Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy: What's enforcing them?

The laws of conservation of mass and energy are not new concepts. Ancient Greece philosophy stated "nothing comes from nothing". 13th century Persian wrote "A body of matter cannot disappear completely. It only changes its form, condition, composition, color and other properties and turns into a different complex or elementary matter". The law is now that the mass of a closed system will remain constant. The question is: Where does this system end? And how valuable is this law if our system is constantly influenced by other systems? Also, if mass in general relativity is equivalent to energy, are we in need of a new law?

Do we really exist in a closed system? That entails a huge question: Is our universe the extent of everything? If you believe in multiple universes, then you have to ask this question: Are these universes connected? If you believe our universe is the extent of everything, then is our universe truly a closed system within itself?

Let's look at the scenario that our universe is truly alone first because it is easier to work with. The universe is our "closed system" and it is surrounded by a vast nothing. How secure is our system within itself? If there are wormholes all around us on an extremely small scale, that means that mass and energy are being transported through many different frames of time and space. At one time there could be more mass and energy than at another time, which would mean that the mass and energy are not constant in space over time. However, if the closed system is all four dimensions, then it would still be conservation of mass and energy in that mass is being transported through time, but still contained within the closed four dimensions of our universe.

However, if this is legal, then so is all of the mass and energy existing at one time, which can't be possible if there are an infinite amount of time units. In other words, there are an infinite amount of frames that you could stop time at and see the universe. If you don't understand how this works, then allow me to explain.

Life is sort of like a giant 3D movie. Notice, though, that 3D movies are called that because they only involve the three space dimensions. The 3D scenes of the movie have a limited amount of frames. You could watch it frame by frame and reach the end of the movie. Our four dimensional universe has an infinite amount of frames, though. If you tried to watch it frame by frame, you would not reach the next second, or the next nanosecond. That's because the time dimension is not made of finite units. Or at least so we think.

What if time is made of finite units. What if our universe is a decillion frames per second? Then it could be possible to have all of energy and mass exist at one time frame by transporting it via wormholes. However, that would be a ton of mass and energy compressed into one universe. If there were wormholes in our universe, then they could spread all of this mass and energy out evenly among time, but that means in order for the universe to exist properly, then each frame would have to be perfectly built just like the time frame before it with extremely slight differences in it! That's unlikely to happen via wormhole. The odds are so far against such a phenomenon that I am not going to consider that theory a possibility.

However, if our universe was a closed system in all four dimensions, then the wormholes could transport mass and energy amongst time and space and not be violating the laws of conservation of energy and mass. Then why isn't our universe changing much more? How come these wormholes aren't making an obvious impact? The sad truth is that we would not notice if a particle of matter randomly disappeared. It probably would not affect much. Therefore, it could be possible, but that idea is quite debatable. Earlier in the blog, it was generally decided that wormholes wouldn't work, and any particle going through the wormhole would collapse it. So if wormholes don't work, then that means that Our universe could be a closed system within its three dimensional space, and not have to worry about the complexities of time.

Of course, there is always another option. Quantum mechanics is going to attempt to tear apart conservation of mass. Matter particles disappearing and appearing supposedly destroy this theorem, but does it really? When a positron and an electron annihilate each other, they create a new particle and it's antiparticle. However, these new particles have more mass than the old ones! Note that antiparticles still have a positive mass. Therefore, this interaction does not make sense according to classical physics. But wait! There is another variable that has been forgotten! The electron and positron were collided at high energy! Now energy comes into play. By adding energy to the particles at high speed, the mass increases, and the particles collide. The new particles do not have this energy, only a greater mass. Therefore, energy has become mass!

Of course! According to one of the most well known equations in science, E=Mc^2, Energy and Mass are related! This equation shows that an amount of energy is equivalent to an amount of mass. Therefore, energy and mass are interchangeable!

Why doesn't this happen more often? Why doesn't energy become mass all the time? Well, the truth is that it does. Any time you apply a force to anything, mass is gained. However, as the energy is turned into friction and heat energy, the energy as mass is lost. On a quantum mechanics level, the effect is much more permanent.

Therefore, a new concept must be introduced. If Mass and Energy are equivalent, then they must be combined into something. I guess they could call it the Law of Conservation of Stuff (I couldn't think of any other names).

The Law of Conservation of Stuff should work within our closed system, but where does our closed system end? Let's look at a multiverse. If black holes or wormholes connected our universe to another universe, then would that other universe become a closed system? I think that our universe is a closed system as long as there is no transportation from our universe to somewhere else. However, if a wormhole connected us to another universe, then the closed system would be between the two universes. If they disconnect, then we are back by ourselves in our closed system.

I know most of you hate it, but let's try entering sting theory into this idea. The law of conservation of stuff would also make sense in M-theory because energy and mass particles are all made of strings, so the law holds. The strings would simply change vibration or whatever they have to do.

The one question now is where does all that stuff come from? Is it just there? We will probably never figure that out.

Now it's time for your input. Is it conservation of both mass and energy, with them being interchangeable? Or do the original laws of classical physics need to stay as they were?

29 comments:

  1. thanks dan I agree with almost everything.

    putting more on the mass energy corralation speed is also a key factor not just any speed but the speed of light in a vacume. thus you can safely say that since light is connected to time mass and energy is also connected. which is part of the theory of relativity.
    space time is influenced by mass and energy which slows light and time. that is why your watch darn near stops in walmart. black holes work like giant wells. you can see the effects through satalites time. if a satalite didn't use a formula to constantly lower the rate of time it would be constantly working ahead of the clocks on the surface and the time on your cell phone would be faster that the little quarts one in your room. due to these measurements it is easier to find the rate that spacetime warps and the ratio between mass and bend. you could also find out how much energy is required to disrupt spacetime. this way you can find the denseties of large objects by use of lazers.

    I will be back later with part two

    ReplyDelete
  2. Space time is definitely influenced by the mass and energy that surrounds it, I'm just not sure how this relates to the Law of conservation of mass and energy.

    Speed is definitely a factor. At a fast enough speed mass will turn into energy! Therefore also showing that mass and energy are equivalent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree as well, and would like to say that LoCoS seems quite accurate. I believe our multiple universes are like galaxies and are reachable without wormholes (if we had more high tech equiptment anyway) on large scale.

    That makes it an open system, with closed system qualities, until we close in upon another neiboring universe and the outskirts intermingle and we share or take or loose parts of the other. (like what scientists thought happened to Pluto)

    This idea still happens to follow LoCoSwhich makes it easier for us if all of our theories though different follow the same principles. Too, LoCoS could also include LoCoI (information) and still seem acurate enough for me, since I believe scientists have agreed that information is not lost in Black holes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also for the poll, I don't really care if this new Law has a cool name or not because if someone tried to come up with a different name It would take time which they could be using to prove it or another similar enstead.

    Too, right now it is only ToCoS (the theory of consorvation of stuff) though it sounds like the other laws should be theories as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, since you believe in the Fractal universe, there would be no definite closed system. However, stuff would be conserved within the fractal. I don't think it is a fractal universe, but LoCoS still holds if it is.

    While looking up law of conservation of information, one website included a concept called Shannon's uncertainty principle. It is quite funny what this principle is used for. This URL leads to a summary of the principle:

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16066931

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ok dan the LCI is vutually the same thing as LCM and LCE but with info.

    EX. if I had a sink that was full of water and i put a few drops of red dye in it, it would look like a sufisticated swirl and you could use the info from that swirl to look at an earlier event,like the dye falling into the water. after a long piriod of time the dye will be pretty much despersed though the whole sink. even with this minnute amount of info spread out over a greater area you could still in theory collect that information and look at a preivious event.

    so the question is can we use the info from maps of the universe and look at the big bang?
    or is Information ever lost in a black hole?


    By the way don't worry about part 2 i figure if you can't figure out how you could use lazers to look at denseties and masses of objects you should think about it deeper in a broader picture

    ReplyDelete
  7. INFORMATION CAN'T BE DESTOYED
    Stephen Hawking a world reknowed scientist in the physics world dissagrees. many have tried to disprove the thoery in the past but no one has gotten as far into this as Stephen Hawking. Stephen has been working on a thought of what happens to info in a black hole. after many years of thought he came up with a therory that states that info and matter is lost in an other demention and it is scrambled due to the black hole.
    I DISSAGREE.
    in my opinion the information is not destroyed in a black hole but preserved seeing how black holes are mearly super dense objects. due to this large mass it ceates a well in spacetime
    as more material is added to the black hole the deeper it gets and due to the flexability of spacetime it acts like a deep well dragging in more and more material only if you could congure up as much energy contained in the black hole could you rip the fabric.to go though a neighboring demention but this explosion would be like a knew big bang due to the added energy from the dementional wall. how this tyes in to the topic is that even though the info is transfered into a black hole and gone through a demention it is still there. maybe ripped to shreds by the gravitation but still there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Aaron, it would make sense that information cannot be destroyed. We should be able to reconstruct the big bang. The problem is that all of the information is scattered so far apart now that humans will most likely never be able to find it. All that information is probably millions of light years away at this point.

    Is information lost in a black hole? I wouldn't say lost, because if you lose information, then that basically violates LoCoS as well. All of that stuff should still be in the black hole. However, we humans will most likely never be able to access information in there because we would get ripped to shreds.

    The other possibility is that the information went into the black hole and came out of a white hole. We have yet to find a white hole, though, so in that way we are still unsure of where all that stuff goes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Both of you have made the same point in relation to the topic,which makes it extremely difficult for argument. We need someone on an opposing view to mix it up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, I'm not going to argue against myself. Anybody?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well crap
    we need Stephen Hawking

    ReplyDelete
  12. BY the way your polls has a disability to produce the proper task at hand. I change my sisters vote and she changes mine it is malfunctuning frevelently and requires maintenence by a skilled worker that is able to get on to the page to change its properties in all respects. I would continue but I have run out of random large words to conjure for the previous thought

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's not my fault if you two change each other's votes. When you are done, sign out. When you get on, make sure you are signed in as you.

    Now, if the polls are having a problem, then that's the fault of Blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  14. well Quantam theory states that particals pop out of nowhere and then rejoin it paired partical and zipp they are both gone. aperrently they have alot of evedence from speacial contraptions that are very sensetive.

    ReplyDelete
  15. First things first: What is "information" in the physics context?

    Dan, on your original entry, I agree that mass and energy must be made up of the same stuff, but not strings. String theory, to me, is an annoying idea that tangles (no pun intended) all the knowledge we thought we had.

    And about the polls- sometimes it doesn't count my vote, even though I'm logged in as myself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh well. I guess the polls failed.

    Information is evidence of an action. Like a supernova. Information is the stuff that came from the supernova. We can use that information to reconstruct the supernova if we wanted to.

    If energy/mass can't be created or destroyed, than neither can information from an event. That means we should be able to reconstruct the big bang if we can find all of the information. The problem is that all of the information is spread out across the universe!

    I was just putting string theory in there to show that if it is correct, conservation of stuff still works.

    ReplyDelete
  17. i do have to agree with dan. also information is not like a supernova it is the movement and spread of particals that you could trace back indefinitely in time if you had advanced enough technology.( I think thats what dan meant) thus we could in theory see the big bang. of course that is still a long way off to just collect the data not even counting the time that it would take to prosses the data. in theory if you could trace the big bang you could see the stuff that happened before it. counting on the theory that the bang was not the beginning of information.

    of course
    i do have to agree with dan that string thoery was a needed thing to learn about or to know to exsist. even though it is like life. it is an arootabega. or in other words absolutly pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Aaron, the supernova was just an example, kind of like big bang. We are on the same track.

    Life is not pointless. You have to choose a point for yourself. In other words, it is relative. However, this is not a philosophy blog, but a Physics/Quantum Mechanics blog. If you want to talk about philosophy, then maybe we should start a Philosophy blog. Until then, we should stick to Science.

    ReplyDelete
  19. well dan i see that you have a bad interpretation of analogys. I was comparing string theory to an arrotabega which happens to be the meaning of life i was not making a legture on life an its funtions toward the feild of thinking of pointless material (phisiology). thus I thing you shouldn't get your panties in a wad every time someone makes a statement in an other field.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just to let you know, you spelled Lecture incorrectly. Anyway, if you need any help thinking of the next blog,Dan, you could try: is it possible to make a transporter device like the ones in Star Trek?
    It would be like the time travel one, except with moleculizing and reorderring particles.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm going to wait a little longer to start the next topic to see if Dr. Kaku responds to the e-mail I sent him. For those of you who don't know (Dante and Dorothea) I sent Dr. Michio Kaku an e-mail basically asking for his opinion on the Conservation laws discussed above. If he doesn't respond by Wednesday, then we will move on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wow! I checked Dr. Kaku's website and he looks like a very important guy. But who knows, maybe he'll respond.

    Dan, I don't want to create more work for you, but you mentioned a philosophy blog. I would be quite willing to help with that, if enough interest was shown.

    I agree with all that has been said here on Conservation of Stuff and Information, although I still have difficulty with string theory. Unless Dr. Kaku points out something else, I think we have exhausted this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I completely agree!! The Philosophy blog might get edgy though because alot of Philosophy is about religion, and I won't want to disprove or disorder anyones beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Shannon, yes, philosophy can often be controversial, but the whole point is to debate? Also, there are virtually no subjects where certain religions may be offended. Even in this blog, we've had some discussions touch on that. My advice is that if you don't want to be offended, don't read it. And if anyone's beliefs are under attack, he or she is more than welcome to defend their beliefs intellectually and rationally. I love a good argument, but not a mindless screaming match.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If we decide to do a philosophy blog, who wants to manage it? I like philosophy and thinking about why things are the way they are and how they have come to be that way. I also think that by participating in both a philosophy blog and a Physics/Quantum Mechanics blog we can find the connections between science and thought.

    My question is: Who is going to manage it? I love the idea and would without a doubt participate regularly in a blog of that nature, but that means somebody has to take charge and manage it. Post questions, and present your ideas. I would like to see this blog happen, but I don't think I want to run it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I would be willing to write the blog if you guys would contribute with your comments and views. To take a quick poll, who would participate?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dorothea, I don't think anybody else has seen your proposal because of the new topic. Maybe you should post the proposal on the new topic.

    ReplyDelete