Can mass be created or destroyed?

[Whitestar]

Originally posted by mmwave
Well, the simple answer is matter cannot be created or destroyed.

The more complicated answer is that in some nuclear reactions particles can be converted into energy (like in a hydrogen bomb). If that happened to your atoms you would said they were destroyed. If you consider the familiar equation E=mc2 it means there is an equivalence between matter and energy.

But if you were to convert someone into energy and reconvert him or her energy back into matter, would it still be the same person with the same personality, i.e. would he or she survive the procedure considering that matter and energy are both interconvertible, or would it be a replica?


Whitestar

 

[elas]

Thanks FZ+ I was beginning to think I was to insane even for PF. I will try again.
On http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s38.htm I am rebuilding my concept of a Single Force Universe based on the application of the Law of Economy to existing theories, i.e. by converting existing data into vacuum force data.
The work on this incomplete new page is sufficient to show that the vacuum force is the foundation of the conservation laws in that the quantity of vacuum force in infinity is constant therefore the quantity of vacuum force carrier is constant and it is the force carrier that we observe as mass.

 

[prizm]

The way this question is asked always lead to a long debate as there are many ways to define Mass/Matter. Also several apllications of the words create and destroy could be used if it is referenced to the word mass if it is undefined. So they are many ways of answering this question correctly, if the logics and maths applied directly relates or corresponds with whatever defintions of mass were used.

The question might have been asked with the intention for a debate on defintions, if then, so be it...

However if I may, I would like to rephrase the original question, and trust that any resulting discussion will represent another possible intent of the original question.

Can any isolated form (or state) of existence be independently made to exist or unexist?

 

[prizm]

The Moses equation

E=7GCd

"...and on the seventh day, God rested from all creation..."
not Newton, nor Einstien, nor Schrodienger, nor Hiensburgh etc..
But Moses!


E - Existence
7 - complete Cycle time reference
G - God(Constant operating wavefunction)
C - Creation factor
D - Creation defactor

I think we will take another 6000 years for our mathematicians and Physisits to derive this equation. But be careful, Moses has the copyright on this one!

I wonder where his maths and logic came from?

 

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by Tail
Actually, no.

What I was talking about was answering the main question of the thread ("Can mass be created or destroyed?"). As some were trying to say it can, I pointed out it cannot because there is not one being (as far as I know) that can create mass. I was not talking about the creator of the Universe or something like that.

Actually yeah there is ...

It's the guy that pushes the button that makes the particle accelerator turn on

 

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by prizm
The Moses equation

E=7GCd

"...and on the seventh day, God rested from all creation..."
not Newton, nor Einstien, nor Schrodienger, nor Hiensburgh etc..
But Moses!


E - Existence
7 - complete Cycle time reference
G - God(Constant operating wavefunction)
C - Creation factor
D - Creation defactor

I think we will take another 6000 years for our mathematicians and Physisits to derive this equation. But be careful, Moses has the copyright on this one!

I wonder where his maths and logic came from?

Umm what does that have to do with anything.

PS maybe you should read you own signature

 

[shintashi]

hey where'd i Go ?

what happened to my post that explained the simplicity of nuclear weapons ?

Bummer... that was a long post too...

 

[elas]

Can any isolated form (or state) of existence be independently made to exist or unexist?

The answer is no for the following reason-
Given that creation starts with 'absolute nothing'; then it must be possible that 'absolute nothing' can be converted into 'something' such as the minimun energy level predicted by quantum theory. However, the total force of 'something'and 'nothing' remains constant as the destruction of one leads to the creation of the other.
It follows that the 'force of nothing' that is the foundamental force of creation.

**********The longest journey starts with a single step.**********

 

[prizm]

Joy Division,

Actually I do follow my signiture and I have faith in one truth, not mine or yours. The Moses equation is a joke we all shared in college to show that the missing link in quantum theory could be an operator G called God, and that function might have everything to do with anything. No offense intended.

Anyway, I appologise if I miss represented your questions intention. You say mass cannot be created or destroyed. I say it can, based simply on E=MC2 and the defintions here. This relationship shows that Mass can be converted/changed/transformed (destroyed/created) to energy and viceversa. But if you define Mass and energy as the same then E=M and not E=MC2. So you are right and wrong at the same time and so the debate will be on how you define mass or energy, or is destroyed the same as transformed, converted and so on. O.K.

Elas, I aggree with your logic, provided that no other laws exist beyond the boundaries of quantum theory. Is it true then that if there are no other laws, then existence has no beginning?

Shintashi, sorry I did not read your post. where can I find it?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Whitestar
But is it (theorically) possible to convert particles into energy?


Whitestar

Particles are energy. Just a certain form of it.

 

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by prizm

Actually I do follow my signiture and I have faith in one truth, not mine or yours. The Moses equation is a joke we all shared in college to show that the missing link in quantum theory could be an operator G called God, and that function might have everything to do with anything. No offense intended.

Oh sorry thought you were being serious. You never can tell these days. I usually find sarcasm and jokes need to be accompanied by an appropriate smilie like . Thank you for in fact being not crazy.

 

[Whitestar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Particles are energy. Just a certain form of it.

Yes, but what form? Atomic energy?


Whitestar

 

[shintashi]

maybee if I am less revelatory, and don't publically post the quick and easy recipe for nuclear weapons, I can get down to a simple random buzzz.

Buzzz buzzz.

ok.. matter is not real. I am not real. You are not real. Since most people here are athiests in denial, there's no point in talking about that part of us that is real, because most here don't believe in it.

So i will instead address the part that is illusional.

what is the mass of a shadow ?
Can a shadow be created ?
Can a shadow be destroyed ?

How much does your voice weigh ?
When you stop taking, does the mass of the universe decrease ?
Does it increase when you talk ?
Is sound real ?
Can you hold sound in your hand ? or put it in a bottle of glass ?

How much does a wave in the sea weigh ? Stop your calculations immediately ! That wave you see with your eyes and hear with your ears does not exist, for it is merely a pattern of motion of water. At every fraction of a second, the ripple of the tide changes its components, as well as the amount of components (in this case; water). Ask yourself, when the wave stops, did the mass of the sea decrease ? When the wave was created, did the mass of the Sea increase ?

What if, for a moment, everything were waves ? Two sounds of opposite frequency can cancel each other. And sound can suddenly be created where there is none. THese waves don't change the mass of the universe, because they arten't true mass. They arent real. So even if everything slows down due to entropy, and becomes frozen space dust, or if everything heats up and expands out to nothingness but energy, it matters not. It was never matter to begin with.

-Shintashi

 

[prizm]

Amen. That a matter of fact!

 

[elas]

Elas, I aggree with your logic, provided that no other laws exist beyond the boundaries of quantum theory. Is it true then that if there are no other laws, then existence has no beginning?

It is a logical deduction of the Single Force Theory that all dimensions, including Time are infinite. Therefore there was no beginning and there will be no end to existence, neither is there any break or change in the Laws of Nature (as claimed in the Big Bang theory).
The real problem lies in the manner in which we view those laws. I believe we have misinterpreted the Laws of Nature and, for historical reasons; ended up viewing the laws in the reverse of their true nature. That is to say that by concentrating on the power of nothing instead of the power of something, we shall reach a better understanding of reality.

Take the question of mass and look at the inability of the Standard Model to explain what mass is our how it came to exist and compare this with the simple explanation given by the Single Force Model and just see how much easier it is to understand mass.

In the Single Force Model mass is a force carrier controlled by the force itself. Existance is a collection of variable density force carrier fields. Density is determined by the volume of individual vacuum fields. The vacuum fields have a total force of constant and equal value that is transferable between a Zero Point and its field according to the quantity of force carrier within the field, (i.e. force carrier is transferable between fields, vacuum force is not transferable because of its relationship to the ZP). As a result force carrier is observed at different densities in the form of fundamental particles.
Einstein's law still holds but 'e' is express in negative terms.

 

[prizm]

I agree that time is infinite but as long as there is existence as defined by energy. Time however becomes irrelevant if there is no existence defined by energy. But just suppose that existence is defined by some other factor, example: thought/conciousness/reality/nothingness. Then the single force theory does not include this dimension unless thought etc... can be itself defined within the same frame of reference.

And then time becomes irrelevant, it does not exist within that dimension. If this is true, the the single force theory can not be absolute.

If it is not absolute then you cannot say that time has no beginning or end. Similarly you cannot say it has!

I too agree that Laws are principles and so they cannot change or they would not be laws.

Your logic on the single force model is sound except that I disagree that it is again not absolute. To include the ZP, would mean that there is no nothing and also that there is no 'something' happening simultaneously. My view is that to have a ZP as a refernce within this relationship makes it again impossible to define time. This follows to me that there must be a separate law (other than SFT)to define ZP inorder for your logic to be absolute.

This allows me to make the statement that time has a beginning and an end and also that time is infinite both ways...and I would be correct either way. Further that existence has a beginning and an end and also that existence has no beginning and no end...and again both correct.

 

[elas]

prizm

And then time becomes irrelevant, it does not exist within that dimension. If this is true, the the single force theory can not be absolute.

This of course is the unanswerable question; if absolute nothing ever existed throughout infinity how did existence get started? and if it did not how can something exist without an act of creation?.
I think my use of a vacuum force is as close as we are going to get to the beginning, but I agree it is not absolute, it is a chicken and egg situation.

 

[prizm]

I think you are right in terms of how far we will get... at least for now.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Whitestar
Yes, but what form? Atomic energy?


Whitestar

It's a congealed form. If you congeal a lot of energy into one point, you get matter (that's as basic as I can get it).

 

[Whitestar]

Originally posted by Mentat
It's a congealed form. If you congeal a lot of energy into one point, you get matter (that's as basic as I can get it).

But if you were to convert someone into energy and reconvert him or her energy back into matter, would it still be the same person with the same personality, i.e. would he or she survive the procedure considering that matter and energy are both interconvertible, or would it be a replica?


Whitestar

 

[jr]

you don't destroy energy but you can change the energy into mass
and you can also never create energy but you can change mass into energy

 

[jr]

changing mass into energy can be done by nuclear fission or nuclear fusion

changing energy into mass can be done by speeding the object to the speed of light when the object reaches the speed of light it can't go any faster then the object's mass will increase (this would take quite a lot of energy to do this)

 

[elas]

Extract from Enc. Britannica

With the advent of relativity physics (1905), mass was first recognized as equivalent to energy. The total energy of a system of high-speed particles includes not only their rest mass but also the very significant increase in their mass as a consequence of their high speed. After the discovery of relativity, the energy-conservation principle has alternatively been named the conservation of mass-energy or the conservation of total energy.

When the principle seemed to fail, as it did when applied to the type of radioactivity called beta decay (spontaneous electron ejection from atomic nuclei), physicists accepted the existence of a new subatomic particle, the neutrino, that was supposed to carry off the missing energy rather than reject the conservation principle. Later, the neutrino was experimentally detected.

Energy conservation, however, is more than a general rule that persists in its validity; it can be shown to follow mathematically from the uniformity of time. If one moment of time were peculiarly different from any other moment, identical physical phenomena occurring at different moments would require different amounts of energy, so thatenergy would not be conserved.

I note that 'increase in mass' is attributed to 'increase in speed' without any explanation as to why mass increases with speed, does anyone know why?

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by jr
changing mass into energy can be done by nuclear fission or nuclear fusion

changing energy into mass can be done by speeding the object to the speed of light when the object reaches the speed of light it can't go any faster then the object's mass will increase (this would take quite a lot of energy to do this)

Regarding changing mass into energy - see
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/nuclear_energy.htm

The amount of energy and the amount of mass both before and after the nuclear fission is the same. Nothing changes except the makeup of the energy. Mass-energy changes to other forms. May I assume that's what you mean?

The changing of mass into energy is not quite correct. This was explained in the year following the detonation of the first atomic bombs in an article called

"A Relativistic Misconception," C.R. Eddy, Science 104, pages 303-304 (1946)

For details on this I recommend
"Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy," Max Jammer, Princeton University Press, (2000)

I've created a few derivations myself on the E = mc^2 thing. See

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm

and "A simple derivation of E = mc^2," http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0308039

Although I've been told that the derivation wasn't as simple as I thought. The idea is simple - the calculations not so simple I guess


Pete

 

[elas]

On my home site I have added an explanation of mass that should be acceptable in either current theory or my own concept.
http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s38.htm