Is it possible to completly destroy somthing?

[alan2here]

I think in a black hole once some matter has got past a cirtain point it cannot go back because even if all the matter was converted to energy then it would not have enough energy to get back out. Also, a short while after it hits the black hole it will all be converted to energy as electromagnetic waves.

[dstebbins]

our sun, where the largest such conversion can be observed, emits large quantities of energy, loses no mass from this process and the changed matter is absorbed by the cooler crust or thrown out into space as dust or matter. like wise the earths largest supplier of energy, this sun, adds no new mass and all effects of this energy are in the a process to change some elements already on earth.

actually, the Sun DOES loose mass, in a process called nuclear fusion. In fact, a small amount of mass creates large quantities of energy when destroyed, according to Einstein's e=mc^2, where e is energy produced, m is mass, and c is the constant speed of light in a vacuum. The units, which are kg*(m/s)^2, simplifies into kgm^2/s^2, or Joules. That means that a single mole of hydrogen, when fused together, creates 9.00 x 10^13 J, which is enough energy to power all of New York City for a year.

 

True, that only a small amount of hydrogen is destroyed in the Sun relevant to what is staying, but it does happen.

[jackson33]

actually, the Sun DOES loose mass, in a process called nuclear fusion. In fact, a small amount of mass creates large quantities of energy when destroyed, according to Einstein's e=mc^2, where e is energy produced, m is mass, and c is the constant speed of light in a vacuum. The units, which are kg*(m/s)^2, simplifies into kgm^2/s^2, or Joules. That means that a single mole of hydrogen, when fused together, creates 9.00 x 10^13 J, which is enough energy to power all of New York City for a year.

 

True, that only a small amount of hydrogen is destroyed in the Sun relevant to what is staying, but it does happen.

 

as said, the way i read it; the sun does lose mass in a few ways, but the energy emitted or that which we recieve are said to have no mass, at least as understood. in my mind energy has an unknown mass value, however this is argued intensly and well beyond my knowledge.

 

the thread however deals with mass and the total destructioin of matter. if energy does carry or destroy mass entirely, then you would be suggesting that w/o a source, matter will in time disappear. with the trillion upon trillions of solar units, then the universal matter will be gone at some point. another point indirectly could be mass in some amount is being transfered. interesting but, just not the way i read it....

[dstebbins]

as said, the way i read it; the sun does lose mass in a few ways, but the energy emitted or that which we recieve are said to have no mass, at least as understood. in my mind energy has an unknown mass value, however this is argued intensly and well beyond my knowledge.

 

the thread however deals with mass and the total destructioin of matter. if energy does carry or destroy mass entirely, then you would be suggesting that w/o a source, matter will in time disappear. with the trillion upon trillions of solar units, then the universal matter will be gone at some point. another point indirectly could be mass in some amount is being transfered. interesting but, just not the way i read it....

 

Yes, if all the matter in the universe were in stars, then it would eventually change into energy, leaving the universe matterless.

 

And btw, there is another way to destroy matter without even turning it into energy. What I'm talking about is crossing its path with antimatter. A negatron (a particle with the mass of a proton but with a negative charge) and a positron (mass of an electron with a positive charge) together make an atom of antihydrogen. If you cross hydrogen with antihydrogen, the matter and antimatter cancel out, leaving you with nothing. It's very difficult to observe this, since antimatter is in such small quantities, but theoretical physics suggests that it is possible.

[Spyman]

And btw, there is another way to destroy matter without even turning it into energy. What I'm talking about is crossing its path with antimatter. A negatron (a particle with the mass of a proton but with a negative charge) and a positron (mass of an electron with a positive charge) together make an atom of antihydrogen. If you cross hydrogen with antihydrogen, the matter and antimatter cancel out, leaving you with nothing. It's very difficult to observe this, since antimatter is in such small quantities, but theoretical physics suggests that it is possible.

Normal matter and antimatter both have positive mass, so by the rules of energy conservation I would not recommend to cross hydrogen with antihydrogen.

That means that a single mole of hydrogen, when fused together, creates 9.00 x 10^13 J, which is enough energy to power all of New York City for a year.

Quite a powerful boom when the two moles annihilate each other...

 

Annihilation is defined as "total destruction" or "complete obliteration" of an object having its root in the Latin nihil (nothing). A literal translation is "to make into nothing".

 

In physics, the word is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle. Since energy and momentum must be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles. Antiparticles have exactly opposite additive quantum numbers from particles, so the sums of all quantum numbers of the original pair are zero. Hence, any set of particles may be produced whose total quantum numbers are also zero as long as conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are obeyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

 

In antimatter-matter collisions resulting in photon emission, the entire rest mass of the particles is converted to kinetic energy. The energy per unit mass is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than chemical energy, and about 2 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear energy that can be liberated today using nuclear fission or fusion. The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the equation E=mc²). This is about 134 times as much energy as is obtained by nuclear fusion of the same mass of hydrogen (fusion of 1H to 4He produces about 7 MeV per nucleon, or 1.3×1015 J for 2 kg of hydrogen). This amount of energy would be released by burning 5.6 billion litres (1.5 billion US gallons) of gasoline (the combustion of one liter of gasoline in oxygen produces 3.2×107 J), or by detonating 43 million tonnes of TNT (at 4.2×106 J/kg).

 

Not all of that energy can be utilized by any realistic technology, because as much as 50% of energy produced in reactions between nucleons and antinucleons is carried away by neutrinos, so, for all intents and purposes, it can be considered lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

 

In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system changes as the system evolves. Any particular conservation law is a mathematical identity to certain symmetry of a physical system. A partial listing of conservation laws that are said to be exact laws, or more precisely have never been shown to be violated:

 

* Conservation of energy

* Conservation of linear momentum

* Conservation of angular momentum

* Conservation of electric charge

* Conservation of color charge

* Conservation of probability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law