Crosswords1 min ago
Infinite Density ?
If the big bang started from a mass of near ' infinite ' density then the mass must have occupied a space. No matter how small that mass was it would still occupy a space. If that is the case then how can we say space did not exist .
If instead of mass could it be pure energy . Does energy require space ?
Can mass be created from pure energy alone ?
If instead of mass could it be pure energy . Does energy require space ?
Can mass be created from pure energy alone ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What is "pure energy" by the way?
One physical example, though, is the non-empty vacuum. Any realistic theory requires that the vacuum be continuously creating particle and anti-particle pairs -- though they constantly vanish again. Still, it's a continuous (albeit fast) cycle of energy --> matter --> energy again.
One physical example, though, is the non-empty vacuum. Any realistic theory requires that the vacuum be continuously creating particle and anti-particle pairs -- though they constantly vanish again. Still, it's a continuous (albeit fast) cycle of energy --> matter --> energy again.
In photosynthesis, if no energy is adsorbed to create mass, where does it go?
http://
Photosynthesis is the process of converting light energy to chemical energy and storing it in the bonds of sugar.
By converting light energy into chemical energy there must be an increase in mass.
http://
Photosynthesis is the process of converting light energy to chemical energy and storing it in the bonds of sugar.
By converting light energy into chemical energy there must be an increase in mass.
No I didn't mean zero energy but rather no change //energy --> matter --> energy again// The particles cancel each other out as you say simultaneously.
Either way I am still stuck with the problem of there being no space prior to the BB. Not a vacuum just nothing. But in order for the BB to occur it had to consist of something ,
did it consist of matter which would require space or particles which have zero rest mass but require space to exist.
The only other option is that there is a form of energy that is totally beyond our comprehension but nevertheless exists.
Either way I am still stuck with the problem of there being no space prior to the BB. Not a vacuum just nothing. But in order for the BB to occur it had to consist of something ,
did it consist of matter which would require space or particles which have zero rest mass but require space to exist.
The only other option is that there is a form of energy that is totally beyond our comprehension but nevertheless exists.
Graham - W ; any endothermic reaction provides an answer innit ?
(energy into mass)
in the Mg - > MgO reaction - we were taught that the mega huge energy release came from an ever so slight reduction in the atomic weights
in which case in an endothermic reaction.... the converse occurs.
just a thought - I dont do this professionally
(energy into mass)
in the Mg - > MgO reaction - we were taught that the mega huge energy release came from an ever so slight reduction in the atomic weights
in which case in an endothermic reaction.... the converse occurs.
just a thought - I dont do this professionally
Is it this idea that you are refering to?
http://
http://
It has been suggested that 'empty'space is in fact an energy field of an unknown nature and unimaginable proportions and that all that matter is, is just standing waves/resonances within that field. If this or something like it was the case then the question of where the BB came from is relatively easy to answer. Perhaps this is what string theory refers to.
The next question is of course ...where did it all come from? I'll leave that to the theologians they can always be relied upon to come up with a convincing explanation for everything that they never thought of.
The next question is of course ...where did it all come from? I'll leave that to the theologians they can always be relied upon to come up with a convincing explanation for everything that they never thought of.
Not exactly, vascop. I was meaning rather that even in general there is no such thing as an empty vacuum -- because at a fundamental level any consistent theory of interacting particles requires that the true vacuum be very active. For an analogy (though this isn't necessarily reflective of the truth), if something has an expectation value of 0 it could still have a lot going on. Example: Normal distribution about the zero point.
In a similar way the vacuum is full of particle-anti-particle pairs appearing all the time, and these can even interact with matter passing through, and so on. The net effect I can't say for certain, because in reality we have curved space due to gravity and no-one yet knows how to work out properly what's going on in that case.
In a similar way the vacuum is full of particle-anti-particle pairs appearing all the time, and these can even interact with matter passing through, and so on. The net effect I can't say for certain, because in reality we have curved space due to gravity and no-one yet knows how to work out properly what's going on in that case.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.