# Laws clearly state matter couldnt be destroyed

1. Aug 6, 2006

### fedorfan

I know laws clearly state matter couldnt be destroyed but I believe if you got a big enough explosion with enough heat then it could happen. I just wanna know if it could happen and if it couldn`t, is there a way to turn matter into complete energy(no other matter produced or anything whatsoever)? Im a newb and dont know a whole lot so go easy on me please.

2. Aug 6, 2006

### Plastic Photon

Laws also state that matter cannot be created. Why do you believe a big enough explosion will destroy matter? More specifically, what is big enough?

3. Aug 6, 2006

### pete5383

The law you're referring to states energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only transfer forms. And since matter is essentially energy (right?), it holds for matter.

4. Aug 7, 2006

### LURCH

Right. The matter can be "destroyed" in the sense that it ceases to exist as matter. It becomes EM and/or some other form(s) of energy.

5. Aug 7, 2006

### fedorfan

LURCH, thats basically what I was asking. So no matter whatsoever is produced or still there or anything right?

6. Aug 7, 2006

### Norman

Right... take for instance the decay of the neutral pion. Its primary decay mode is into two photons (approx. 98%). See the http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s009.pdf" [Broken] listing.

This doesn't take massive amounts of energy to happen- just the amount of energy it takes to create the pion.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
7. Aug 7, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

Chemical explosions release the chemical energy stored in the bonds of molecules, and the energy is manifest in the gaseous products. For a given mass, the gas occupies a much greater volume than the solid or liquid phase.

In nuclear fusion or fission, the nuclear binding energy is also transformed into energy. There is a loss of mass, and the is an equivalence between the mass loss and the energy (kinetic) released.

In addition to the neutral pion decay, we have annihilation of the electron and positron, in which the two particles (matter) annihilate each other producing two photons (gamma rays), which are not matter.

8. Aug 8, 2006

### fedorfan

Alright, thanks alot yall, thats what I wanted to know.

9. Aug 8, 2006

### fedorfan

I asked this question elsewhere and was told a neutrino was made in annihilation and was told a neutrino is matter.

10. Aug 8, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

The neutrino is a very small neutral particle. Neutrinos, of which there are a few kinds, are considered to have rest mass, but no one has isolated any. Neutrinos interact so little with matter that they can pass through millions or billions of miles of matter without significant interaction. However, they are occasionally detected by virtue of certain nuclear interactions.

Here is a nice overview of neutrinos - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/neutrino.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/neutrino2.html

NEUTRINO DETECTION EXPERIMENTS
http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/anexp.html

Particles in general
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/parcon.html

Neutrinos arise from decay of neutrons (e.g. beta decay) and in the decay of pions and muons. See - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/lepton.html

Last edited: Aug 8, 2006
11. Aug 8, 2006

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Who told you this, and under what circumstances was the neutrino produced?

Zz.

12. Aug 8, 2006

### fedorfan

My friend told me this and said it was made in normal antimatter-matter annihilation. Is he correct?

13. Aug 8, 2006

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Ask your friend how he/she intends to explain the non-conservation of, let's say, spin, when electron-positron collide and anhilate to produce a neutrino.

Zz.

14. Aug 8, 2006

### fedorfan

Oh, sorry yall. I misunderstood him. He says neutrino is whats left over.

Last edited: Aug 8, 2006
15. Aug 8, 2006

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
That still doesn't make any sense, or make it better. What does it mean as having "neutrino is what's left over"? Doesn't this mean that a neutrino is produced AFTER the collision? That still violates the conservation of spin, leftover or not.

Zz.

16. Aug 8, 2006

### fedorfan

Alright I see what youre talking about.

Last edited: Aug 8, 2006
17. Aug 8, 2006

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
You're going to pull your hair over this, but this isn't correct either! Notice what I asked you the first time you said this:

I specifically asked under what circumstances would such a thing produce a neutrino. This is because while a typical electron-positron anhilation would not produce one, an electron-positron high energy collision could, along with other particles. This is what you get at the old LEP collider at CERN. When you produce a lot of "crap" during the collision, then a number of things can occur that can produce neutrinos and still preserve these conservation laws.

What cannot happen is electron-positron anhilation that produces JUST a neutrino.

Zz.

18. Aug 8, 2006

### fedorfan

Alright I see what youre talking about.

Last edited: Aug 8, 2006
19. Aug 8, 2006

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
I give up.

Zz.

20. Aug 8, 2006

### fedorfan

Sorry, we posted at the same time. I see what youre saying now. Youre saying that a neutrino can be produced in a high speed collision and nothing but photons is produced in normal annihilation right? If youre not, then I give up too.