A Universe from Nothing?

[gnostic]

Why do you not just read the link I provided?

Read this, from your link:

The mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

It stated that "mass", not "matter", cannot be created or destroyed.

You really need to read your own link.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Read this, from your link:

[QUOTE="The Law of Conservation of Matter"]The mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

It stated that "mass", not "matter", cannot be created or destroyed.

You really need to read your own link.

Haha....your poor English is probably to blame but did you not note the title...The Law of Conservation of Matter.

No one is denying that mass can not be created or destroyed, this is the very basis of the law of conservation of matter which states that matter can not be created or destroyed.

Now when it said that the law of conservation of matter or principle of matter conservation states ....what follows is what it is that determines one knows that matter can not be created or destroyed...and it is that the mass of the elements of object or collection of objects never changes over time no matter how the original parts rearrange themselves.

You are mistaking change in material form as a creation and destruction of material elements of the material form, but in fact there is no new material elements or loss of old material elements, just a rearrangement of the matter elements involved. So you see there is a distinction between the mass of the matter elements and the particular forms of matter involved in any transformation. The mass of the elements of the matter remains the same regardless of the nature of the change, chemical, physical, etc., and thus it is the principle of matter conservation.

Here, read what education teaches wrt the basics of the Law of Conservation of Matter

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing...son_plans/physical_sci/matter/sess_PS-5ab.pdf

"Matter may undergo physical and chemical changes. In a physical change, matter changes shape or form but not chemical composition. A phase change, such as melting or boiling, indicates a physical change. In a chemical change, bonding patterns change and new substances form. All chemical reactions are chemical changes. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter can not be created or destroyed. In a physical change, substances can change form, but the total mass remains the same. In a chemical change, the total mass of the reactants always equals the total mass of the products."

Ok, I hope you get it, this is not about choosing mass over matter or vice versa as to which can not be created or destroyed, but understanding the nuance between an actual matter element, eg Iron Fe, and the quantitative measurable aspect of the said Fe element, mass, which happens to be 55.845 u ± 0.002 u. So can the matter Iron be be created or destroyed?

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see how "something from nothing" is even sensible. Nothingness did not, does not and cannot exist. It is a lack of existence. A lack of laws, mechanisms, ideas and everything else. Once you start attributing properties of any kind to nothingness, you are no longer talking about nothingness. For as long as time has been around, there was something, even if that something was only time itself.

Physics theorizes that Space-Time originated at the moment of inception of the Big Bang. But this event had to have occurred within some matrix, and if physics is correct, it cannot have been within Space-Time. Therefore, the BB was an event in no-Space-Time. IOW, it occurred within no-thing-ness, a total void, and that void continues to be the case. In fact, it is precisely because of the void that everything can be, 'everything' being the entire Universe, which is thought to be infinite. So if that is the case, then the only thing that the Universe can exist in is infinity, and nothingness is totally infinite. It is the most allowing condition for everything to exist within.

The problem we are having in trying to think of the Universe as 'something' that may have come from 'nothing', is that we assume this 'something' to be real. But if this 'something' is an illusion, then there is no problem, because we don't have to explain where it came from, since it is illusory. The most recent findings in science point to the fact that all particles in the Universe are now understood to be created by fluctuations within their respective fields, and these fluctuations turn out to be standing waves. IOW, there are no 'particles' as such; there are standing waves appearing as particles. 'Particles', therefore, are illusions. The Hindus have called these illusions which appear as the 'material' world 'maya' for over 4000 years.

 

[ChristineM]

Naturally there is no empirical evidence at this stage, just hypothetical. But future understanding and knowledge is not determined by the present day 'gate keepers' of orthodoxy, but by the intuitively curious.

Right, i didn't think you had any pre bb evidence, glad you agree, eventually

 

[Corvus]

So can the matter Iron be be created or destroyed

Matter of any kind, ie any physical object, taking up space, which requires force to accelerate it, ie interacts with the Higgs field, can be destroyed and completely annihilated by allowing it to come into physical contact with an equal mass of antimatter reactant. The electromagnetic energy produced by the annihilation, would equal that of the combined mass of the reactants as E=MC2. So total mass/energy is conserved in a matter anti matter reaction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Matter of any kind, ie any physical object, taking up space, which requires force to accelerate it, ie interacts with the Higgs field, can be destroyed and completely annihilated by allowing it to come into physical contact with an equal mass of antimatter reactant. The electromagnetic energy produced by the annihilation, would equal that of the combined mass of the reactants as E=MC2. So total mass/energy is conserved in a matter anti matter reaction.

But if the anti-element of iron does not exist, then the possibility does not exist. Does the anti-element Fe actually exist?

 

[Corvus]

But if the anti-element of iron does not exist, then the possibility does not exist. Does the anti-element Fe actually exist?

Any type of anti matter will do, doesn't have to be anti Iron to annihilate Iron. Yes anti iron could exist, just not in nature, not without anti matter stars, which there is no real evidence of. It's just that at the moment we can only make anti matter particles, that exist only briefly before being annihilated, such as positrons and anti protons, we can't create as yet any appreciable amount of antimatter in elemental form. It is extremely difficult to isolate antimatter from normal matter, let alone produce large amounts of it, technologically beyond humanity at the moment.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Any type of anti matter will do, doesn't have to be anti Iron to annihilate Iron. Yes anti iron could exist, just not in nature, not without anti matter stars, which there is no real evidence of. It's just that at the moment we can only make anti matter particles, that exist only briefly before being annihilated, such as positrons and anti protons, we can't create as yet any appreciable amount of antimatter in elemental form. It is extremely difficult to isolate antimatter from normal matter, let alone produce large amounts of it, technologically beyond humanity at the moment.

I understand, but the example of presently being able to make positrons, in the case of gamma rays formed from electron positron annihilation, the electron positron pair will be reformed when the gamma ray photons interact with matter, so the electron is not destroyed, just temporarily transformed to gamma ray photon.

 

[Corvus]

I understand, but the example of presently being able to make positrons, in the case of gamma rays formed from electron positron annihilation, the electron positron pair will be reformed when the gamma ray photons interact with matter, so the electron is not destroyed, just temporarily transformed to gamma ray photon.

Er no. Once a particle is annihilated, its mass is converted into pure energy, which streams off in every direction as electromagnetic radiation. The MATTER particles involved are gone forever, CONVERTED into photon particles. Which are massless.

E= MC2. The total extractable energy of a particle, if totally converted into energy, is equal to it's mass times the speed of light squared. If you converted 1 Kg of matter into energy by anti matter annihilation you would obtain around 9 billion Joules. Conversely if you burned 1 Kg of Coal, you would get around 29,000 Joules.

Yes you can reverse the process, you can create fermionic matter from beams of interacting electromagnetic energy, ie smashing photons together, if that is what you meant.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Er no. Once a particle is annihilated, its mass is converted into pure energy, which streams off in every direction as electromagnetic radiation. The MATTER particles involved are gone forever, CONVERTED into photon particles. Which are massless.

E= MC2. The total extractable energy of a particle, if totally converted into energy, is equal to it's mass times the speed of light squared. If you converted 1 Kg of matter into energy by anti matter annihilation you would obtain around 9 billion Joules. Conversely if you burned 1 Kg of Coal, you would get around 29,000 Joules.

Yes you can reverse the process, you can create fermionic matter from beams of interacting electromagnetic energy, ie smashing photons together, if that is what you meant.

I mean this, that there is reciprocity between matter to energy and energy to matter conversion. E=MC^2 and M=E/C^2. I gave you the example with the gamma rays that result from electron positron annihilation and the reproduction of an electron positron pair when the gamma rays interacts with matter.

Positron-Electron Pair Production

In general, pair production is a phenomenon of nature where energy is direct converted to matter. The phenomenon of pair production can be view two different ways. One way is as a particle and antiparticle and the other is as a particle and a hole. The first way can be represented by formation of electron and positron, from a packet of electromagnetic energy (high energy photon – gamma ray) traveling through matter.

Positron-Electron Pair Production - Nuclear Power

Pair production
physics

Pair production, in physics, formation or materialization of two electrons, one negative and the other positive (positron), from a pulse of electromagnetic energy traveling through matter, usually in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus. Pair production is a direct conversion of radiant energy to matter. It is one of the principal ways in which high-energy gamma rays are absorbed in matter. For pair production to occur, the electromagnetic energy, in a discrete quantity called a photon, must be at least equivalent to the mass of two electrons.

pair production | physics

 

[Corvus]

I mean this, that there is reciprocity between matter to energy and energy to matter conversion. E=MC^2 and M=E/C^2. I gave you the example with the gamma rays that result from electron positron annihilation and the reproduction of an electron positron pair when the gamma rays interacts with matter.

Indeed, the equation is reversible. Positrons and electrons are fermions. That you can create from gamma rays. As always mass and energy are conserved in the reaction.

 

[Corvus]

Remember according to Einstein, mass and energy are interchangeable. The mass of an object increases as it heats up or accelerates. Objects of mass can be regarded as static or localized manifestations of concentrated energy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Remember according to Einstein, mass and energy are interchangeable. The mass of an object increases as it heats up or accelerates. Objects of mass can be regarded as static or localized manifestations of concentrated energy.

Fits with my understanding too, there is an underlying unity to the perceived apparent separateness of things. Relativity comes from dualist judgements, observation, and measurements, the omnipresent absolute reality otoh just is what it is...existence.

 

[blü 2]

I find it more counterintuitive than I can presently swallow to say the universe came from an authentic nothing ─ without dimensions, without energy, without qualities of any kind.

So I cast around for alternative possibilities. One is that space and time are qualities of energy ─ contrast the view that energy exists within space and time. Thus the existence of energy accounts for the existence of time and space rather than vice versa, so there's no problem about a beginning.

(I think energy is the chief contender in such an hypothesis, but some other ubiquitous ingredient would do it ─ say, mass, or just X.)

Of course I have no evidence to back the idea, but give it time ...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I find it more counterintuitive than I can presently swallow to say the universe came from an authentic nothing ─ without dimensions, without energy, without qualities of any kind.

So I cast around for alternative possibilities. One is that space and time are qualities of energy ─ contrast the view that energy exists within space and time. Thus the existence of energy accounts for the existence of time and space rather than vice versa, so there's no problem about a beginning.

(I think energy is the chief contender in such an hypothesis, but some other ubiquitous ingredient would do it ─ say, mass, or just X.)

Of course I have no evidence to back the idea, but give it time ...

I like the idea of energy being the one that is all, in fact that is what I understand to be the underlying unity of all that is. I see it in the omnipresent zpe and its vibrational spectrum from the infinitesimal wavelengths to the infinite....every thing is made of it.

 

[blü 2]

ben

every thing is made of it.​

Yes, that's my hypothesis.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see how "something from nothing" is even sensible. Nothingness did not, does not and cannot exist. It is a lack of existence. A lack of laws, mechanisms, ideas and everything else. Once you start attributing properties of any kind to nothingness, you are no longer talking about nothingness. For as long as time has been around, there was something, even if that something was only time itself.

Physics theorizes that Space-Time originated at the moment of inception of the Big Bang. But this event had to have occurred within some matrix, and if physics is correct, it cannot have been within Space-Time. Therefore, the BB was an event in no-Space-Time. IOW, it occurred within no-thing-ness, a total void, and that void continues to be the case. In fact, it is precisely because of the void that everything can be, 'everything' being the entire Universe, which is thought to be infinite. So if that is also the case, then the only thing that the Universe can exist in is infinity, and nothingness is totally infinite. It is the most allowing condition for everything to exist within.

But 'event' and 'existence' imply Space-Time. There is also the assumption of a 'material reality' which came into existence, which Quantum Physics is now showing not to be the case. So if this 'material' world is not real, then it must be illusory, a virtual reality, and that which it emerged from the true Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

.
What pre bb limited evidence does anyone have?

There is no 'pre bb', since Space-Time, according to physics, did not yet exist. What you call 'pre bb' is a Timeless, Spaceless state. What do you suppose that would be?

 

[ChristineM]

There is no 'pre bb', since Space-Time, according to physics, did not yet exist. What you call 'pre bb' is a Timeless, Spaceless state. What do you suppose that would be?

Please read my preceding posts or ask the question of ben. My position is that prior to the Planck epoch, nothing is known about the bb.

I do know of 28 different theories, many by the leading cosmologists so i don't agree physics says that pre bb was timeless and spaceless, but it is a possibility that some physicist's consider that state.

 

[godnotgod]

Please read my preceding posts or ask the question of ben. My position is that prior to the Planck epoch, nothing is known about the bb.

I do know of 28 different theories, many by the leading cosmologists so i don't agree physics says that pre bb was timeless and spaceless, but it is a possibility that some physicist's consider that state.

As I understand it, the concept of Space-Time as proposed by General Relativity, is just that: a concept.