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

[Arsonade]

hi just tinkering around with the idea of anti-gravity and i think i came up with something disproving it's possible, i can't explain right now (homeowrk) but i need to know if anyone has any ideas on how to break einsteins theory that matter cannot be created or destroyed. is there any way to create matter from nothing?

know it sounds ridiculous

Adam

P.S. my other post- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=23088&page=1&pp=15&highlight=stupid+crazy+guys

 

[Sirus]

My friend, if anyone could "break" Einstein's theory, he or she would be browsing through the Nobel Prize Laureates forum, not this one.

 

[Arsonade]

My friend, if anyone could "break" Einstein's theory, he or she would be browsing through the Nobel Prize Laureates forum, not this one.

lol yeah i guess that's a good point, but for what I've seen in this fourum, i wouldn't be surprised

but what bout the big bang , matter had to come from somthing somwhere down the timeline

Adam

 

[HallsofIvy]

I'm wondering what you mean by "Einstein's theory that matter cannot be destroyed"!
It was Einstein that showed that matter can be converted to and from energy. The "law of conservation of matter-energy" is a lot older and bigger than Einstein.

 

[Sirus]

Hmm, yes, these are the greatest of the numerous unsolved mysteries in physics.

 

[Integral]

Sorry, I see no possibility of this turning into a discussion of accepted Physics.

 

[Arsonade]

ok nm then

 

[Vern]

Sorry, I see no possibility of this turning into a discussion of accepted Physics.

Too bad, I thought it was just getting interesting Looked like we might get into how the bigbang could produce the universe from nothing violating just about every law of physics we know of and still be accepted Physics.

But what do I know ??

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

 

[Arsonade]

Too bad, I thought it was just getting interesting Looked like we might get into how the bigbang could produce the universe from nothing violating just about every law of physics we know of and still be accepted Physics.

But what do I know ??

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

yeah tahts wat i was lookin for, any ideas cause i don't know

Adam

P.S. I sent u a private message on a reply, don know if u got it

 

[h8ter]

Big Bang violates many laws in physics. It is something that comes from nothing. This obviously implies that matter and energy can be created. How is it that many acclaimed scientists believe in something that gives rise to so many contradictions, yet is readily overlooked?

Question: How did the big bang create space-time?

I'm with Vern; What do I know also?

 

[Chronos]

Something from nothing? Whatever made you think the universe is something? It is a quantum collection of somethings whose total is ...nothing. A favorite quote of mine on this subject:

"The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time)

 

[russ_watters]

Guys, you are wrong about the BBT because you don't even understand what it says, much less what that means. Before you can prove it wrong, you have to learn what it is.

 

[Arsonade]

Guys, you are wrong about the BBT because you don't even understand what it says, much less what that means. Before you can prove it wrong, you have to learn what it is.

that is a good point inst it lol, and as for Chronos, r u saying that we do not actually have matter and therefore do not exist?

Adam

 

[The_Thinker]

That's really a cool exerpt chronos... where did u ge it from? And russ know nywhere where we can get info BBT?

 

[Chronos]

Stephen Hawking. The point is the universe is full of things that add up to zero. This is entirely consistent with quantum theory. It also agrees with GR. If you guys want more detail on that, I will give you links to papers by people who know far more that I do. I barely grasp the basics. Most true scientists agree the universe is a mystery.

To clarify for Arsonade, the principles we have discovered do not violate the apparent laws governing reality. The laws of thermodynamics do not forbid our existence. They only insist upon a balancing force.

 

[Antonio Lao]

If gravity is a force, then anti-gravity is the anti-force. If gravity has a positive direction with respect to a coordinate system then the anti-gravity has a negative direction. But gravity is a central force and also a conservative force which does not depend on the path. This seems to imply that gravity is the anti-force of itself.

This is due to the fact that all coordinate systems must be used when formulating a complete physical theory. But because of underlying symmetries, we were used to ignore all but the right-handed system of coordinates. When all frames of reference are used, it is necessary to attribute the properties of directional invariance. These properties can only make sense at the local infinitesimal region of spacetime.

 

[Arsonade]

so there's an antiarsonade somewhere out there? lol I am jus kiddi, so that meens that for every photon of light there is a--- and for every watt of electriciy there is a --- or am i misunderstanding?

Adam

 

[Antonio Lao]

so there's an antiarsonade somewhere out there?

You mean antimatter not antiforce? As far as photon goes, it's its own antiparticle. So is the same thing with the theoretical graviton except that graviton can interact with itself but the photon cannot interact with itself. Though it can interact with other photons.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Another thing, general relativity does not predict the existence of antimatter or the existence of electric charge for that matter. Although Einstein did try to unify gravity and electromagnetism, he never succeeded.

 

[juju]

Hi all,

What the big bang created (if it actually occured) was not energy or space/time but the energy and space/time structure of our present universe.

juju

 

[Arsonade]

ok but from what I am getting now, we just exlpained that the universe = 0 but that brings me to think that if we could create energy it should be possible to create matter? my logic is that if all "matter" or watever has a certain energy and that energy has to balace out somewhere in the universe, so whayt would happen if we could create energy? the balace might be unbaleced, maybe more matter would have to be created in the process? sound stupid now that i look at it cause i have a stong fealing I am not getting the whole picture

Adam

 

[Chronos]

As a spin 2 particle, in theory, the graviton has no anti-particle equivalent.

 

[Antonio Lao]

but i need to know if anyone has any ideas on how to break einsteins theory that matter cannot be created or destroyed. is there any way to create matter from nothing?

If we hypothesize that there are transformations among the three fundamental states of existence. The states are matter, energy, and space (continuous and quantized). The equation that transforms energy and matter is

$$E=mc^2$$.

the equation that transforms energy and continuous space is

$$S=cE$$

So that continuous space is defined as the product of speed of light in vacuum and energy. If we can multiply the LHS by time and the RHS by mass, the result is Einstein's field equations of general relativity. To transform Einstein's field equations into quantized space, we can mutliply both sides by the speed of light in vacuum.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The process of converting continuous space to Einstein's field equations noted previously needs a factor of time rate of change of matter on the LHS.

Furthermore, we made the assumption that the product of continuous space and time is equivalent to the spacetime interval of special relativity. And when this interval is multiply by time rate of change of matter, it is equivalent to the curvature of spacetime as stated on the LHS of Einstein's field equations.

 

[Antonio Lao]

the force of gravity is very weak at low energy and global scale but it becomes very strong at high energy and local infinitesimal scale. At the singularity of the Big Bang, gravity is infinitely strong.

 

[h8ter]

Hahaha, as if Einstein knew what he was doing. BBT is crap. It violates the first law of thermodynamics. I read that the BBT had created everything. And by everything, I mean EVERYTHING. I wish I still had that link. But I see some fallacies, now that I think about what I had previously read. How can everything come from nothing? That seems a bit risky. If the BBT happened everywhere at once, where did it come from? It was said to spawn space and time as well as energy, yet it was an entity of its own? Some things should remain untouched or thrown away. I feel that BBT is one of those things.

What do I know?? :rofl:

All of you believers in Einstein, keep yourself conceited with this lies!

 

[russ_watters]

What do I know?? :rofl:

Well, with the wrong information above, you show you don't know much of anything about the BBT and with the attitude below, you show you probably won't ever learn what the BBT really says.

 

[h8ter]

Haha, so who is to say anyone is wrong?? We do not know the truth about physics. Everything is theoretical and will remain theoretical! No one is wrong in the world of physics. They just devaite from the proposed ideas and are considered wrong when compared to the "right" ideas. russ_watters, whatever man. Thanks for the encouragement.

 

[quantumdude]

h8ter: Knock it off immediately.

Haha, so who is to say anyone is wrong??

We can say which theories are wrong when they become falsified by contradictory evidence.

We do not know the truth about physics.

That's true, but it doesn't mean we can't say which theories are wrong, and why they are wrong.

Everything is theoretical and will remain theoretical!

No, there is an experimental side, too. That's what provides the "checks and balances" for the theoretical side, and vice versa.

No one is wrong in the world of physics.

Incorrect. As I said above, while it is true that theories cannot be proven, it is also true that they can be falsified.

They just devaite from the proposed ideas and are considered wrong when compared to the "right" ideas.

Incorrect. Theories are considered wrong not when they are compared with other theories, but when they are compared with contradictory experimental data.

 

[h8ter]

Ahhh, hey, Tom Mattson! Long time no talk, eh?

We can say which theories are wrong when they become falsified by contradictory evidence.

Hehe, you make me giggle! Ok, the Standard can NOT say that new theories are falsified through contradictory evidence. Where did you get that from? 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.

No, there is an experimental side, too. That's what provides the "checks and balances" for the theoretical side, and vice versa.

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. As I said above, while it is true that theories cannot be proven, it is also true that they can be falsified.

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.

Incorrect. Theories are considered wrong not when they are compared with other theories, but when they are compared with contradictory experimental data.

Wrong. Experimental data is not what makes a theory concrete. You can not compare experimental data either, because it relies on the theory itself. Which is just like comparing theories. So, yea. :tongue2:

 

[Deeviant]

h8ter, are you sure your parents gave you permission to be on the interenet?

 

[quantumdude]

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. :tongue2:

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.