I wish that science channels would stop using the term “fabric of space” because the term is meaningless (or not well defined). What is probably meant when “fabric of space” is mentioned, is the abstract geometrical concept of manifold: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold
So what we are talking about are coordinates and distances between those coordinates. And I’d consider it unlikely that coordinates and their relations could spawn matter by themselves.
Edit: another commenter linked me to zero point energy, and with its relating links, that seems to give me the answers I was after. 
I was trying not to write too much but I guess it’s hard to ask without more context.
I’ve been reading about how antimatter results from particle accelerators and high energy collisions in space. But in layman terms, when these high energy collisions occur, are we simply allowing released energy to form into antimatter?
My understand is when electrons and protons have extreme collisions or forced too close within extreme gravity, they form neutrons or other particles (including photons). These are examples of matter into energy into matter. But are the “blueprints” that tell energy how to form into baryon matter in the energy (that is, does quantity and/or power cause the resulting state), the strong/weak fields influencing it, or some other mechanism?
I’ll try to address your questions in reverse. For the second question, the formation and structure of hadronic particles such as baryons or mesons is dictated by the fundamental forces. Specifically, the weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions between the quarks that make up the hadron. Gravity is too weak to play a role on this scale.
It’s important to remember that protons and neutrons aren’t elementary particles, they’re composed of quarks. A particle composed of 2 up quarks and a down quark in its lowest energy state is a proton. 2 downs and an up in the lowest energy state is a neutron. Elementary particles such as quarks are identical to other quarks of the same type - every up quark could be swapped for another up quark with no effect on the system. So a proton, composed of quarks in a specific energy state, will be indistinguishable from another proton. There doesn’t need to be a blueprint somewhere to define a “proton”, it just emerges naturally from the fundamental forces and elementary particles.
For an example on a more familiar scale, consider chemical reactions. By making or breaking atomic and molecular bonds you can have an oxidation reaction like fire, or generate electricity in a battery, change the color of a substance, etc. All of those distinct emergent reactions are governed by the electrons in atoms, whose energy levels and interactions emerge from quantum electromagnetism.
These forces also dictate how the composite particles can be reorganized, for example allowing a decay to occur. A free neutron will eventually undergo beta decay into a proton, an electron, and an anti-electron neutrino. This is allowed because the mass of the proton and electron (and neutrino, though it’s mass is currently unknown and experimentally consistent with 0 for this case) is less than that of the neutron. So the beta decay produces a lower energy state. The Feynman diagram for the leading order term in the decay mechanism describes it as being mediated by a W- boson.
This segues into your first question. It sounds like you’re thinking of high energy colliders like the LCH, where beams of protons or even lead nuclei are collided at high energy. These collisions produce a quark gluon plasma where quarks are no longer confined by color charge. It’s basically a superfluid soup of quarks and gluons. As it expands and cools, quarks become color confined again and consolidate into composite particles (hadrons), including some exotic and very unstable ones that quickly decay into more stable configurations. Some of these initial hadrons or their decay products will be formed from antimatter quarks. However, any reaction mechanism that creates or destroys antimatter will create or destroy the same amount of matter. This statement ignores CP violation, which is a small effect in this case, though essential for creating the matter dominated universe we live in.
The strong force between quarks is so strong that the energy needed to “separate” the quarks exceeds the energy needed to produce a quark-antiquark pair. This mechanism converts energy into matter, but the only “blueprint” is “minimize the energy of the system”, and creating a pair of quarks to stick to the initial pair that’s being pulled apart achieves this.
I suppose cat-realated deaths are better for the poor hammy than being getting stuck in the legs of Chickenleigh’s Tiny Tales^TM^ XL Dinosaur with Activity Center. Or being whipped around the room in a cage that looks like a fire truck or police car.
I swear to God anytime I see a “kid-friendly” hamster cage my blood starts to boil. I mean, the storage tub I keep my hammy in doesnt look super exciting, but it’s got lots of space for my little dude to tunnel and a huge wheel so he doesn’t get back problems. It’s really not that hard.
I also vaguely remember coming across a study showing that the previously well-established correlation between pet ownership and overall happiness was largely due to 2 factors:
not controlling for preexisting happiness/quality of life, since you are more likely to be happy in the future if you have been happy for a while already, and people are more likely to buy pets when they are financially stable (which is correlated with overall happiness)
small data sets not capturing a significant portion of the pet-owning population whose quality of life decreased after getting a pet
Just finished reading through both of them. The first one was very informative to me. I found the fact that female reptile owners scored higher on agreeableness than any other subgroup to be very interesting.
See the other answers for why this isn’t really right, but given 4 dimensional spacetime, if that ‘pixel’ did exist, it would look like a hypercube/tessaract. A constantly stretching and twisting but approximate one, anyway.
So I have a follow up question, let’s say someone has 20cm long hair, all of them are that long, we don’t see 5/10cm hair still growing to get to 20, I’m confused, how does that work?
Have you ever seen someone’s arm after they have a cast taken off? Your arm hair is short because it’s being rubbed off by random interactions with things (rubbing against shirts you take off/put on, your body, general use). A person with a cast on their arm protects those hairs, and when they finally get the cast off, they look like a werewolf.
It’s weird how often I get comments from people days later, who think they know what they’re talking about about, but are missing a piece that explains it.
If you’re going to comment on old threads, try asking a question. I probably would have explained for you and you could have learned something.
That was 3 hours later, not really old besides he’s correct: hair doesn’t grow differently because of it’s lenght but because of it’s placement on the body.
A better question would be, “when does hair know when to fall off?”
Hair never stops growing.
Edit: when I say “hair,” I mean one single strand of hair. That single strand of hair will eventually fall off. The thing is that not all strands fall off at the same time. So hair, the full head of hair, seems to be of the same length (especially if we keep getting haircuts.) But it’s not like all hairs grow and then all of them collectively say “ok, everyone, let’s stop growing!” and stop. No, each single strand of hair falls off, but at different times.
What’s „unhelpfully pedantic“ about a correct answer that explains OPs misconception? 🤡
The person above said hair doesn’t stop growing. That’s wrong. It does. It grows, then it stops growing, then the dead hair falls out. Why does it know when to fall out? Because it’s dead, Jim.
OPs question was why the hair on their head grows longer. Answer: because it’s growing cycles are longer.
I’d say you’re unhelpfully pedantic telling other people giving helpful and correct explanations they’re „unhelpfully pedantic“.
I’d say you’re extremely unhelpful because you give an „explanation“ that’s just complete bullshit and doesn’t explain anything.
I think the premise of a „pixel“ being the smallest entity in software is not right. Rasterization, i.e. translating (actually reducing) a defined subset of the software state into a 2D grid of colored pixels, is only a very limited view on that software.
This might be the reason for the different answers we‘re getting here. Most aim for subatomic physics, it we could also go to light theory (photons and wave frequencies/resolution) and human retinas, general optics and electron microscopes, which again would end up at subatomic physics (you got my circle-train of thought here).
Why is #1 an issue? You’re assuming physics at a subatomic level works the same as that at a macroscopic level, but they don’t. Things don’t have well defined boundaries.
String Theory has been folded into (no pun intended) Quantum Field Theory, which fixes some of what the original theory got wrong. Have you seen any videos from PBS Space Time, on YouTube? If not, I’d highly recommend the following videos on the subject (probably in this order):
I sure do love the implications of our universe consisting of interactions between excitations in a bunch of fields, the rays of which carry energy much like a plucked string. If that’s right, it could be rendered as audio; we would be listening to the music of the universe. It might not be good, but it would be beautiful! 😂
I don’t think it’s likely that there is a minimum volume, at least not a discrete quantized one. It would have to be a [regular honeycomb tessellation](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycomb_(geometry)) that shows no bias towards any particular direction (i.e. no corners). There are no shapes that fulfill both of those conditions in 3D space.
askscience
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.