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?

String Theory: An Attempt to Tie Up the Loose Ends in Physics.

Happy 4th, everyone. We are going to celebrate in the only way we can: argue. By now I think everybody has heard of string theory, now known as M-theory. I am going to attempt to explain how this theory works, using a wide variety of sources if possible. I wish I still had "The Universe in a Nutshell", but with the internet at my disposal I am sure that I can get you some concrete information about this extremely controversial theory.

M-theory is a massive theory that is in the end supposed to be "the theory of everything". Everything has to do with string theory. I think that this is not going to provide all of the answers, just provoke more question. Great, isn't it? It turns out, this theory isn't complicated at all! According to Wikipedia, "Some cosmologists are drawn to M-Theory because of its mathematical elegance and relative simplicity". Relative simplicity? This is why all of your teachers tell you NOT to use Wikipedia.

According to string theory, everything is made up of strings. We see particles the way we do because of how the string oscillates, or ripples. "Fundamental particles" such as electrons or quarks are made up of these strings. Electrons and quarks are said to be closed strings, which means the string is in a loop like this:
Note that the loop is not a perfect circle. It has waves in it because it is oscillating.

What exactly is a string? It is basically the infinitely small building block of everything. The thing that a string makes up depends on how much it oscillates or how much tension it has (yes, even though they are floating in spacetime, they have tension).

String oscillation could relate to particle wavelength, as particles are also waves. Strings in particles are one dimensional and are called world lines. However, strings do not just apply to particles. When a string oscillates, it affects space and time, which creates a world sheet. The string at any one time is one dimensional, but because it moves through time, it is two dimensional.

Strings exist in multiple dimensions. When affecting more than one dimension, p-branes come into play. The letter "p" is a variable which stands for the amount off spatial dimensions it affects, so time is not counted in p. This is why M-theory should be able to relate everything.

It even can explain the Big Bang. If two branes collide, it somehow causes our universe to expand. The problem is that I can't find anything that tells me how that works on the internet. Perhaps somebody could help us out, here.

How can something be infinitely small? That's one of my problems with this theory. For something to be one dimensional, it has to be infinitely small. Something with a length, but no width. Unfortunately for us, we can't detect anything that is one dimensional because it doesn't have a size! If it doesn't have a size, can it exist? I'm not sure. That's why there is so much controversy to this theory. It can't be proven.

That was my attempt to explain string theory. Is it true, or not? Is it the theory of everything? We may never know, which will be a huge headache for physicists everywhere in our universe. I see how it could be possible, but I could easily make up a theory like that. Every time there is a problem, alter it so that we can't disprove it. Because right now, we can't disprove string theory. We don't have the equipment, and probably never will. Then again we also can't disprove that magic dinosaur fairies which have powers to transform komodo dragon lung cells into solid hydrogen just by breathing on them live in some 75,000 dimensional multiverse 23 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion kilometers away from the edge of our universe. We can't disprove that, but it certainly doesn't make it true. String theory may not be true either. I doubt it actually exists, but we will just have to wait and see. Comment with your opinions. Is string theory correct?

Big Bang: Are We Assuming Too Much?

Just about everybody has heard of the Big Bang. It is probably the concept that common people are most skeptical about besides time travel. How do we know that the universe started at a Big Bang? Are we assuming too much?

Thanks to Edwin Hubble, we have discovered that just about all galaxies are moving away from us, which is where the big bang came from. If everything is moving away, then everything had to be closer before. Not only are they moving away, but their speeds are proportional to their distances from the Earth. In other words, the moving away is not random, but has some sort of correlation.

We can also detect old radioactivity from when the universe was hotter. That means the universe used to have a much higher temperature, as it should if it used to be just the big bang singularity, or the point in which everything existed.

Many scientists believe this information is enough to say that the Big Bang theory is the most likely event that started off our universe. Does that make it true? Not necessarily. I think just about every scientist has assumed that the Big Bang exists and has formed many other assumptions off of it. What if it didn't actually happen?

What if in actuality, we were recently spewed out of a white hole? We were sucked into a black hole long ago along with many other galaxies and have recently popped out in some other area. The radioactivity of extreme heat is coming from inside the white hole because of all the energy that exists there. The galaxies are all moving away from the white hole at a similar rate because they all came out of the same white hole. How do you disprove this theory?

In fact, the previously stated could go in hand with the Ultimate Black Hole theorem. If all of the black holes eventually merged and sucked everything into it, and it all came out of a white hole in either a different universe or in a different part of nothing, how can this be disproved? The old black hole would finally suck itself in and the entire universe would have basically moved! The white hole would eventually dissipate when there is nothing more to spew, and the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass would not be violated!

Of course the Big Bang Theory is more easily fathomable because it provides an explanation for how the universe began, whereas white holes continuously moving the universe provides no explanation for the beginning. It instead destroys just about all chances of finding the way the universe began, and also makes it seem quite possible for the existence of our universe to never end.

I am not saying that I know better than the entire Astrophysicist community and the Big Bang is completely wrong. In fact, the theory that I just put together could go in hand with the Big Bang. After all, if the universe must begin, why not let it have a big bang, then Ultimate Black Hole theorem seemingly ends the universe, but it actually just moves it somewhere else by popping it out of a white hole, and so the universe is reborn, possibly following a cycle of moving forever. The point is that we don't really know that the Big Bang is true. Or do we? Is there more evidence that I am missing? Comment with your ideas. You can stick up for the Big Bang, or totally rip it apart. I don't care what side you are on, as long as you take one.

Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics: Can they possibly be combined?

A topic for discussion among scientists has always been: Can there be an ultimate theory of quantum mechanics and physics? As Stephen Hawking has said:

"My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all."

But how simple is it? Can our universe be completely understood when physics and quantum mechanics are so far apart? Their laws constantly conflict. Is it possible that perhaps one of them is wrong? Or are they both right, just under different conditions? If the conditions determine the laws, then couldn't the conditions be unified under one quantum theory of gravity?

I think that there should be a way to unify the two. If only the conditions separate them, then perhaps we need to better understand the conditions. How can these two sets of laws coexist if they conflict so much? I think there must be something we are missing in the whole grand scheme of things. Why can't the law of conservation of mass apply to the microscopic world of quantum mechanics? Why should wormholes supposedly be able to pop up in the quantum world? Doesn't gravity affect the quantum world? Scientists say that a particle will take every possible path to get to a certain spot including through time as well as space. If that's true, then how come the universe isn't flooded with an infinite amount of particles? Richard Feynman said that the universe must have multiple histories. That means that everything has existed an infinite amount of times, because there are an infinite amount of paths to get to something, because there is an infinite smallness that can be measured in the universe! I think this is outrageous and far too fantastic to be true.

If one of these two sciences had to be wrong, I would say quantum mechanics needs some help. Perhaps we will eventually figure out what the problems are with either of these sciences. Maybe they are both absolutely right, but I just don't see how it makes sense. We need more information. I think that these sciences should be able to be related, but we need to gather more evidence and understanding.

Is there a smallest particle in the universe?

Ever since the microscope, scientists have been finding new ways to look deeper and find smaller particles. Ancient Greece believed the atom was the smallest particle in the universe. It was later discovered (much later) that there are subatomic particles called protons, electrons, and neutrons. Then, quarks were discovered of six different flavors. The you have gluons to connect all of those particles. Where does it end? Or does it?

I think we are getting very close to finding the smallest particle. Atoms make more sense than ever, although there are still a few questions to be answered. Why do quarks have a charge? I propose that inside quarks are particles that cause it to be positive or negative. Why should up quarks have a 2/3 positive charge? Why do down quarks have a 1/3 negative charge? I think that answer lies in even smaller particles that determine a quark's flavor. Perhaps a certain amount of a particle changes the charge. Also, different flavors of quarks still have the same charge, but are of different mass. Charm quarks have the same charge as up quarks, but a much greater mass. Why is that? That answer probably lies in the particles within.

That is why I don't think we have reached the smallest particle yet. Should there be one? I think there would have to be an initial particle in order to form any other particles later. There needs to be a starting particle to form the particles which form larger particles which after many particles are formed, forms quarks, which form protons, neutrons, and electrons which form atoms which form... you get the idea.

There must be a starting point. Everything had to come from some starting particle, which we have yet to discover, or perhaps already have. Therefore, I believe there is a smallest particle in the universe and hopefully someday, humans will be able to find it.

Summer Session Begins! Do wormholes actually exist?

Many modern scientists believe that there are wormholes on a microscopic level that appear and disappear, taking particles through time and space. My question is: do these actually exist?

The idea of a wormhole was first conceived by Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen. Hence, the Einstein-Rosen bridge was born. The only reason these were created was because they had to exist according to Einstein's equations. Couldn't his equations in some cases not work? I think many of Einstein's ideas are very correct, but does anybody remember what happened with the cosmological constant? He used that to make his equations "correct" even though it did not exist! He called it the biggest mistake of his life, and rightly so. Are wormholes the second biggest mistakes?

Einstein-Rosen bridges were abandoned by most scientists, but the newer theories of wormholes do not sound very possible. The modern type of wormhole is called the traversable wormhole. To function, the wormhole requires a negative energy density and a negative mass. Wait a minute. How can anything have negative mass? I don't understand how this is possible. According to Newton's law that F=MA, if an object has a negative mass, it would also have a negative acceleration. If you pushed a ball with negative mass (the push is a positive force), it would go in the opposite direction that you pushed it! That could really hurt if you pushed a ball with negative mass too hard.

Scientists believe that wormholes do exist on nanoscopic scales and occur all the time. If that is true, then wouldn't there be infinitely many particles in the universe? Couldn't the universe fill up with particles in all times? If wormholes can go through time, particles would move in and out of time until they eventually have gone through just about every time that ever existed, and keep on going through time. That would violate the law of conservation of mass in so many ways, because you would have particles appearing and disappearing, and the universe would gain and lose mass all the time! Then again, wormholes already break pretty much all of the other rules that have been established, so why not ruin that one too?

I do not think wormholes can exist. I do not see how it would make sense in accordance with the current laws of our universe. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me on how they exist. Why should they?

The Last Post: Not!

Hello, all. I am sorry to tell you that there are no more independent reading posts for the year, since the school year is coming to a close. However, I have a proposition. If anyone is interested, I could continue with the blog. It would no longer be an independent reading blog, just a discussion blog. I could try to get as many people involved as possible, and it could actually be serious discussion, but I need to have people interested. Since the blog is not independent reading, we could discuss any topic for as long as we want with no time limits, and I would not necessarily have to pick all of the topics. If you are interested, please say so by commenting with your thoughts. If you are interested and know anybody else who might be interested, please spread the word. If I do not get enough interest, then this will indeed be the last post.