|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:36 PM |
Matter + Antimatter ⟶ Nothing
So, why can't: Nothing ⟶ Matter + Antimatter
We just have to reverse the process. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:37 PM |
That makes perfect sense
kidding |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:38 PM |
@TheExtremeForumTroll
I was about to say something, but then I read your username... Obvious troll is obvious. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
baka
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 10537 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:39 PM |
| matter + antimatter don't just disappear, they explode and become energy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:39 PM |
| reported for religious intolerance |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:39 PM |
"you're stupid"
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tiwe
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 18450 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:41 PM |
| Not just that. Why can't it actually come from nothing? We have an established notion that something has to come as the result of something else existing, but then what do you call the prime cause for that? God. God can be anything. And they establish that God is the prime cause for that result and that God didn't come from anything. Essentially God came from nothing but by our establishment, nothing can come out from nothing. It's a conflict of beliefs and really that's just it. If our foundations were different, the outlook would be different as well. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:41 PM |
@baka >"matter + antimatter don't just disappear, they explode and become energy."
Energy is abstract and cannot be directly seen or observed. What constitutes nothing to do?
In a completely empty vacuum without any matter whatsoever, still contains dark energy.
What constitutes nothing?
Even if you explain everything that cannot be in the situation, we still may have something we just don't know about. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
baka
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 10537 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:47 PM |
energy is what's currently powering every step in every process that makes having this conversation over the internet possible, so we can be fairly confident that it exists, and isn't "nothing".
It's the law of conservation of mass. Particles don't just appear or disappear, they simply change forms.
Energy has mass, even dark energy. If a space contains any sort of mass, whether it be from energy or matter, it would be incorrect to call it a perfect vacuum.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:48 PM |
It would be completely correct to call is a perfect vacuum. Please look up the definition of "vacuum". |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
baka
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 10537 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:53 PM |
It would seem that's correct. Apparently a vacuum only means the absence of matter.
However - just because it is a vacuum does not mean there's "nothing" present. Energy exists, therefore you can't accurately call it "nothing". |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:57 PM |
| Yes, no actually pose an argument that takes my point into account. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
daveism
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Aug 2013 |
| Total Posts: 573 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:58 PM |
| What if it came from Darius? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 01:59 PM |
| Actually it's theorized that there were subatomic particles like quarks and gluons in a plasma before the Big Bang. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 02:01 PM |
@bulider
It's hypothesized* If you can't even use proper scientific terminology, then don't even try.
Also, I have never heard this.
Please provide a source. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 02:05 PM |
Now you're going to be forcefully ignorant? Just get off. You're now just spewing blatant lies. If you can't be honest, then just get off. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 02:06 PM |
matter / antimatter * n^1.1 *Cubed*
umad
n = math.random([Unknown Variable], [Unknown Variable]) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
baka
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 10537 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 02:06 PM |
I have taken your points into account.
Your argument hinges on the fact that matter + antimatter = nothing
But matter+antimatter = energy
And energy has mass
If it has mass, it can't be "nothing". If it exists at all, it can't be nothing. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 02:07 PM |
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 02:07 PM |
| My equasion creates mass, air, and basically the universe's existance. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 02:09 PM |
| Wow you can type a random number into Lya so smrt. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2013 02:09 PM |
@baka That had nothing to do with my response about nothing.
@bulider Again, more willfull ignorance. You're posing scientific hypothesis and asserting that they're scientific theories. Just get off. You're not worth discussing with if you're going to be willfully ignorant. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|