Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Laws clearly state matter couldn`t be destroyed

  1. Aug 6, 2006 #1
    I know laws clearly state matter couldn`t 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.
    thanks and excuse my stupid question but please answer it
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 6, 2006 #2
    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?
     
  4. Aug 6, 2006 #3
    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.
     
  5. Aug 7, 2006 #4

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  6. Aug 7, 2006 #5
    LURCH, thats basically what I was asking. So no matter whatsoever is produced or still there or anything right?
     
  7. Aug 7, 2006 #6
    Right... take for instance the decay of the neutral pion. Its primary decay mode is into two photons (approx. 98%). See the PDG listing.

    This doesn't take massive amounts of energy to happen- just the amount of energy it takes to create the pion.
     
  8. Aug 7, 2006 #7

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  9. Aug 8, 2006 #8
    Alright, thanks alot yall, thats what I wanted to know.
     
  10. Aug 8, 2006 #9
    I asked this question elsewhere and was told a neutrino was made in annihilation and was told a neutrino is matter.
     
  11. Aug 8, 2006 #10

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    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
  12. Aug 8, 2006 #11

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

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

    Zz.
     
  13. Aug 8, 2006 #12
    My friend told me this and said it was made in normal antimatter-matter annihilation. Is he correct?
     
  14. Aug 8, 2006 #13

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  15. Aug 8, 2006 #14
    Oh, sorry yall. I misunderstood him. He says neutrino is whats left over.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2006
  16. Aug 8, 2006 #15

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  17. Aug 8, 2006 #16
    Alright I see what youre talking about.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2006
  18. Aug 8, 2006 #17

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  19. Aug 8, 2006 #18
    Alright I see what youre talking about.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2006
  20. Aug 8, 2006 #19

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I give up.

    Zz.
     
  21. Aug 8, 2006 #20
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Laws clearly state matter couldn`t be destroyed
Loading...