Matter can neither be created or destroyed

[daave220]

Okay, I'm no scientist, so when you respond do your best to do so in common English. I'm a Christian (not the average one when it comes to science) therefore believe in creationism. However evolution is something you cannot deny. Humans are taller/strong and so forth. I also believe in the big bang, but say it was caused by (what many of you may say) a big made up dude in the sky.
With that background...
I was having a facebook discussion and I do not understand how can there be no matter then an occurrence happens and matter is created?

 

[Bloodthunder]

Humans are taller and stronger not because of evolution, but because of better food and nutrients. Evolution is genetic.

The conservation of mass also only applies to classical cases. Otherwise, mass can be destroyed, in the sense where it changes to energy. E=mc^2 and all that. That's how we get nuclear energy.

 

[KingNothing]

I was having a facebook discussion and I do not understand how can there be no matter then an occurrence happens and matter is created?

You aren't misunderstanding anything. There is still no explanation for how that 'big bang' mass came to exist, just as there is no explanation for how God came to exist. I don't intend to offend you in any way and hope you do not take it as such.

 

[Bloodthunder]

Besides, science doesn't know if there was no mass before big bang. All we know is the extremely small speck that exists at the beginning of time from calculations and observations.

 

[Matterwave]

Conservation of mass is a classical result that people observing chemical reactions formulated. Basically they noticed that in chemical reactions, the mass tended to stay constant. This is actually not true, since even in chemical reactions the mass will change as energy is released or absorbed. But the amount of mass that gets converted to energy is so minute that no one really noticed it. Einstein's E=mc^2 pretty much got rid of that idea.

 

[Drakkith]

First, let's clear up a few misconceptions/bad grammar.

ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.

MATTER can be, and is all the time being destroyed and created. We do it every day in particle colliders. For example, two protons collide in the LHC and a plethora of particles (matter) are created.

Mass is a property of energy and matter and is a little more difficult to talk about. My understanding is that mass cannot be destroyed as all energy has some type of mass.

I was having a facebook discussion and I do not understand how can there be no matter then an occurrence happens and matter is created?

Here is a short version of what we think happened: The "Big Bang" happened, resulting in an expansion of the entire universe very quickly in an event called Inflation. The universe, at all points in time, had ALL of the energy that it currently does. No more, no less. As the universe expanded it cooled down enough to where particles could start forming. Quarks and electrons formed, followed by protons and neutrons later on. Eventually it cooled enough for protons, neutrons, and electrons to form into Atoms, resulting in the formation of about 75% hydrogen and 25% Helium, which is where most of the current matter in the universe comes from. After a while gravity caused some of this matter to collapse and form stars, galaxies, nebulas, planets, ETC. That process still continues to this day.

While it is not very useful to discuss what was there BEFORE the big bang, one could argue that something was always there. Whether it was a previous universe that collapsed for some reason, or whatever.

 

[Entropee]

Yeah there is really no point in discussing any events before the big bang (other than the fact that it is nice to have more people interested in science topics). It's good to be curious but as to what really happened, that's a different kind of physics; the kind with a "meta" in front of it.

 

[pallidin]

By default, matter and energy were most certainly created.

 

[Bloodthunder]

By default, matter and energy were most certainly created.

From a philosophical point of view, this sentence is not true. We can only say that energy exists. Whether it came into existence at some point in time, or was created (came into existence =/= created) is not known.

 

[ASD16]

this question is not unanswerable in the domain of science...because anything that has happened before the big bang that is before the creation of spacetime is irrelevant to physics and astronomy...there cannot be any valid answer to such questions...these are rather the topics of philosophy according to me...people can have different answers and different point of views on such things...neither they are correct nor wrong...

 

[mrspeedybob]

God, by definition, is a supernatural being. If such a being exists he is not constrained by the laws of physics. If God wants to violate the law of conservation of energy and create a big bang he can do so.

If a computer programmer wrote a physics simulation program he could begin the simulation any way he wanted, without constraint. He could also create a means of altering the parameters of the simulation in progress. Either of these actions would violate the laws of physics as observed by any macromolecular entities within the simulation which might refer to themselves as "intelligent life".

If there is a God I believe he would be the programmer.

 

[AtomicJoe]

God, by definition, is a supernatural being. If such a being exists he is not constrained by the laws of physics. If God wants to violate the law of conservation of energy and create a big bang he can do so.

If a computer programmer wrote a physics simulation program he could begin the simulation any way he wanted, without constraint. He could also create a means of altering the parameters of the simulation in progress. Either of these actions would violate the laws of physics as observed by any macromolecular entities within the simulation which might refer to themselves as "intelligent life".

If there is a God I believe he would be the programmer.

Well am a programmer.

Seems to me the universe requires a supernatural event to create it.

 

[AtomicJoe]

this question is not unanswerable in the domain of science...because anything that has happened before the big bang that is before the creation of spacetime is irrelevant to physics and astronomy...there cannot be any valid answer to such questions...these are rather the topics of philosophy according to me...people can have different answers and different point of views on such things...neither they are correct nor wrong...

Well you should say science cannot answer it rather than the question is unanswerable.

I mean there are lots of questions I cannot answer but that does not mean they are unanswerable!

Actually you say basically the same as me so let's forget it!

 

[khemist]

There is theory that quantum fluctuations actually started the "creation" of the universe, though I have no evidence to back this up, and could be outdated now (it was mentioned some time ago).

Matter is condensed energy, mass is essentially the inertia of that given amount of matter, or the ability to resist motion. Energy, in its pure form (e.g. photons), does not have a mass (if this is not true, please correct).

 

[PhanthomJay]

The initial matter in the Universe did not come from nothing. It came from Energy. So another question you might want to ask is "Where did the Energy come from?". And it is postulated that one answer might be that it came from another Universe. Which begs the question, "Where did that Universe come from?". Which begs the question, "Where did the other Universes come from?" . And so on, to Infinity. With this line of reasoning, one could come to the inevitable conclusion that the Universe, be it one or many, came from Energy, which came from Nothing. And in consideration by some that the total amount of Energy in the Universe(s) is 0 (that's 0, as in Nothing), this is not so far fetched as it might seem.

According to Hawking, M-Theory, with its brane Universes, is the only theory that can lead to a Theory of Everything (TOE). But nonetheless, it is not an essential requirement that there be multiverses. Bottom line is that Physicists/Cosmologists just don't know yet, and perhaps never will, but it will never stop the curious mind from trying to get the answer.

 

[cragar]

Why do we have to say that it came from somewhere?

 

[ASD16]

Well you should say science cannot answer it rather than the question is unanswerable.

I mean there are lots of questions I cannot answer but that does not mean they are unanswerable!

Actually you say basically the same as me so let's forget it!

u shud read the full sentence...i said unanswerable in the domain of science...so it by defalut means that science cannot answer it...ok...

 

[AtomicJoe]

u shud read the full sentence...i said unanswerable in the domain of science...so it by defalut means that science cannot answer it...ok...

Yes I acknowledged that in my last line, so perhaps you should read the full post!

 

[pallidin]

Right. Though it is currently unanswerable, by no means should it be left-out of responsible discussion(with respect to what "responsible" might mean in this context)

 

[Drakkith]

Right. Though it is currently unanswerable, by no means should it be left-out of responsible discussion(with respect to what "responsible" might mean in this context)

I take that to mean as long as people stick to current known science then it is ok to discuss possibilities?

 

[pallidin]

I take that to mean as long as people stick to current known science then it is ok to discuss possibilities?

I would agree 100%

 

[Zara Thompson]

Yes, The M-Theory, String Theory, Multiverse, The Theory of Everything, these theories have the potential to answer the question of "where did we come from?" Just sit back and watch Discovery or National Geographic, there is a lot of more to go in this path. We barely took one step and our destination is more than a light year away and we are on foot. So, its going to take a long long long...really..really long time to answer the question.

 

[mquirce]

why can't see the post in opposite? Let suppose that mater is primary and that mass particles and massles particles are creation of this notion. Let suppose that mass particle is a result of interaction of a particle of mater : me = ((G)^05 M^2 ) / re.
Here me electron mass, M mater particle equal e / (G)^0.5 = Mplanck * (alpha)^-0.5, re Compton radius for electron.
About energy ... Gamma photon = (-e /-(G)^0.5 + +e / +(G)^0.5)
And particle of mater is so small dimensioned ( Lplanck * (alpha^-0.5) that is imposible to observed.Let suppose that particle of mater is allways moving with C velocity even in mass particles but here in circular spherical traectories.
I am not physicist, is only a idea.

 

[Drakkith]

why can't see the post in opposite? Let suppose that mater is primary and that mass particles and massles particles are creation of this notion. Let suppose that mass particle is a result of interaction of a particle of mater : me = ((G)^05 M^2 ) / re.
Here me electron mass, M mater particle equal e / (G)^0.5 = Mplanck * (alpha)^-0.5, re Compton radius for electron.
About energy ... Gamma photon = (-e /-(G)^0.5 + +e / +(G)^0.5)
And particle of mater is so small dimensioned ( Lplanck * (alpha^-0.5) that is imposible to observed.Let suppose that particle of mater is allways moving with C velocity even in mass particles but here in circular spherical traectories.
I am not physicist, is only a idea.

Why would we look at this in an opposite way? It has been shown that anything with mass CANNOT reach c. Then you'd have to have something to cause your supposed particles moving at c to move in a spereical motion. Also, 60 years of particle collider experiments have shown that there are no subparticles of something like an electron, so your particle shouldn't be made up of other smaller particles like you suggest.

 

[DrBloke]

You can ask why and why again, but eventually you have to say "that's just the way it is." You can ask why the big bang happened. It may be the answer is there is no reason for it, that's just the way it is. You might believe that God caused it, but most people who believe in God, if pressed to explain why God exists, would say that there is no reason, he just is. Maybe there's an infinite regress of cause and effect, but then why is there? Is that just the way it is? There's no avoiding it, eventually you reach a point where there is an initial event with no cause and no reason. So far, no one has shown me any evidence that something came before the big bang. Until they do I'll consider the big bang to be the beginning, possibly erroneously but that makes more sense than inventing one more cause that itself has no cause.

 

[Drakkith]

There's no avoiding it, eventually you reach a point where there is an initial event with no cause and no reason. So far, no one has shown me any evidence that something came before the big bang. Until they do I'll consider the big bang to be the beginning, possibly erroneously but that makes more sense than inventing one more cause that itself has no cause.

Believe what you want. There is no evidence either way of something either existing or not existing before the big bang.

 

[DrBloke]

Believe what you want. There is no evidence either way of something either existing or not existing before the big bang.

I completely agree and I hope I'm open minded to new evidence coming my way. I'd be very excited if someone did come along with evidence of something happening before the big bang. Until they do though I've got nothing to believe in that precedes the big bang.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I completely agree and I hope I'm open minded to new evidence coming my way. I'd be very excited if someone did come along with evidence of something happening before the big bang. Until they do though I've got nothing to believe in that precedes the big bang.

It becomes quite illogical to refer to events "before the big bang". As far as we understand time started at the big bang, cause and effect apply within time (as to notions of before/after). In my opinion a huge barrier to understanding the existence of the universe is it may not be possible for us to think in these required terms.

 

[DrBloke]

It becomes quite illogical to refer to events "before the big bang". As far as we understand time started at the big bang, cause and effect apply within time (as to notions of before/after).

Indeed, physics says (now, though it hasn't always) that there was a beginning. I think even philosophically a beginning is a necessity: If the universe has been around forever and time is linear, then it would take an infinite amount of time to reach this point, which is not possible, "now" would never happen; we would be waiting forever for "now" to come along.

So there must have been a beginning and it must be a beginning without a cause. Except maybe if time is cyclic and time goes round and round in circles repeating itself, though even then asking how many cycles have there been, gets you into philosophical trouble.

 

[ZapperZ]

This thread has run its course and meandering into seriously off-topic and speculative regions, which is against the PF Rules. Somehow, a misunderstanding on one conservation law somehow degenerated into the beginning of the universe.

This is neglecting the fact that the OP had never returned after posting the question. This thread is done.

Zz.