Is It true that matter cannot be created or destroyed?

  • Thread starter PokemonPhysics
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Matter
In summary: The energy released is equal to the mass of the two particles divided by c^2. So in this reaction, the mass of the released particles is exactly the same as the mass of the particles that were added together. However, there are other reactions that don't use the energy in the nuclear bonds. Simply put, the mass of two particles that are bound together is less than the mass of each particle added together. The difference in mass is equal to the energy released divided by c^2 when they bind together. Since the energy released in most reactions is very small, you don't normally notice the loss of mass.
  • #1
PokemonPhysics
1
0
Hey! I have been wondering that is it true that matter can not be created or destroyed. I feel like it is a great question or that the idea is wrong because of couple of reasons...
  1. How do trees for from trees? Don't they just create more matter
  2. How can something change shape without destroying the matter to become a smaller object or create matter to turn into a bigger thing such as a tree?
I know that some of the thing do accept that idea but not these or do they just do?

I am not really sure
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In those kinds of examples, matter is not created or destroyed. If you totally enclosed those items in a sealed container, you would find that the matter went to some other form inside the container. Matter CAN change its appearance and characteristics, but it is still there. It can be included in something with less density but more volume. A solid can be turned onto a gas. Other things like that can happen. But the small atomic components are all still there, somewhere.
 
  • #3
PokemonPhysics said:
I have been wondering that is it true that matter can not be created or destroyed.
Matter is both created and destroyed on a routine basis in nuclear reactors and particle accelerators.

PokemonPhysics said:
How do trees for from trees? Don't they just create more matter
The bulk of tree material is carbon which was taken from the atmosphere and fixated into the plant material. So it is not created, just collected and solidified.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4
Trees also collect water and various micronutrients from the ground. The tree builds hydrocarbon compounds out of CO2 and H2O, releasing O2 back into the air.
 
  • #5
PokemonPhysics said:
Hey! I have been wondering that is it true that matter can not be created or destroyed. I feel like it is a great question or that the idea is wrong because of couple of reasons...
  1. How do trees for from trees? Don't they just create more matter
  2. How can something change shape without destroying the matter to become a smaller object or create matter to turn into a bigger thing such as a tree?
I know that some of the thing do accept that idea but not these or do they just do?

I am not really sure
In your case, your are not isolating the system. The tree gets more material to grow from nutrients in the soil, water, and sunlight (vitamin d), which you should have learned in school. It is producing new matter from old matter. No extra matter or less matter.

However it is important to discuss what @Dale said. You can actually create and destroy matter from energy. This is where the famous equation ##E = mc^2## comes in and why nuclear reactors produce so much energy. Matter can be used to turn into energy.

So nuclear reactors do routinely destroy matter and extract energy from it, but in the situation you are discussing, matter is not destroyed or created.
 
  • #6
lekh2003 said:
However it is important to discuss what @Dale said. You can actually create and destroy matter from energy. This is where the famous equation ##E = mc^2## comes in and why nuclear reactors produce so much energy. Matter can be used to turn into energy.

So nuclear reactors do routinely destroy matter and extract energy from it, but in the situation you are discussing, matter is not destroyed or created.
I read long ago that the energy from nuclear bombs was from the mass represented by the energy of the bonds, not from the destruction of matter. Is there a clear distinction between "matter" and "mass" due to energy? Is the line between them vague or well defined? As an interested amateur, I have the impression that each type of reaction can be a different mixture of the two.
 
  • Like
Likes lekh2003
  • #7
The confusion comes from the fact that the energy in chemical bonds is minuscule compared to the mass energy equivalent of the atoms, so the mass of the bonds can be ignored. Even with nuclear reactions, the mass equivalent of the bond is a fraction of a percent.

Simply put, the mass of two particles that are bound together is less than the mass of each particle added together. The difference in mass is equal to the energy released divided by c^2 when they bind together. Since the energy released in most reactions is very small, you don't normally notice the loss of mass.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #8
FactChecker said:
I read long ago that the energy from nuclear bombs was from the mass represented by the energy of the bonds, not from the destruction of matter. Is there a clear distinction between "matter" and "mass" due to energy? Is the line between them vague or well defined? As an interested amateur, I have the impression that each type of reaction can be a different mixture of the two.

The "typical" fission reaction that occurs in nuclear weapons splits nuclei apart, but all of the protons, neutrons, and electrons that existed prior to the fission event still exist afterwards, and no fundamental particles are created or destroyed. The energy comes solely from the breaking of the bonds. This release of energy means that the products have less mass than the reactants (nucleus + incoming neutron).
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #9
It may be misleading to speak of energy being present in bonds and being released by the breaking of those bonds. The energy that is present in bonds is negative. Breaking those bonds absorbs energy. The energy released in a chemical reaction such as oxidation is due to the creation of bonds.

In the case of nuclear fission, the protons in the nucleus are subject to electromagnetic repulsion -- the Coulomb force. The bonds from the strong force hold this repulsive force in check. Breaking the strong force bonds takes energy. But more energy is released from the electromagnetic repulsion than is required to break the bonds.

In the case of nuclear fusion, the situation is reversed. It takes energy to defeat the electromagnetic repulsion. But even more energy is released due to the formation of the strong force bonds.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and FactChecker
  • #10
FactChecker said:
I read long ago that the energy from nuclear bombs was from the mass represented by the energy of the bonds, not from the destruction of matter.
This is true, but if you prefer a more clear-cut conversion of a particle to radiant energy, matter-antimatter interactions do that.
Is there a clear distinction between "matter" and "mass" due to energy?
No.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker and Bystander
  • #11
jbriggs444 said:
It may be misleading to speak of energy being present in bonds and being released by the breaking of those bonds. The energy that is present in bonds is negative. Breaking those bonds absorbs energy. The energy released in a chemical reaction such as oxidation is due to the creation of bonds.

In the case of nuclear fission, the protons in the nucleus are subject to electromagnetic repulsion -- the Coulomb force. The bonds from the strong force hold this repulsive force in check. Breaking the strong force bonds takes energy. But more energy is released from the electromagnetic repulsion than is required to break the bonds.

In the case of nuclear fusion, the situation is reversed. It takes energy to defeat the electromagnetic repulsion. But even more energy is released due to the formation of the strong force bonds.
Aha! Thanks. I think that clears up some other things that were puzzling me.
 
  • #12
Dale said:
Matter is both created and destroyed on a routine basis in nuclear reactors and particle accelerators.

If particles in a accelerator can destroy matter, as you clearly state. Why cannot matter be destroyed by a BH ?

Other staff members have stated "The LHC does not "destroy" particles"
 
  • #13
Outhouse said:
Other staff members have stated "The LHC does not "destroy" particles"
Point to an example and you'll get a more focused clarification...
 
  • #14
Matter and energy cannot be destroyed only converted in form... closest you can come is a matter / antimatter annihilation, which CONVERTS the matter and anti-matter's mass into energy.

On the matter creation aspect, has the LHC had much luck at converting energy into matter? (need both aspects to work efficiently for my replicator)

(E)nergy = (M)ass times the speed of light (C) squared...
 
  • #15
Outhouse said:
Why cannot matter be destroyed by a BH ?
Do you have a reference for this? I do not think it is correct.
 
  • #16
Ravensong said:
Matter and energy cannot be destroyed
Matter certainly can be destroyed. You are perhaps saying matter when you mean mass.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and russ_watters
  • #17
Ravensong said:
Matter and energy cannot be destroyed only converted in form... closest you can come is a matter / antimatter annihilation, which CONVERTS the matter and anti-matter's mass into energy.

The products of annihilation depend on the annihilating particles and their speeds. An electron and a positron approaching each other at low speeds annihilation to produce two gamma ray photons whose total energy is equal to the sum of the rest masses of the particles plus their kinetic energy. Increasing the speed increases the energy of the resulting photons.

A proton and an anti-proton will annihilation to produce both EM radiation (photons) and matter particles. The annihilation could produce a number of electrons, positrons, photons, and many other types particles. There are many possible combinations of products.

In any case, matter can indeed be destroyed or created.

Ravensong said:
On the matter creation aspect, has the LHC had much luck at converting energy into matter?

Absolutely. Each collision produces an enormous number of matter particles. Most of these are unstable, however, and quickly decay into less massive, stable particles.

Ravensong said:
(need both aspects to work efficiently for my replicator)

You won't get any useful matter out of the LHC. The overwhelming majority of particles created are those with small masses like electrons, neutrinos, or pions, along with massless photons.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #18
  • #19
Outhouse said:
Light (not) escaping from black holes
"The LHC does not "destroy" particles"
The LHC fails to destroy particles in the sense that there is something there both before and after the interaction.

A black hole singularity is different in the sense that there is no "after" for a geodesic which is incomplete where it approaches the singularity.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis
  • #20
Dale said:
Do you have a reference for this? I do not think it is correct.

were dealing with the information paradox

Starting in the mid-1970s, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein put forward theoretical arguments based on general relativity and quantum field theory that not only appeared to be inconsistent with information conservation but were not accounting for the information loss and state no reason for it. Specifically, Hawking's calculations[4] indicated that black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation does not preserve information. Today, many physicists believe that the holographic principle (specifically the AdS/CFT duality) demonstrates that Hawking's conclusion was incorrect, and that information is in fact preserved.[5] In 2004 Hawking himself conceded a bet he had made, agreeing that black hole evaporation does in fact preserve information.
 
  • #21
jbriggs444 said:
The LHC fails to destroy particles in the sense that there is something there both before and after the interaction.

A black hole singularity is different in the sense that there is no "after" for a geodesic which is incomplete where it approaches the singularity.

Context was that the LHC destroyed the protons, and I was told by staff The LHC does not "destroy" particles" I disagreed and stated the protons were destroyed.

In me and your context, particles collided after a month of speed increasing close to that of light, does in fact destroy the particles, and we observe the decay.
 
  • #22
Outhouse said:
were dealing with the information paradox ... black hole evaporation does in fact preserve information.
Information ##\ne## matter
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #23
Outhouse said:
Context was that the LHC destroyed the protons, and I was told by staff The LHC does not "destroy" particles" I disagreed and stated the protons were destroyed.

It doesn't destroy particles the way a black hole would destroy them (in the case where information is lost). It does destroy them in the sense that where you had two protons before the collision, you don't have those two protons after the collision.
 
  • Like
Likes Outhouse and Dale
  • #24
Dale said:
Information ##\ne## matter

let's try another angle

So the only way to really "destroy" or "convert" ordinary matter is to pair it with the same amount of antimatter so that their "matterness" cancels out—but in practice there is almost no antimatter generally available in the universe (see baryon asymmetry and leptogenesis) with which to do so
 
  • #25
Outhouse said:
lets try another angle

So the only way to really "destroy" or "convert" ordinary matter is to pair it with the same amount of antimatter so that their "matterness" cancels out—but in practice there is almost no antimatter generally available in the universe (see baryon asymmetry and leptogenesis) with which to do so

Er..no, this is not the ONLY way. We teach in intro general physics courses about binding energy and "missing mass". This is the most common phenomenon of mass-energy conversion.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and Dale
  • #26
Outhouse said:
lets try another angle

So the only way to really "destroy" or "convert" ordinary matter is to pair it with the same amount of antimatter so that their "matterness" cancels out—but in practice there is almost no antimatter generally available in the universe (see baryon asymmetry and leptogenesis) with which to do so

As I explained a few posts back, the annihilation of heavy particles like protons creates a number of different particles, not just photons (what most people think of as 'pure energy'). But this process is not unique to matter-antimatter annihilations. Proton-proton collisions in the LHC result in the destruction of protons and the creation of large numbers of other particles too, as does any high-energy collision.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #27
Outhouse said:
but in practice there is almost no antimatter generally available in the universe
So what? That doesn’t change the fact that matter can indeed be destroyed.
 
  • #28
Whether matter can be destroyed depends on what you mean by "matter" and what you mean by "destroyed". This whole thread looks to me like people talking past each other because they're using those words with different meanings.

If a proton and an antiproton collide in the LHC and turn into gamma rays (and other stuff that's not protons or antiprotons), has "matter" been "destroyed"? Energy is conserved; so are electric charge, baryon number, lepton number, etc. What exactly got "destroyed"?

More importantly, who cares? What matters is what specific interactions took place and how the experimental data about those interactions matches the theoretical predictions that are being tested.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba, jbriggs444, russ_watters and 1 other person
  • #29
Outhouse said:
In 2004 Hawking himself conceded a bet he had made, agreeing that black hole evaporation does in fact preserve information.

His bet was theoretical, not experimental. Nobody has any experimental data on black hole evaporation.

In any case, @jbriggs444 is correct that this is a very different scenario from particle collisions in the LHC; there is no useful comparison between them. So talking about BHs is really off topic for this thread.
 
  • #30
PeterDonis said:
Whether matter can be destroyed depends on what you mean by "matter" and what you mean by "destroyed".
By “matter” I mean the fermions of the Standard Model and by destroyed I mean that the Feynman diagrams for the interaction has the fermion entering but not leaving.
 
  • #31
Dale said:
By “matter” I mean the fermions of the Standard Model and by destroyed I mean that the Feynman diagrams for the interaction has the fermion entering but not leaving.

This is a good precise definition, yes.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #32
PeterDonis said:
This is a good precise definition, yes.
Thanks! I also recognize that there are other possible definitions
 
  • #33
Dale said:
By “matter” I mean the fermions of the Standard Model and by destroyed I mean that the Feynman diagrams for the interaction has the fermion entering but not leaving.

A fine definition. But note that conservation of angular momentum prevents the sort of processes you are describing.
 
  • #34
Vanadium 50 said:
conservation of angular momentum prevents the sort of processes you are describing.

?? A QED diagram with two entering fermion lines (electron and positron) and two exiting photon lines is perfectly consistent; it just has to have two vertices (at lowest order).
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #35
You're right. I was thinking about something else entirely: N fermions in, N-1 fermions out.
 
<h2>1. Is it true that matter cannot be created or destroyed?</h2><p>Yes, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass, matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another.</p><h2>2. What evidence supports the idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed?</h2><p>The Law of Conservation of Mass has been supported by numerous experiments and observations, such as chemical reactions, nuclear reactions, and the study of the universe.</p><h2>3. Can matter be created or destroyed on a microscopic level?</h2><p>No, even on a microscopic level, matter cannot be created or destroyed. The atoms and particles that make up matter can only be rearranged or combined in different ways, but the total amount of matter remains constant.</p><h2>4. How does the Law of Conservation of Mass relate to energy?</h2><p>The Law of Conservation of Mass is often combined with the Law of Conservation of Energy to form the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. This states that the total amount of matter and energy in a closed system remains constant.</p><h2>5. Are there any exceptions to the Law of Conservation of Mass?</h2><p>There are a few rare exceptions to the Law of Conservation of Mass, such as in nuclear reactions where a small amount of mass can be converted into energy. However, these exceptions still follow the principle that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it is simply transformed into a different form.</p>

1. Is it true that matter cannot be created or destroyed?

Yes, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass, matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

2. What evidence supports the idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed?

The Law of Conservation of Mass has been supported by numerous experiments and observations, such as chemical reactions, nuclear reactions, and the study of the universe.

3. Can matter be created or destroyed on a microscopic level?

No, even on a microscopic level, matter cannot be created or destroyed. The atoms and particles that make up matter can only be rearranged or combined in different ways, but the total amount of matter remains constant.

4. How does the Law of Conservation of Mass relate to energy?

The Law of Conservation of Mass is often combined with the Law of Conservation of Energy to form the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. This states that the total amount of matter and energy in a closed system remains constant.

5. Are there any exceptions to the Law of Conservation of Mass?

There are a few rare exceptions to the Law of Conservation of Mass, such as in nuclear reactions where a small amount of mass can be converted into energy. However, these exceptions still follow the principle that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it is simply transformed into a different form.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
108
Views
17K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top