Matter.

[curiousone]

Where does matter come from and what is it made of and from? Like the words mind over matter, how can thatbe since we humans are made up of matter and everything else. How does the inside chemicals within matter make decisions of any kind. Electical energy goes from one point to another, how? And last can matter have something spiritual within it? curiousone

[fiveworlds]

'Mind over matter' is nondescriptive of scientific matter as the word has more than one meaning. For the rest you can consult a text-book.

 

The word originates from Roman rule where the philosophers discussed the nature of things. They used to believe everything was made up of elements fire, earth, air and water. Things have changed since then including our definition of matter. It is one of the more confusing English words.

 

Scientific matter could be defined as

 

Matter is the Stuff Around You. Matter is everything around you. Atoms and molecules are all composed of matter. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. If you are new to the idea of mass, it is the amount of stuff in an object.

 

So now we know things are made of atoms and we can see them under a microscope but for a long time it was a lot of theories.

Edited January 26, 2016 by fiveworlds

[Sensei]

One way to create matter is by pair production.

 

Photon with enough energy can be transformed to pair of charged particles. Matter and anti-matter.

The simplest case is:

 

[math]\gamma + 1.022 MeV \rightarrow e^- + e^+[/math]

Photon with energy equal or higher than 1.022 MeV, is turned to electron (matter) and positron (antimatter).

 

Another one:

[math]\gamma + 1876.544 MeV \rightarrow p^+ + p^-[/math]

Photon with energy equal or higher than 1876.544 MeV, is turned to proton (matter) and antiproton (antimatter).

 

Electrons flow in conductor because of difference in potentials, or difference of charges.

F.e. if you gather electrons on metal plate, and have absence of electrons on the other plate of metal (like this happens in capacitor), electrons from where is abundance of them, will flow to where is absence of them, until on both there is equilibrium.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Sensei

[fiveworlds]

The matter referred to in mind over matter is subject matter http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subject-matter

[Robittybob1]

One way to create matter is by pair production.

 

Photon with enough energy can be transformed to pair of charged particles. Matter and anti-matter.

The simplest case is:

 

[math]\gamma + 1.022 MeV \rightarrow e^- + e^+[/math]

Photon with energy equal or higher than 1.022 MeV, is turned to electron (matter) and positron (antimatter).

 

Another one:

[math]\gamma + 1876.544 MeV \rightarrow p^+ + p^-[/math]

Photon with energy equal or higher than 1876.544 MeV, is turned to proton (matter) and antiproton (antimatter).

 

Electrons flow in conductor because of difference in potentials, or difference of charges.

F.e. if you gather electrons on metal plate, and have absence of electrons on the other plate of metal (like this happens in capacitor), electrons from where is abundance of them, will flow to where is absence of them, until on both there is equilibrium.

I thought it was two photons heading in opposite directions of the right energy level that made an electron and positron, not just the one you speak of.

[Sensei]

I thought it was two photons heading in opposite directions of the right energy level that made an electron and positron, not just the one you speak of.

 

In the lab experiment there is one photon and regular matter, which photon is hitting.

 

Two photon physics is at very early stage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

 

It's extremely hard to have neutral charge particles hit each other, as you can't control where they will go.

In the case of charged particles their trajectories can be bend, greatly increasing probability of happening event.

With neutral charge particles it's not possible. Which makes harder to perform experiments.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Sensei

[Phi for All]

Where does matter come from and what is it made of and from?

I believe the LCDM model shows that matter and anti-matter annihilated each other very shortly after cosmic inflation, except an asymmetry in their forces allowed matter to have an extra particle left over. Matter won, and that matter led to the creation of the elements and stars.

 

Like the words mind over matter, how can thatbe since we humans are made up of matter and everything else.

This isn't the context you're looking for. Move along.

 

How does the inside chemicals within matter make decisions of any kind.

Chemistry is an entire scientific discipline, so it's hard to teach you all about it in a discussion, but chemical processes are quite well-known and predictable.

 

Electical energy goes from one point to another, how?

Physics is another entire discipline in science. It sounds like you need to study some science.

 

And last can matter have something spiritual within it?

Not a question for this section.

[Riabrea]

Matter is made of energy. Everything that we (humans) know of is made of energy. We still have not yet figured out the origins of what we call energy. We've gotten so wooed with the endless ways energy can be manipulated and applied to the human species, that we fail to look beyond.

[Klaynos]

Matter is made of energy. Everything that we (humans) know of is made of energy. We still have not yet figured out the origins of what we call energy. We've gotten so wooed with the endless ways energy can be manipulated and applied to the human species, that we fail to look beyond.

Energy is not a thing of which other things can be made. Energy is a property of stuff.

[Phi for All]

Matter is made of energy. Everything that we (humans) know of is made of energy. We still have not yet figured out the origins of what we call energy. We've gotten so wooed with the endless ways energy can be manipulated and applied to the human species, that we fail to look beyond.

 

Why are it's mysterious origins keeping you from learning more about it? "We fail to look beyond" is a specious, immature assumption based on not knowing what you're talking about (chemistry, physics, math).

 

Science isn't interested so much in why things are, or how they came to be. Science predicts the ways various phenomena are going to behave based on observation of reality, and forms explanations based on a preponderance of evidence that will support a theory. Saying "We've gotten so wooed" is a sound byte caricature of expectations you've browsed in popsci articles and blogs, where few people exercise the kind of rigor we're used to here.

[DanTrentfield]

Where does matter come from and what is it made of and from? Like the words mind over matter, how can thatbe since we humans are made up of matter and everything else. How does the inside chemicals within matter make decisions of any kind. Electical energy goes from one point to another, how? And last can matter have something spiritual within it? curiousone

That's a big question, at least where it comes from; and one that we've been trying to answer for centuries. Mind is not over matter, as mind is composed of matter, and finally chemicals do not make decisions and are not within matter because matter exists at the atomic level. Electrical energy is in the same range of forces as magnetism and behaves similarly to magnetism and can even be affected and to some degree controlled by magnetism and other forces of the same spectrum, Electrical energy moves from one point to another via particles with a positive electrical charge (most commonly electrons) in a process called electrical conduction (See this link for more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity). And finally matter cannot have something spiritual within it. Does that answer your question?

[Enthalpy]

[math]\gamma + 1876.544 MeV \rightarrow p^+ + p^-[/math]

Photon with energy equal or higher than 1876.544 MeV, is turned to proton (matter) and antiproton (antimatter).

No, that doesn't happen.

 

Because protons are composite particles, because their constituents are not favoured over other elementary particles, and because their constituents can assemble into other composite particles.

 

So at the minimum energy you get many electrons, muons... and their antiparticles but no protons.

At higher energy you may get a proton from time to time but more probably mesons, and so many elementary particles, many of them charged, that there is no need to create a proton pair for neutrality.

[swansont]

No, that doesn't happen.

 

Because protons are composite particles, because their constituents are not favoured over other elementary particles, and because their constituents can assemble into other composite particles.

 

So at the minimum energy you get many electrons, muons... and their antiparticles but no protons.

At higher energy you may get a proton from time to time but more probably mesons, and so many elementary particles, many of them charged, that there is no need to create a proton pair for neutrality.

 

 

 

Proton-Antiproton Pair Production in Two-Photon Collisions at LEP

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0306017

 

Forming a proton and a bunch of mesons isn't going to work, because you still have other conservation laws to worry about. You'd have three extra quarks not balanced by antiquarks, i.e. your proton. Baryon number conservation would be violated.

[Enthalpy]

In the introduction of the paper you linked: "center-of-mass energies from 183 GeV to 209 GeV". As I said, at the minimum energy you get no protons. They used 10² times more.

 

I didn't write just "a proton and a bunch of mesons". I put "and so many elementary particles" too.

Since a neutron can turn into a proton, and electron and an electronic antineutrino, what conserved quantity could be violated if a reaction produces a proton, an antineutron, an electron and an electronic antineutrino?

 

No need to balance a proton with an antiproton, as I said: "no need to create a proton pair for neutrality".

[Mordred]

There is numerous conservation laws governing particle decays.

 

Isospin, color, flavor, baryon number, parity, isospin, Lepton number, energy/momentum. Etc

 

A couple of avenues to learn these rules is under the baryon octect and meson nonet rules.

 

Eightfold wayen also covers the various rules.

[swansont]

In the introduction of the paper you linked: "center-of-mass energies from 183 GeV to 209 GeV". As I said, at the minimum energy you get no protons. They used 10² times more.

It looked like you said the reaction doesn't happen at all.

 

I didn't write just "a proton and a bunch of mesons". I put "and so many elementary particles" too.

Since a neutron can turn into a proton, and electron and an electronic antineutrino, what conserved quantity could be violated if a reaction produces a proton, an antineutron, an electron and an electronic antineutrino?

An antineutron is not an elementary particle, so that's not an example relevant to your statement. What elementary particles could you get, in addition to the proton (and however many mesons you want), to balance it?

 

No need to balance a proton with an antiproton, as I said: "no need to create a proton pair for neutrality".

Neutrality implies charge, and that wasn't the objection.

[Enthalpy]

What I wrote is still correct. No proton pair production at 1877MeV, no need for proton pairs to guarantee the conservation of all necessary quantities, and so on.

 

Swansont, as usual when you made a blunder, you switch to rhetoric. I wish to remind that rhetoric is not a part of physics.

[Sensei]

Since a neutron can turn into a proton, and electron and an electronic antineutrino, what conserved quantity could be violated if a reaction produces a proton, an antineutron, an electron and an electronic antineutrino?

 

No need to balance a proton with an antiproton, as I said: "no need to create a proton pair for neutrality".

Pair productions are always symmetrical.

Momentum of electron is equal to momentum of positron. Just their vectors are opposite.

Kinetic energy of electron is equal to kinetic energy of positron.

 

[math]h*f_c*2 \rightarrow m_ec^2\gamma+m_ec^2\gamma[/math]

 

fc - Compton frequency for electrons/positrons. Equal to 1.23559*10^20 Hz (gamma=1.0)

 

Momentum of proton is equal to momentum of anti-proton.

Kinetic energy of proton is equal to kinetic energy of anti-proton.

 

[math]h*f_p*2 \rightarrow m_pc^2\gamma+m_pc^2\gamma[/math]

 

If higher energy is used than required, the remaining energy is in additional kinetic energy of newly created pair, equally divided by two to each charged particle.

 

So if you have ~2 MeV initial photon,

The electron will have 0.5 MeV kinetic energy and positron also will have 0.5 MeV kinetic energy (in other words gamma will be >1.0 in the above equation).

The remaining 1.022 MeV energy is converted to rest-mass of electron-positron pair.

[math]K.E.=m_ec^2\gamma-m_ec^2[/math]

Energy prior pair production (energy of incoming photon) must equal to energy-mass post pair production (including their kinetic energy).

[Enthalpy]

You still haven't understood that protons (composite particles) are not created like electrons (elementary particles).

 

With enough energy, that is way over the mass equivalent of two protons, you may obtain protons, but also many more particles, and protons don't need to be balanced by antiprotons.

 

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/jackie.html 120GeV to get a small proportion of antiprotons.

 

Also, even for electrons, the creation from two photons is very rare. The usual process involves a single photon (if not colliding other particles) passing by an atomic nucleus. Then, the electron pair does not have opposite momenta.

 

You could search pictures taken in bubble chambers of electron pairs created by a gamma. The angle between the electrons' trajectories serves to determine the energy of the gamma.

[swansont]

What I wrote is still correct. No proton pair production at 1877MeV, no need for proton pairs to guarantee the conservation of all necessary quantities, and so on.

 

It would be true if that's what you had written.

[Sam Batchelar]

Matter is mass, mass is a defined area of energy as defined by velocity. Waves exhibit momentum which is a product of mass and velocity, therefor that which is applied to create a wave of some various definition must be essentially creating mass providing again the wave exhibits momentum. Given it is possible to create a wave in a vacuum the mass (energy defined by velocity) must originate in space-time. Therefor there is a undefined sea of energy in space-time.

[Mordred]

matter is not mass. Matter only applies to fermionic particles via the Pauli exclusion principle.

[Strange]

Matter is mass,

 

 

No it isn't.

 

 

 

mass is a defined area of energy as defined by velocity.

 

I'm not sure what that even means. But mass is not dependent on velocity. So again, no.

 

 

 

Waves exhibit momentum which is a product of mass and velocity,

 

No it isn't.

 

 

 

therefor that which is applied to create a wave of some various definition must be essentially creating mass providing again the wave exhibits momentum. Given it is possible to create a wave in a vacuum the mass (energy defined by velocity) must originate in space-time. Therefor there is a undefined sea of energy in space-time.

 

As you conclusion is based on a number of false premises, it has no real basis.

And you really shouldn't hijack other people's threads with this sort of thing. It belongs in the Speculations forum.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Sam Batchelar

 

Please stop answering questions in the main forum with wild speculative assertions. You may ask your own questions if you are not sure of the agreed science or open a thread in the speculations forum if you would like to discuss your own ideas - but answer the main fora are to keep to acknowledged science.

 

Thanks. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you disagree

 

[Sam Batchelar]

It is based on the premise that mass must have a origin, the origin not being mass in its well recognized state. To say mass is one particle which gives the mass quality to the atom is to simply avoid the question entirely, the question being what is mass. To state mass is energy in a secondary state, the primary being the energy present in space time is to answer the question of the origin of mass, although it may not satisfactory answer the question of exactly how this manifestation of energy from one form to another comes about given the intricacy involved in the types of motion known to be possessed by, a particle.