This is called the plurality paradox. If you can divide matter infinitely, would all those divided pieces have any size? It doesn't seem possible, for if matter could be divided infinitely, all those infinite pieces, which should have a size, would occupy an inifnite space. Matter should be finite, which means it is indivisible beyond a certain point. It would also be impossible to take matter out of existence. In a previous question I asked about black holes, I wanted to know what would happen to something that fell inside. If matter is indivisible, then not even the gravitational strength of a black hole can break matter beyond a certain point. This implies that anything that falls into a black hole should still remain inside. Note: matter that falls inside a black hole should exist in its "inidivisible" form. This "indivisble" form can either be the atom, or sub-atomic particles, namely the protons, neutrons, and electrons. So, the second question is this: how did matter originate?
198708
I would say NO... at certain point, particles are made of energy, and energy can't be splitted as matter does...
172190
Not really, a solid is usually atoms packed closely enough together so that they bond and form a structure that is resistant to change. Blackhole cores are of collapsed matter: there are no atoms, protons or even quarks. Just like plasma isn't "gas," blackhole material isn't solid
479791
Short answer: The ball will touch because space can only be divided into bits of a certain small size and no smaller.\n\nMore Detail:\n\n"Is there a point where there is no such thing as half? (The ball is so close to the surface that to drop it another half-way would be impossible because it has to touch eventually.)"\n\nYou guessed right, space is not continuously divisible, you cannot keep going 1/2 way between one point and another point in space indefinitely.  Space is "quantized", or, comes in little chunks which are only so small and never smaller.  "Loop quantum gravity, string theory, and black hole thermodynamics all predict a quantized space-time with agreement on the order of magnitude."1. So, in our discretized(not infinitely divisible) space-time, you would run out of half-ways and the ball and surface would touch.  A second reason, in reality, that the ball and surface would touch is that things do not need to infinitely close (have 0 distance between them) to be "touching" (I explain this a little later).\n\nAlternatively, if you wish to consider this problem in a "general relativity" like universe, where space-time is a smooth and infinitely divisible continuum, then the answer to your question lies in considering what is happening when things "touch".\n\nEveryday matter is made of atoms with a nucleus in the middle and electrons which zip around the nucleus, surrounding it.  The outer physical boundary of something like a book or your hand or a ball is occupied mostly by electrons.  Electrons repel each other because they are of the same electric charge.  So when two objects come very close together, their outer boundaries will repel each other.  When you put a ball on a table or grab a coffee cup you and it are not really quite touching in that your matter is in direct contact, you are very nearly touching, but not quite, because you are both sheilded from each other by your outer layer of electrons.\n\nIf space-time were an infinitely divisible continuum with no such "smallest chunk" of space then you would eventually get close enough that the ball and surface would be "touching" just as much as things ever do touch.  The distance between things does not get to 0 when they touch, it's just very small, but not infinitely small.\n\nIf you wish to consider this problem in a further way, similar to the way you may have been considering it originally, then let us ignore our best physical evidence and the theories built from them and say that space-time is infinitely divisible; there is no such thing as a "smallest bit" of space.  Let us also assume, contrary to reality, that physical objects have static (unchanging and exactly defined in space) outer boundaries, such as a mathematical geometric shape might.\n\nIf this is the case, then your question was answered by Xeno in "Xeno's Paradox".\n\nyour question was considered by Xeno in a famous problem known as Xeno's 'Achilles and the Tortoise' Paradox, which can be rephrased:\n\n"Zeno's Paradox may be rephrased as follows. Suppose I wish to cross the room. First, of course, I must cover half the distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then I must cover half the remaining distance . . . and so on forever. The consequence is that I can never get to the other side of the room."2\n\nSo we have the idea that you can never get somewhere because no matter how close you get there is another bit of ground left to cover that is 1/2 as long as the one you covered since you last checked.  Remember, it is important that we are working with the assumption that we have been able to take infinite little hops at the end of this room crossing.\n\nLet's assume that we are correct in saying that taking an infinite number of hops, each 1/2 as long as the last, will never get us to th
120623
People would take you more seriously if you wrote in proper English.\n\nYou have good thinking skills!  You are asking the right questions; keep it up!\n\nYour questions are dealt with in the field of "cosmology," which is a branch of physics.  Specifically, you are asking questions about the Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang.\n\nAccording to the Theory of Relativity, the structure of space is defined by the gravitational field generated by matter.  According to the Big Bang theory, everything began as an infinitely small, infinitely dense point about 13.7 billion years ago.  This point exploded, and continues to explode, so that matter and energy fly outward.  This is called "the expansion of the universe."\n\nWhen you put relativity together with the Big Bang, that means that space is expanding.  No one knows what space is expanding into, and at present, there is no way of knowing.  The Universe might be expanding into another, larger Universe, or it might be expanding into nothing.  This "nothing" is not a vacuum, it is litteraly nothing.  There would be no matter and no energy, not even gravity to give structure to the nothing.\n\nIs there an end to space?  If the Universe is expanding into nothing, then there is an end.  It is the outer edge of the gravitational waves being emitted by the Universe's matter.  Electromagnetic radiation would probably extend as far as the gravitational waves.  Matter would be lagging far behind the wavefront.\n\nIf the Universe is expanding into another Universe, then there is an end to our Universe; it is at the interface with the other Universe.  What this interface is like, is impossible to know because we have no knowledge of what the other Universe is like.  Suppose it is identical to ours, the same forces--gravity, electromagnatism, strong, and weak--and the same matter--hadrons and leptons. In that case, the interface would probably be a shockwave where matter was compressed by the advance of our Universe, but on either side of the shockwave, space would be continuous.\n\nBut suppose the larger Universe was much different than ours.  Who knows what kind of wild interaction takes place at the boundary?  It might be something mild, as in the case of a similar Universe, or it might be utter annihilation, or anything in betwee.  In this dissimilar Universe scenario, the space of our Universe would have a definite boundary, and on the other side of it would exist a different kind of space.  There is no sensible way to guess at what it might be like.\n\nNow, we have estabilished that if the Universe is expanding into "nothing" that there is a definite end to space.  However, if the Universe is expanding into something (another Universe), then, does space have an end.  Well, that is an unanswerable question because we have no knowledge of the larger universe.  Maybe it originated in a big bang, the way ours did, in which case it also has a definite ending.  But maybe it has always existed and goes on forever.  There is no way to know.\n\nYou are asking very good questions.  You will probably find it very interesting to read about the Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang.  Below are a couple of links and you can find a lot more by searching the Internet.  Your school or public library will have books on the subject, and of course, you can talk to your teachers.\n\nGood luck, and keep asking questions!
287201
In all actuality, your question makes no sense.  If you were to take out all the "space" in matter, there would be no matter.  Matter is basically made out of energy and forces interacting with each other.  If you compressed the universe into the size of a refrigerator, you wouldn't have matter anymore.
414994
You're absolutely right, and the Big Bang has a remarkable way of not violating that law.\n\nExpirements have been done lately that prove that a particle, such as an electron, can be spontaneously created along with an anti-electron, or a positron. In the universe, both particles exist, both have mass, but should they colide, they would colapse into nothing-ness again. \n\nThe Big Bang could have been exactly such an event, but on a macro, or very large scale. Matter and anti-matter exist, and both might make up our universe. That satisfies the law of conservation of mass, as everything particle in the universe has an anti-particle. The net energy and net mass is zero.
150350
of course it is theoretical. It is like my answer to another question, what contains the Multiverse? "What's after that?" I had said. It is theoretical and we like to think that the universe has a finite space and something holds our universe with another finite space. We like to think this way because that's the extent of our view and understanding. We live in the 3rd dimension and we can only understand physical things in the third-dimension. We can only have so much understanding on our universe that everything about it has to be based on theories. Even the fact that the 4th dimension is time is not really a fact, but still a theory because we can't think in that dimension. We haven't been through the 4th dimension (i know the theory is that we're going through it in one direction but it still is a theory). Our understanding of our own universe is very limited because we live in a finite world.\n\nAnd it doesn't answer your question, i know. But I like to think of the multiple universes that you're talking about as the Alternate Universe theory where something doesn't happen in this Universe, it happens in another and if it is this case, there is almost infinite number of them. And the wormhole thing works with Einstein's theory of Relativity as a Super Massive Black Hole is strong enough that it bends the space-time continuum so much that it will make an advanced dimensional hole in another (if not all) universe. I devised an un supported theory that that hole created by the black hole is actually a 6th dimension because it disappears as matter from the universe then exist in another. A total violation of the law conservation of matter unless it actually goes through a wormhole, which would go with the theory of relativity AND conserves matter. But it still is a theory that I accept.\n\nPS Penguins!!!
297884
I dont have an actual numerical percentage for you, but yes, matter is mostly made up of just empty space.\nThere not only is lots of empty space in between atoms, but also, the atom itself is mostly empty space as well.\nWhen you scale an atom into normal terms, the VAST majority of its mass is concentrated in an extremely mall area (the nucleus) and its electrons orbit very far away (in relative terms).
394263
The definations wanted by you are given below-\n\nIn physics, matter is commonly defined as the substance of which physical objects are composed, not counting the contribution of various energy or force-fields, which are not usually considered to be matter per se (though they may contribute to the mass of objects). Matter constitutes much of the observable universe, although again, light is not ordinarily considered matter. Unfortunately, for scientific purposes, "matter" is somewhat loosely defined.\n\nMass is a property of a physical object that quantifies the amount of matter and energy it is equivalent to. Mass is a central concept of classical mechanics and related subjects, and there are several forms of mass within the framework of relativistic kinematics (see mass in special relativity and mass in General Relativity). In the theory of relativity, the quantity invariant mass, which in concept is close to the classical idea of mass, does not vary between single observers in different reference frames.\n\nAn elementary particle is a particle with no measurable internal structure, that is, it is not a composite of other particles. They are the fundamental objects of quantum field theory. Elementary particles can be classified according to their spin, with fermions having half-integer spin and bosons integer spin.\n\nSpace has been an interest for philosophers and scientists for much of human history. The term is used somewhat differently in different fields of study, hence it is difficult to provide an uncontroversial and clear definition outside of specific defined contexts. Disagreement also exists on whether space itself can be measured or is part of the measuring system. (See Space in philosophy.) Many fields use an operational definition in which the units of measurement are defined, but not space itself.\n\nIn chemistry and physics, an atom (Greek  átomos meaning "indivisible") is the smallest particle of a chemical element that retains its chemical properties. \n\nA chemical element, often called simply an element, is a substance that cannot be decomposed or transformed into other chemical substances by ordinary chemical processes. All matter consists of these elements and as of 2006, 117 unique elements have been discovered or artificially created. The smallest particle of such an element is an atom, which consists of electrons centered about a nucleus of protons and neutrons.\n\nIn chemistry, a molecule is an aggregate of two or more atoms in a definite arrangement held together by chemical bonds. Chemical substances are not infinitely divisible into smaller fractions of the same substance: a molecule is generally considered the smallest particle of a pure substance that still retains its composition and chemical properties. Certain pure substances (e.g., metals, molten salts, crystals, etc.) are best understood as being composed of networks or aggregates of atoms or ions instead of molecular units.\n\nIn particle physics, antimatter extends the concept of the antiparticle to matter, wherein if a particle and its antiparticle come into contact with each other, the two annihilate —that is, they may both be converted into other particles with equal energy in accordance with Einstein's equation E = mc2. This gives rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs-.
165292
It is not a star going supernova that creates a blackhole. Its the collapsing of its core that does. Just wanted to clear that up.\n\nA blackhole is created when a star is so massive (at least 20 times that of our Sun) that the bonds between the atoms, or molecules, are no longer strong enough to fight against the force of gravity.  This causes the star to collapse in on itself, and eventualy create a blackhole.\n\nThere are some beliefs that a blackhole could lead to a parallel universe.  But this gets a bit hazy in details, as no one knows for sure, and its currently impossible to prove or disprove.  A blackhole has an "event horizon", that once you have passed through you cannot get back out, nor can you see past it from the outside.  Because of this event horizon, it is very unlikely that you could get out of the blackhole into another universe .....\n\nHowever ..... A theoretical astronomical body called a white hole has been predicted, although its existence has not yet been proved.  It is the opposite of a blackhole, in that instead of "sucking" up all the matter in its path, it spews it out instead.  IF this exists, then there is a chance that a white-black hole pair could be a gateway to another universe, or another part of our universe.  But I can't stress enough, this is purely theoretical, and absolutely NO proof has been found yet.
282020
well no one would know because no one can escape from a black hole not even light, the fastest thing in the universe, can escape. some scientist believe that everything in a black hole is singularity which means everything is one dimension. well it won't take you across the universe Wat he/she means is that inside a black hole there may be planets stars rocks gases and so much stuff that it would be considered a universe. or he is mistaking it with a worm hole but like the guy above me said there is no evidence that they exist.
419186
All the matter in the Universe was created as part of a "matter/anti-matter" pair out of the vacuum of space during the Big Bang. But there was a very slight imbalance, like 1 particle out of a billion survived and did get not annihilate with its anti-matter pair (not the huge imbalance the others have led you to believe).\n\nThis imbalance is due to a process called "Symmetry Breaking" or "CPT Symmetry Violation." This is a well understood process, not exactly a big mystery. (The mystery is why is there this asymmetry, not how this asymmetry happened.) Also, the fact that baryon numbers are not conserved in our Universe is not a big deal, because there is no reason to believe that it should be. The concept about baryon number conservation is very much outdated.\n\nGiven that all the matter came from a "matter/anti-matter" pair meant that all the matter in the Universe did not require any net energy to be created. As a matter of fact, most of the energy in the Universe is tied up in the vacuum as "Dark Energy" or "Vacuum Energy" (this makes up about 74% of the energy density in the Universe).\n\nI would say most physicists view the relationship between matter and energy as two manifestations of the same thing, somewhat like water and ice, where ice is just another phase of water.  Similarly, matter is just another "form" of energy, but more concentrated.\n\nYour mathematical interpretation of the matter-energy relationship as an integral compared to derivatives however doesn't make too much sense, because Einstein has already given us the mathematical relationship (and this has been tested and verified via nuclear bombs) E = mc^2, which tells us how much energy is locked up inside a piece of matter with mass, m.
442796
When the one location is definable as a mathimatical singularity you'd be surprised what can happen, it has been postulated that the "Big Bang" had more space dimensions then the present universe and if that's the case then it very easily could have been the origin of all matter. How many 2-D circles fit in a sphere? Infinitly many. Same idea.\n\nAnd the "Big Bang" wasn't a cherry-bomb-in-space. There was no space. Thanks to Relitivity we know that Space and Time are consequences of the existance of gravity and quantum mechanical forces which require matter and energy too exist. Trying to use conservation of mass to disprove Big Bang isn't valid, as there was no space or time before the Big Bang so there's nothing to compare it to.\n\nAs for whether or not there's evidence for the Big Bang, I beg to differ. The Cosmic Radiation Background is more then just proof, it's the proverbial smoking gun. I really hope this helps.
256210
Every length, or distance, can in theory be divided into a fraction, with the Planck length as the denominator.  Any distance smaller than this is meaningless, immeasurably small.\n\nAs to the ball addendum to your question, I suppose the ball could be thought of as never hitting the wall, as it cannot possibly come closer than this length.  In that case, however, the atoms that compose the ball and the wall are at least that far (actually much much further) from one another, yet they create a solid object.  The mechanics of the ball bouncing off the wall do not change because of this implication.\n\nFYI***The Planck length is approximately 10^-20th the size of a PROTON
413840
A ton. Let's take everyday physics first: The answer depends very much on how you define a state of matter. Glas is a good example: It feels like a solid, but it is not made up of crystals with atoms placed in a regular array like in a salt crystal and most other solid states. The atoms are randomly spread around more like in a liquid (in fact during many years a glass window will get thicker at the bottom than at the top, because glass is really a kind of liquid - a solid liquid if you wish). So you can call glass a differnent state if you wish.\n\nNow let's go to extremes:\nThe plasma state arises when the temperature gets so high that atoms cannot bind the electrons any more (so electrons and nuclei are floating freely around among each other). If you go to really really extremely high particle energies (so high that even modern particle accelerators can only barely make it) also the nuclei will finally be decomposed into constituents called quarks and gluons creating a new state called a quark-gluon plasma. More info:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_gluon_plasma\n\nIf you go to very very low temperatures quantum mechanical features of atoms begin to become important and a lot of new, interesting states of matter emerge (quantum mechanics is the physical laws valid on the atomic level. It is very different from Newtons laws). For instance liquid helium - when cooled below a critical point (which is about 2 K) - changes it state from a normal liquid to a so called superfluid liquid which among a lot of other interesting features does not experience any frictional forces (so it can crawl over the walls of a cup for instance). What goes on is that all the atoms (or at least many of them) unify and moves together - in a sense the collection of atoms behaves like it was only one atom. Such a collection of atoms behaving almost like a single atom is called a Bose-Einstein Condensate and it is clearly a new state of matter. Nowadays Bose-Einstein condensates of many different kind of atoms can be created in a controlled manner in modern laser laboratories. The Nobel prize in physics in 2001 was awarded for the first realization of this, a lot of information can be found on\nhttp://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2001\nIt is a similar phenomena that leads to superconductivity in some materials at very low temperatures, by the way. A lot of modern research deals with understanding exotic quantum states of matter and create them in laboratories.\nI hope the answer helps. I have tried to make it as understandable as possible, but quantum states of matter is a difficult topic.
580182
It is quite possible for the universe to be both finite and without a boundary. No wall, but still it doesn't go on forever. Here's a way of visualizing it. Imagine that nomatter which direction you choose, you will eventually get back to your starting point if you go far enough in a 'straight' line. Impossible? Free your mind. It happens in two dimensions on the surface of a sphere. While it currently looks like the universe really is infinite, such three dimensional spheres were models used for finite universes until the data showed they are probably wrong.
613729
The Universe cannot be infinite, because it is expanding, which points to its origin where everything began at the same point, namely the singularity of the Big Bang. Therefore, if it is expanding, it is bounded.\n\nHowever, it is thought that it probably doesn't have an edge, much like the Earth doesn't have an edge. If you started in a spaceship and went in a straight line, you would eventually end up where you started, much like if you started at the North Pole and went in a straight line, you would end up back the North Pole.\n\nThe reason: although you would be going in a straight line on the 2-D surface of the Earth, that line is curved in the 3rd dimension. So, if spacetime is curved in the 4th dimension, you could be going in a straight line 3 dimensionally, but it would be curved 4th dimensionally.