Can Matter be Created from Nothing? - Adam's Anti-Gravity Idea

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Arsonade
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Anti-gravity Idea
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether matter can be created from nothing, particularly in the context of anti-gravity and the implications of the Big Bang theory. Participants explore theoretical and philosophical questions regarding the conservation of matter and energy, as well as the nature of the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Adam introduces the idea of anti-gravity and questions the possibility of creating matter from nothing, referencing Einstein's theory of conservation.
  • Some participants suggest that breaking Einstein's theory is unlikely and point out that the Big Bang implies matter can emerge from a state of 'nothing.'
  • There is a discussion about the interpretation of Einstein's contributions to the conservation of matter-energy, with some clarifying that the law predates him.
  • Vern and others express skepticism about the discussion leading to accepted physics, while also noting the intriguing nature of the Big Bang theory.
  • A participant quotes Stephen Hawking, suggesting that the total energy of the universe may be zero, which raises questions about the nature of existence and matter.
  • There are assertions that the Big Bang theory is misunderstood, and participants are encouraged to learn more about it before attempting to critique it.
  • Discussion includes the nature of antimatter and gravitational forces, with some participants speculating about the implications of these concepts on the idea of anti-gravity.
  • Adam expresses confusion about the implications of the universe's energy balance and whether creating energy could lead to the creation of matter.
  • One participant proposes equations that relate energy, matter, and space, suggesting a theoretical framework for transformations among these states.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the possibility of creating matter from nothing or the implications of the Big Bang theory. Some participants agree on the complexity and mystery surrounding these topics, while others challenge the understanding of established theories.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights various interpretations of the laws of physics, particularly regarding the conservation of matter and energy. There are unresolved questions about the definitions and implications of these concepts, as well as the relationship between energy and matter.

  • #31
h8ter, are you sure your parents gave you permission to be on the interenet?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
h8ter said:
Ok, the Standard can NOT say that new theories are falsified through contradictory evidence. Where did you get that from?

What "Standard" are you talking about?

Anyway, you are wrong. If a theory makes a prediction, and the experimental evidence contradicts it, then the theory is wrong. It's just that simple.

Yes, I agree with you that the Standard Model does contradict with many devaiting theories. But it does not give reason to rule them out as wrong.
New theories can not be compared with the Standard Model. I'm sure you'll agree with me that you can not use one thing to prove a totally different thing wrong. It's like saying my birthday isn't the real birthday, because yours is on a different day.

You need to learn to read. I specifically said in the last line of my last post that a theory cannot be falsified by comparing it with another theory. They are falsified when compared with contradictory experimental evidence.

Experiments really don't mean anything. Oh, wow, the Standard Model is backed up by experiments that agree with observational data...ITS A THEORY! Sure, whatever, Tom.

Incorrect. Experiments mean everything. In science, they are the final court of appeals. If a theory doesn't match observed reality, then it's wrong.

Tom:
Incorrect. As I said above, you can not use the Standard Model in contradiction with proposed theories to rule them out as wrong. Nothing is falsified just because it does not go in accordance with the Standard Model.

Again: Learn to read. I did not say what you think I said.


Wrong. Experimental data is not what makes a theory concrete.

Again: Learn to read. I explicitly stated that theories cannot be proven, although they can be verified.

You can not compare experimental data either, because it relies on the theory itself. Which is just like comparing theories. So, yea. :-p

Incorrect. Experimental evidence is not a theory. It's the thing against which theories are tested.

Well, I told you to knock it off, but for some reason you have seen fit to keep acting like an idiot. So this alias of yours is going to be banned along with the others, and so will any future aliases.

Good riddance.
 

Similar threads

High School Is Anti-Gravity a Reality or Just a Concept?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Question about anti-matter colliding with matter
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Can particles appear from "actual" nothing including no space?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
Graduate Can Buoyancy Create Free Energy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Can Anti Matter Galaxies and Black Holes Exist Together?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Anti-gravity machine in your garage
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
11K
Undergrad Dark Matter: Can Gravitational Field Be Generated?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Create Matter: Can it be Reverse Engineered from Nothing?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Graduate Anti-Gravity from Matter-AntiMatter Repulsion
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
Undergrad The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K