It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# There is no matter, only fields.

page: 1
20
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 10:45 AM
Have been playing Kerbal Space Program a bit again and it made me think about gravity, relativity, fields and particles.

The way Sun "knows" where the Earth is, to pull towards and vice versa, despite being more than 8 light-minutes apart, shows to me clearly that gravity is a property of spacetime (as are other force fields).

But what about matter. GR says that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move". This does not feel right to me. Imho matter is a property of space too (a matter field). And as such the curvature of spacetime is "matter". They are not separate objects.

The fact that we can create/destroy matter(antimatter) is another sign of matter being a property of spacetime. I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).

posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 11:22 AM

posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 11:23 AM
Who is GR ? Nothing..... 'tells'...... I don't think, rather gravity and action/re-action as it were ? Good post ..

edit on 2-1-2020 by Plotus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 01:29 PM
Saying the Sun knows where the Earth is in order to pull on it is like saying the Earth knows where the hammer is and pulls on it only when I drop it on my toe. It don’t work like that.

I feel the hammer being pulled to the center of the Earth as I am holding it therefore gravity is constant and what happens is only dependent upon weather I can maintain a hold on the hammer. The probability of it hitting my toe is based on the fact that my feet are usually located somewhere below my hands as I am standing up against the force of gravity and not the fact the Earth knows where the hammer is and where I am.
edit on 1 2 2020 by beyondknowledge because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 04:05 PM

originally posted by: moebius

But what about matter. GR says that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move". This does not feel right to me. Imho matter is a property of space too (a matter field). And as such the curvature of spacetime is "matter". They are not separate objects.

Yes, they are. Einstein's general relativity equations tell us that space-time can be curved where there is no matter. The deSitter space-time is an example.

The fact that we can create/destroy matter(antimatter) is another sign of matter being a property of spacetime.

No, it is not. It is merely the Law of Conservation of Energy at work.

I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).

Hardly an original proposal. If you were conversant with the research literature, you would know that this idea has been explored for nearly a century.

posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 05:13 PM

posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 06:03 PM

originally posted by: moebius
I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).
That's fairly standard thinking. In this talk, Harry Cliff gives an excellent overview of the history of particle physics for the layperson and just before 11 minutes he says something similar, that it's not particles which are fundamental, but fields. I certainly agree with that and your similar statement, but I don't conclude from that "there is no matter", rather that fields are more fundamental.

Beyond the Higgs What's Next for the LHC - with Harry Cliff.mp4

There is still matter but the distinction between matter and energy in modern physics is more blurred than it was historically, but it's not so blurred that we can't differentiate between energy on the left and matter on the right of the equation E=mc², in the context of say operating a nuclear reactor, where we convert matter to energy.

posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 09:06 PM

so... E=mc² ??
prove it!

I will prove you're wrong

E = undefined
m = unknown
c = measurement here on Earth

the whole Universe is like that ??
how do you know ?

E = undefined, because energy is just a term, a concept and not a physical thing.
you can not take energy and put it into a vessel or do anything to energy as it is
E is just a number in an equation, mathematical equation written on paper
...is something written on paper energy ??

energy is what you say after that what happens between charge particles interact, if you are able to observe it.
if one push the other around you say the force did it, and than you can calculate the energy this force have to be to do it.
it is a number in a equation and not a physical thing

m = unknown, because there is no definition for what causes m, there are some ideas, but still m is a mystery

c = local speed, because Einstein's constant speed of light is still not proven to be the same all over the galaxy, just local, nobody ever has been 10 billion light years away from here and has measured the speed of light.
constant C is a child of geocentric thinking not the reality.

E=mc² is completely meaningless and useless...

and no engineer is using it at all...
public fake propaganda thing !

posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 10:15 PM

originally posted by: moebius
Have been playing Kerbal Space Program a bit again and it made me think about gravity, relativity, fields and particles.

The way Sun "knows" where the Earth is, to pull towards and vice versa, despite being more than 8 light-minutes apart, shows to me clearly that gravity is a property of spacetime (as are other force fields).

But what about matter. GR says that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move". This does not feel right to me. Imho matter is a property of space too (a matter field). And as such the curvature of spacetime is "matter". They are not separate objects.

The fact that we can create/destroy matter(antimatter) is another sign of matter being a property of spacetime. I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).

unfortunately there is no such thing as space-time

there is space.. a physical thing
and there is time.. a concept

time is counting and space is comparison

you can not divide apples by cheese...

forget it !

posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 11:58 PM

There is no matter,only fields

Along with waves of potential and waves in spacetime. What if time could be looked at as a wave function (ATS thread describing such a theory)

posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:05 AM

there is space.. a physical thing
and there is time.. a concept

time is counting and space is comparison

Time is tangible, how do you explain time dilation if time is only a concept.

Clocks count
time is endless or eternal.. At zero point (C). Check out my recent thread if your interested in time and have an opinion or relevant information you wanna share - Negative time dilation and eternal photons

posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:07 AM

originally posted by: Bandu
unfortunately there is no such thing as space-time

there is space.. a physical thing
and there is time.. a concept

time is counting and space is comparison

You reject movement as a reality?

Your idle hands do no good for they can only create evil. You embrace the stillness of Satan? The stillness of death? The stillness of stagnant waters? Tell me, how many revolutions your engine turns per mile? Your response: "doesn't exist, doesn't matter" is insufficient in the eyes of the Lord.

Time is slow motion applied to omnipresence. A subtraction from everything, not an addition to nothing. Entropy in the physical is a return to the original state of omnipresence, the playing field widened the information spread uniformly.

posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:45 AM

Well there is several ways we know the speed of light is a constant. Easiest is probably when we examine ratios of spectral lines of distant quasars coming from different types of atomic transitions (resonant, fine structure, and hyperfine). The resulting frequencies have different dependences on the electron charge and mass, the speed of light, and Planck's constant, and can be used to compare these parameters to their present values on Earth.

So in fact we have checked the speed billions of light years from earth.
edit on 1/4/20 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:48 AM
this is all nonsense

we are all thoughts in the god mind, we are nothing but imagination
edit on 4-1-2020 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:07 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: moebius
I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).
That's fairly standard thinking. In this talk, Harry Cliff gives an excellent overview of the history of particle physics for the layperson and just before 11 minutes he says something similar, that it's not particles which are fundamental, but fields. I certainly agree with that and your similar statement, but I don't conclude from that "there is no matter", rather that fields are more fundamental.

Beyond the Higgs What's Next for the LHC - with Harry Cliff.mp4

There is still matter but the distinction between matter and energy in modern physics is more blurred than it was historically, but it's not so blurred that we can't differentiate between energy on the left and matter on the right of the equation E=mc², in the context of say operating a nuclear reactor, where we convert matter to energy.

Speaking of waves of potentiality and great docu-movie is What the bleep do we know

What the #\$*! Do We (K)now!?

A fictional photographer's quest to spiritually rediscover herself is interspersed with documentary footage of scientists and theologians discussing the philosophical aspects of quantum physics.

Changed my life!

posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 06:54 AM

originally posted by: Havick007
Speaking of waves of potentiality and great docu-movie is What the bleep do we know
What the #\$*! Do We (K)now!?

No it's not a great docu-movie, it's a terrible docu-movie. Ignorance of science is already so profound in western culture that it doesn't need to be made even worse with things like the non-scientific nonsense portrayed as "documentary" in that pile of crap. Sure there's some science in there somewhere, but the problem is, the average person has no idea where the science ends and the pseudoscience totally fictional crap begins, and it's all mixed together without pointing out which is which.

Changed my life!
Are you an innocent dupe? If so, it probably changed your life for the worse, unless you're more interested in fantasy and fiction than truth. This article quotes Richard Dawkins and Simon Singh referring to people who say things like that as innocent dupes:

The minds boggle

This film is even more pretentious than it is boring. And it is stupefyingly boring - unless, of course, you are fooled by its New Age fakery, in which case it might indeed be - as many innocent dupes have stated - "life-changing"...

-Richard Dawkins

Believe me when I say the real truth is strange enough, without adding all the pseudoscientific nonsense that video adds, like reincarnation of the 35,000 year old Lemurian warrior Ramtha.

Over-use of the word "paradigm" is a pretty good litmus for inclusion in the scientific equivalent of Pseud's Corner, and the film's "expert" talking heads score highly. Perhaps the leading one is "Ramtha", a dead warrior from Atlantis who addresses us (in a fake accent) through his "channeler", a woman called JZ (Judy) Knight, founder of the Ramtha Cult which sponsored the film. Thirty-five thousand years in the grave have not dulled Ramtha's business sense: he charges \$1,000 per counselling session. Poor JZ has her work cut out.The authors seem undecided whether their theme is quantum theory or consciousness. Both are indeed mysterious, and their genuine mystery needs none of the hype with which this film relentlessly and noisily belabours us. Not surprisingly, we get no enlightenment on either topic, nor on the alleged connection between them.

-Richard Dawkins

Simon Singh also refers to the people who have been duped by this film: "this film has already duped millions into mistaking pure claptrap for something of cosmic importance."

I have spent my entire working life either doing science or conveying its meaning and beauty to the public. Consequently, I despise What the Bleep Do We Know!?, because it distorts science to fit its own agenda, it is full of half-truths and misleading analogies, and some of its so-called scientific claims are downright lies. Worse still, having achieved cult status in America, this film has already duped millions into mistaking pure claptrap for something of cosmic importance. For example, WTB explains how quantum physics implies a crucial role for the observer in any experiment - so far, so good, except it requires several years of study to appreciate the subtlety and true significance of this statement. However, WTB is not too bothered about the truth. The water experiment is junk pseudo- science of the worst kind and has never been replicated by a mainstream scientist. Nevertheless, WTB carries down its illogical path by suggesting that if observing water changes its molecular structure, and if we are 90% water, then by observing ourselves we can change at a fundamental level via the laws of quantum physics. Thanks to WTB, this kind of ridiculous balderdash is being peddled by the likes of Drew Barrymore on the David Letterman Show.And if you are still considering going to see this film, then please bear in mind the credibility and motives of the interviewees in the film. John Hagelin, one of the PhD physicists, is from the Maharishi University of Management. Take my advice and do not see this film. I repeat, do not see this film. I repeat again, do not see this film. If you do, then you will leave the cinema misinformed, £8 poorer and having wasted two hours of your life.

-Simon Singh

I suggest learning real science from real physicists, and then you'll find out it's still strange enough to blow your mind without all the new age fakery nonsense in that movie.

edit on 202015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 04:43 PM

now... undefined is unknown times mathematical equations constant. nice !

Let me ask you something... If C, the speed of light is a constant, you surely mean it is constant in vacuum, right ?
I'm asking because speed of light is actually truly dependent on the medium it propagates in, right ?
You surely admit it is slower in water and glass, and it propagates definitely slower in a non transparent materials such as C for example, ( you know I mean the radiation this time not just the visible part of it.)

So how is your speed of light an constant if it has different speeds everywhere ?? the radiation I mean.

The speed of electro magnetic waves propagation is not a constant, and now, everybody is saying the speed of light is a constant. It is not !

On the other hand, speed is just a term for comparison of one thing movement to another, there is no such thing as speed on its own.

I still insist that E=mc2 has no meaning at all.

edit on 5-1-2020 by Bandu because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2020 by Bandu because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 06:49 PM

originally posted by: Bandu

now... undefined is unknown times mathematical equations constant. nice !

Let me ask you something... If C, the speed of light is a constant, you surely mean it is constant in vacuum, right ?
You apparently don't know the definition of c, so see the first line of the wiki entry:

"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics."

The speed of electro magnetic waves propagation is not a constant, and now, everybody is saying the speed of light is a constant. It is not !
Just because people don't write "in a vacuum" every time they say speed of light is a constant doesn't mean it's not implied in that context, since of course it's well known it's not the same speed in other media. c doesn't refer to the speed of light in other media, but in a vacuum. For example, the refractive index of water is 1.333 which is c/v where c is the speed of light in a vacuum and v is the speed of light in water, so the constant c is used even to calculate the refractive index of water.

I still insist that E=mc2 has no meaning at all.
It has some meaning in a limited case, but it's not really the full, correct equation as explained in my thread which has the full correct equation:

Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?

posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 10:23 PM

Even if light travels through a medium, it doesn't slow. That's an illusion. The time it takes relative to an observer is what slows down. Or it also scatters and bends etc.

That seems right to me but I'm not an expert my any means.

It shouldn't slow though.

posted on Jan, 6 2020 @ 08:05 AM

originally posted by: Havick007

Even if light travels through a medium, it doesn't slow. That's an illusion. The time it takes relative to an observer is what slows down. Or it also scatters and bends etc.
It's the same observer measures light going c in a vacuum before it hits the glass, slower in the glass, then back to c after it leaves the glass. So I don't think we can call it an observer effect or an illusion.

That seems right to me but I'm not an expert my any means.

It shouldn't slow though.
Even some "experts" get the explanation wrong of how/why light travels more slowly in media like water or glass, but here's an expert who gets it right and explains why the wrong explanations are wrong. But his version is still somewhat simplified from the more complicated explanation, which would be way over most people's heads so he doesn't go into those quantum mechanics details about phonons, etc., but just uses a simplified wave explanation.

top topics

20