answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

This would violate the law of conservation of matter/mass, which states that in a closed system, mass is constant. This means that matter can neither be created nor destroyed in a chemical reaction. In other words, the mass of the products equals the mass of the reactants.

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Two scientists claim they can use a chemical reaction to make matter how are they wrong?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

Does evil help to cause suffering?

The description of something as evil, or not, is governed by the values of the one who is considering the problem. Suffering is as natural as living and can claim no religious adherents, just as a chemical reaction has no regard for the heat or cold it generates, as long as its chemical reaction is completed. As with evolution it has no way of evaluating whether it is good or bad. Every act that is seen as evil by someone, offers a benefit for someone else no matter how shallow we may regard that gain.


When did the scientists claim that your species was extinct?

We humans are not extinct. Yet.


Can you translate French chemical name into English names?

Yes, French chemical names can be translated into English chemical names. The periodic tables exists in many languages. Scientists from non-English-speaking countries have claim to many important contributions toward making the periodic table as accurate and pertinent as it is today.


Is hyperbolic a type of chemical reaction?

No; hyperbolic is a term of geometry or cosmology to describe something as having a relationship with a parabola (an infinite three-dimensional curved shape), or in debate to refer to a hyperbole claim or statement which is an overstatement or plausible exaggeration. There is no known application to chemical reactions.


Is sulfur in this chemical reaction a oxidation agent or reduction agent in S plus H2 plus 2O2 --- H2SO4?

It is safer to claim it as neither - not least because the reaction would/does not work. Far safer to say that the sulphur is oxidised (which, you could argue, makes it a reducing agent).


Why should scientists with theories regarding the unobsreved past claim them as fact?

They shouldn't.


Has human ever seen a single atom?

No nobody has ever seen an atom or atoms, though many people/scientists claim they have, NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN AN ATOM!


What was Herman E. Calloways reaction to buds claim that he was his son?

H


What was Herman e calloway reaction to buds claim that he was his son?

H


What was Herman e calloways reaction to buds claim that he was his son?

H


Can you stake a claim for gold in the Yukon?

yes, no matter what your nationality is.


Why do scientists dispute the claim that the Loch Ness monster is a real creature?

Most scientists believe the Loch Ness monster is a myth.