Can all matter be potentially annhilated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ritzycat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matter
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the potential for all matter in the universe to be converted into energy over an astronomical timescale, highlighting the significant mass defect in nuclear reactions compared to chemical reactions. It notes that the universe has transitioned from a radiation-dominated state to a matter-dominated one since the Big Bang, with current pair production of matter being rare. The conversation emphasizes that while energy is still being converted to matter in stellar processes, this will cease as stars diminish over time. Ultimately, the universe is heading toward a state with fewer stars and less matter-energy conversion. The concept of matter annihilation raises questions about the future of the universe and the fate of antimatter.
Ritzycat
Messages
170
Reaction score
4
I understand that every chemical reaction has a mass defect - albeit it is very, very, very, very small, to the point we simply assume Law of Conservation of Mass. Nuclear reactions have a more sizable mass defect, hence the very high amounts of energy released. However, suppose some astronomically high time. It is possible that all of the matter in the universe could be converted to energy somewhere incredibly distant in the future? Are there any ways in which new matter is introduced into the universe, and would that amount be greater than the amount lost by general physical phenomenon?

We've only briefly touched on this concept in my chemistry class but since we have to move on our teacher doesn't have much time for much theory questions. I'm very curious but my knowledge doesn't extend very far.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The universe is going the other direction. In the distant past it was radiation dominated. As it has expanded and cooled it has transitioned from radiation dominated to matter dominated. As far as I know there is no known effect which would cause it to revert to radiation dominated without a "big crunch".
 
What are the reasons why radiation transforms into matter, especially on a universal level?
 
Ritzycat said:
What are the reasons why radiation transforms into matter, especially on a universal level?
Right after the big bang photon-photon interactions were common resulting in matter antimatter pairs (Open question: what happened to the antimatter?). These days pair production is extremely rare.
 
So essentially, at this point in time, there is not much conversion going on between energy and matter?
 
Ritzycat said:
So essentially, at this point in time, there is not much conversion going on between energy and matter?
No, there's a fair amount of it going on, almost all in the direction of matter to energy, but that's in the center of stars and when there are no more stars, there won't be any more such conversion, and as Dale said, that's the direction the universe is going ... fewer stars ... fewer stars ... fewer stars ... no more stars.

Here's a thread you might find interesting:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/future-of-the-universe.778346/
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top