- Joined
- 26 Feb 14
- Moves
- 1339
Originally posted by SuzianneDaily mail Science link American scientists to create matter from light(photons)you smash them together and hey presto a sub atomic particle is created.I didn't mean the god bit obviously because if he made us and we create matter its really him working his mystical ways through us.
Could you maybe provide a link to exactly what you're "on" about?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 May 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemEnergy can neither be created or destroyed.
They keep saying 'created' but matter can't be created nor destroyed. Maybe 'transformed' is a better word choice?
Matter is simply one form of energy, and very much can be created and destroyed.
- Joined
- 26 Feb 14
- Moves
- 1339
19 May 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemyou might be right its 30 years since I studied physics but I do remember the steady state theory that being there will at some point be a time when the universe becomes entropic ie no reaction between molecules etc. not sure photons have a mass they probably do maybe you could educate us.🙂
They keep saying 'created' but matter can't be created nor destroyed. Maybe 'transformed' is a better word choice?
19 May 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeInteresting. I seem to remember 'matter cannot be created or destroyed' from thermodynamics but that's been changed to energy now (or the source I learned it from never had it right in the first place 😛)
Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Matter is simply one form of energy, and very much can be created and destroyed.
- Joined
- 26 Feb 14
- Moves
- 1339
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemTungusta they reckon was anti-matter wiping out matter in effect destroying each other.
Interesting. I seem to remember 'matter cannot be created or destroyed' from thermodynamics but that's been changed to energy now (or the source I learned it from never had it right in the first place 😛)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 May 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemAs far as chemistry is concerned, matter is never created or destroyed, only
Interesting. I seem to remember 'matter cannot be created or destroyed' from thermodynamics but that's been changed to energy now (or the source I learned it from never had it right in the first place 😛)
it's form is changed.
In physics however, matter is a form of energy [E=MC^2] and matter can be
converted into energy and energy into matter.
This happens all the time in particle accelerators.
And all the matter in the universe was created from the energy of the big bang.
Most of that matter destroyed itself in matter/anti-matter annihilations within a
fraction of a second after the big bang, leaving the light which eventually became
the background radiation from the big bang that we still detect today.
19 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneI posted the article it came from but in science. Look there. It seems a scientist named Wheeler and some of his buddies predicted light could become matter when two beams interact but at very high energy. That was in 1934.
Could you maybe provide a link to exactly what you're "on" about?
ATT they thought that was all just theoretical and all but now 80 years later they are pretty sure they have an experimental handle on the process using today's lab equipment with no new generation of technology involved.
It still has not been done but the theory guys worked out a process that they think will end up generating an electron and it's associated anti particle, the positron but like I said it has not been done as of today.
In a year maybe.
BTW, about Tunguska, it was not an impact. It was more like the one that went over Russia recently that had atomic bomb level power.
But Tunguska was a huge bruiser, with 10 or 20 MEGAtons of power, it didn't hit the Earth, it didn't HAVE to, just the passage through the atmosphere was enough to cause havoc. It would have KILLED an entire city if one had happened to have been there when it exploded. It was in totally desolate ground so not much was destroyed and I think only one or two fatalities.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by redbaronsThe Tunguska event featured a megaton TNT range atmospheric detonation
think your wrong but wont argue its pointless
which had considerable vertical and lateral momentum.
To reproduce the blast patten seen you need a considerable mass travelling at
a large velocity impacting at a particular angle. [Appx 45 deg]
Simply detonating an equivalent sized nuclear warhead at that altitude would not
achieve the effects actually seen.
An anti-matter [AM] explosion of that magnitude would require only a few grams of AM
and couldn't have the momentum needed to cause the effects seen.
This coupled with the extreme unlikelihood of an antimatter lump of even a few
grams existing in a galaxy full of matter, let alone hitting the Earth...
It was a comet/asteroid.
19 May 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'll second that. Anti-matter comes in at about 1 part in 10 billion. Not too likely for any of it to get together in one lump by itself.
The Tunguska event featured a megaton TNT range atmospheric detonation
which had considerable vertical and lateral momentum.
To reproduce the blast patten seen you need a considerable mass travelling at
a large velocity impacting at a particular angle. [Appx 45 deg]
Simply detonating an equivalent sized nuclear warhead at that altitude would no ...[text shortened]... existing in a galaxy full of matter, let alone hitting the Earth...
It was a comet/asteroid.
It is present as a dilute, VERY dilute, gas.
The fact it is so dilute means the atoms of whatever anti stuff it is can hardly EVER get close enough to clump.