idea assassin Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 idea assasin, by saying that they turn into one another you say that one can be destroyed to create the other. maybe you just dont like the word destroyed, ok, one has to be reduced in amount to allow for more of the other to exist. yes if you were to multiply all existing mass by the speed of light squared and add to that all the existing energy at any one point in time it would be a constant value (acording to present scientific theory), but the actual amount of mass in the univers is changing and there fore so is the amount of energy. Ok, I'll answer this one. If something is destroyed, it is obliterated. Gone. Poof. Nothing left. To say that turning matter into energy is destroying it, is wrong IMO. All you're doing is converting it into something else. And that energy can be re-converted into the same exact amount of matter. Nothing was destroyed. If you take a piece of glass and shatter it into a billion-trillion pieces...you still have the glass, you still have the same amount of glass. It can't be completely eradicated from existance, which is my definition of 'destroy.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamastor Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 when you convert matter into energy it is obliterated. Gone. Poof. Nothing left... but energy is created. they are two different things. if you really wanted to you might be able to turn all the matter back into energy and then you could say thats what we started with but besides that there is less mass in existance. it can be done in reverse but energy is not a different form of mass. to use your glass analogy: its like if you threw the glass at the floor and all that was left would be an apple. now apples are not made of glass, so the glass was destroyed to create the apple (its just an analogy...). the glass left existance and a apple entered. this apple has to obey a certain apple-to-glass equation and could also be destroyed to recreate the original amount of glass. etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Actually, according to some recent ideas, matter and energy are the exact same thing, just in a different form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 read the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy it tells u the answer to life the universe and everything it is ...........................42 I've never read this, and I seriously doubt I ever will. But what ind of claims do they base that answer upon?? What do they mean by 42?? And why do they compare the universe to an equation? :blink: This confuses the heck out of me, so I need some explanation please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 ITS A FICTION BOOK! You're not supposed to understand and use it in a serious debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldritch Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Hitchhikers Guide was written by an eccentric (redundant?) Britisher that can only be understood by people like Theta. :) It's a whimsical parody and a very enjoyable read, but it's mainly not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albareth Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Do not be fooled though! Some parts ARE true, the dolphins are indeed the 2nd most intelligent lifeform! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idea assassin Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 when you convert matter into energy it is obliterated. Gone. Poof. Nothing left... but energy is created. they are two different things. if you really wanted to you might be able to turn all the matter back into energy and then you could say thats what we started with but besides that there is less mass in existance. it can be done in reverse but energy is not a different form of mass. to use your glass analogy: its like if you threw the glass at the floor and all that was left would be an apple. now apples are not made of glass, so the glass was destroyed to create the apple (its just an analogy...). the glass left existance and a apple entered. this apple has to obey a certain apple-to-glass equation and could also be destroyed to recreate the original amount of glass. etc Yes, but you haven't destroyed the MATTER. There are still the same number of atoms, molecules, etc. whether they are glass shaped or apple shaped. It hasn't been destroyed, only turned into something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldritch Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 I seem to recall that atomic fusion and fission do not convert matter to energy. Rather the energy released by those processes results from the binding force in the atoms involved. Theoretically when matter and anti-matter come together everything there is converted to energy, but AFAIK this hasn't been accomplished yet, so the "destruction" of matter or "conversion" of matter to energy is still an open question. Since my last exposure to academic physics was in 1964 I could well be mistaken, or out of touch with the more modern paradigms. (Just an aside.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Actually, I believe the matter/antimatter interaction has been done. Though on a very small scale (single atoms, with great effort involved). And the results were as expected. edit: Yay! post #300! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.