steevey Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Why specifically can't matter be created or destroyed? Is it because everything in the universe only changes the amount or position of matter and energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Why specifically can't matter be created or destroyed? Is it because everything in the universe only changes the amount or position of matter and energy? Because if matter or energy could be created or reproduced without transforming some input of equivalent amount, what would limit the process of matter/energy creation? Why wouldn't new atoms and energy be popping up everywhere all the time? If matter/energy could be destroyed, why wouldn't things just magically disappear from time to time with no trace of what happened to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 Because if matter or energy could be created or reproduced without transforming some input of equivalent amount, what would limit the process of matter/energy creation? Why wouldn't new atoms and energy be popping up everywhere all the time? If matter/energy could be destroyed, why wouldn't things just magically disappear from time to time with no trace of what happened to them? Well what's stopping that process? Why does there have to be some equivalence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Well what's stopping that process? Why does there have to be some equivalence? It would be very interesting if someone would theorize about a potential situation in which equivalence between energy and matter or between matter-matter or energy-energy was not fixed. What natural event can you postulate where matter or energy would emerge from none or less preceding matter/energy? What about an event where matter and/or energy just disappear without converting into some other form? I don't think that there "has" to be such an equivalence, but I can't imagine any situation where there wouldn't be or how it could happen that there wouldn't. The only possibility I've ever contemplated was that force-fields/particles could be the result of relative strength differentials between them. Thus, maybe in an expanding gravitational field, where the density of field-force was diverging from that of nuclear force, EM energy released from collisions could increase relative to the momentum of the particles because spacetime itself is expanding relative to their motion. In this sense, energy could be said to be created, or rather intensified, due to it being expressed within a gravitationally "colder" spacetime matrix. Would such a thing fulfill your criteria for transcending energy-equivalence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matterdoc Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I heard of mass-energy equivalence. Where does it say matter and energy are equivalent or convertible into each other? Matter (a real entity) provides substance to all real entities to have objective reality in space. Mass (a functional entity) is the quantitative measurement of inertia. Although mass (like weight) is often taken (at low linear speeds) to represent matter content of a body, matter and mass are entirely different entities. Therefore, if it is said mass may be converted into energy or vice versa, it does not mean matter may be formed from or reverted into any of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 (edited) Because if matter or energy could be created or reproduced without transforming some input of equivalent amount, what would limit the process of matter/energy creation? Why wouldn't new atoms and energy be popping up everywhere all the time? If matter/energy could be destroyed, why wouldn't things just magically disappear from time to time with no trace of what happened to them? That would explain were single socks go after a wash. what about "virtual" particles in a vacuum? Edited December 6, 2011 by Tres Juicy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now