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

Origin of Matter and the Universe

  1. Feb 9, 2004 #1
    1st The LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MATTER "Matter can neither be created or destroyed merely changed in form."

    So if matter exists now, which it does, it has to have existed then to exist now.
    Yet matter was not always in this state of being, it was matter but it didn't contain any mass because there was no time and space around it.

    Secondly matter was 'compacted' into one single entity thorough means of gravity and eventually the force of all matter in "The Universe" with nothing to hold itself collapsed within itself pushing matter side ways. (An example is the Central Bulge of the Universe where the main explosion occurred and the other parts of the universe were pushed aside).

    Galaxies were formed with stars.
    Stars from interstellar matter which eventually are able to create All of the elements including Iron and below which includes Oxygen, Carbon, Helium, and uses Hydrogen, which means the basics of life are met by there being Water, which all life forms need to survive, Oxygen which all life forms discovered by man need in order to survive, and Carbon which is what Life is made from. Also the mineral diets are met by these elements to keep life healthy. Gravity which allowed the masses of Lava in space to cool in a spherical shape allowing the solid planets to harden and receive amounts of Water, Oxygen, and Carbon.

    And in closing thinking about this could a universe be created if it were a scale model of this universe? All the elements are present and resources. (Think about using it as an alternative energy source).

    Please post your replies and opinions on the subject.
    By Sir Simant of the Ant mound, AKA, Simulated Ant Man.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 9, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The law of conservation of matter is no longer held to be true in all cases. Matter (mass) can be interchanged with energy, as in the atomic bomb. Matter is now thought to be composed of particles, some of which acquire mass through a particle interaction (Higgs mechanism).
  4. Mar 7, 2004 #3
    I had in the past posted at :
    one generalised form of UNIVERSAL EQUATION OF DIMENSIONS relating to the VARIABLES.This is application of the Calculus of Variation;
    Here is that universal equation I derived to calculate dimensions.
    D = V -1
    Where D stands for the number of dimensions,V stands for number of Variables involved,and minus one.So the number of dimensions would be number of Variables minus one,according to Dr.Syed Ameen's derivation.
    Now any event or Phenomenon of Nature in the Universe ,would obey or follow this law to figure out the number of dimensions involved.
  5. Mar 8, 2004 #4
    This post has been improved. Please reread it.

    Start with nothing, and there is an infinite amount of nothing. How did we get to something? The idea of nothing presupposes the idea of something since the concept no-thing is divided into two parts, no and thing. You have to have “thing” in order to have no thing. So we have thing. The most basic thing is a point. This is how the universe started, a point surrounded by nothing. We like to think the point doesn't really exist in physical form, it only exists to satisfy the alternate concept of nothing, which is really two things: no and thing. Since we now have automatically created the concept of thing, and of two, there can be two points.

    There is one qualification under the mathematical definition of a point: two different points can’t occupy the same space. If two points occupy the same space, they are the same point. So there must be a distance between one point and the other, which is what string theory says: a point is really a small distance. A single point can be visualized like a ball bearing, a bb. If you take two bb’s and put them together, there is a distance between their centers. They can't occupy the same space. The distance is really all around each point, creating a small sphere. If you draw a manifold around the two points, the two small spheres, you have a short fat tube, like a pill you would swallow. This small fat tube fits our mathematical description of a string. Strings are said to be small fat tubes. If you move the two bb’s farther apart, the tube becomes longer and this manifold has encroached a little bit more on the idea of nothing.

    This description of a string brings in one of the original ideas about string theory: it is a description of the strong force. If two points are separating into nothing (which does not contain the concept of space) then, the farther apart they get, the longer they make the fat tube. The more they encroach on the concept of nothing. Two points, which must be separate and must have some distance between them are separating into nothing. Think of a balloon, which is the manifold, and two tennis balls inside the balloon are trying to separate. The farther apart they get, the harder it is to separate. This is how the strong force works. It is two points separating into nothing.

    You can start with the concept of nothing, and with two points that must have some distance all around them, and a force that resists their expansion into what does not exist: and create the entire universe that we've got.
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2004
  6. Mar 12, 2004 #5
    your question was execellent

    I would like to offer my suggestion to the solution to your execellent questions and replies.

    I've asked my question and answer, which may also applicable to your debate.

    All the “matter” in the Univ. came from,

    “ The 1st LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MATTER "Matter can neither be created or destroyed merely changed in form."

    Merely changed in form, from a photon to electron and vice-versa, which is seen in the Young’s Double Split Experiment forwards and backwards.

    Matter – “Matter” is made from only six quarks, for the majority of stable matter only two flavoured quarks, electrons and photons are required.

    Would you be surprised at what percentage of known “Matter” in the universe, is made up form only three or four component ingredients.

    All “Matter” was “'compacted' into one single entity thorough means of gravity”, - similar to a bomb, imploding - A lot of “Matter”, to have all in one small space – The Big Bang in reverse.

    Especially if the Higgs Mechanism was true. Confirmation of the mediator for the Top Quark, will soon be within our reach, if it has not already been found.

    According to all five Superstring theories, at the time of the Big Bang existed a 10 or 11 Dimensional Universe.

    Applying Dr.Syed Ameen's derivation, D=V-1, D Dimensions and V Variables (ingredients).

    Stable 10 Dimensional Universe Unstable 10 Dimensional Universe
    10 Dimensional Cloud !0 Dimensional Cloud
    2 Quarks (Up and Down) 6 Quarks and spices
    1 electron 1 electron
    4 Space and time 4 Space and Time
    2 Photons 2 photons
    15 Billion years of natural selection

    Out of a cloud we have made a cake.

    If we reverse the process, within the 10 dimensional cloud and add photons as space and time form, generating electrons acting as a catalyst to form rain droplets within the cloud, forming a chain reaction.

    If photons can change into electrons, open end loop Superstring?

    Can a single dimension not change, into a closed ended loop, curl up into a Quark?

    Is a Quark a not simply a curled up dimension?

    Are quarks not the missing dimensions already specified in all Superstring theories?

    Here a question to the Superstring theorists and mathematicians.

    Is a proton the sum of 3 individual quarks or the sum of three quarks?

    Alternatively, is a proton one large superstring or the sum of three individual super-strings?

    Which more accurately, describes the half-life of a proton?

    All the “Matter” in the universe, is made up form only three or four component ingredients. The same number of component ingredients required, to form, a Hydrogen cloud and so on.
  7. Mar 13, 2004 #6
    You brought up the idea of things forming out of clouds, and you brought up quarks, which was exactly the next direction I would go in. But I don’t think physics can be described in artistic dreamy terms. It is very straight-forward.

    A proton is made of three quarks. A string is made of two points surrounded by a manifold. They are two points separating into nothing, and since there is no space in nothing they want to snap back together with the strong force. Just think of strings as very small powerful rubber bands. Tie a lot of these strings together and you have space. Imagine space made of little rubber bands. A photon is one rubber band vibrating. Send one photon, then another and then another through this space by vibrating one string, then the string beside it, then the string beside it. In this space of tightly stretched rubber bands you can send light waves but if you send one photon it will also vibrate the whole space. The waves will go through the double slits and make a pattern, even if you only send one photon at a time, because it must disturb the whole space if space is made of tightly-stretched rubber band-like strings.

    In this cloud of tightly-stretched rubber band-like strings, observe the arrangement of the little rubber bands. They are tetrahedrons. Tetrahedrons have lines going in six directions. When packed together, the faces of the tetrahedrons form planes, and the lines join up to form long straight lines. Twelve lines connected in a plane as triangles can be arranged to make an orange-slice shape.

    So we can cut an orange slice shape out of space itself. (Space is made of tightly stretched strings.) Here is the really, really interesting part. Three of that exact shape makes a hollow sphere, and three quarks make a proton. Twelve strings form a quark, which has an orange slice shape, the shape of one-third an orange. Three quarks could come together to form a hollow sphere. If electrons travel by vibrating one string then the next, electrons can travel along the strings over the surface of that hollow sphere. The surface of the sphere is made of “rubber bands”. The bands vibrate, which are electrons traveling over the surface; and the sphere will inflate forming a molecule. What we call energy shells in atoms are really inflated protons. Electrons travel over their surface by vibrating the strings that make up the surface of the hollow proton.

    Twelve little lines constructed like an elongated hexagon can easily become an orange slice shape that makes one-third of a hollow sphere. It would be a sphere whose surface is made of the same strings that make space.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2004
  8. Mar 13, 2004 #7
    if you start with nothing but a physical and thermal vacuum, you really do not have nothing there...virtual particles flit in and out of existence, creating a positive energy pressure in this vacuum.

    in such a case, when a VP is created, its anti particle is also created, if enough of them happen in one space at one time, collisions occure and the creation of real matter can come out of that.
  9. Mar 14, 2004 #8
    Yes, changing pressure in the vacuum, that is very important. That is the mechanism. In order to change the pressure, a point must have size, and there has to be a virtual "tube" between two points. The longer you make that tube, the more space you take up in the vacuum. The closer two points are together (if the points actually have size) the more they fill up the vacuum. You can think of space being created by actual particles that have size, which make up mathematical points. A photon, which is one of those point particles, is literally sucked from one to another, of course at a consistent speed. It is not hurtling though free space. Space is created by a matrix of particles that have mass and size which represent points in space, but these points have distance between them. So much distance that it appears to be empty space. I think the distance between points in space is about .01 mm. I think you can measure the matrix that makes up space by measuring snowflakes, because I think snowflakes are formed on that matrix.
  10. Mar 14, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    There has to be enough energy concentrated to provide the "real" mass-energy of the two particles. The play of virtual particles can't do that by itself. In classical physics that can't happen in a pure vacuum, the ZPE can't concentrate itself. But in quantum mechanics there is a very low probability that it could happen spontaneously. So you might have to wait a very long time, but eventually there would be real particles.
  11. Mar 14, 2004 #10
    selfAdjoint, what do you mean by pure vacuum?
  12. Mar 14, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    By pure vacuum I just meant an extended vacuum, one on a cosmic scale, without any observable matter to provide outside energy to it. Something that might be prior to a big bang.
  13. Mar 14, 2004 #12
    You can't get anything from nothing, but a pure vacuum is something. The thing we see as being the ultimate form of things is the idea that gravity pulls matter together. Gravity is an expression of that idea. It's not the real mecahnism. The real mechanism happens when two points try to separate into a pure vacuum. Then they are pulled back together.

    You can't say there is actually nothing, because a vacuum is something. And a point has to exist. It cannot not exist. The big leap of creation comes when you separate one point into two points. And you can read that in the Koran, which was written by a profit of God to men 600 years after Jesus. In other words its information is more detailed and exact. God was trying to explain to us how things worked in the Bible, but the Bible failed, so he tried again by writing the Koran. In the Koran one of the things he said was that Satan and God, together with the original hosts of the universe broke up the matter to create the universe. That was the most key point to creation. They described it in the Koran like they were taking pick axes and breaking up the singularity of matter from which the universe was made. The vacuum is definitely something. It is the nothing the surrounds one point. The key is to make two points instead of one point. With two points, they have to be separate. Then, you have the force that comes from separating two points into the vacuum. This is the idea that gravity expresses; the idea that matter is attracted back to itself. But the real force that attracts matter together is at the at the quantum level, and it's the strong force, not gravity. Gravity and electricty are residual effects of the idea that all matter is pushed back together because it can't separate into nothing.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2004
  14. Apr 6, 2004 #13
    John... if I'm not mistaken, you keep saying that thing and no-thing are three things.

    The thing... and then no-thing broken down into no and thing.

    Isn't it... the thing and the no-thing? The no-thing being one single "thing"... a way to say nothing in a more accurate way?
  15. Apr 7, 2004 #14
    By nature of mass/energy, the dual nature, is interacting is it not? What we see in the vacuum, is the energy nature at play, yet we also know, that matter distinction can exist, amidst this play?

    How else shall we define this movement? Less energy?
  16. Apr 7, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    An interesting book to read is The Matter Myth by Paul Davies and John Gribben. This sells the point of view of modern quantum physics and the standard model that "mass" is only a particle interaction and it has no deeper existence than that. Higgs mechanism, you know. Another thought area to absorb, I guess.
  17. Apr 8, 2004 #16
    Sounds like an interesting read. I've had thoughts similar to this in that perhaps matter is analgous to some of the consciousness theories the AI folks are discussing. If a system becomes complex enough consciousness just happens. Perhaps Buddha was right matter = consciousness.
  18. Apr 8, 2004 #17
    Maybe, it's just a entanglement issue?:)
  19. Apr 12, 2004 #18
    That's interesting. Can you provide a hyperlink to the verses in the Koran about this? Could this be interpreted as taking the pick axe and punching holes in empty space (nothing)? Thanks.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook