Dear Tyler:

Matter can be created , from energy. This is a very solid probed fact of nature .

The relation Einstein got as one of their results after elaborating his theory of Special Relativity: E = mc2 , explain this fact.

Actually the correct formula is not E=mc2 but E = sqrt [(mc2)^2 + (pc)^2] where p is the linear momentum of the object.

Take for instance the case of a particle accelarator-particle collider (as a syncrotron of proton-proton collider), you can fill it with beams of protons and when two protons collide each other the collision generates a bunch of particles which the sum of their masses at the end is larger than the sum of the masses of the two protons which originated the collision.

The Universe could have been created from this exact principle, in the Beginning (maybe) there were fields (quantum energy fields), and when these (well particularly it is believed that it was one field in particular, the so called Inflaton field, anyways) , this energy field could have decayed (its energy base level) and decayed to a higher stable energy levels... The difference in energy between its previous stable state and the energy state this field decayed into may have been converted into matter and other energy and matter fields.

The First Pinciple (or Law) of thermodynamics can be enounced as : Energy it is always conserved , not created nor destroyed , but is not matter the entity the first law enounces ...

by the way, even energy can be lost (or created) and not conserved in some cases . There no universal law in the universe.

thank you!

Hi,

Arguing from a Theological perspective, I think matter can be created. The word "Creation" or "Create" carries the idea of bringing forth into existence not from pre-existing material ("Creatio ex-nihilo"). In the Biblical sense, the creator just speaks forth and they become. Franklin has given a good scientific argument from Einsteins' workings/formula.

Good question.

I will answer in terms of the metaphysics I have been studying.* For this question, the assumptions are:

* What we know evolves as our collective consciousness evolves. I think of the organizing principle for that as the principle of perceptual agreement: Personality must be in perceptual agreement with the aspect of reality with which it will associate. (Implicit Cosmology) The practical effect of this principle is that our ability to experience our world is limited by what we have been taught to be true.

** In the Hypothesis of Formative Causation proposed by Rupert Sheldrake, organisms are organized (Morphogenesis) according to the influence of nonphysical fields (morphic fields) according to what he refers to as Nature's Habit. This effect is thought to also apply to nonbiological processes such as crystal formation and mental processes such as designing a new product. (I may be excessively extrapolating Sheldrake's intention with the mental part.)

*** All of the reported trans-mind-physical influences I have studied (paranormal phenomena) appear to be the influence of mind on physical processes. Such influence is moderated by worldview of the experiencer (practitioner-interested observer). This is comparable to Nature's habit.

Nature's Habit and Perceptual Agreement are to ways of saying that our perception of reality evolves as reality evolves. The practical effect is that the physical universe probably evolved from the proposed Big Bang and our perception of it and ability to influence it is limited by the effect of that initial creation of matter.

So, my answer is that I am aware of no mental process that creates new matter. Precipitation and apport are two reported examples of mind creating matter, but they are better thought of as mind replicating matter.

your question is very valid and I have a different view on this.

To this concept, matter is also a form of energy that is why we say conversion is possible in accordance conservation of energy and mass (energy can neither be created nor be destroyed).

next question is, how did the universe started. The only possibility is, we all are part of eternal cyclic time. As per the latest discovery of the great attractor, it has an angular force on our galaxies, that means our universe is orbiting. This perfect balance of the great attractor and orbiting galaxies, planets can only be possible if we believe that matter and energy are eternal and continuum (just like space and time).

pls refer to my another article which has a complete detail about it.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Physics_good_enough_to_validate_Brahma_Kumaris-Confluence_Age

Dear Ankur :

Is true that matter is just a form of Energy, and is true Energy can transforms into mass and viceversa, but in General Relativity energy can be lost (to say... not conserved).

Dear Franklin,

as per my knowledge, there are only 1 thing exists in the universe, Matter and energy and these both are eternal and immortal.

and I believe the truth is only one, either energy is conserved or not.

even if I believe energy is lost, then my next question would be, would it be lost to nothing (which is against 2nd law of thermodynamics).

even by far imagination, I believe it to true, can you explain with example.

Dear Ankur:

I think we have developed an interesting thread from Tyler's original question,

I feel compeled and motivated to contribute.

First of all, there is no universal laws in physics (even the second law of thermodynamics is not), the second law of thermodynamics comes from probabilistic results, so this law tells us that the Entropy in a physical irreversible process (almost) always increases (since it comes from a estatistical-probabilistic approach of Entropy), thus the likelihood that Entropy of a irreversible process decreases or stays the same is so unlikely that we can say that Entropy always increase, and we refer to the Second Law as a physical law of the Universe.

Likewise... Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism , as well as classical laws/principles of classical mechanics, i.e. angular momentum/linear momentum and mass conservation principles, in the general scenario all these quantities are not conserved, and the Law of Energy Conservation is no exception.

As I said before, in GR Energy cannot be conserved. The reason of this is not mystical or obscure. The Law of Conservation of Energy is not a general principle of nature... it comes from a most general principle which is known as Noether Theorem:

Noether Theorem is about fundamental symmetries of the Universe:

We can understand a symmetry as a set of results or outcomes which doesn't change in the presence of a phase space transformation of the global state of a system (this can also be thought as if we would conduct a given experiment and we would obtain the exact same results after have inverted the conditions under the same symmetry we are testing.

Thus, Noether Theorem states that everytime we come across with a fundamental symmetry of the universe we can establish a conserved quantity and relate it with a conservation law (i.e. charge or angular momentum conservation), and we can say then, that we have a conserved quantity which is invariant before a given (space, time, etc ... ) transformation.

So the Law of Conservation of Energy emerges from Noether Theorem applied to the classical description of time (as well as to the microscopic, even at the quantum level, since we can obtain a Conservation of Energy law involving the Hamiltonian of the system as function of the kinetic energy of the system (quantum system)).

So in classical physics transformations in time (and space as well) are invariant ... Newton, Maxwell, Mach, etc ... all these great thinkers viewed time (or space-time) as a self contained immutable entity where, again, a fully defined funtion (nowadays, with the development of modern mathematics, we can understand this quantity:Energy as a tensor) can be defined and its magnitud can be conserved in the face of any transformation. Im speaking of Energy in classical mechanics (i.e. E = kinetic + Potential + internal Energy)

But the thing is that in GR time and space are not invariant, they can change and evolve, space and time are joined together in a sole entity wich is dynamical. So no invariant symmetry (in this particular case, time translation symmetry) can be established.

So We cannot formulate a law of Energy Conservation using Noethers Theorem.

i have done some research on this topic for quiet few years.. pls comment your opinions..

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Physics_good_enough_to_validate_Brahma_Kumaris-Confluence_Age?_tatpl%5Bac%5D%5B0%5D%5Bactor%5D=AC%3A226173&_tatpl%5Bac%5D%5B0%5D%5Bid%5D=1048926039969796&_tatpl%5Bac%5D%5B0%5D%5Bobject%5D=PT%3A5c0f9370a4714b0f8b74997d&_tatpl%5Bac%5D%5B0%5D%5Btarget%5D=PT%3A5c0e6dc7979fdc8c897b7ba2&_tatpl%5Bac%5D%5B0%5D%5Bts%5D=1544524656&_tatpl%5Bac%5D%5B0%5D%5Bverb%5D=add&_tatpl%5Bs%5D=a1c736b2d50e06648f64a6b00178474afd616aa4

Franklin, you may like to consider the implication of The Hypothesis of Formative Causation proposed by Rupert Sheldrake. See: sheldrake dot org/research/morphic-resonance/introduction

The theory seems to apply to non-organic processes. The point I am trying to make is that others have proposed that physical processes (Nature's Habit) may be moderated evolving principles that behave as if they are learning.

Just a thought.

@Franklin Uriel Parás Hernández... i am amazed by your knowledge. can you pls share if we have any deterministic laws or all are probablistic laws?

Dear Ankur Chaturvedi

I'm glad you have found my comments and explanation interesting... I am just a Physics' PhD. student who loves to read and learn from others about physics and how the nature works, I think we all should be humble since our general understanding of the laws of nature (as a mankind) is just a small part of the whole ,.. moreover , we physicists think we understand it all, but when talk to other physicists about things as quantum mechanics, interpretation of reality, early history of the universe, etc. there is not an agreement between us, I think that is an embarrassment, we should try not just to question every (even well established facts) theory, law at its limits , but also try to be mind-opened to the modern novel approaches which seek to explain the modern questions of the frontiers of theoretical physics ...,

Regarding to your question ,,, I think all laws of physics are deterministic, determinism is an intrinsic element of a law of nature (I mean, that is the whole point of a law, is n't?).

Our goal as describing the universe is to build physical relations (often in a mathematical form) which with we can predict the precise outcome of a given phenomenon ocurring in nature, and always we try to do this with 100 % of certainity (even when often we cannot extent our model to the 100 % of the cases). So all the laws of physics pursuit to predict results with 100 % of certainity, this is true, so a deterministic nature is inherent to them,. So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not exception.

What I tried to say in my last comment was that entropy, in its most fundamental (or molecular description, if you want to see it from a more physical point of view) form comes from a probabilistic relation, meaning the result (the entropy of a system of many particles) is a function of a probability of a given arrange/configuration being happened, Im speaking about the Statistical Entropy (also called configurational entropy) written by Boltzmann as S=k_Blog(W), where W is the number of different microstates of the systems which lead to the same macrostate of the system.

So Entropy (in its form what for me is the most fundamental and accurate physical-representation; Statistical Entropy) is a probabilistic outcome. Sure there exists another descriptions of Entropy, i.e. Classical Entropy in Thermodynamics, but understanding Entropy through the approach of Statistical Mechanics, as Boltzmann did, is the most general scenario.

However, as far as I know there are no laws of physics which follows a probabilistic or random nature. I believe this is in part the reason why we don't find Laws in the frame of Theory of QM. If you think of Quantum Mechanics, there are principles ... there are rules (which certainly these are probabilistic, or somehow stochastic) but no laws, meaning Laws as a definition of a Law by itself.

But there's has always been a debate (since times of Laplace) about whether the most fundamental description of nature being deterministic or random (stochastic), I don't know if someday we will know it for sure, since physisics as overall always will have in their mind the reductionist approach as they continue to understand our universe.

Kind regards! , :)

Hi Franklin... i may be touching the farthest chord.. i strongly believe that time is cyclic and i propose below assertions. if below assertions are to be proven true then we can resolve Tyler's question.

1. By theory of relativity, if earth is orbiting sun for the last million years without any change in orbit then it would mean, the overall movement of universe is supporting the earth's orbit. with the discovery of the Great attractor, it is clearly found that the Great attractor (with multibillion to size of earth or whole observable universe) is imposing angular motion. It simply means that our universe/galaxy/milky way is orbiting around the great attractor.

2. As per the study done by university of california, there is a growing evidence that the whole universe is following a common pattern or structure. Golden Ratio (1.61) and golden figure (1/137) all suggests that universe does follow a particular design. If we start looking at the structure of universe, it follows a certain pattern, electron is cyclic, natural cycles are cyclic, earth's orbit is cyclic, sun is orbiting black hole, milky way is round, galaxy are circular. if all the subset of a larger set are circulating, then we have to believe that parent force in this universe is also circular.

3. Recent studies (in 1998) shown that the universe has an acceleration. no theory could justify this. as per this theory, since universe is also orbiting around a prime foci or the great attractor, it is now entering or exiting in perihelion zone, as all know when earth enters into perihelion, there is a change in rotational speed. that is the prime reason why natural calamities are increasing because it is changing the gravity of the earth and hence changing the KE and potential energy of the nature. while coming it to equilibrium state, nature creating earthquake, tsunami. No theory in the existing modern age can answer all such questions, why natural calamities have increased and why universe is accelerating, change in earth’s gravity etc.

4. A Milankovitch cycle about eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. Can only be valid if we are to believe that time is cyclic otherwise this theory loses its ground.

5. According to law, total mass/energy of universe is constant. then if we take universes as closed environment, then all of its motions will be periodic. because in an closed environment, all your motions become periodic. in layman language, if you download lunar ball or billiard game, reduce the friction to zero and cover all the pots. then no matter what shot we play, it is always going to periodic or all events will have its periodicity. This means the time is cyclic.

Definitely an interesting subject and discussion.

Thank you all for your participation!

-Tyler

We as human being are performing our activities & action for our way of life in quite good cases we carry our performance with the help of creation .In other cases for quite major activities of the science depend on the matter under the laboratory process for creating something new for the welfare of the people .

This is my personal opinion