Electric Currents Critical to Star Formation?

[MGmirkin]

The title may seem misleading at first, but we'll take the roundabout way there. I was doing some poking around online and happened across several articles attempting to relate star formation to magnetic fields.

Here comes the "roundabout" part to get to the thread title:

Where we consider large / dynamic magnetic fields, we must also bear in mind that magnetic fields do not stand alone. They stand shoulder to shoulder with the collective motions of like charged "charge carriers" (electrons, protons, ions).

(Wikipedia on the Electromagnetic Field)
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field.

[...]

The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law.

In essence, stationary charge carriers are responsible for the electric field. Collective net motion of like charge carriers (in an electric current) are responsible for magnetic fields. In the case of permanent magnets (I believe), the magnetic field is based upon the collective net lock-step motion of the electrons in the clouds bound around the atomic nuclei.

So, now we've come the roundabout way to understanding that where magnetic fields are thought to play a role, the collective net motion of charge carriers (electric currents) involved is also to be considered of equal importance, since the magnetic fields appear to have their genesis in those electric currents. Now, let's see what they have to say about electric currents (by way of understanding that magnetic fields may be of primary importance and by extension the electric currents must be of equally primary importance).

(Magnetic Fields Crucial To Star Formation, Astronomer Says
Translation [by substitution]: [Electric Currents] Crucial To Star Formation, Astronomer Says)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 080925.htm

Observations by a University of Illinois astronomer have shown that magnetic fields are a critical component controlling when and how stars form.

[...]

"Theorists have performed extensive simulations that show how an interstellar cloud might collapse in the presence of a magnetic field," Crutcher said. "In those studies, the researchers could prevent the clouds from quickly collapsing and forming stars, and they could get rid of the extra angular momentum, by making the magnetic fields sufficiently strong."

To test theory against data, Crutcher measured the strengths of magnetic fields in 27 interstellar clouds of varying molecular density. By comparing each cloud's magnetic energy with its gravitational energy, he found that magnetic fields were strong enough to control the rate of collapse and to assist in the star-formation process by providing a means of shedding excess angular momentum.

[...]

"By flinging a small amount of matter outward along the magnetic field lines, the magnetic waves can remove a huge amount of angular momentum, making star formation possible," said Crutcher, who reported his findings in the August issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

(Star formation? All a bit of a wind up...)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/01/star_formation/

UK astronomers have discovered that the material flowing out of newborn stars contains a coiled, spring-shaped magnetic field.

[...]

The theory is that as the gas collapses to form the spinning protostar, the interstellar gas twists the magnetic field that permeates the universe, winding it up like a corkscrew. Gas that is spinning too fast spins out along the field lines creating the polar jets observed on so many new stars.

But until now there was no real evidence to support this explanation for the process, the Hertfordshire team says. Using the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) in New South Wales, Australia, Dr Chrysostomou and his team measured the circular polarisation of near-infrared radiation from a young star's jet. They were then able to reconstruct the structure of the magnetic field in the outflow.

Dr Phil Lucas, lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire, commented: "When we combine our observations with sophisticated computer modelling techniques, we were able to show that the shape of magnetic field that could reproduce our observations could only be helical."

Hmm, a helical magnetic field... Where have I heard that before? Filamentation in Birkeland currents? Could the helical magnetic field have a genesis in helical electric currents?



(Newly Seen Force May Help Gravity In Star Formation)
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/stellar- ... y-05g.html

I'll make this brief:

The observation, made primarily with the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton observatory, suggests that some unrealized, energetic process - likely related to magnetic fields - is superheating the surface of the cloud core, nudging the cloud ever closer to becoming a star.

[...]

"Previous observations have captured the shape of such gas clouds but have never been able to peer inside. The detection of X-rays this early indicates that gravity alone is not the only force shaping young stars."

[...]

The detection of magnetic fields from an extremely young Class 0 protostar provides a crucial link in understanding the star formation process, because magnetic field loops are believed to play a critical role in moderating the cloud collapse.

If I may make a suggestion to the XMM-Newton team: What is more related to "magnetic fields" than "electric currents?" Electric currents are also a simple method of generating x-rays, killing two birds with one stone!

(Diamagnetic effects during the early stages of star formation)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... &aid=18077

The role of magnetic fields during the initial stages of protostellar cloud collapse is investigated, in particular with respect to the scenario where the magnetic force can be an effective compressor due to diamagnetic effects. A multifluid approach involving electrons, ions of different atomic masses and neutrals is adopted, where each species is treated separately. The electron fluid is compressed by the magnetic pressure force, and the other ion species are pulled by the collective electric field developed by the space charge separation. The neutrals are also dragged owing to collisions with the ions. The difference in charge-to-mass ratio ensures that each ion species is accelerated differently, resulting in a distribution following their atomic masses. This model explores the scenario where the electromagnetic forces can achieve a supercritical mass-to-flux ratio in a magnetized cloud before dynamical collapse due to gravity takes over.

(Magnetic fields and star formation – new observational results)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... aid=973140

Although the subject of this meeting is triggered star formation in a turbulent interstellar medium, it remains unsettled what role magnetic fields play in the star formation process. This paper briefly reviews star formation model predictions for the ratio of mass to magnetic flux, describes how Zeeman observations can test these predictions, describes new results – an extensive OH Zeeman survey of dark cloud cores with the Arecibo telescope, and discusses the implications. Conclusions are that the new data support and extend the conclusions based on the older observational results – that observational data on magnetic fields in molecular clouds are consistent with the strong magnetic field model of star formation. In addition, the observational data on magnetic field strengths in the interstellar medium strongly suggest that molecular clouds must form primarily by accumulation of matter along field lines. Finally, a future observational project is described that could definitively test the ambipolar diffusion model for the formation of cores and hence of stars.

If magnetic fields play a critical role in stellar evolution, then electric current must plan an equally large role, per Maxwell (being that "magnetic fields" are intimately linked to "electric currents"). Likewise, it looks like observational support is growing for the notion that stars form by matter accumulating along field lines. But what follows field lines? Charged particles do. I don't believe "neutrals" generally do, however. Field-aligned currents (like charged particles involved in net flows along field lines) are also known as Birkeland currents.

It seems to me that (if I've not too egregiously made any false leaps of logic) Birkeland currents have now been implicated in stellar formation? Again, if my logic isn't too far off base in comparing matter following field lines to Birkeland currents (field-aligned currents) with the assumption that "neutral" matter won't tend to follow field lines as electrically charged matter will...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[StevenO]

It seems the thruth is finally starting to trickle into the mainstream...

Still, we also have to beware that we should'nt become too dogmatic in our EU postulates that all mechanisms are purely electrical.

Take for instance the hypothesis that stars are purely an electric arc discharge phenomenom. To me it seems credible that the plasma pinch is essential in creating the energy density to ignite the process. However, the very constant heat output (<0.1% variation in the 11 year solar cycle) does not seem to match well with the variability in the 'solar wind'.

I found this deduction on Xavier Borgs website that states that there should be permanent matter creation in the form of hydrogen and helium around massive bodies (giant planets,stars). Could that be a major part of the sun's fuel supply? Here is the link: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-vpm.asp



Since electron/positron pair production also only takes place around existing matter this theory does seem credible to me. It matches the observation that the mass density of the sun equals the mass density of hydrogen gas and the observation that the solar surface is about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium.

(The link page is the culmination of a well documented theory on the structure of the atomic nucleus. Please trace back the pages if you really want to understand).

[MGmirkin]

It seems the thruth is finally starting to trickle into the mainstream...

Still, we also have to beware that we should'nt become too dogmatic in our EU postulates that all mechanisms are purely electrical.

I see your point... However (you knew it was coming), one is inclined to comment that "if the shoe fits, wear it!"

If "magnetic fields" are strongly implicated and we know that magnetic fields are resultant from the motions of like charged particles flowing in currents. It doesn't seem like much of a "leap" in logic to equate by substitution.

IE, if two statements are logically equivalent or mathematically equivalent, and substitution is equitable, why not do so?

Take two statements:
"Here is an electric current through a conductive medium; it generates a magnetic field."
"There is a magnetic field; it is generated by an electric current through a conductive medium."

Are these approximately equivalent grammatically / logically (and physically)? If so, I suppose that's the point.

Can we take a statement from a mainstream new source an insert an equivalent statement, and still have the statement be grammatically and logically (and physically) correct? That's the point I'm trying to make with this thread.

I agree that a man with a hammer should not view everything as a nail. However, that is not to say that we should shy away from calling a thing what it is, where the definition is available. Likewise, in substituting a grammatically, logically and physically equivalent statement into a pre-existing quote as a thought experiment doesn't seem out of the question. So long as we're not technically "changing" anything (IE, apples into whales). If the statements are not logically and physically the same, then I agree we should avoid such an exercise in that case. Likewise, poof by assertion is a no-no. Just because someone says something is electrical (IE, "Valles Marineris is a lightning scar"), does not make it so. Though, one can certainly point out similarities in features (morphology etc.) in order to compare and contrast models' available explanatory processes and expectations.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

... EU postulates that all mechanisms are purely electrical.

Just to be clear, since I didn't address it in the prior post (which was on a slightly different topic), I don't think the EU postulates that "all mechanisms are electrical." That would be a hasty generalization, and I don't think it would be a correct statement.

The EU model, insofar as I understand portions of it, does not rule out "neutral matter" doing "neutral things." It recognizes that Earth's matter is largely electrically neutral (IE, atoms generally have the right balance of positive and negative charge, etc.)... Likewise it recognizes that in the absence of separated electrical charges, currents, electric fields, etc. neutral matter tends to respond to the weaker force of gravity. Neutral bodies are free to do things gravitationally. However, where there may be charges on objects of sufficient levels with relation to similar or opposite charges elsewhere, eletrical interactions may dominate over gravitational ones.

See my comment on the "Magnetic Rain" on the Sun... Really? thread.

EU also differentiates itself slightly from Plasma Cosmology in a few other areas, such as Wal's proposal for light propagation, structure of elementary particles, and some of the themes dealing more with catastrophism and Earth's history, etc. The minutae of physical differences between EU and PC occasionally confuse people (the catastrophist bits are a bit easier to discern).

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Tzunamii]

Our experience with "normal" mechanisms is somewhat anomalous when ya think about it.
We really are in a fish bowl of mostly neutral matter in an endless ocean of charged particles.
99% of Everything we observe in space is Plasma.
Wouldn't it make sense that plasma physics supersede "normal" physics to a Large extent when trying to determine the whats and whys of space phenomena?
EU's powerful predictive quality has come from this line of thinking, and as this story continues, I think we are finding that even Earth sciences that rely heavily on electrically neutral physics (meteorology & geology for example) are finding Much causality in the Physics that govern 99% of what we observe everywhere else, Plasma.

[MGmirkin]

99% of Everything we observe in space is Plasma.

9.999% plasma indeeed...

Wouldn't it make sense that plasma physics supersede "normal" physics to a Large extent when trying to determine the whats and whys of space phenomena?

To us, sure... To the Standard Model, which only begrudgingly accepts electric currents in plasma when it flies Voyager 1 through the Io-Jupiter flux tube, or realises there's an IMF and a heliospheric current sheet, or thinks that space is completely electrically neutral and cannot have regions of locally separated charges, perhaps it doesn't make as much sense...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

I found this deduction on Xavier Borgs website that states that there should be permanent matter creation in the form of hydrogen and helium around massive bodies.

Since electron/positron pair production also only takes place around existing matter this theory does seem credible to me.

"Matter creation" is a sticky proposition at best. Remember, the 'm' in E=MC^2 stands for "mass" not "matter." The fact that many scientists appear to mix and mingle the two terms as if they're Play-Doh(TM) due to the fact they start with the same letter, doesn't mean they're the same thing. Matter is the "physical stuff," insofar as I'm aware. Mass is a property of matter which has to do with how it accelerates in response to external forces (such as gravity).

E=MC^2 allows for a conversion of energy into mass or mass into energy. It does NOT allow, so far as I'm aware, for a conversion of energy into matter or matter into energy.

Perhaps a quibble, but probably an important one?

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[earls]

matter = mass + volume, however, 0 mass = 0 matter, so mass = matter. there are no massless volumes.

RE: StevenO -

Can't say I can buy into that. Mass produced by mass? Surely I would think this phenomenon could be easily observed in action.

The cited experiments on his page seem rather inconclusive. Many assumptions are presumed. It is no surprise that Hydrogen is "formed" during an electrical discharge. Hydrogen is a very pervasive element in most molecules and with such low binding energy it is no surprise that it is easily and commonly freed.

"It is an accepted fact that all of the planets in our solar system started out with atmospheres of Hydrogen and Helium."

It is? I can't seem to locate a source... Nor does it make much sense that the atmosphere would have less H and He as the mass of the planets increased if larger masses lead to increased H and HE production. The composition of the planets more likely matches stellar evolution. Light elements on the outskirts of the solar system (as they were first produced) and the heavier elements to the middle. Gas planets are larger because of their longer existence.

Also it is mentioned that the Hydrogen forming around the sun is the fuel supply for the star - an illogical attempt to appeal to the currently held assumption the sun is a gravity driven nuclear furnace as the author is not aware of or doesn't subscribe to the Electric Universe's theory of galactic currents.

I beseech you to reassess his claims. I don't disagree he has some interesting and valid points, but the concept of hydrogen production around massive objects is incorrect.

[StevenO]

matter = mass + volume, however, 0 mass = 0 matter, so mass = matter. there are no massless volumes.

Since mass is three dimensional energy, I fully agree.

Can't say I can buy into that. Mass produced by mass? Surely I would think this phenomenon could be easily observed in action.

I'm not so sure since the force of gravity is so small comparatively that it would only happen in observable amounts around very massive bodies, like gas giants and stars.

The cited experiments on his page seem rather inconclusive. Many assumptions are presumed. It is no surprise that Hydrogen is "formed" during an electrical discharge. Hydrogen is a very pervasive element in most molecules and with such low binding energy it is no surprise that it is easily and commonly freed.

"It is an accepted fact that all of the planets in our solar system started out with atmospheres of Hydrogen and Helium."

It is? I can't seem to locate a source... Nor does it make much sense that the atmosphere would have less H and He as the mass of the planets increased if larger masses lead to increased H and HE production. The composition of the planets more likely matches stellar evolution. Light elements on the outskirts of the solar system (as they were first produced) and the heavier elements to the middle. Gas planets are larger because of their longer existence.

Please don't discredit Xavier because he is not aware of EU. The theory behind it is really very well worked out. I suggested this to the EU forum since the EU proposition is that continuous matter creation replaces the Big Bang hypothesis as stated in Don Scott's book. But EU has no theory how matter comes into being (before fusion!). Xavier's UFT shows that there is a continuous spectrum from space (which is unstructured charge) getting structured into plasma and matter as we know it.

Also it is mentioned that the Hydrogen forming around the sun is the fuel supply for the star - an illogical attempt to appeal to the currently held assumption the sun is a gravity driven nuclear furnace as the author is not aware of or doesn't subscribe to the Electric Universe's theory of galactic currents.

The first statement is my proposition since the electric supply line looks too unstable to me to explain the constant energy of the sun. But I might be missing some big time constants in the galactic/solar circuit?

I beseech you to reassess his claims. I don't disagree he has some interesting and valid points, but the concept of hydrogen production around massive objects is incorrect.

I can fully understand that it looks like a remote mechanism for most people, but I have studied Xavier's work and it is all of the highest quality. From the light of EU it really makes sense. The DPF experiments can probably help to gain more insights in how the process works.

[earls]

"I'm not so sure since the force of gravity is so small comparatively that it would only happen in observable amounts around very massive bodies, like gas giants and stars."

"It is an accepted fact that all of the planets in our solar system started out with atmospheres of Hydrogen and Helium."

How are these statements not a direct contradiction? What am I missing? Regardless, if this theory was correct, you would be able to observe large amounts of hydrogen and helium around what "they" call neutron stars, black holes, and other exceptionally massive astrological bodies... But you don't.

I hardly wish to "discredit" him in any respect. As a matter of fact, after reviewing his page today I realize his is the same page I came across but days before reading about lifters... I kicked myself for not bookmarking it because it was so informative and thorough. Thanks for that.

However, this matter creation on the edges of mass is simply not viable. It's the same chicken and the egg problem we have now... You need mass to create gravity and you need gravity to create mass... Which came first?! EU solves this conundrum with an underlying, all pervasive mechanism - Electromagnetism (charge). I can tell this guy "Xavier" is right on the edge of figuring this out for himself, he just needs a little push, or a view from another perspective and it will click instantly... And then he can abandon his attempts to reconcile his ideas with the inaccurate mainstream faux pas.

Hah, anyway, I'm reading up on his theory of gravity (and will be updating this post accordingly) ...

Here he says the same thing as I:

Using Einstein's classical ball on a rubber membrane analogy, modern physics seems happy enough to show that gravity is a curvature of space, even though the cause for stretching down the rubber membrane is unknown. In such an analogy, it would be gravity itself that deforms the elastic sheet by the ball’s weight, but what deforms space by a body’s mass? It's gravity! If so, then gravity cannot be caused by the curvature of space, because the curvature would be caused by gravity. And as it should be clear enough for all you clever readers, this is a clear example of a circular definition, a useless analogy which explains absolutely nothing. It sounds good only as long as one does not try to understand its significance.

[StevenO]

Hah, anyway, I'm reading up on his theory of gravity (and will be updating this post accordingly) ...

Here he says the same thing as I:

Using Einstein's classical ball on a rubber membrane analogy, modern physics seems happy enough to show that gravity is a curvature of space, even though the cause for stretching down the rubber membrane is unknown. In such an analogy, it would be gravity itself that deforms the elastic sheet by the ball’s weight, but what deforms space by a body’s mass? It's gravity! If so, then gravity cannot be caused by the curvature of space, because the curvature would be caused by gravity. And as it should be clear enough for all you clever readers, this is a clear example of a circular definition, a useless analogy which explains absolutely nothing. It sounds good only as long as one does not try to understand its significance.

Well...my version is that Einstein made a classical mistake for the same reason he always had trouble understanding EM. A field is the result of the interaction between two sources (particles), so it makes no sense to study a gravitional field as the result of a single body acting on space.

Mass is three dimensional energy, a form of compressed space or more energetic space, however you want to intuitively memorize it. As a result space around mass will get compressed. This effect can never be observed on the body itself, only on another body. Since the gravitional field is the product of two masses as observed on space, the correct dimensionality of the (Newtonian) gravitional field is T^6/S^5 (where T=time dimension, S=space dimension), a dimensional effect that is hard to grasp.
Another erroneous simplification by Einstein is the assumption of one-dimensional time. That is how the human brain observes motion. Nature observes motion in as many dimensions as space itself. Once you apply that one can intuitively understand that Special Relativity is the compression of space and matter in the direction of movement and that General Relativity is the compression of space and matter due to other matter.

[nick c]

StevenO:
I am reluctant to join in on this thread as I certainly don't have the prerequisite technical background, however, I have a question.

StevenO wrote:

I suggested this to the EU forum since the EU proposition is that continuous matter creation replaces the Big Bang hypothesis as stated in Don Scott's book. color highlight added

I have been looking over The Electric Sky by Don Scott and I can't find any reference to "continous matter creation." Could you give me a page number?

Also, Wal Thornhill states:

http://www.holoscience.com/news/slow_light.html
Space cannot be warped. And matter can neither be destroyed nor created, despite the widespread misconception that the “m” in E = mc^2 means matter[...]
color highlight added

Thornhill states that matter does not equal mass.
Whether matter can be created or not, I don't know, but I don't think that the 'creation of matter' can be said to be part of EU theory.
Unless I am missing something?

Nick

[StevenO]

StevenO:
I am reluctant to join in on this thread as I certainly don't have the prerequisite technical background, however, I have a question.

If the techies can't explain their theories to you then they probably don't know what their talking about...

StevenO wrote:

I suggested this to the EU forum since the EU proposition is that continuous matter creation replaces the Big Bang hypothesis as stated in Don Scott's book. color highlight added

I have been looking over The Electric Sky by Don Scott and I can't find any reference to "continous matter creation." Could you give me a page number?

I don't have the book at my desk, so I'll have to check later, but I think it is in an appendix, where he explains that the theory that the universe is expanding (==Big Bang) follows from Einsteins GR is just an assumption as some Indian guy showed later in the 70's that if matter is continuously added GR would predict a stable size universe (which is another assumption of course but just as valid).

Also, Wal Thornhill states:

http://www.holoscience.com/news/slow_light.html
Space cannot be warped. And matter can neither be destroyed nor created, despite the widespread misconception that the “m” in E = mc^2 means matter[...]
color highlight added

I think Wall is completely mistaken. Electron/positron pair production is a well known phenomenom and electrons have mass. This proces looks kind of similar to the Dense Plasma Focus process to me.
I think Wal would be correct if he stated "space can neither be destroyed nor created" (just more or less curved). Pity that this clashes with his other statement...

I think the confusion comes from the fact that space itself cannot be observed. The moment we try do that by introducing a time dimension to observe a change in the state of space we break a symmetry that introduces side effects that are not neccessarily an intrinsic property of space itself.

Matter is three dimensional curled up space and mass is the three dimensional description form of energy, like momentum is the two dimensional energy. Energy itself is one dimensional.

What still puzzles me is how proton/neutrons are created since they have a much more complex structure than electrons. Xavier provides a theory that could point in the right direction.

Thornhill states that matter does not equal mass.
Whether matter can be created or not, I don't know, but I don't think that the 'creation of matter' can be said to be part of EU theory.
Unless I am missing something?

Nick

I agree with you. That is why I proposed to look into Xavier's theory.

[StefanR]

I kind of like the weighing of the possibility of matter "creation"
But maybe the word "composing" would fit better? What kind of pathway do you have in mind Steven?
If I may qoute al little Wiki for quickness about the beta-decay:

Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 885.7±0.8 s (about 15 minutes), decaying by emission of a negative electron and antineutrino to become a proton:[3]

n0 → p+ + e− + νe

This decay mode, known as beta decay, can also transform the character of neutrons within unstable nuclei.

Inside of a bound nucleus, protons can also transform via beta decay into neutrons. In this case, the transformation may occur by emission of a positron (antielectron) and neutrino (instead of an antineutrino):

p+ → n0 + e+ + νe

The transformation of a proton to a neutron inside of a nucleus is also possible through electron capture:

p+ + e− → n0 + νe

Positron capture by neutrons in nuclei that contain an excess of neutrons is also possible, but is hindered due to the fact positrons are repelled by the nucleus, and furthermore, quickly annihilate when they encounter negative electrons.

When bound inside of a nucleus, the instability of a single neutron to beta decay is balanced against the instability that would be acquired by the nucleus as a whole if an additional proton were to participate in repulsive interactions with the other protons that are already present in the nucleus. As such, although free neutrons are unstable, bound neutrons are not necessarily so. The same reasoning explains why protons, which are stable in empty space, may transform into neutrons when bound inside of a nucleus.

Beta decay and electron capture are types of radioactive decay and are both governed by the weak interaction.

Now in the first reaction could it be that instead of emitting a proton and electron and an antineutrino, that the antineutrino is instead the absorbtion of an neutrino by a neutron which produces a proton and an electron?

[earls]

Now in the first reaction could it be that instead of emitting a proton and electron and an antineutrino, that the antineutrino is instead the absorbtion of an neutrino by a neutron which produces a proton and an electron?

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.

Seems to be gone now, but I swore I saw on Wikipedia (not that it's the end all be all authority) just days ago under a "trivia" (?!?) section of Neutrinos that a Neutron + Neutrino = Proton + Electron.

I came to a similar conclusion pondering the particles myself before I found the shocking confirmation.

Seems to me neutrinos are the future of energy/information transfer. I believe we can create them with a decent certainty, it's (reliably) detecting them that is the current challenge.

Perhaps anti-neutrinos, instead of being the same particle with an opposite charge (which being neutral makes them the same particle) are instead literally the absence of neutrino particles.



I don't think anyone here would argue that the m in E=mc^2 is "matter" instead of "mass," but I still find the statement "matter cannot be created or destroyed" highly suspect. I believe the general consensus on this forum is that matter is an discreet standing wave of "energy" that can be created, manipulated, and extinguished... Although the underlying energy that made up the matter still exists, the packet of energy we dubbed matter not longer exists.