English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

That is a very good question. We currently do not know definitively the answer to this question. Thousands of years ago, the Greeks believed that all matter were composed of some indivisble units called "atoms". This was irrefutably proven by Einstein at the turn of the 20th century (and he received a Nobel Prize for it). However, as we probe further, we discovered that even atoms has internal structure: protons, neutrons and electrons. For awhile we thought that was it, but then later we found that protons and neutrons were also made of more fundamental particles called quarks (now confirmed by experiements).

So is this it? Quarks is the final indivisible unit? It turns out that it is most likely not the case. The reason is not that we have discovered anything smaller than quarks. The reason is because our 2 current theories of the physical world, quantum mechanics and theory of general relativity, are not compatible with each other. What this means is that these 2 theories are not completely correct. They are good for most situations, but they can not explain objects like black holes or explain the big bang (the beginning of the universe). There are other things that these 2 theories can't explain, but I won't go into that right now.

These serious flaws has been the mother of all physics problems for the most of the 20th century. The Holy Grail of modern physics is to find a single theory that can combine the 2 theories together and explain all physical phenonmenons. So far we have one candidate: Superstring Theory.

So in our effort to solve this problem, we created String Theory, which tells us that quarks are not the fundamental building blocks of matter, but tiny filaments of vibrating energy called Strings. They are much much smaller than quarks. Quarks are estimated to be about to 10^-16 centimeters, but strings are around 10^-33 centimeters. So is this it? We really don't know for sure, but all the signs points to a yes (I won't explain why here because it's too long and it wasn't your question.).

So does this imply that matter/energy always existed? The answer is NO. because the universe is about 14 billion years old. That's how long anything has existed, including all the matter and energy.

2006-06-17 05:38:15 · answer #1 · answered by PhysicsDude 7 · 3 0

no it does not imply that matter has always existed but i am not sure if matter could not be divided beyond a certain point. until pretty recently atoms where thought of to be undivisible but now we know of sub atomic particles like protons and quracks and bisons etc. So time should tell

2006-06-17 12:25:59 · answer #2 · answered by Kalahari_Surfer 5 · 0 0

Nobody can say for sure that matter is indivisible beyond any point. If it is, that doesn't speak to its age. Butterfly is wrong.

2006-06-17 12:21:17 · answer #3 · answered by diamond_kursed 4 · 0 0

It is true that we cannot divide matter after a certain point. But we will never know whether it can really be divded again until we get it.

2006-06-17 12:15:08 · answer #4 · answered by vs1h 2 · 0 0

No matter how far away it is, it's always visible to some extent if light reflects from it. (unless your measuring instruments are imperfect, lol) And no matter how close it is it's not visible if light doesn't relect from it.

2006-06-17 12:22:51 · answer #5 · answered by vancouverbob_2001 2 · 0 0

YES AND YES.

2006-06-17 12:13:05 · answer #6 · answered by ~*~ Flutterby ~*~ 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers