Is it possible to destroy matter?

[CypherToorima]

White holes are purely theoritical. It's just scientists balancing equasions (Spelling is really bad right now...)

[suicidalmuskrat]

that's why i said in theory

[Tank101]

Okay I'm caught between Jam and Guido, I understand that through annialation(spelling?) you have matter before the process, and the matter is gone after the process, but you said energy takes its place, I think the main question now is whether or not energy is something that takes up space, and I do beleive it is, (but I can't seem to prove it with an example). If energy does take up space, then the energy would be the equivalant density of the matter thought to be destroyed thus proving E=mc^2.

I hope that made sense.

[Jam930]

You're not caugh between me and guido.

You're caught between Einstine and Newton.

Einstine said energy and matter are interchangable.

Newton, I think, believed otherwise.



To Suicidal: I don't think there are white holes. Black holes aren't really holes, and they aren't really black, It's just dense matter too small to see.

Remember the properties of light... In order to "be" white, it would have to recieve all the wave lengths of the visible spectrum.
Like how a prism can split a white beam of light into a rainbow.

[GuidoHunter]

The rift between Jam and me is apparently in our definitions of destruction. For all purposes of physics and practicality, matter is destroyed in an annihilation reaction; I have no idea why thinking otherwise would be useful. There is matter, then there isn't matter. I like to call that destruction.

Jam, however thinks otherwise, and basically says an iron rod and a bunch of energy are the same things. I realize that certain areas of physics need to talk about matter and energy interchangeably, but I don't think that annihilating matter is the same as burning a log.

Newton had no concept of what Einstein came up with, so it's not like there was a debate and they chose opposite sides. It's like saying Aristotle disagreed with Copernicus.

Also, Jam, you see colors from emissions by objects. A white hole, by definition, emits everything, white light included. It wouldn't have to absorb any energy from outside sources to emit light. Regardless, there's no evidence of them, and I don't believe they exist either.

Suicidal, on that Law "exception" you're quite off. Matter is still conserved.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Jam930]

Grrrrrrr.

So when water freezes and takes the form of ice... you say.


"Theres water... then there isn't water... Tadaaa!"

I understand your argument, no offense, but I don't think it's necessary to be ignorant of the fact that the matter only changed form.

[Dronak]

Q

For all purposes of physics and practicality, matter is destroyed in an annihilation reaction

Sorry to be so blunt, but that is absolutely incorrect. Matter is definitely *not* destroyed "for all purposes of physics" in matter/antimatter annihilation. If you believe that, then I don't think you really understand physics. The matter has changed form, the mass of the particles gets turned into energy. E=mc^2, mass and energy are equivalent. The annihilation turns particles of matter and anti-matter into some amount of energy. You don't get nothing from something so it's not destroyed. Only in a common sense type definition can you say that matter is destroyed -- now you see particles, now you don't, they must have been destroyed. And that's how you're thinking. But if you're discussing a phenomenon in physics you have to use the proper physics terms and definitions, not your common sense ones. If there's one thing we've learned in physics over the centuries, it's that when you really get down to it, common sense is wrong and does not properly explain how things work.

Jam930 is right. She's using the proper physics terms and definitions, as am I. If you stick to your common sense definitions, you're not going to understand what's really happening. And that's why it's useful not to think that way. Besides the fact that it's wrong, of course.

[GuidoHunter]

Y'all are trying to say conversions from matter to matter and conversions from matter to energy are the same things, and that laws that apply to one apply to the other. That's simply not true. In an annihilation, matter is destroyed. Energy is given off for some sort of universal balancing effect, but the matter is gone, destroyed.

You CAN NOT liken matter to matter conversions to matter to energy conversions. You just can't, and that's why the ice to water argument isn't even relevant here. Different rules apply to them, ergo contextual definitions may apply differently to them, too.

The reason I said "For all purposes of physics and practicality..." was because nobody cares about the release of energy. When physicists discuss annihilative reactions, they understand that they are just that: annihilative, as in, what was there originally is destroyed after the reaction. Yes, matter is destroyed according to the common sense definition of destruction, hence the "and practicality" in my statement.

You're using proper physics terms and I'm not? That's just laughable.

As I read up on this subject, this debate may take a turn for the philosophical...

Grrrrrrr.

Jam, I share your sentiment. In a loving, yet frustrated, way, of course.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[brutisgrr]

WTF? white holes? did I miss something? Let's keep it to destroying only please. So it keeps the noise to a dull roar.

But as far as I've seen, we have not seen any true examples of anti-matter because
a) It would more than likely be invisible to the naked eye.
b) we'd all be royally screwed if one did come up.
c) it only exists in theory so far anyway

[GuidoHunter]

But as far as I've seen, we have not seen any true examples of anti-matter because
a) It would more than likely be invisible to the naked eye.
b) we'd all be royally screwed if one did come up.
c) it only exists in theory so far anyway

No, we can create it in laboratories.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[TheAppleEater]

But as far as I've seen, we have not seen any true examples of anti-matter because
a) It would more than likely be invisible to the naked eye.
b) we'd all be royally screwed if one did come up.
c) it only exists in theory so far anyway

No, we can create it in laboratories.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I thought anit-matter only existed in theory, but I don't know much about physics so I'm going to let someone else comment on that.

[suicidalmuskrat]

seriously, read about white holes...i'll put some good links up soon...it extremely fascinating

[DDRISONLY4COOLPPLZ]

example.




Water -> Ice.

Was the water destroyed? no.

What if instead you had the ice melt into water and it evaporated ?

[talisman]

Alright the ice to water to steam and whatever, that's all physical change, matter is conserved.

Conservation of matter is wrong, conservation of matter and energy is correct.

Technically matter can come out of nowhere as long as it is destroyed soon after by the equivalent antiparticle.

In other words, an electron and a positron could pop up together somewhere, travel forward in spacetime for a bit and annihilate. Or you could think of it as an electron going forward in time for a while then turning around and going backwards in time. (Feynman proved that a positron moving forward in time is the same as an electron moving backwards in time).

Jam is correct, but Guido is also correct if you choose to accept the parameters for his arguments: mainly that energy can't even enter into it. However, Jam's argument is more scientifically correct, because it doesn't limit itself to specifically answering the original question.

Black holes are certainly observable--they emit X-Ray radiation. X-rays form just outside the event horizon of the black hole spontaneously in order to compensate for the apparent decrease in entropy cause by matter entering a black hole (entropy must always increase; Second Law of Thermodynamics).
If the black hole spins, these X-rays emit in streams from the polar areas.

Antimatter has also been proven to exist, and has been observed in numerous cloud chamber experiments.

[GuidoHunter]

Jam is correct, but Guido is also correct if you choose to accept the parameters for his arguments: mainly that energy can't even enter into it. However, Jam's argument is more scientifically correct, because it doesn't limit itself to specifically answering the original question.

I'll go for that.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com