Jump to content

Creating matter


Recommended Posts

What do you mean by "via the creation process"?

 

You know. There's stuff lying around and someone sees flour, sugar, water and suddenly . . . . cakes! Never happened before. Hence unique. A one-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

New cells use existing atoms and molecules.

 

I echo Sayo's query.

 

Creation as in procreation, new life, babies, new-born animals, seeds growing to fully formed plants etc. Do they all use existing atoms and molecules? If so, please forgive my lack of knowledge in this area. :embarass:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, right. That old chestnut.

 

It rather depends on your view of the digestive and synthesis processes in the case of animals, since protein that goes in to the body (for example) is generally used to make proteins, and so on.

 

One could make the argument that a plant is essentially an energy->matter converter, but that would mean its water requirement, and the need for carbon (which is taken from the air, in gaseous form), both have to be ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you subscribe to the existance of an aether (sub-sub-subatomic particles and probably smaller) instead of the more commonly accepted "vacuum of space", the creation of matter can take place in areas of extreme aether density when aether particles bond to form new entities such as sub-atomic particles. I think there is no logical reason to believe that the smallest particles that humans have been able to detect must be anywhere near the smallest particles that exist. When you create a vacuum you remove all or most of the matter from a given volume of space. What remains is aether. If it were nothing, the container would collapse. Space cannot be occupied by nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mostly_sane

Sorry for getting off-topic. But I was wondering if one of you could recommend a good book on modern physics or quantum mechanics. I only took a measly high school physics class in a small town and would like to learn more. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was actually the original explanation of FTL in Star Trek. They fire gravitons out the front of the ship' date=' so that space is warped and 'shrunk', then pass over the shrunk space and let it expand behind. The idea was that since one is passing over less space, one can effectively travel faster than c.

 

They forgot that the gravitons can't travel faster than c though, so you can't warp the space fast enough to allow FTL travel. (in princple though, you could use it to make a ship faster (<c), although it would be very inefficient.)[/quote'] I would hate to argue with a higher inteligence but if the graviton shrank space then the next graviton would travel through the space shrank by the first and so on. This means the gravitons would do FTL using the same method as the ship doesn't it. Or am I havng another blond moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance also but if we were to create matter from energy would we not have to start with the smallest? How many parts make up a sub-atomic particle, and so on and so on? what is the smallest sized particle known to science? If we are not sure, then how do we know if we haven't already done it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hate to argue with a higher inteligence but if the graviton shrank space then the next graviton would travel through the space shrank by the first and so on. This means the gravitons would do FTL using the same method as the ship doesn't it. Or am I havng another blond moment.

 

Think of it this way: you can't travel faster than the first graviton you send out (otherwise you would pass it) and since that is restricted to speeds < c then you can't travel faster than light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More energy is bound (somewhat) in the atom. The rest mass of the atom has increased.(?)

 

Does this not represent an increase in matter? Or am I getting the definition wrong? (I suspect I may be))

 

What definition are you using? I don't think anyone actually mentioned a definition in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What definition are you using? I don't think anyone actually mentioned a definition in this thread.

 

I was using, "energy of rest mass" as constituting matter, but I now suspect this is incorrect. An excitation of an atom would add to it's rest mass, would it not? Any thoughts?

 

On the same subject would the heat energy of a body add to it's rest mass? I would say yes (even though it does not add to the rest mass of the constituent atoms) but I would not think of this as matter so I am obviously unsure of where the line is drawn.

 

I think (now) matter is supposed to have some degree of "permanence" under normal conditions, so this may be too broad a definition that I was using. (even though matter created in some accelerator experiments is far from "somewhat permanent under normal conditions").

 

I would like to know where the lines are drawn (and more interestingly "why")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was using' date=' "energy of rest mass" as constituting matter, but I now suspect this is incorrect. An excitation of an atom would add to it's rest mass, would it not? Any thoughts?

 

On the same subject would the heat energy of a body add to it's rest mass? I would say yes (even though it does not add to the rest mass of the constituent atoms) but I would not think of this as matter so I am obviously unsure of where the line is drawn.

 

I think (now) matter is supposed to have some degree of "permanence" under normal conditions, so this may be too broad a definition that I was using. (even though matter created in some accelerator experiments is far from "somewhat permanent under normal conditions").

 

I would like to know where the lines are drawn (and more interestingly "why")[/quote']

 

The point about not adding to the constituents' rest mass is why I would argue that you haven't created any matter. To make an energy argument, you would also have to say that a particle in motion constitutes more matter than a particle at rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point about not adding to the constituents' rest mass is why I would argue that you haven't created any matter. To make an energy argument, you would also have to say that a particle in motion constitutes more matter than a particle at rest.

 

But doesn't exciting an atom add rest mass to the atom, though (I think, not sure- I see it as kinetic?) not the electron?

 

By this definition (which I now suspect is wrong but was my original thought) I would have created additional matter.

 

Using the broadest possible definition if you had a big hollow sphere in outer space, filled with rubber balls bouncing around would their kinetic energy add to the "rest mass" of the big hollow sphere/system? I think it would be equivalent (add to it's inertia etc.) would it not? Obviously a stretch to call "that" additional matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But doesn't exciting an atom add rest mass to the atom' date=' though (I think, not sure- I see it as kinetic?) not the electron?

 

By this definition (which I now suspect is wrong but was my original thought) I would have created additional matter.

 

Using the broadest possible definition if you had a big hollow sphere in outer space, filled with rubber balls bouncing around would their kinetic energy add to the "rest mass" of the big hollow sphere/system? I think it would be equivalent (add to it's inertia etc.) would it not? Obviously a stretch to call "that" additional matter.[/quote']

 

You are adding mass in these scenarios, but not rest mass. AFAIK rest mass of an atom assumes ground state. Excitaton at some level includes KE of particles, and as the bouncing rubber balls show, that's becoming absurd by the time you reach macroscopic systems.

 

Mass is a property of matter, but is not a synonym for matter. Matter is something that has mass and takes up space. Severian gave a more technical definition here.

 

Whether mass represents how much matter you have, I think is more to do with semantics. Is it energy or is it number of particles? One needs to define the problem more clearly, and declare which metric one is to use to measure it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are adding mass in these scenarios' date=' but not rest mass. AFAIK rest mass of an atom assumes ground state. Excitaton at some level includes KE of particles, and as the bouncing rubber balls show, that's becoming absurd by the time you reach macroscopic systems.

 

Mass is a property of matter, but is not a synonym for matter. Matter is something that has mass and takes up space. Severian gave a more technical definition here.

 

Whether mass represents how much matter you have, I think is more to do with semantics. Is it energy or is it number of particles? One needs to define the problem more clearly, and declare which metric one is to use to measure it.

 

Thank-you. I was surprised that Sevarians particle physics description of matter excluded the gluon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rat-tat! May I come in?

I sit in the room next-door “Quantum numbers – from sky to brain“ alone, and I think of the same problems.

J.C.MacSwell wrote (02.02.2005 page ):

“If a photon is absorbed by an atom bumping up an electron isn't that an increase of matter (and therefore creation/transformation of energy into matter).”

In my opinion, he is right. But I would like to introduce some clarity.

For example, if to throw a ball onto a wall, from the wall the same ball will jump aside.

But if the photon will fall to a reflecting surface, it never will jump aside this surface.

At first this photon will be swallowed up by substance, then in substance there will be some transformations of the absorbed energy and only then from substance will fly out, so-called, «the reflected photon». Actually it is absolutely other photon. First, because the rotation of polarization in it will be opposite.

I want to pay your attention to the fact of 180-degree turn of rotation of polarization. As photons have no rest mass, they cannot act on substance the same as flying particles-balls. But in fact, the tails of comets deviate under action of solar light. So, it is necessary to search for replacement for rest mass in any other observable physical phenomenon, for example, in turning of an axis of rotation of energy.

One more incontestable fact of that rotating energy shows the properties similar to inert mass, shows behaviour of an axis of a gyroscope at attempt to change its direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rat-tat! May I come in?

I sit in the room next-door “Quantum numbers – from sky to brain“ alone' date=' and I think of the same problems.

J.C.MacSwell wrote (02.02.2005 page ):

“If a photon is absorbed by an atom bumping up an electron isn't that an increase of matter (and therefore creation/transformation of energy into matter).”

In my opinion, he is right. But I would like to introduce some clarity.

For example, if to throw a ball onto a wall, from the wall the same ball will jump aside.

But if the photon will fall to a reflecting surface, it never will jump aside this surface.

At first this photon will be swallowed up by substance, then in substance there will be some transformations of the absorbed energy and only then from substance will fly out, so-called, «the reflected photon». Actually it is absolutely other photon. First, because the rotation of polarization in it will be opposite.

I want to pay your attention to the fact of 180-degree turn of rotation of polarization. As photons have no rest mass, they cannot act on substance the same as flying particles-balls. But in fact, the tails of comets deviate under action of solar light. So, it is necessary to search for replacement for rest mass in any other observable physical phenomenon, for example, in turning of an axis of rotation of energy.

One more incontestable fact of that rotating energy shows the properties similar to inert mass, shows behaviour of an axis of a gyroscope at attempt to change its direction.[/quote']

 

 

Picture a model of a spinning spring sent toward the wall. As it hits it digs in in a balanced way (say at two points about the central axis of spin) so that the spin cannot create a translational force vector other than to reverse its spin direction while imparting an equal and opposite spin to the wall at that point (locally). There will then remain the translational momentum/energy which will reflect in the usual way.

 

Just an analogy of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As yet I have not heard, how to transform energy into a matter, therefore I want to offer own model. Model without mechanical spins.

Mine avatar represents polytronic model of hydrogen atom. It is a good trap for photons.

I hope, you know also about other ring models. As well as I, authors of these models assume, that energy goes inside rings with speed of light, not meeting resistance.

I think, it is possible to prove it by the example of superconductivity.

At cooling of superconductors occur three processes simultaneously:

1) the increasing of own frequency of polytrons, i.e. increasing of the main quantum number;

2) the drawing together of atoms;

3) the changing of angles between axes of polytrons.

At temperature of superconductivity in a crystal the uniform network of polytrons is formed, in which the energy can move not meeting resistance.

It is enough "to push" it in the necessary direction and then movement of energy will last vaguely long time.

 

There is a distinction of principle between a wave, which is radiated by an electric contour, and a photon, which is radiated by an excited atom.

Frequency of an EM-wave is equal to resonant frequency of an electric contour whereas frequency of a photon is function of two resonant frequencies of atom.

I had made attempt to express frequency of a photon with the help of a cycle time of light energy in a ring and with the help by Rydberg’s constant. In result, I have received the formula, which I cannot understand till now.

See the paragraph "Conclusion" in:

http://vlamir.nsk.ru/pt_e5.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.