According to Some Folks, New Theory in Physics has "Creationists Terrified".

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Something people too often forget is that, when dealing with things like the origin of life, is that the conditions required for it to happen can be met an infinite number of times before everything works out juuust so that it takes hold.

1) We don't know what said conditions are, ergo we can't know if this is true.
2) Which infinity are you going with here? Or, to be simple, countably infinite or uncountably?

Who knows how often the first recognizable life began on earth before conditions allowed the little bugger to survive for more than a few seconds, minutes, days, eons, ect.

The better questions are "who knows what the conditions are that allowed for the origins of life?" The answer is nobody.

First rule; Matter(and energy) cannot be created or destroyed.

Laughably wrong. Without the capacity for matter to be destroyed modern physics falls apart (same for energy).

 

[Nietzsche]

1) We don't know what said conditions are, ergo we can't know if this is true.
2) Which infinity are you going with here? Or, to be simple, countably infinite or uncountably?

Infinity here means "a number too large for me to bother writing out". So that's significantly less than 'infinity', but I'm using it in a colloquial sense. Math makes my head hurt, especially the **** dealing with infinity(ies)

The better questions are "who knows what the conditions are that allowed for the origins of life?" The answer is nobody.

Clearly. My point rested on that it clearly happened at least once. There's no reason to assume the conditions aren't repeatable. Or that those conditions are even the best. The conditions that started life on earth and lead to us might be the single worst set possible, but being bad and being incapable are two different things. Like trying to mine granite with a stick. Given enough time you'll do it. But you may want to consider a different set of tools.

Laughably wrong. Without the capacity for matter to be destroyed modern physics falls apart (same for energy).

Completely destroyed? As in, everything about it utterly gone? Not spread out over vast distances, but literally gone? I'm genuinely asking.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Completely destroyed?

Hence laughably wrong (sorry, bit of an inside joke). First, matter and energy must be conserved, which means (counterintuitively) that it must be possible for both matter and energy to be completely destroyed (and created). Imagine an electron hitting or "scattering" off of a proton or something. Using matrix mechanics or, better still the wave equation, we run into a problem: the electron will remain an electron (whatever that is). However, the incredibly high energy fluctuations in quantum physics run into problems here with special relativity. Thus, in relativistic quantum physics like QED or quantum field theory in general, this problem must be dealt with and was (over many decades of brilliant work that came to be the standard model of particle physics). The example situation (can) create ex nihilo an electron and a positron. The mathematical (and then experimental) discovery of the positron was the beginning of antimatter physics, as the positron is the "anti-electron". Which means that they same electron that produces a new electron/positron pair has created one "particle" that can destroy the other.
It gets worse. I'll skip over "virtual particles" as this would have to get into why all particles are basically virtual and virtual particles aren't really virtual. We can keep it simple by simply noting that the vast majority of particles don't live for more than an instant. This is generally referred to as decay, and sometimes it is decay in the sense one would expect: simply a breakdown of matter into smaller pieces or something. Often, it means the complete disappearance of the particle. Every particle (and there are so many that most don't have names, just symbols/letters like Z or τ+) also has an antiparticle. The antiparticles has the same lifetime as its corresponding particle.

The organization responsible for providing updates on the state of particle physics to the scientific community is the Particle Data Group. The last paper I read from them, "Review of Particle Physics" (Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001) was a bit longer than your average science paper: 1500+ pages. We keep finding new particles created and annihilated.

As in, everything about it utterly gone?

What was there to begin with? In quantum mechanics, systems aren't "physical" in that e.g., the state of any system is a mathematical state in a mathematical state that changes by applying mathematical functions we call observables despite the fact that they can't be observed (they're mathematical functions, after all). The relationship between physical systems and the systems described by QM is unknown. Particle physics is QM-plus: Instead of merely having observables like position, time, momentum (which is position and mass), spin, etc., as operators (mathematical functions that act on a mathematical system), we have to scrap wavefunctions (and matrix mechanics) and treat then as fields which are operators we parametrize by space and time variables (some observables are still operators, but as operators are no longer the same mathematical functions as they were in QM, this doesn't help).

Not spread out over vast distances, but literally gone?

Literally gone. Physically, we aren't sure what was there to begin with but we do know that anything material (as in made of matter) that may have existed is completely gone.

 

[dust1n]

We can keep it simple by simply noting that the vast majority of particles don't live for more than an instant. This is generally referred to as decay, and sometimes it is decay in the sense one would expect: simply a breakdown of matter into smaller pieces or something. Often, it means the complete disappearance of the particle. Every particle (and there are so many that most don't have names, just symbols/letters like Z or τ+) also has an antiparticle. The antiparticles has the same lifetime as its corresponding particle.

The organization responsible for providing updates on the state of particle physics to the scientific community is the Particle Data Group. The last paper I read from them, "Review of Particle Physics" (Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001) was a bit longer than your average science paper: 1500+ pages. We keep finding new particles created and annihilated.

Where can I find out about these particles? Also, are these unnamed particles unique or enough not enough about them?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Where can I find out about these particles?

There's the 2014 "Review of Particle Physics" by the Particle Physics Data Group: Review of Particle Physics.

 

[dust1n]

There's the 2014 "Review of Particle Physics" by the Particle Physics Data Group: Review of Particle Physics.

Greatly appreciated.