogy. But I thought energy couldn't actually be transformed into matter? Seems pretty confusing. But I thought when two photons collided, they got entangled, not created matter...Since you can do experiments where photons become entangled by colliding which is what they are using in new quantum computers to process more information since silicon chips won't work at a certain level due to the uncertainty principal.

There's a limit to what we have observed, but that does not mean there isn't any more nor does that mean we can confirm an actual boundary which you cannot go past.

Actually in Einsteinian physics, a boundary could exist where the fabric of space folds in on itself, and that point is just so far away we can't see it in any way. So basically, you travel to one end of the universe and because of the folding, you end up at the other end, an inescapable box.

I'm not talking about the wave function probability, I'm talking about the particle itself actually waving and the actual 3 dimensions that it waves in. What about E=mc^2? Isn't energy just another form of mass? Or was that matter? Wait, I thought energy couldn't be converted into matter...Guess it has to be mass.

But it does make complete sense though. Waves of normal matter oscillate with a specific pattern, and waves of antimatter oscillate with an opposite manner which would be why when they combine, they cease to exist. I really don't see how else two different materials could combine to not exist anymore. On that note, is there anything proven to exist that is an opposite of mass? Because when matter and anti-matter combine, there's still mass left over in the form of photons, so matter and anti-matter don't have opposite whatever that causes mass.

But the way particles act are do to actual oscillations, like this http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/D_orbital. Look in the middle.

The universe has no observable boundary.

So how does simply having opposite EM charges of the same locations cause the matter/antimatter to cease to exist when combined? Unless that opposite charge is caused by something else which is opposite, like maybe the wave oscillation or something...

I don't remember it specifically, but I think it was something like this http://quantumartand...light-form.html http://www.quantumar...y.blogspot.com/ I don't know if the site itself is credible, but I do remember specifically hearing at some lectures about anti matter having some kind of opposite space-time or opposite wave property. http://press.web.cer...ern/antimatter/ I can't quite figure it out because all these sites seem inaccurate in some way, but I know I'm stating some specific scientific properties of antimatter.

Well I was looking at some graphs of the wave-functions or probability fields of matter and anti matter, and they were reversed in antimatter. Also, since antimatter do have some type of opposite wave oscillation, how do you know its not that, which gives antimatter its properties that are different from normal matter? It would make complete sense, but otherwise, why else would a positive particle running into a negative particle cause such raucous? The matter disappears, so there's nothing holding the energy it contained within it, so that gets released as gamma rays?

What about my questions?

So your saying mass can be turned into energy, but not that matter can be turned into energy? So if mass can be turned into energy, then both energy and matter must share something that gives mass, like a higgs boson or something which changes into something else in energy, only I don't know why light beams don't distort the fabric of space severely then. Also, if matter can be created and destroyed just like that, whats wrong with thinking all matter in the universe just spontaneously came into existence of out shear improbability? And if matter can literally be destroyed and made not to exist, why hasn't anyone actually weaponized that? Also when matter and antimatter combine, do they both cease to exist because the waves combined and equal 0?

Anit-matter is just the same as matter, but has particles of opposite charge and spin. They both distort the fabric of space the same, I'm guessing they have the same orbital patterns, so its still matter or anti-matter ceasing to exist, or in other words, being destroyed, since all thats left over is energy, and mass is not conserved as you said. So I'm not seeing how this doesn't defy physics. Physics/chemistry states matter (or energy) cannot be created nor destroyed, yet there's matter-antimatter collisions and then virtual particles appearing our of the nothingness of space. Unless you can show me how matter and antimatter DON"T destroy each other as to cease to exist or this is actually whats happening, which case you could theoretically cause all matter in the universe to cease to exist by making anti matter equivalent to the mass of the normal matter.

What about galaxies colliding? How is that potential energy? When our galaxy collides with the Andromeda galaxy, the Earth will be flung in a direction at incredible speeds which would take unimaginable amounts of force to resist, but how is that momentum being transferred through gravity? What "potential" energy was in Earth to all of a sudden cause it to sped up to that?