Big Bang Blasted

[CraigD]

photosynthesis in plant life does not require solar energy.

The word “photosynthesis” means, literally “light putting-together”. While, in a strict sense, jackson33’s claim is true – the light required by photosynthesis may come from any source, not just the sun – practically speaking, nearly all of the light on Earth comes from the sun. Practically speaking, plants are “solar powered”.

to my knowledge, energy can act on matter, (make hot, give us an appearance- reflection) however energy moving at C cannot produce matter.

I suggest you read about pair production. Although many, and technically all interactions between energy (gauge bosons) and matter (fermions) result in a change in the mass of the matter (sometimes creating new fermions), pair production is perhaps the easiest process to understand, and is very well confirmed, with over 60 years of theoretical and experimental documentation.

[Mike C]

So what, then, in your informed opinion, are these self-reproducing biological organisms made of?

 

Granted, they are composed of elemetary particles, but living organisms are not controled by the typical laws of physics. They are applicable to probability laws but these are somewhat vague to a great extent IMO.

 

To me, there is a clear dividing line to the differences between the two forms.

 

NS

[Mike C]

A photon encountering a massive charged body can become a particle-antiparticle pair.

 

That 'self-destruct' eventually? A particle pair would constitute 'zero mass'.

 

NS

[Mike C]

Uh, actually the question was energy being converted into matter, but on that point, I did...

 

There are links from that site, and ou can go look up the SLAC, FermiLab and CERN sites too: These places exist to do almost nothing *but* turn energy into matter. If it did not work, why would billions of dollars continue to be spent on it?

 

Is it all an elaborate conspiracy to burn money for no useful purpose?

 

Eat your carrots,

Buffy

 

That last sentence sums it all up.

I think they are looking for the God particle to prop up the BB's 'creation out of nothing' problem.

Ha ha.

 

NS

[Erasmus00]

That last sentence sums it all up.

I think they are looking for the God particle to prop up the BB's 'creation out of nothing' problem.

Ha ha.

 

The Higgs boson, which was unfortunately dubbed "the god particle" in many popular science magazines, has little (if anything at all) to do with the big bang.

 

When people were trying to understand the weak force, they realized that if the particles responsible for the force had mass it would explain the very short range of the interaction. But how can a force carrying particle? (a so called gauge-boson) have mass? Well, Salaam and Weinberg realized a mechanism that already existed (called spontaneous symmetry breaking) did generate just such a mass. The theory they proposed correctly explained the massive charge carriers that by this time had already been observed (W+ and W-), but it also predicted two new particles (Z boson, and Higgs boson).

 

The Z boson was discsovered shortly thereafter, and was a great confirmation of the theory. However, the Higgs has never been seen, and it plays a very important role in the theory of the weak interactions.

 

So again, nothing to do with the big bang.

-Will

[jackson33]

Craig/Buffy; the reason I said "IMO, way I etc" was the controversial nature of my opinion. energy again IMO, is not a requirement for germination of a plant but can be involved by its effect on matter. CO2 and water are what produces that plant, the by product and the sugar (food) of that plant. actually the reverse is what animals do when processing or the cleansing of the body, which produce many things exhaled, including CO2. an fetus, egg or a seed requires no energy from the sun to germinate and whether the growth of any can continue w/o sunlight. much of deep sea life receives none over there entire existence. this is not saying that some of the energy through there effects on other matter have not been involved to evolve life. but the point, energy creates matter is just not a reality, unless energy itself contains an unknown form of matter, which i do think possible.

 

my interest on the subject stems from the idea that a planet such as earth could exist free from a solar unit. self contained heat, with super tight atmosphere (nothing escaping) and a few other on the edge ideas, not all mine...

[CraigD]

That 'self-destruct' eventually? A particle pair would constitute 'zero mass'.

Again, I strongly suggest, New Science, that you familiarize yourself with at least the introductory literature involving pair production.

 

Particles created by pair production are ordinary particles. For example, the electron and positron created by a greater than 1.022 MeV (1.637e-13 J, in the gamma range of the EM spectrum) can be assembled into hydrogen atoms, the electron with an ordinary proton, the positron with an antiproton (an uncommon particle that typically must be manufactured - for a simple description of how this is routinely done, I’ve long enjoyed this CERN webpage, which notes that although their “antimatter factory” generates antiprotons by colliding accelerated protons with blocks of copper or iridium, “a piece of English beef would serve the same purpose - it would just roast very quickly and is rather messy”).

 

Electrons, protons, positrons, and antiprotons don’t “self destruct” – each “destructs” only with it’s antiparticle – electrons with positrons, protons with antiprotons. Such annihilations are commonplace – positron-electron annihilations occur in small quantities anywhere even traces of common radioactive elements are found - pretty much everywhere on Earth - resulting in small amounts of gamma radiation.

 

Although the mass of electrons, protons, and their antiparticles has been measured with high precision (as of 2006, 9 decimal digits for the antiproton, the most difficult of the particles to obtain), and no difference in the mass of positrons vs. electrons or anti-protons vs. protons has been detected (some theories predict a slight difference in mass), it should be noted that the masses being measured are inertial mass. Although most theories, dating back to the Newton’s 300-year-old one, assume inertial and gravitational mass to be always the same, this has not, to my knowledge, been directly experimentally observed in the case of antimatter. Although most people are comfortable that this assumption applies to both matter and antimatter, a few have speculated that the gravitational mass of antimatter may be the negative of its inertial mass – that is, antimatter would “fall up” in the gravitational field of a large normal matter body. Being very difficult to gather in quantities and densities large enough that gravitational effects on antimatter are detectable, this speculation can’t be definitively dismissed, and Standard Model of particle physics, with its lack of a description of gravity, is mute on the question.

[CraigD]

energy again IMO, is not a requirement for germination of a plant but can be involved by its effect on matter. CO2 and water are what produces that plant, the by product and the sugar (food) of that plant.

What you’re suggesting here, Jackson, is a sort of perpetual motion machine, in the form of a plant.

 

The carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen that constitute carbohydrate and fat, such as the fructose sugar, and the C, H, O, and nitrogen constituting proteins, and in other molecules that plants excel at producing, are in molecules with more chemical energy than they have in the molecules they were in the gases and liquids the plants ingest. This additional energy must come from something. In the plant kingdom, most organism get this energy from photons of light, and, to a lesser extent, from breaking down carbohydrates, fats, and proteins from other plants and animals, or, in the case of seeds, from a parent plant. In the animal kingdom, we get nearly all of our energy from breaking down plant and animal tissue – though some odd animals photosynthesize, and some odd plants don’t. Some extremophile organisms are even appear capable of utilizing energy from a heat gradient, like mechanical engines do – a handy trick if you live, for example, in the vent of an underwater volcano!

 

The important point I’m trying to make here is that the laws of chemistry, which are a special case of the laws of physics, don’t suddenly change when the system being considered is one we term “living”. Perpetual motion is no more possible in a plant or animal than it is in a machine made with weights, magnets, bearings, etc.

[Mike C]

(edited)

Particles created by pair production are ordinary particles. For example, the electron and positron created by a greater than 1.022 MeV (1.637e-13 J, in the gamma range of the EM spectrum

 

I said before that this is a violation of the Conservation of Matter. I also said that matter and energy are not convertible IMO.

 

it should be noted that the masses being measured are inertial mass <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass>. Although most theories, dating back to the Newton’s 300-year-old one, assume inertial and gravitational mass to be always the same,

 

You are dealing here with 'charged' particles that have 'intrinsic' spins that 'vary'.

As a result, their inertial masses would vary because their intrinsic 'magnetic' fields would vary.

 

This inertial mass is measured using external magnetic fields, so this interaction between the particle spin fields and the external magnetic fields that are fixed would also vary IMO.

 

NS

[LaurieAG]

Although most theories, dating back to the Newton’s 300-year-old one, assume inertial and gravitational mass to be always the same, this has not, to my knowledge, been directly experimentally observed in the case of antimatter. Although most people are comfortable that this assumption applies to both matter and antimatter, a few have speculated that the gravitational mass of antimatter may be the negative of its inertial mass – that is, antimatter would “fall up” in the gravitational field of a large normal matter body. Being very difficult to gather in quantities and densities large enough that gravitational effects on antimatter are detectable, this speculation can’t be definitively dismissed, and Standard Model of particle physics, with its lack of a description of gravity, is mute on the question.

 

That's interesting Craig, if matter falls down, antimatter falls up and both are in equal amounts, you would technically have a zero sum or singular universe both expanding and contracting, all of the time.

[Boerseun]

To the best of my knowledge, antimatter is simply matter with the charges for the electron and positron reversed. The neutron stays as is, and a lump of antimatter is completely identical to matter when viewed under the microscope. You only realise the difference when you allow it to touch it's mirror counterpart, normal matter - and it annihilates completely, leaving one hell of a flash of gamma rays in its wake.

 

But as far as I know, gravity works the same in both cases, and antimatter will, indeed, fall "down" like ordinary matter, simply following the curvature of space which has nothing to do with the constituent particle's charge. In other words, if an electron is positively or negatively charged, be it matter or antimatter, the curvature of space would be identical to both, with both reacting the same way. The 'matter/antimatter' phenomenon is purely charge-based in nature, having nothing to do with gravity.

[snoopy]

To the best of my knowledge, antimatter is simply matter with the charges for the electron and positron reversed. The neutron stays as is,

 

No the antiparticle of the neutron is the anti-neutron its internal structure is different neutron quarks have color, anti-neutrons have anti-quarks which have anti-color.

 

Everything else is fine though.

 

The Photon is its own anti particle.

 

Anti Atoms have mass not anti-mass so obey Gravitational Law.

 

Cheers

;)

[CraigD]

To the best of my knowledge, antimatter is simply matter with the charges for the electron and positron reversed. The neutron stays as is,

No the antiparticle of the neutron is the anti-neutron its internal structure is different neutron quarks have color, anti-neutrons have anti-quarks which have anti-color.

 

Everything else is fine though.

 

The Photon is its own anti particle.

Snoopy states the Standard Model correctly, I believe.

 

To make an antineutron, you’d need to pull off an Electron Capture reaction with positrons and anti-protons. Since the most complicate anti-atoms made to date are anti-hydrogen, and since electron capture is hard to do with other than a fairly narrow range of heavy nuclei, I’m unsure antineutrons are technically feasible to make. But, in principle, they’d be as snoopy says, and annihilate with ordinary matter about like an antiproton (though less frequently, as they wouldn’t be magnetically attracted to ordinary protons).

Anti Atoms have mass not anti-mass so obey Gravitational Law.

This is a reasonable extension of the Standard Model, and where I’d put my money if there were an office pool on the question. Since positrons and antiprotons have been accelerated magnetically quite a bit, it’s experimentally confirmed to the limits of observational accuracy that they have exactly the same inertial mass as their antiparticles, the electron and proton respectively. There’s been so little antimatter made, and gravity is such a weak force, however, that AFAIK nobody’s directly measured how they interact gravitationally. The Standard Model doesn’t include gravity, so the gravitational mass of antimatter remains one of the great current “probably is, but we can’t be sure”s of modern physics.

[snoopy]

There’s been so little antimatter made, and gravity is such a weak force, however, that AFAIK nobody’s directly measured how they interact gravitationally. The Standard Model doesn’t include gravity, so the gravitational mass of antimatter remains one of the great current “probably is, but we can’t be sure”s of modern physics.

 

 

Antimatter Questions and Answers

quote from above reference

• How does the gravitational field act on antimatter?

The gravitational force depends from the energy of an object, and since matter and antimatter have both positive energy, gravitation acts on them in the same way.

This means that an object made of matter and one made of antimatter would both stand on the floor, the latter one not flying off the sky...

 

Cheers

:doh:

[Qfwfq]

No the antiparticle of the neutron is the anti-neutron its internal structure is different neutron quarks have color, anti-neutrons have anti-quarks which have anti-color.

I've a mild suspicion that it's opposite electric charge that each quark and it's anti-quark have.

[snoopy]

I've a mild suspicion that it's opposite electric charge that each quark and it's anti-quark have.

 

In relation to quarks and anti-quarks all the quantum numbers are opposite so this would include the electric charge. The electric charge of an anti up quark would be -2/3. The electric charge of an anti down quark would be 1/3.

 

But they also have anti-color too.

 

Honest would I lie to you ??

 

Cheers

:doh:

[Qfwfq]

I don't think you're lying, I just tink that CERN was talking about electric charge. Any hadron is color-neutral and I don't think we have any observation of the charge for single quarks.

 

Not that I went into QCD all that deeply, despite that hadronic diffraction was central to my grad thesis, but I don't think that a definite assignment is even formally necessary, to match with phenomenology. As far as I can see, it would even be difficult to reconcile with color-neutrality of hadrons whose net composition has two quarks of the same species, such as the proton being 2 ups and 1 down. Do you have info to the contrary?

 

Anti-red is simply a superposition of (non-anti) blue and green. The strong charges work exactly like our visual perception of colour, that's why the name was chosen. Just like the three primary colours red, green and blue can be rotated around into an alternative triplet, so can the charges of QCD.