Law of Conservation. How is this possible?

[Ralph Malph]

I have only taken one college level physics class (Conceptual Physics), but my teacher lectured on a subject that has been stuck in my mind since (5 years).

If matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then nothing can exist.
The idea didn’t fully sink in until after the course was over, but once it did, I have been like WTF? For 5 years.

I completely get the law of conservation. If you were to destroy matter, where would it go? If you were to create matter, from where would it come?

But, my professor was also (I believe) correct in the fact that this physical reality in which we live is a complete impossibility, as there is matter in it, and matter cannot be created.
I have talked to some people about this, and most just say, “Well, the matter has just always existed”

I find that somewhat impossible. Something doesn’t just come from nothing for one, and how could something just have always existed with no source?
I really appreciate any input on this subject.

 

[russ_watters]

We don't yet exactly know how the universe was created. But we do know that this is how it works now.

 

[ZapperZ]

The asymmetry of our universe is one of the major area of research. Currently, the observation of http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17755" (C=charge conjugation, P=Parity) seen in many decay events seems to be the strongest candidate for an explanation on why there is an over abundance of matter versus antimatter in our universe.

The rest will be, at this moment, speculation.

Zz.

 

[Ralph Malph]

We don't yet exactly know how the universe was created. But we do know that this is how it works now.

So this is a question that is stumping even the best physicists? So my professor was correct; This physical world is a complete impossibility?

 

[Hootenanny]

So my professor was correct; This physical world is a complete impossibility?

I'm afraid that I can't agree with that. The mere fact that the physical world exists for us to observe is proof that it is quite definitely possible.

 

[Ralph Malph]

I'm afraid that I can't agree with that. The mere fact that the physical world exists for us to observe is proof that it is quite definitely possible.

But according to the laws of this physical world, it is impossible, right?

 

[gmax137]

russ_watters is right - physics (and science in general) studies "how" the world works, in the sense of being able to predict what will happen next. Contrary to popular belief, science does not explain "why" things are the way they are. There is no science-based answer to "where did everything come from." For one thing, we have only one example to look at, and for another, we cannot create more universes and draw general conclusions regarding their creation. Thats why you see scientists who are christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, Romans, hindus, pharaonic egyptians...

 

[Doc Al]

If matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then nothing can exist.

On what basis do you deduce that? The best that can be deduced from that premise is that if matter/energy cannot be destroyed, then it always existed. (Of course, was it always true that matter/energy is conserved?)

Something doesn’t just come from nothing for one,

Are you sure? (Well, that "nothing" is not really nothing then, I suppose.)

and how could something just have always existed with no source?

And yet you have no problem with some "source" having always existed? Where did the source come from?

 

[Hootenanny]

But according to the laws of this physical world, it is impossible, right?

As Russ alluded to earlier, what makes you think that the laws of this physical world applied before this physical world existed?

 

[Defennder]

The asymmetry of our universe is one of the major area of research. Currently, the observation of http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17755" (C=charge conjugation, P=Parity) seen in many decay events seems to be the strongest candidate for an explanation on why there is an over abundance of matter versus antimatter in our universe.

Is there any reason why we call matter "matter" and anti-matter "anti-matter"? Couldn't we reverse the names?

 

[ZapperZ]

So this is a question that is stumping even the best physicists? So my professor was correct; This physical world is a complete impossibility?

There's a difference between "still stumping" and "impossible". The former means we are still search for answers after being given tantalizing hints. The latter is outright impossibility based on what we know now. If we know something is impossible, we won't be studying it.

You need to bring your teacher here and let him/her defend what he/she said/meant. There is a possibility that you have misinterpret what was said. This "he said this, she said that" discussion has always been annoying because we are trying to discuss or defend hearsay, and that has never been productive because if what was interpreted was wrong, all this effort is moot and a waste of time.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Is there any reason why we call matter "matter" and anti-matter "anti-matter"? Couldn't we reverse the names?

You can call them Itchy and Scratchy if it makes you feel any better. How would that effect the physics?

Zz.

 

[Ralph Malph]

So I gather (and I say this with respect) that no one has the foggiest idea how matter exists, and that my professor was indeed correct.

This is going to consume my life. In fact I am considering going back to school to get a degree in physics, and dedicate all my time in trying to solve this mystery.

How does this not bother everyone who knows about it?

Matter cannot be created, therefore matter does not exist.

 

[Defennder]

No, just wondering if there's anything fundamental about matter apart from the fact that we are made out of it to distinguish it from antimatter.

 

[Hootenanny]

How does this not bother everyone who knows about it?

It does 'bother' people, particularly those who research in this area. Just because we haven't found the answer yet, doesn't mean that we don't care.

Matter cannot be created, therefore matter does not exist.

As Doc Al said, that is faulty logic. Just because something cannot be created, doesn't mean that it can't exist provided that it has always existed.

 

[atyy]

But according to the laws of this physical world, it is impossible, right?

This guy (and he's not the only one) thinks that new universes are created all the time according to the laws of this physical world (I think he's crazy):

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.2593v1.pdf

 

[atyy]

So I gather (and I say this with respect) that no one has the foggiest idea how matter exists, and that my professor was indeed correct.

This is going to consume my life. In fact I am considering going back to school to get a degree in physics, and dedicate all my time in trying to solve this mystery.

How does this not bother everyone who knows about it?

These guys seem to be bothered by it also:

"The cosmological singularity at t=0 is an infinite energy density state, so general relativity predicts its own breakdown. "

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_problems.html

 

[Dale]

most just say, “Well, the matter has just always existed”

I find that somewhat impossible.

I agree with most. What makes you think it is impossible for something to have always existed?

You need to justify that claim a bit. As you try to I think you will find that you don't have a logical reason why it is impossible for something to have always existed.

 

[atyy]

There's a coherent theory that the universe has always existed. In this model, matter is not conserved, and is constantly being created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory

However, the theory, at least in its original form doesn't seem to match observations:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

 

[gmax137]

This is going to consume my life. In fact I am considering going back to school to get a degree in physics, and dedicate all my time in trying to solve this mystery.

Go for it Ralph ! I really mean that. People are mostly content, or worry about really mundane stuff. Enthusiastic interest in deep mysteries is one big positive trait we humans (sometimes) possess...

 

[Seiryuu]

There's a coherent theory that the universe has always existed. In this model, matter is not conserved, and is constantly being created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory

However, the theory, at least in its original form doesn't seem to match observations:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

Not all models of a universe that has always existed have need for matter to be created though. An example of these are the field equation solutions that predict rotating universes. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric"

 

[uart]

How does this not bother everyone who knows about it?

Yes, the origin of everything is indeed a very perplexing concept and quite possibly a puzzle that we'll never fully solve. This is not exactly just a recent thing though is it. Thoughout history philososphers have pondered this problem and expalined it through various theories of creation. Of course every such "explanation" ever posed has always required that some form of "creator" has always existed, so they all give a more or less circular arguement.

 

[D H]

Where are the moderators? There is far too much speculation going on here, and that is against PF rules.

Where, for that matter, is the OP? He made the exact same post on several other sites. I made a long-winded response elsewhere. Condensed version: Conservation of matter and energy is a consequence of the homogeneity of time per Noether's first theorem. Time (and space, for that matter) are not homogeneous at the instant of the Big Bang: There is a discontinuity at the instant of the Big Bang. So forget the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe. Beyond that point, conservation of matter/energy do appear to apply, and we have very good reasons to think that they do.

 

[Ralph Malph]

Where are the moderators? There is far too much speculation going on here, and that is against PF rules.

Where, for that matter, is the OP? He made the exact same post on several other sites. I made a long-winded response elsewhere. Condensed version: Conservation of matter and energy is a consequence of the homogeneity of time per Noether's first theorem. Time (and space, for that matter) are not homogeneous at the instant of the Big Bang: There is a discontinuity at the instant of the Big Bang. So forget the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe. Beyond that point, conservation of matter/energy do appear to apply, and we have very good reasons to think that they do.

Yes, I made 3 posts on 3 different sites. I want as much input from different people as possible on this subject.

The whole idea of time being a part of this, I feel, does nothing to further the understanding as time does not really exist.

Time is just a measurement form one point to the next. It's like the "If a tree falls in the forest" thing.

Time is the same as a mile. A mile does not exist, it is just a measurement. If there was nothingness, would time exist on the same level as it does today?

If absolutely nothing was happening, then time would exist on the same level as it exists today, there would just be no basis for it's measure, but it would exist in the same as it currently exists.

 

[stewartcs]

Where are the moderators? There is far too much speculation going on here, and that is against PF rules.

Where, for that matter, is the OP? He made the exact same post on several other sites. I made a long-winded response elsewhere. Condensed version: Conservation of matter and energy is a consequence of the homogeneity of time per Noether's first theorem. Time (and space, for that matter) are not homogeneous at the instant of the Big Bang: There is a discontinuity at the instant of the Big Bang. So forget the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe. Beyond that point, conservation of matter/energy do appear to apply, and we have very good reasons to think that they do.

D_H's response sums it up the best IMO.

CS

 

[Hootenanny]

You have still not justified your claim regarding the creation/existence of matter. In any case, this discussion is no longer in the realm of physics. Thread locked.

 

[russ_watters]

So I gather (and I say this with respect) that no one has the foggiest idea how matter exists, and that my professor was indeed correct.

This is going to consume my life. In fact I am considering going back to school to get a degree in physics, and dedicate all my time in trying to solve this mystery.

How does this not bother everyone who knows about it?

Matter cannot be created, therefore matter does not exist.

By this point, I'm starting to wonder if you bothered to read any of the previous posts - including mine.

[edit] Sorry, posted this before realizing it was locked. In any case, it seems clear that a lock was the right path. The discussion quickly left the realm of reality/science.