I have 3 theories

[ilija]

Sorry if they are stiupid or incorrect because I'm 11 and i can only use common sense

 

1st theory.I think that the law of psyhics stating that energy cant be created from nothing is either incorrect or unneeded how do I prove it?Simple for it all to begin(to get the matter and antimater for the big bang)

we needed something to be created out of nothing or nothing is actualy something in which case it is unneeded how do i TRY to prove this??Simple by dividing something infinite times you get to nothing,I am well avare that this i impossible but so are negative numbers(you cant have -1 of something)well impossible is not the correct term its better to use the term Vrtual.That is how I try to prove this

2nd.I dont know if this is true or not because in my country the education is not so good(montenegro is my country) I think that the reason the big bang was a BANG was that when you mix matter and antimatter they explode.

3rd Light has weight! How do I prove this?Simply black holes are black because they suck in light with GRAVITY.I think that gravity would'nt attract it if it didn't have mass

[pwagen]

Sorry if they are stiupid or incorrect because I'm 11 and i can only use common sense

Common sense can get you quite far. So keep using it, and keep studying and asking questions! Physics isn't easy, and the Big Bang is mostly confusing, so you're doing a good job so far.

 

1st theory.I think that the law of psyhics stating that energy cant be created from nothing is either incorrect or unneeded how do I prove it?Simple for it all to begin(to get the matter and antimater for the big bang)

we needed something to be created out of nothing

If something was created out of nothing in the Big Bang, doesn't that mean the universe was empty before it happened? The problem is, time was created in the Big Bang as well, so there can't have been a "before the Big Bang". That's like saying there is something north of the North Pole. Do you see the problem with saying everything was created at the Big Bang?

 

I am well avare that this i impossible but so are negative numbers(you cant have -1 of something)

You can't have -1 of something material, like a book or a car. What you can have though, is for example a negative force. Let's say you're pushing something with the force of 1. Then you stop and start pulling it instead, with the same force. Compared to what you did at first, you're manipulating the something with the force of -1.

 

2nd.I dont know if this is true or not because in my country the education is not so good(montenegro is my country) I think that the reason the big bang was a BANG was that when you mix matter and antimatter they explode.

The Big Bang wasn't a bang though! It's an expansion of space. The nickname Big Bang was first used to ridicule the theory, but then it got stuck.

 

3rd Light has weight! How do I prove this?Simply black holes are black because they suck in light with GRAVITY.I think that gravity would'nt attract it if it didn't have mass

Light is made up of photons. And since we know photons move at the speed of light, we know they have to be massless, so they don't weigh anything. However, since light (which can also be seen as radiation) has energy, it can behave like as if it has mass, since mass and energy are two of the same according to Einstein's famous formula E=mc².

[swansont]

1st theory.I think that the law of psyhics stating that energy cant be created from nothing is either incorrect or unneeded how do I prove it?

 

Conservation of energy stems from the time-symmetry of physics. To violate this requires that physics be different at some time. You should investigate Noether's theorems.

 

since light (which can also be seen as radiation) has energy, it can behave like as if it has mass, since mass and energy are two of the same according to Einstein's famous formula E=mc².

 

Einstein's formula is actually [latex]E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/latex] The mass terms is zero, because E =pc for a photon

 

The reason that light is deflected by gravity is because light follows geodesics, and gravity curves space.

[pwagen]

Einstein's formula is actually [latex]E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/latex] The mass terms is zero, because E =pc for a photon

Good point, which is also written in plain sight in the Wikipedia article, had I bothered to look.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Applicability_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E_.3D_mc.C2.B2

 

This might be off-topic, but aside from gravity, in what situations does light "behave as if it has mass-like properties", as is written in this (admittedly short) answer to the question whether light weighs anything?

 

http://sciencefocus.com/qa/does-light-weigh-anything

Edited April 12, 2013 by pwagen

[beefpatty]

Good point, which is also written in plain sight in the Wikipedia article, had I bothered to look.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Applicability_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E_.3D_mc.C2.B2

 

This might be off-topic, but aside from gravity, in what situations does light "behave as if it has mass-like properties", as is written in this (admittedly short) answer to the question whether light weighs anything?

 

http://sciencefocus.com/qa/does-light-weigh-anything

 

I can't really imagine what the author means by "mass-like properties." I think they misinterpreted the equation, as it simply tells you how much mass is equivalent to a given amount of energy, and not that light has "mass-like properties."

[Chrispen Evan]

 

The Big Bang wasn't a bang though! It's an expansion of space. The nickname Big Bang was first used to ridicule the theory, but then it got stuck.

 

this is a common misconception. Hoyle was giving a radio interview and he wanted to get across what the current theory proposed. to be dramatic he said it was like a big bang. he wasn't being derogatory at all.

 

this is a subject that i try to correct whenever possible so no offence intended. for all his faults in not accepting the BB model until near the end Hoyle was a great scientist.

[ilija]

Common sense can get you quite far. So keep using it, and keep studying and asking questions! Physics isn't easy, and the Big Bang is mostly confusing, so you're doing a good job so far.

 

If something was created out of nothing in the Big Bang, doesn't that mean the universe was empty before it happened? The problem is, time was created in the Big Bang as well, so there can't have been a "before the Big Bang". That's like saying there is something north of the North Pole. Do you see the problem with saying everything was created at the Big Bang?

 

You can't have -1 of something material, like a book or a car. What you can have though, is for example a negative force. Let's say you're pushing something with the force of 1. Then you stop and start pulling it instead, with the same force. Compared to what you did at first, you're manipulating the something with the force of -1.

 

The Big Bang wasn't a bang though! It's an expansion of space. The nickname Big Bang was first used to ridicule the theory, but then it got stuck.

 

Light is made up of photons. And since we know photons move at the speed of light, we know they have to be massless, so they don't weigh anything. However, since light (which can also be seen as radiation) has energy, it can behave like as if it has mass, since mass and energy are two of the same according to Einstein's famous formula E=mc².

thanx for the answers i meant mterial when i meant you cnat have -1 of something

I really didnt know that the big bang wasnt a bang

so then how was the big bang created oii mean the matter and antimatter for it?

i have a new one so here it goes: If you would put antimatter and matter in a vaccum and then compress them so that they cannot explode would the result be grey matter a sort of matter neutral of both? if not how would it be possible to create a weapon using antimater since it would just explode which is good if creating a bomb but other than a bomb what can be build

Edited April 13, 2013 by ilija

[swansont]

i have a new one so here it goes: If you would put antimatter and matter in a vaccum and then compress them so that they cannot explode would the result be grey matter a sort of matter neutral of both?

 

I don't know how you would prevent annihilation via compression.

[beefpatty]

i have a new one so here it goes: If you would put antimatter and matter in a vaccum and then compress them so that they cannot explode would the result be grey matter a sort of matter neutral of both? if not how would it be possible to create a weapon using antimater since it would just explode which is good if creating a bomb but other than a bomb what can be build

 

A universe made entirely of anti-matter would behave exactly the same way as our universe. That is, our universe and the anti-matter universe would be virtually indistinguishable. So in theory, anything you can build out of matter you can also build out of anti-matter. But to do so would be patently absurd because it would turn into pure energy as soon as it made contact with any type of matter i.e. the atmosphere. Currently, laboratories that create anti-matter store it with a very strong magnetic field because even putting it in a conventional container would cause an explosion of energy.

[howlingmadpanda]

Your theory about photons has been debated many times, however at this point all of the equations we know have been proven correct so until they are proven incorrect you are incorrect. (Sorry being wrong sucks, I know!)

The big bang was an expansion of space as stated above, and yes the anti-matter matter annihilation was likely VERY loud, however nothing was alive then so we have no way to know.

Good luck, you are more educated than most 11 year olds in the U.S.!