There's no such thing as matter

a reply to: EvilAxis

No, it has nothing to do with language and everything to do with science.

You want it to be about language because all of your post are devoid of any science.

There's no evidence that a material substance called matter exists. You haven't provided one published paper, experiment or anything that supports such a notion.

You're also wrong about Max Planck. His thinking matches many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics. Here's a quote by Werner Heisenberg.

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.

Werner Heisenberg .

THE SMALLEST UNITS OF MATTER ARE NOT PHYSICAL.

How can matter be a material substance when the basic building blocks are non physical?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

No, it has nothing to do with language and everything to do with science.

You want it to be about language because all of your post are devoid of any science.

There's no evidence that a material substance called matter exists. You haven't provided one published paper, experiment or anything that supports such a notion.

You're also wrong about Max Planck. His thinking matches many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics. Here's a quote by Werner Heisenberg.

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.

Werner Heisenberg .

THE SMALLEST UNITS OF MATTER ARE NOT PHYSICAL.

How can matter be a material substance when the basic building blocks are non physical?

....they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.'

Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie (1967), as translated in Natural Law and the Structure of Matter (1981), p. 34

He was referring to the language, not the composition of the smallest units.

Anything that occupies space is reasonably called matter. You haven't posted anything that suggests otherwise.

You also didn't recognize that the wallet in the video you posted clearly occupies space, therefore, it is matter, not pure energy. If you think otherwise, why not explain it.

Heisenberg also said this:

Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme — the quantum theory — which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualisation, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies — the wave picture and the corpuscular picture.

I think you also have overlooked condensed matter physics. These experiments would not be possible if matter did not exist.

Theoretical Condensed Matter physics is about building models of physical processes, often driven by experimental data, generalising the solutions of those models to make experimental predictions, and transferring the concepts gained into other areas of research. Theory plays an important role in understanding known phenomena and in predicting new ones. With over seventy members, the TCM Group is one of the largest research Groups in the Cavendish Laboratory, and the largest university Condensed Matter Theory group in the country. Able to trace its history back for over sixty years, it has been home to many leading theoreticians. Starting at the first principles microscopic level - with the Schrödinger equation - many properties of materials can now be calculated with a high degree of accuracy. We work on refining and developing new calculational tools and applying them to problems in physics, chemistry, materials science and biology. Solids often show unusual collective behaviour resulting from cooperative quantum or classical phenomena. For this type of physics a more model-based approach is appropriate, and we are using such methods to attack problems in magnetism, superconductivity, nonlinear optics, mesoscopic systems, polymers, and colloids. Collective behaviour comes even more to the fore in systems on a larger scale. As examples, we work on self-organising structures in "soft" condensed matter systems, non-linear dynamics of interacting systems, the observer in quantum mechanics, and models of biophysical processes, from the molecular scale up to neural systems.

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk...

Phantom423:

In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.

There. I fixed it for you. You need to quote the whole sentence, not half of it, otherwise, context becomes muddied. of course, Heisenberg was most certainly writing about '...the smallest units of matter...', they were the subject of his sentence you half-quoted. He was stating that to understand these smallest units of matter one could only express oneself using forms and ideas and mathematics. Not by any stretch of the imagination does he infer language being antecedent over subject. The tail never wags the dog.

Anything that occupies space is reasonably called matter.

A photon occupies space, but it isn't matter, so your broad assumption is not true. That which you think you are experiencing as matter, is actually one of several forces.

a reply to: Phantom423

You're living in la la land.

The key portion of the quote that you left out because it destroys your argument.

THE SMALLEST UNITS OF MATTER ARE NOT PHYSICAL.

So you need to actually read the post and you will know why the wallet isn't any physical substance called matter. Physics will not allow a material substance to fill the volume of space occupied by the wallet.

a reply to: Phantom423

Did you read your quote? It actually supports what I'm saying.

Starting at the first principles microscopic level - with the Schrödinger equation - many properties of materials can now be calculated with a high degree of accuracy

Properties have been calculated. There's not a shred of evidence that these properties belong to anything material that has been measured.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THAT THESE PROPERTIES BELONG TO ANYTHING MATERIAL CALLED MATTER.

I don't want your opinions or pontification about meaningless blather. Show me the science.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

Did you read your quote? It actually supports what I'm saying.

Starting at the first principles microscopic level - with the Schrödinger equation - many properties of materials can now be calculated with a high degree of accuracy

Properties have been calculated. There's not a shred of evidence that these properties belong to anything material that has been measured.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THAT THESE PROPERTIES BELONG TO ANYTHING MATERIAL CALLED MATTER.

I don't want your opinions or pontification about meaningless blather. Show me the science.

If that's the case, how can condensed matter physics exist??

"Matter is a substance that has inertia and occupies physical space. According to modern physics, matter consists of various types of particles, each with mass and size. The most familiar examples of material particles are the electron, the proton and the neutron."

Explain how any object with mass, size and occupies space is not matter??

And BTW, what about the wallet? Is it pure energy or matter??

It's really up to YOU to prove your hypothesis. If everything were pure energy, it would have no form, no heat transfer, no work could be done and the laws of thermodynamics would not exist. Please explain how that's possible in this universe.

The OP's original thesis is just wrong and it has been proven wrong many times in this thread. Deny ignorance...I'm out.

originally posted by: neoholographic

No, it has nothing to do with language and everything to do with science.

If it had nothing to do with language we could not discuss it, nor would it be scientific.

originally posted by: neoholographic

There's no evidence that a material substance called matter exists. You haven't provided one published paper, experiment or anything that supports such a notion.

But you haven't provided one published paper, experiment or anything that supports the notion that it doesn't exist. On the contrary, you continue to quote scientists describing matter and material.

So Heisenberg describes matter thus:

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.

Notice that, unlike you, he does not say, "matter does not exist", nor, "matter is not physical"; he says instead, "the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense".

Perhaps I can elucidate the absurdity of your position by asking you about emotion. Like matter, it is an unclearly defined meta phenomenon. It does not have volume, cannot be measured, is subjective and not made of material. Does it therefore not exist?

@OP - how can you explain away the five states of matter which are an absolute requirement to solve any problem in physics, chemistry or any science for that matter. What you are saying is that these five states of matter do not exist.

There are five known phases, or states, of matter: solids, liquids, gases, plasma and Bose-Einstein condensates. The main difference in the structures of each state is in the densities of the particles. This the description or definition of all MATTER.

How do you get around what we already know and use every day and suddenly transform the entire universe into a single state of pure energy?

a reply to: Phantom423

Just what I thought. Nothing but nonsense without any science to support what your saying.

I don't have to prove matter exist when it has never been shown that any material substance called matter exists.

All my posts are backed with science. You and your friends haven't presented one shred of scientific evidence to support anything you say.

Everything is information being processed. They recently found even more data hidden in microwaves from the early universe.

Scientist are now talking about spacetime as an error correcting code and entanglement js been linked to spacetime geometry.

So there's no need for any magical material substance called matter. Energy converted to mass are more like pixels on a spacetime screen and there's zero evidence that it"s some magical material substance called matter.

Sadly for you, there's also no evidence that the third dimension exists as objective volume.

third dimension illusion

Nobody need to believe in some material substance called matter. You just have a blind belief with no facts.

a reply to: EvilAxis

Did you even read Heisenberg's quote or did you just blindly respond?

He said "the smallest units of matter are not physical objects IN THE ORDINARY SENSE."

The ordinary sense means it's not material. He went on to explain this saying:

THEY ARE FORMS AND IDEAS.

Forms and ideas don't require any mythical material substance.

I think you're being obtuse because you haven't presented any scientific evidence to support anything that you're saying.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

Just what I thought. Nothing but nonsense without any science to support what your saying.

I don't have to prove matter exist when it has never been shown that any material substance called matter exists.

All my posts are backed with science. You and your friends haven't presented one shred of scientific evidence to support anything you say.

Everything is information being processed. They recently found even more data hidden in microwaves from the early universe.

Scientist are now talking about spacetime as an error correcting code and entanglement js been linked to spacetime geometry.

So there's no need for any magical material substance called matter. Energy converted to mass are more like pixels on a spacetime screen and there's zero evidence that it"s some magical material substance called matter.

Sadly for you, there's also no evidence that the third dimension exists as objective volume.

third dimension illusion

Nobody need to believe in some material substance called matter. You just have a blind belief with no facts.

You really should move this thread to the "other board" where it belongs.

a reply to: EvilAxis

You need to read more about Heisenberg before you comment on things you don't understand. He also said.

[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.

Werner Heisenberg



NOT REAL!

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

You need to read more about Heisenberg before you comment on things you don't understand. He also said.

[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.

Werner Heisenberg



NOT REAL!

Maybe you should do that - what a concept!

a reply to: Phantom423

Sadly, you haven't presented any scientific evidence to support anything you're saying.

Everything I have said is backed by Science and I've listed references that support what I'm saying.

Look at your posts! Nothing but hot air and opinion.

a reply to: neoholographic

Language is everything.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

Sadly, you haven't presented any scientific evidence to support anything you're saying.

Everything I have said is backed by Science and I've listed references that support what I'm saying.

Look at your posts! Nothing but hot air and opinion.

So the five states of matter are fake. Bose-Einstein is fake. Everything is fake according to you.

My recommendation: Get off those mushrooms. They're lethal to the brain.