|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang - Big Dud | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1457 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Failing to see the distinction between mass and matter is even more serious. What has mass that isn't matter? What is matter that doesn't have mass? It's no surprise to me that mass and matter are conflated if you never have one without the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stellatic Inactive Member |
Hi Sylas
Thanks for your answer (and Percy too). I perfectly agree on everything you wrote. However, while reading your reply, I somehow got the feeling that you misunderstood the motivation for my question. If so, I would like to put that straight. I was not wondering whether it is possible in principle to create nucleotides in a lab, rather whether we know how to do it, and it was not meant either as an attack on evolution of some kind. I'm not an expert in biology so I wouldn't dare to criticize on evolution. Not that I believe everything people say about it (people try to make you believe all sorts of things, some scepticism is always required), but I have no basis for a good (scientific) opinion on the matter. I did not follow any courses on biology after highschool and I'm studying astrophysics now, so that's why I only discuss on the Cosmology discussion board. I read your post, where you said that DNA-synthesis is a perfectly standard practice and I wondered if it would be possible to do this as an experiment at home. Like making nitroglycerine or something, that's pretty easy. Seemed fun to me (in some nerdish kind of way, ). Anyway, I took the advice of Percy to google a bit and I found this site where they explained through which processes DNA was synthesized in cells. I was a bit overwhelmed by the complexity of the whole process and came to the conclusion that for me, it isn't possible to do this, but since they know how it is done in a cell, they can, of course, do it in a lab too. Since it is a pretty complex process, I think they usually "harvest it from living tissue" (Yikes! reminds me of The Matrix (don't tell me you don't know this movie, well... ok, I'll explain: robots took over the world and since the light of the sun is blocked by dark clouds they use humans to harvest energy from)) as Percy suggested. I agree with you that creationists shouldn't be looking so hard for proofs of the existence of God. By doing so, they create contradictions between science and religion where there are none, in my opinion. I think science and religion complete each other and together give a more complete view of our world. For answers on the 'how'-questions you should be looking more in the direction of science, for the 'why'-questions one should be looking in the direction of religion. Just my opinion... I found your website on selfsynthesizing DNA strings very interesting, by the way. Greets Stellatic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Stellatic writes:
Hi Sylas Thanks for your answer [...] However, while reading your reply, I somehow got the feeling that you misunderstood the motivation for my question. If so, I would like to put that straight. [...] Thanks for that. My answer was in two parts. The first was a straight answer on synthesis of DNA, which as you note is a very complex molecule indeed; though still a natural phenomenon that can be synthesized and manipulated in a lab. That part was an answer to your question. The second part was more philosophical/theological; chasing one of my own hobby horses in this whole area. I was more thinking of SoulFire than you as I wrote it. The claim that scientists are unable to know this or that, or do this or that, is sometimes raised by creationists who set apart some aspect of the natural world as being "created" and qualitatively different from what is "natural". SoulFire had appeared to do that in his sig line. I think that is both scientifically and theologically nave. But nothing in your post gave any hint of such philosophical baggage; you just asked a straight clear question. I would have guessed you not to be a creationist; given the constructive and open phrasing of your question. Sorry if the latter half of my post appeared to be aimed at you. It was a general but peripheral philosophical matter that I consider relevant to the creationism/evolution debate; but not a response to anything you had written. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Just curious, since you're both from Australia and interested in some of the same things and are in roughly the same age range, if you know Andrew Parker. He has a recent book out about the Cambrian explosion.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
Just curious, since you're both from Australia and interested in some of the same things and are in roughly the same age range, if you know Andrew Parker. He has a recent book out about the Cambrian explosion. No; don't know anything about him. I quick scout around indicates that he used to be at the Australian Museum in Sydney, and that he proposes the Cambrian explosion was a response to the evolution of vision. Dr Parker is currently at Oxford. He certaintly appears to be someone to take seriously; but what little I can see of his ideas relating to the Cambrian explosion seem a bit ad hoc; an interesting speculation. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
crashfrog
Well I know it seems to me that if you double the energy you can double the mass however I do not see how you can double the matter.Mass is a property of matter and I suppose in the realm of science it is quite necessary to distinguish the two. 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.' (Daniel Patrick Moynihan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
sidelined writes: Well I know it seems to me that if you double the energy you can double the mass, however I do not see how you can double the matter. I'm not sure why you say this, but in case this is in the context of E=mc2, if you double the mass you quadruple the energy. Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. You can only convert back and forth between the two. On a quantum level, mass *can* be created as virtual particles flit in and out of existence. The net energy is 0, and the matter is balanced in terms of matter and antimatter, but the net mass is not 0, and the Casamir effect demonstrates this. Perhaps this is what you mean when you say it is important to distinguish between matter and mass? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Percy
You make this statement
in case this is in the context of E=mc2, if you double the mass you quadruple the energy. But it seems this contradicts the point made here
Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula If the mass and energy are equivalent then if you double the mass you double the amount of energy available through it because they are in fact two aspects of the same thing. So in this case it would mean that 2E=2MC^2. With your position the equation would be 4E=2MC^2.Can we clarify this? 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.' (Daniel Patrick Moynihan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
God, what was I thinking? I'll plead stress and overwork. That has got to be the most cockeyed thing I've ever said here. Thank goodness I wrote this on Friday night, one of our least active times.
You are, of course, completely correct. Energy is proportional to mass, not the square of the mass. Let me see if I can back up and make some rational point here. I guess except for the part affected by my equational dyslexia that my post was okay. You cannot create or destroy matter or energy, only convert back and forth between the two following the equation E=mc2. But there is an interesting situation at the quantum level where virtual particles flit in and out of existence. They are balanced in terms of energy (net of 0) and in terms of matter and anti-matter, but they do have non-zero mass, as demonstrated by the Casimir effect. And I was asking if this was why you thought it so important to distinguish between matter and mass. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Percy
I am trying to make clear that matter cannot be the thing that is changing in the formula E=MC^2 since,again,if the energy were to be doubled we do not therefore have double the matter.It is an important concept in that mass is an abstract phenomena as is energy and even though the balance is maintained in calculations we do not have any idea just what they {energy/mass} are. 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.' (Daniel Patrick Moynihan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
sidelined writes: I am trying to make clear that matter cannot be the thing that is changing in the formula E=MC^2 since,again, if the energy were to be doubled we do not therefore have double the matter. Uh, why not? Consider these scenarios:
What leads you to believe you have a valid beef with E=mc2? This one has kind of been verified up the kazoo. As I told you in an earlier post, while the reverse transformation of energy to matter hadn't been verified in the laboratory for a long time, this was only because of technological constraints (you can imagine the difficulty of getting photons to collide), and it was never doubted to hold because it is so fundamental. It was finally verified experimentally a few years ago. If you still doubt the validity of the equation, consider its similarity to the equation for kinetic energy, E=mv2/2. In the limit as v approaches c and relativistic effects take over, the factor of 1/2 goes to 1 and you're left with E=mc2. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Percy
Photons are not conserved are they? They are produced through energy levels in an atom going from a higher energy state[with a subsequent change in mass]which emit a photon when dropped to a lower energy level[with another change in mass] If the matter were to change then we would expect to see an increaese in the number of neutrons and protons upon an increase of energy wouldn't we? This is where my confusion lays. 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.' (Daniel Patrick Moynihan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Photons are not conserved are they? They are produced through energy levels in an atom going from a higher energy state[with a subsequent change in mass]which emit a photon when dropped to a lower energy level[with another change in mass] This is not an example of energy/mass conversion, and so is not covered by E=mc2. When an electron drops energy levels, it emits a photon of energy equal to the energy it lost. When an electron absorbs a photon, it rises in energy level by an amount equal to the energy of the photon. This is the law of conservation of energy. No energy/mass conversion is involved. That being said, I have heard recently that energy might bend space just like mass. I don't know if this is a recent speculation, or has been around a while and I just never noticed, but it makes a lot of sense since matter and energy convert back and forth. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4365 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
G = 8 Pi T.
Einsteins field equation. T is the stress-energy tensor. Check it out. This should answer your query.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shyster27usa Inactive Member |
That is pretty interesting about synthesizing DNA I will have to ask my wife about it tomorrow (she is a geneticist). I know that it fun to argue and everything but every once in a while I think that it is okay to agree with someone and I agree with you that a lot of people on this board are selling G-d or the possibility of G-d short (including atheists, evolutionists, agnostics, Non-practicing agnostics) but those that believe in God are among the worst offenders. I will be up front and say that I am a monotheist and I believe that the Bible is the Holy word of God and it is without error but I am also open-minded.
I am not threatened by people with beliefs that don't seem at first glance to coincide with the bible, such as the big bang. Maybe Genesis and the big bang explain the same event, that before there was time or a universe there was a void and then BANG God created the universe. Another thing is the age of the earth, what does it matter how old we calculate the earth to be using science? It does not matter from a religious point of view because the bible (as far as I know) does not spell out how old the earth is. And for the people who do not believe in God is it really that much of a stretch to think that there is something in the universe more intelligent than we are? Something that can control and manipulate and even change the laws that govern science, as we know it? P.S. Just for fun and a little trivia can you from memory name the first organic chemical ever synthesized?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024