Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Law of Conservation. How is this possible?

  1. #1 Law of Conservation. How is this possible? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    i would also like to know the answer to this.

    the best i can come up with is time is only a perception. a kind of 'filing system' which allows our brains to process information.

    but even if you take time out of the equation, one thing causes another, which causes another, and so on. there still must be a begining and an end. or at least a beginning.

    i guess if you really think about it, our brains have developed logic in order to comprehend our surroundings. anything 'before' the big bang doesn't qualify, and our brains are ill-equiped to comprehend it.

    so yeah, reality either does not exist, or is a paradox. but reality isn't the same thing as the universe. reality exists only in our head, through our perceptions and thought structure (logic).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    This should be easy. The conservation law, like all fundamental physical laws, applies only to the existing universe. The laws say nothing about the universe's creation. They do not address the situation before the Big Bang.

    Some people like to imagine that before the Big Bang there was another universe with different fundamental laws. When it collapsed, a new universe arose (ours) with new laws. All this is fanciful speculation, however.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    Steve, thats just sidestepping the real question i think.

    where did the first universe come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    No, he asked about reconciling the conservation laws with the question "how it all began." The fundamental laws do not do that, they cannot do that. I wanted to make that clear.

    For those who just want to know how the universe came into existence, science does not have the answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    fair enough.

    just had a thought...

    maybe the universe which collapsed was our universe in the future, if that makes sense.

    in that sense we really would be living inside a paradox. with the end creating the beginning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Or maybe the previous universe only existed until someone built a large hadron collider.

    Than there was a big bang
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    hehe

    i can imagine the protesters sabotaging the collider, and preventing the big bang, in turn preventing their own existance.

    that would be quite ironic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Law of Conservation. How is this possible? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Where we live, is basically a super simplicity. What the super simplicity allows through structure. Is truly infinite, amazingly complex and interesting.

    Matter is an infinite kaleidoscope for ambient radiation to create infinity through.

    There is no such thing as energy. That is what your professor did not understand. There is velocity. Velocity can change structure. Velocity can cause rays that we call gravity, X-rays, Ultra Violet, light, heat.

    You can break down matter to singular electrons. And they will just "positively accelerate" away into the universe as normal stabilizing ambient radiation.

    But there is no actual energy, weight or mass. There is a volume of matter though.

    However matter can be moved as a weightless object. If that makes any sense.

    In other words you can through the redirection of ambient radiation move heavy objects from zero mph, to speeds as fast as light, in an inch distance. And not damage their structure.
    Because matters position is based upon diodes created around and within the object to allow it to sit still, even though it may be moving at incredible speeds.
    It is sitting still while being bombarded in every direction from ambient radiation, that naturally cancels any more or less movement out. Yet an object is often moving very fast, within the atmosphere of a planet just sitting on the surface, but going very fast.

    Take an object on the equator in Ecuador, a small stone sitting on the ground. It is traveling at speeds of 1500 feet a second with the surface of the earth. In an arc shaped path. Yet it appears so still and solid. It is sitting there with 1500 feet a second velocity. Enough to blow a hole right through you head. If your head was not moving with the earths surface.

    The stones direction is guided by diodes created by the object and its surroundings to maintain its position in a maddening amount of ambient radiation, from all directions.

    "It is all relative" is a Universal Science term, and it comes from, all velocity is relative to other velocity. But there is no energy. On an atomic level.

    Although, I sometimes appear to be crazy, or perhaps I am, Ha-ha, I do see, and use energy as most do, on a day to day bases. I used to manufacture three phase electrical heating equipment for industry. So I can relate to energy as other do, too.

    But on a subatomic level it is just all electrons. Bombarding matter. Electrons can be shown to have no weight or mass. It was actually taught that way at one time in some parts of America.

    It used to be common knowledge that electricity flowed up hill and down hill with the same vigor.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    will, a quick question relating to that post...

    i get that you see the universe an arrangement of 1's and 0's, on and off's, somethings and nothings. and i would tend to agree.

    the question is, what do you think an electron actually is?

    do you think an electron is a gap in the fabric of the universe? a gap in nothingness? some kind of super tiny stable black-hole?

    kind of makes sense to me.

    if you view the universe as merely empty dimensions, a grid for the structure to exist within, and the structure itself as gaps in the grid, i think the whole scenario becomes more plausable.

    you could probably take it a step further and say the structure is arranged of gaps in the grid, while simultaniously creating the grid through the structure.

    any thoughts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by redrighthand
    will, a quick question relating to that post...

    i get that you see the universe an arrangement of 1's and 0's, on and off's, somethings and nothings. and i would tend to agree.

    the question is, what do you think an electron actually is?

    do you think an electron is a gap in the fabric of the universe? a gap in nothingness? some kind of super tiny stable black-hole?

    kind of makes sense to me.

    if you view the universe as merely empty dimensions, a grid for the structure to exist within, and the structure itself as gaps in the grid, i think the whole scenario becomes more plausable.

    you could probably take it a step further and say the structure is arranged of gaps in the grid, while simultaniously creating the grid through the structure.

    any thoughts?
    I see the universe analog. Different velocities/different voltages. You can demonstrate that with an oscilloscope.

    The electron is just a small particle that repels other electrons.

    No one in my opinion is going to get any closer. Not that you could not get a bit closer. But no one today really cares enough to put their life on the line for important things, so I doubt anyone will put their life on the line to just take a closer guess, at what an electron is. And even if they do, why would you think so much of a guy, circling the globe for resources, man hours. Just to play games with the unknown?

    Toddler logic tells us that we cannot see a particle that is so small and so far from our sensing equipment. Because there are infinite numbers of particles in between the electron and us. When you watch that streaking particle on the screen. Obviously it is heading across the screen or field of view. You are not watching the particle. It is heading across the screen not at you.

    The uncountable number of particles bringing that view to you is not a scientific observation, or representation of the particle itself if that is what it is. But just a relay upon relay of information from this suspected particle to you. We are very far from the electron yet.

    That is why Universal Scientists said they would not even go there at the time. Because we are not even in the realm of actually isolating one electron yet. And we are further now then we were then.

    Scientists are actually very happy individuals. In this climate of an unscientific war, I doubt any real advancements are going to be made. It is like putting the cart before the horse. That is why I stand for total recall of all law makers.

    The only thing they could not figure out in the late 1800's and early nineteen hundreds was, what an electron looked like. And how big it was. Everything else in the universe you can demonstrate pretty much.

    Look at all the things we take for granted today, and I am sure we don't have a clue as a nation. We say "like particles repel". And "unlike particles attract". That is European. Not American. We know where European science had mankind.

    That is actually a falsehood. Because all particles are electrons. But structures of electrons (protons), create variables to the basic rules.

    Just like taking bits of copper, smelting them and drawing them into a wire, creates a unique and variable path for electricity, not possible on earth without the structure of a copper wire.

    The "Great Scientists" have really been very poor English students, and really very poor scientists. Because they have just about done away with all the good science had in store for us.

    Today they are actually holding technology ransom. By not using it, yet being in control of what is and what is not technology.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Law of Conservation. How is this possible? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

    This may not be completely satisfying but it is the way things are.

    The conservation law applies to the totality of mass and energy, which according to relativity are the same thing. It also applies at any point in time.

    The best available theory for the origiin of the universe is the Big Bang. According to the Big Bang it all began about 13.7 billion years ago. And I mean IT ALL began then -- matter, space and time. There is no "before" the Big Bang. Time itself and space itself, in fact space-time, began at the moment of the Big Bang. So conservation applies only since the Big Bang.

    Since time and space originated in the Big Bang, you cannot apply conservation laws prior to the Big Bang -- because the notion of "prior to the Big Bang" makes no more sense than asking what is "north of the North Pole."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    There is no "before" the Big Bang
    i might be taking it out of context a bit, but i find that concept a bit hard to swollow.

    as i stated earlier, even if you take time out of the equation, and everything happens at once, its still a case of subsequent actions and re-actions. time is only the gaps between those events.

    while i dont think the big bang theory is wrong. i think to say that nothing caused it is throwing away the scientific approach, in favour of a religious one.

    i would rather admit i dont know, and continue to ponder it, than try to accept something like that.


    a related question... why does our universe/percievable dimensions have its particular fundimental laws?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Law of Conservation. How is this possible? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    There is no "before" the Big Bang.

    I disagree with that statement. It is pure speculation based on zero actual scientific evidence that I know of.

    They cannot keep simple things engineered properly, but they can tell what was or was not, before a hypothetical incident? I would go to a psychic for an answer, before a multi subatomic particle scientist.

    Right now "top modern scientists" are skating around real proofs. In hopes they go away. Just like their mentors.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    I think the universe has always been and will always be an everchanging "beating heart" And the "Energy cannot be destroyed or created, only changed" makes me believe that its contents will just relocate but ALWAYS contain the same sum (if it were possible to measure)

    Time is only the measurement in where matter was at a specific location, our brains possess memory. Wich makes us able to simulate the future and remember the past. But the only thing that really exist is the "now"

    Think about this, does anything in the universe begin without taking matter or energy from another source? Does anything end without giving it on to something else or freeing that energy? I cant think of a single thing, so why should the universe be any different?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by redrighthand
    There is no "before" the Big Bang
    i might be taking it out of context a bit, but i find that concept a bit hard to swollow.

    ...?
    It may be hard to swallow, but that is in fact the state of the theoretical prediction as it now stands. There are some difficulties with the theory. The primary difficulty is that it is based on general relativity and we know that general relativity and quantum theory are mutually incompatible. So in situations where both general relativityand quantum effects are important we find ourselves at a loss for good tools. That is the case with the moment of the Big Bang.

    Nevertheless the current model has space and time itself all originating withe the Big Bang. There is no "before" in the model. And since the conservation laws are based on our model of physics, there is no "before" to which to apply the conservation laws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Law of Conservation. How is this possible? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    There is no "before" the Big Bang.

    I disagree with that statement. It is pure speculation based on zero actual scientific evidence that I know of.

    They cannot keep simple things engineered properly, but they can tell what was or was not, before a hypothetical incident? I would go to a psychic for an answer, before a multi subatomic particle scientist.

    Right now "top modern scientists" are skating around real proofs. In hopes they go away. Just like their mentors.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I have no doubt that you would go to a psychic. Maybe you should.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Think about this, does anything in the universe begin without taking matter or energy from another source? Does anything end without giving it on to something else or freeing that energy? I cant think of a single thing, so why should the universe be any different?
    Because it is the universe. You appear to be guilty of the fallacy of arguing from incredulity. That is of no value at arriving at a valid conclusion.

    Dr. Rocket is the one making sense in this thread. You can safely ignore William.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    Dr. Rocket is the one making sense in this thread.
    hey, your welcome to try and pick holes in my logic.

    ...speaking of which...
    general relativity and quantum theory are mutually incompatible
    do we have any indication of why this is? other than one or both are wrong?

    wrong in the sense that they explain phenomenon to a point, but do not reflect the actual goings on in the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    I think the universe has always been and will always be an everchanging "beating heart" And the "Energy cannot be destroyed or created, only changed" makes me believe that its contents will just relocate but ALWAYS contain the same sum (if it were possible to measure)

    Time is only the measurement in where matter was at a specific location, our brains possess memory. Wich makes us able to simulate the future and remember the past. But the only thing that really exist is the "now"

    Think about this, does anything in the universe begin without taking matter or energy from another source? Does anything end without giving it on to something else or freeing that energy? I cant think of a single thing, so why should the universe be any different?
    Good common sense demonstrable Universal Science. Refreshing.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    Think about this, does anything in the universe begin without taking matter or energy from another source? Does anything end without giving it on to something else or freeing that energy? I cant think of a single thing, so why should the universe be any different?
    if the past is infinite, how did we get to the present?

    unless time really only exists in our minds.

    if you believe one theory you believe the other, and the implications it entails.

    thoughts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by redrighthand
    Think about this, does anything in the universe begin without taking matter or energy from another source? Does anything end without giving it on to something else or freeing that energy? I cant think of a single thing, so why should the universe be any different?
    if the past is infinite, how did we get to the present?

    unless time really only exists in our minds.

    if you believe one theory you believe the other, and the implications it entails.

    thoughts?
    Just because no individual can go back into the past and recite it, does not mean that it did not exist.

    Time has a way of etching itself into matter. Sometimes all you need is a little bit of evidence and a few brave souls and you can unlock the lessons of the entire infinite history of the universe. Perhaps not how it was made, or when it was made, but the lessons of its making.

    When you run into an infinitely small particle that there is no way to see. Or find evidence of a time line so immense that it could not make much sense to any human.
    At that point, you should put those fanciful, ponder filled thoughts aside. And get to better understand what is right in front of you. Things still not explored or documented well.

    I cannot buy a book about the proper way to understand electricity. I cannot buy a meter that properly measures the electromotive force of a battery. The symbols are backwards. My new welder has strange markings. Instead of the older more real and understandable markings.

    But someone that does not recognize any of these short comings, short comings for a fifth world nation, is going to tell me the precise second of Universal conception. Measured by atomic clock, that was originally built with ammonia. Ammonia that they mislabelled NH3, and tell me the nanosecond I was conceived with the universe.

    Lets get real.

    The people that are clawing at God and claiming to have achieved ultimate knowledge, are only at those impossible to prove endeavors, because they cannot be proven right or wrong, so far away from reality.

    They can only be proven to be poor scientists for even going there. When far more real pressing issues exist. Like getting the good individuals that can put us on the moon or mars, in months time from the start of the build, back together. Along with some fresh faces not afraid of Knowledge and responsibility.

    This could be accomplished with a few of the over paid NASA's employee salaries.

    Or we can wait for the new donut factory.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by redrighthand
    Dr. Rocket is the one making sense in this thread.
    hey, your welcome to try and pick holes in my logic.

    ...speaking of which...
    general relativity and quantum theory are mutually incompatible
    do we have any indication of why this is? other than one or both are wrong?

    wrong in the sense that they explain phenomenon to a point, but do not reflect the actual goings on in the universe.
    General relativity is a "classical" deterministic theory.
    Quantum mechanics predicts only probabilities.

    Either or both may require eventual modification.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by redrighthand
    Dr. Rocket is the one making sense in this thread.
    hey, your welcome to try and pick holes in my logic.
    You were asking questions, not providing answers. William and Dr Rocket were providing answers. William's were mumbo jumbo. While we want to afford William the opportunity to express his ideas, we also want to prevent novices being confused or taken in by them. Remember that this thread is likely read by more than just the participants.

    On point two, I can't pick holes in your logic because there was none. Either you are asking questions, as already noted, or you were speculating maginatively. In neither case did you use or require to use logic.
    Your posts were fine, but since you didn't provide answers (either wrong or right) and since your speculation was clearly flagged as such, there was no need to comment on them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by redrighthand
    Dr. Rocket is the one making sense in this thread.
    hey, your welcome to try and pick holes in my logic.
    You were asking questions, not providing answers. William and Dr Rocket were providing answers. William's were mumbo jumbo. While we want to afford William the opportunity to express his ideas, we also want to prevent novices being confused or taken in by them. Remember that this thread is likely read by more than just the participants.

    On point two, I can't pick holes in your logic because there was none. Either you are asking questions, as already noted, or you were speculating maginatively. In neither case did you use or require to use logic.
    Your posts were fine, but since you didn't provide answers (either wrong or right) and since your speculation was clearly flagged as such, there was no need to comment on them.
    Do you agree with measuring an abundance of electromotive force, an abundance of electron potential, an abundance of electron pressure, with a (-) symbol?

    And the opposite, a shortage of electron pressure, and electromotive force, with a (+) symbol?

    I do not.

    We can simply demonstrate that electricity has a pressure and can move things, with the terminal that has an abundance of electrons, and electron pressure. Just like air pressure.

    Electricity looks the same by actual demonstration as air pressure. Don't you think that we should call an abundance of electrons, electron pressure, "positive pressure" or "positive electricity"? As Benjamin Franklin did.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Semantic irrelevance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Semantic irrelevance.

    Then what you say in the future would have the same semantic irrelevance. If you are positive about something it means nothing. If you are negative about something it means nothing.

    You can ban me, but then that would just be symbolic of what happened to real science.

    There has not been a drop of advancement in science since the early nineteen hundreds. Because of people not properly labeling and not understanding what is taking place.

    The masses that are a sort of memory helper, in day to day life. Never understood electricity. Except from the ARC welder. And that appeared to send electrons from the ARC rod, to the work piece. When in fact electrons from the power supply were coming from the work piece to the ARC rod. That ARCed (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) a ray back against the power supply.

    So they labeled the short of electron terminal (+) because in ARC welding it showed to be abundant with electrons. Meanwhile Benjamin Franklin figured this out almost 250 years ago. By monitoring clouds.
    Some rain clouds were abundant with electrons, most were short of electrons. Flows of electricity sometimes visible from the earth at night, would flow to a rain cloud and cause an ARC on the surface of the rain cloud. Causing an ARC ray to strike back at earth. Just like an ARC rod.

    Tesla I believe accidentally hit a storm cloud with an abundance of electrons, from an Argon laser, and it could not, ARC back to earth. So it charged until it DC beamed away a good portion of the earth. Ha-ha. He apologized for the incident and was happy no one was killed. He was a great guy.

    He was so far from the cloud over 1000 miles that he encased it in his laser beams rays. Normally when you hit clouds with laser or powerful radar, they open a hole or move out of the way. Usually those radar beams are tight beams. And do not encompass the whole cloud. Tesla apparently did.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    I haven't read all the posts fully, but I'll see what I can contribute with.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    I don't see the logic in assuming there was a time where there was nothing, or if indeed nothing is a valid concept to be applied to reality. However, this may depend on what you define to be "nothing" and what you define to be "something". Vacuum has been in resent time considered to be something (Higgs field, or something. Not too knowledgable in this though ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: Law of Conservation. How is this possible? 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Hey Ralph

    One thing worth avoiding when thinking about the big questions, is a Category Error - using a category, or an implied category, that is not appropriate to the logical argument.

    For instance consider these two categories:

    1. A scientific law

    2. A logical necessity

    It is a scientific law that gravitational attraction changes as per the inverse square of the distance between two masses.

    It is not, however, logically necessary that this should be the case.

    Now here's the thing.

    The Conservation Laws (mass, momentum, angular momentum, mass-energy, etc) are all Inductively defined notions based upon observation.

    While scientists use them like mad, relying upon them at all times, Hume has already pointed out the logical necessity of being wary of the problem of induction.

    So "matter cannot be created or destroyed" is:

    1. a scientific notion based on observation and induction, and given (within Science) the status of a law (well regarded and trusted);

    2. a notion that matches our intuitions.

    In neither way of looking at it is it logically necessary for this intuition or scientific law to be the case.

    Therefore there is no contradiction between (within the category of science) using the Conservation Laws and (outside science in the category of logical and philosophical necessity) accepting that it may not be the case.

    That is, philosophically speaking it is not necessary that matter neither be created nor destroyed. And if you ask a scientist to resolve your conundrum, she will simply point out, as others have over here, that some small but finite time after the Big Bang is all we can speak of.

    I hope this hasn't seemed too convoluted, but my point is that one aspect of your question is science (and is therefore conditional) and the other aspect is logico-philosophical (and is therefore about that which is entailed, and is not conditional).

    cheer

    shanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I haven't read all the posts fully, but I'll see what I can contribute with.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    I don't see the logic in assuming there was a time where there was nothing, or if indeed nothing is a valid concept to be applied to reality. However, this may depend on what you define to be "nothing" and what you define to be "something". Vacuum has been in resent time considered to be something (Higgs field, or something. Not too knowledgable in this though ).
    The best vacuum we have deep space, is full of hydrogen gas. Rays of light cannot travel without a medium or matter to conduct their flow.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I haven't read all the posts fully, but I'll see what I can contribute with.


    I don't see the logic in assuming there was a time where there was nothing, or if indeed nothing is a valid concept to be applied to reality. However, this may depend on what you define to be "nothing" and what you define to be "something". Vacuum has been in resent time considered to be something (Higgs field, or something. Not too knowledgable in this though ).
    The best vacuum we have deep space, is full of hydrogen gas. Rays of light cannot travel without a medium or matter to conduct their flow.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I don't know where you learned your physics but:

    Light (electromagnetic waves or photons depending on how you want to look at it) travels just fine in a vacuum. In fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a fundamental constant of physics and is independent of the inertial reference frame in which it is measured.

    While the electiic potential and the electric field in general are important oncept sand along with the effect of the magnetic field and the Lorentz force govern the behavior of charged particles, your notion of electron pressure is completely bogus.

    The vacuum of deep space is not particularly full of anything, hydrogen gas or otherwise, except possibly for the virtual particles that make up the quantum vacuum. . One atom per cubic centimeter is pretty rarified. That is why it is called a vacuum http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ms.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    I don't know where you learned your physics but:

    Light (electromagnetic waves or photons depending on how you want to look at it) travels just fine in a vacuum. In fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a fundamental constant of physics and is independent of the inertial reference frame in which it is measured.

    While the electiic potential and the electric field in general are important oncept sand along with the effect of the magnetic field and the Lorentz force govern the behavior of charged particles, your notion of electron pressure is completely bogus.

    The vacuum of deep space is not particularly full of anything, hydrogen gas or otherwise, except possibly for the virtual particles that make up the quantum vacuum. . One atom per cubic centimeter is pretty rarified. That is why it is called a vacuum http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ms.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
    A vacuum that is made up of atoms, usually of air. Sometimes metals. Or elements.

    Without a medium a route to travel through, electrons will not travel anywhere.

    That is why the giant donut magnet was finished before it started. They claimed that they were going to create a perfect vacuum, which is an impossibility in this universe.

    And even if they could hypothetically create one, they would not be able to see what they did. Because nothing will travel without a medium, a substance to convey the electrons. You need matter, atoms, molecules, to create a highway for the electrons.

    I was taught physics in a scary place. But looking back not as scary a place as you learned it.


    In deep space there are a lot more atoms, then one per cubic centimeter. You probably could not count how many are in one cubic centimeter.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •