thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Not really. Law of Conservation of Matter is still in effect.
LDSBruin Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 So, does it?You mean as far as matter being destroyed in when it combines with anti-matter? That is getting into some fancy physics that we have a sketchy grasp of at best. As tss mentioned, there is still conservation of matter since to create anti-matter you have to also create matter (and like-wise to destroy matter you have to destroy anti-matter) so the net sum should always remain constant.
buraianto Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 You mean as far as matter being destroyed in when it combines with anti-matter? That is getting into some fancy physics that we have a sketchy grasp of at best. As tss mentioned, there is still conservation of matter since to create anti-matter you have to also create matter (and like-wise to destroy matter you have to destroy anti-matter) so the net sum should always remain constant.Plus, the annihilation of matter and antimatter produces a whole bunch of energy that sticks around.
Sargon Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 I was thinking more in terms of creatio ex nihilo, and modern ideas about the big bang, space/time, and all that jazz.Thanks!
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 If God is omnipotent the way things work when he is not acting do not determine what can and cannot happen.
BCSpace Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I'd go with the aforementioned conservation of matter and energy on this one. Therefore, there is no conflict in my mind. W and Z bosons anyone?"What is Mind? No matter. What is Matter? Never mind."I was thinking more in terms of creatio ex nihilo, and modern ideas about the big bang, space/time, and all that jazz.Well now you're into String Theory. Nothing can be created out of nothing but it can sure look that way. How would you like your universe? Two branes smashed together!
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Sargon:"creatio ex nihilo" hasn't really fared well in the face of modern science.
Mortal Man Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 So, does it?(m+E) is always conserved according to the known laws of physics. You are free to covert one to the other according to E=mc^2.
Sargon Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 I don't claim any expertise in this. In fact, I claim an unfortunate ignorance. That being said, here goes.My understanding is that many people talk about there being no such thing as "before" the big bang, because the big bang allegedly was the beginning of both space and time, which are linked to each other. Therefore, it follows:1. there was no "time" before the big bang2. no time = no space3. matter needs space4. there was no matter before the big bangPlease inform this poor way-faring mormon of grief.
BCSpace Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 According to superstring and M-string theory, this universe may have been created (via the Big Bang), by the collision between two other p-branes (each a 4d universe contained within higher dimensions called "the bulk").So for this universe, time and space did not exist until creation, but it does in the other two universes. Energy is transferred to the new universe by the collision so energy (and it's relative, matter) did exist prior to creation. With the concept of strings, a whole host of things are possible. It's even possible to define and make a universe with very different constants (such as gravity). Custom modifiable universes!So science really has opened up the possibility of Gods existing who can manipulate universes as they desire, miracles wrought via the local changing of universal constants etc., though of course they have not postulated such.
urroner Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I don't claim any expertise in this. In fact, I claim an unfortunate ignorance. That being said, here goes.My understanding is that many people talk about there being no such thing as "before" the big bang, because the big bang allegedly was the beginning of both space and time, which are linked to each other. Therefore, it follows:1. there was no "time" before the big bang2. no time = no space3. matter needs space4. there was no matter before the big bangPlease inform this poor way-faring mormon of grief.Quick because I have to run.Time is just a dimension, similar to width, depth, and height, but the latter three are spatial dimensions and time is a temporal dimension. More than one temporal dimension can exist. In our universe, there are three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. In another universe, outside of ours, it will also have a temporal dimension, but it is independent of our temporal dimension, and its spatial dimensions, however many there are, are also independent of our spatial dimensions.Our universe, theoretically, was created when a part of a higher dimensional universe collapsed in on itself. The math is way over my head, but basically, the matter in our universe is just the dimensions in the mother universe that curled in on themselves. This is where String Theory kicks in. Ergo, sans proof, matter has always existed, maybe not in forms that we know and maybe can't even understand, but it has always existed. It existed before the Big Bang. So much for using the Big Bang as evidence of ex nihilo.
Connolly Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 You mean as far as matter being destroyed in when it combines with anti-matter? That is getting into some fancy physics that we have a sketchy grasp of at best. As tss mentioned, there is still conservation of matter since to create anti-matter you have to also create matter (and like-wise to destroy matter you have to destroy anti-matter) so the net sum should always remain constant.The most misunderstood equation: e=mc^2. In the equation, m does not stand for matter. It stands for mass. Mass and energy are properties of matter. During nuclear reactions (including matter/anti-matter) the amount of energy is proportional to the change in mass, one property is exchanged for another. Energy is not a substance however, what gets released is photons. Photons are particles that have a property of high energy but no mass - they move at the speed of light and their frequency varies according to their energy. There are some theories, and some experiments that hint that the theory might be correct, that if you slow down a photon it will gain mass - but so far we don't understand yet what causes mass. CERN's new super-collider is expected to crack that mystery.So no, modern astrophysics and modern quantum physics does not contradict eternal matter. It supports it. Nuclear reactions reorganize matter, change it from one type of particle to another, and reorganize the properties of mass and energy in a known and definable way according to a known proportions, but do not destroy matter. After the reaction the particles can be accounted for, the energy of the photons measured, and E/M will ALWAYS be the same answer, 8.9876 x 10^16 m^2 s^-2. Its that before the reaction, and its that after the reaction. It never varies.The big bang theory posits that all the matter in the universe existed in the primoridal singularity in a very exotic form. String theory posits that the matter existed in the super-verse branes before the universe came to be.
e=mc2 Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 I might also add that String Theory is taking a drubbing powerfully these days.
urroner Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 I might also add that String Theory is taking a drubbing powerfully these days.Where? I don't have the time to follow this very closely, but I have heard that it's getting all sorts of beaten up.
John Larsen Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 If you take the 19th century definition of Matter, then the statement is clearly not true. To bend the pronouncement of Joseph to suggest that he was using a 21st century technical definition would be stretch. Likewise, to suggest that matter, once converted into energy still exists--thus fulfilling Joseph's definition--is to stretch his meaning into a tautological statement of "that which exists exists."It should also be pointed out that there is no such thing as spirtual eyes or more refined matter, for that matter.
buraianto Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 It should also be pointed out that there is no such thing as spirtual eyes or more refined matter, for that matter.How do you know?Do you we even know what JS meant by "refined matter"?
annewandering Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 According to superstring and M-string theory, this universe may have been created (via the Big Bang), by the collision between two other p-branes (each a 4d universe contained within higher dimensions called "the bulk").So for this universe, time and space did not exist until creation, but it does in the other two universes. Energy is transferred to the new universe by the collision so energy (and it's relative, matter) did exist prior to creation. With the concept of strings, a whole host of things are possible. It's even possible to define and make a universe with very different constants (such as gravity). Custom modifiable universes!So science really has opened up the possibility of Gods existing who can manipulate universes as they desire, miracles wrought via the local changing of universal constants etc., though of course they have not postulated such.I have to thank you for helping me with a Lost tv show theory!
John Larsen Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 How do you know?Do you we even know what JS meant by "refined matter"?The same way we know there is no such thing as the "luminous ether".
USU78 Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 You mean as far as matter being destroyed in when it combines with anti-matter? That is getting into some fancy physics that we have a sketchy grasp of at best. As tss mentioned, there is still conservation of matter since to create anti-matter you have to also create matter (and like-wise to destroy matter you have to destroy anti-matter) so the net sum should always remain constant.It is, moreover, not "destruction" of matter/antimatter pairs when they come within sufficient proximity of one another, it is merely a transformation into another form: energy. E=mC^2 teaches us something similar, the fundamental equivalence of energy and mass, as pointed out above.And, thus, Newton is proven right yet again.Yet this all has nothing at all to do, perhaps, with "refined matter." We have no clear idea what was revealed to JSJr, though we can guess it means that there is some kind of "principal" substance which underlies mass/energy, which he calls "Spirit." It is that substance which is affected in some way by the "Light of Christ," though what it is, how it works, and how a then pre-existent Spirit, even one of so great a being as the Master, could have His will expressed in real terms throughout all creation is something I cannot get my head around.
USU78 Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 The same way we know there is no such thing as the "luminous ether"."Wer mit Ungeheuern k
mfbukowski Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 I don't claim any expertise in this. In fact, I claim an unfortunate ignorance. That being said, here goes.My understanding is that many people talk about there being no such thing as "before" the big bang, because the big bang allegedly was the beginning of both space and time, which are linked to each other. Therefore, it follows:1. there was no "time" before the big bang2. no time = no space3. matter needs space4. there was no matter before the big bangPlease inform this poor way-faring mormon of grief.But what about the theory that "before" the big bang everything collapsed into a black hole and the black hole exploding created the big bang? I don't know enough physics to even really understand that one. But it would explain where matter "was before" the big bang.
Tarski Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Sargon:"creatio ex nihilo" hasn't really fared well in the face of modern science.How so? I think you need to read "The free lunch that made our universe" by Physicist Lawrence Krauss: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2002...r-universe.htmlThe key point, however, is that with zero total energy, Aquinas's puzzle is resolvable. And once the energy fluctuations of quantum mechanics are thrown into the mix, the idea of something arising from nothing can become not just possible, but necessary
mfbukowski Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 It is, moreover, not "destruction" of matter/antimatter pairs when they come within sufficient proximity of one another, it is merely a transformation into another form: energy. E=mC^2 teaches us something similar, the fundamental equivalence of energy and mass, as pointed out above.And, thus, Newton is proven right yet again.Yet this all has nothing at all to do, perhaps, with "refined matter." We have no clear idea what was revealed to JSJr, though we can guess it means that there is some kind of "principal" substance which underlies mass/energy, which he calls "Spirit." It is that substance which is affected in some way by the "Light of Christ," though what it is, how it works, and how a then pre-existent Spirit, even one of so great a being as the Master, could have His will expressed in real terms throughout all creation is something I cannot get my head around.Uh oh. Does this mean Aquinas was right and transubstantiation is a possibility?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.