Is it possible to destroy matter?

[Jam930]

You're thinking of breaking atoms apart.

Breaking atoms apart and putting them together artificially does create large amounts of energy.

You know about balanced equations?

http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.html

Go through each section.

Remember Newton's Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter?

His 2nd law.


*edit

Just remembered, there is a theory involving anti-matter, where mass particles combined with their anti-particles can create energy.

If this is true, this would be an example of a conversion of mass to energy. You're not really destroying matter, but it's close.

For example an electron combined with it's antiparticle, a positron results in the conversion of mass to energy... 2 photons. I don't know if it works backwards too like 2 photon to an electron and a positron... but that's an example of mass -> energy conversion resulting in the loss of mass.

I'm not sure why this would work because mass has inertia and gravitational properties that I would assume are lost in a conversion to energy, but it's just theory.

[Laharl]

You're thinking of breaking atoms apart.

Breaking atoms apart and putting them together artificially does create large amounts of energy.

You know about balanced equations?

http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.html

I thought that the splitting of the atom caused them to cease to exist. I got served.

[Jam930]

hah!

Well when they say breaking atoms apart they mean not breaking 1 atom into pieces, but separating atoms from eachother.

*edit

errr... wait that's wrong. They actually do split the nucleus of uranium during nuclear fission. They fire a neutron into the nucleus, and it causes it to become unstable and split in two. The two sides are both positively charged so they fly apart, and THAT is where the energy comes from.

The particles are still there, so they're not destroying matter.

[JenovaSephiroth]

Explosions DO NOT destroy matter. Matter and energy go hand-in-hand. Energy is just another form of matter. The only way for matter to be destroyed is to come into contact with anti-matter.

[Tank101]

Wow I go to sleep and when I come back there are so many posts and opinions, as for the anti-matter destroying it's conterpart, has that ever happened? I mean, do we still have the same amount of matter as we did when the world first started (whenever the hell that was) or has this antimatter process occured many times?

[JustJono]

Aren't there heat sensors that detect black holes? Their density is supposed to be sup3rh0t.

[GuidoHunter]

Augh, now for my third try at this post. Hopefully this comp won't screw up.

@Jono: Read the link that Apple posted.

@Apple: Thanks for the link; it saved me much time on an explanation.

@Jam: Electron clouds do overlap slightly during covalent bonding, but for the most part you're right.

@Tank: Quantum physics says that particle/antiparticle creations and annihilations are occurring all the time, but on a level of subatomic particles and in a faster-than-is-conceivable time frame. I'm also pretty sure that there's a good deal of antimatter in the universe.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Dronak]

About the shortest answer I can give from all my physics training is no, you cannot destroy matter, only change it from one form to another. Einstein's famous E=mc^2 is familiar to all, right? Well, that demonstrates that matter and energy are equivalent; you can change matter to energy and vice versa. For example, the matter/anti-matter annihilation people have mentioned turns matter into energy. It doesn't actually destroy it. In common terms, maybe, the particles aren't there anymore, but not in physics terms because you just changed its form. As far as black holes go, remember that because nothing can escape the gravitational pull of one if you're close enough to it, we can't get information from beyond a certain point and therefore we can't know what happens beyond that point. Your guess as to what happens is about as good as mine; with no way to actually test the theories, it's not exactly science anymore.

[DDRISONLY4COOLPPLZ]

Destroying matter isnt something that as that DDRISONLY4COOL people.

Take a pile of wood. You light it on fire and watch it burn until there is no longer any more wood to burn. Yes, the wood has been "destroyed" but all the molecules that made up the wood are still present....the ashes and smoke that was released into the air.

And then there is the Black Hole theory. Well, the theory is that a black hole is that a star has so much mass, that it acutally creates a bend it space (since space is not a vacuum, so to say, because it does contain matter). It creates such a strong gravity force, that anything near it is sucked into it...and nothing known to man can escape it (not even light). So, Matter is destroyed when it enters the void.

Matter is something that occupies space not outter space if that's what you're thinking , but if you think that my definition is wrong then look in the " Webster's 2 New College Dictionary " page 675 ok

[brutisgrr]

Oooooo... didn't think of that Jam.

And it only stands to reason that if matter is destroyed, it would make a BIG explosion. But what gets me is how we will ever find out if we are correct. I mean... if someone found out, then... well...
BOOM!!! Yeah... And trying to get two sub-atomic particles exactly the same in every way... it's damn near impossible.


But I would love to see that explosion.

And one last thing. What exactly happens to someone if it is destroyed, like not existing, not part of the universe destroyed? It's just mind-boggling to think of something being just gone instead of being something/somewhere else.

[GuidoHunter]

About the shortest answer I can give from all my physics training is no, you cannot destroy matter, only change it from one form to another. Einstein's famous E=mc^2 is familiar to all, right? Well, that demonstrates that matter and energy are equivalent; you can change matter to energy and vice versa. For example, the matter/anti-matter annihilation people have mentioned turns matter into energy. It doesn't actually destroy it. In common terms, maybe, the particles aren't there anymore, but not in physics terms because you just changed its form.

The "changing it from one form to another" that you're talking about is from the Law of Conservation of Matter. The changing detailed in the Law is from one form of matter to another form of matter, not from matter to energy. You are very right, matter and energy can be used interchangeably, but for the purposes of this argument, and practicality, they are two completely different things. Annihilation of matter in a particle/antiparticle collision starts with matter and ends without it. The Law of Conservation of Matter can't even apply because matter isn't being conserved. On top of that, as I said in an earlier post, the Law only conserves matter in ordinary chemical reactions. That phrase was added to the original Law because particle/antiparticle collisions obviously violated it.

@brutis: It's actually not too difficult to get two particles to have the exact same properties, according to Quantum Physics (I always insert this clause because quantum physics isn't accepted as truth, but I think I'll stop for the sake of succinctness [word?]). The whole premise of action over a distance is based on that fact. Recently scientists have used action over a distance to effectively "teleport" particles instantaneously (redundant?).

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Jam930]

*edit

Better example.

If you have a cup of water, and freeze it, now you have ice. You don't have water anymore, but you have the ice! The water is not destroyed, just changed.

[GuidoHunter]

Exchanging a 5 dollar bill for some quarters does not destroy the 5 dollar bill. You don't have it anymore, but you have the equivalent.

And that's an illustration of conservation of matter.


What I was trying to do was discern between matter to matter conversions and matter to energy conversions; they are very different things.

You have a log. It's matter. You burn the log. It's the same amount of matter. Ordinary chemical reaction, Law of Conservation of matter applies.

You have a neutron and a neutrino. It's matter. You collide the two. There is no longer matter. NOT an ordinary chemical reaction, Law of Conservation of Matter does not apply.

Before the burning, you have matter. After the burning, you have matter.
Before the annihilation, you have matter. After the annihilation, you do not have matter.
Can you see the difference?

Y'all are trying to say conversions from matter to matter and conversions from matter to energy are the same things, and that laws that apply to one apply to the other. That's simply not true. In an annihilation, matter is destroyed. Energy is given off for some sort of universal balancing effect, but the matter is gone, destroyed.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Jam930]

You are not destroying the matter. Look at my icecube example.

If it were destroyed, you would get nothing out of it. If you change it into energy, it has become that energy, it's not gone.


Water -> Ice.

Was the water destroyed? no.

[suicidalmuskrat]

are there proven examples of anti-matter? i guess according to theory that since there are blackholes (which 'suck' in 'everything), then there should also be whiteholes, which should randomly 'spit' out everything...mainly just subatomic particles and single atom things, but theoretically it could spit out washing machines and carpet...also, i thought there were exceptions to the 'conversation of matter' rules when it came nuclear reactions...taking 2 atoms and 'fusing' them together to make one...in a simplified explanation