Science tells us matter doesn't exist

Originally posted by loner007
I think you may have misread whatever information you read to have come up wih you post. As far as I am aware the thing scientist cant find is what causes matter to have MASS.
Matter IS not linked to observation rather reality is
Einstein famous equation proves matter exists E=mc2

Here is a link to the higgs boson

www.exploratorium.edu...

here is a link to Matter
en.wikipedia.org...

It's a philosophical point of view.

We assume the world we see to actually exist as we perceive it - that math is the underlying definition of our universe.

I contend that math is an expression of our ignorance of the true mechanics of our universe. Math is what we use in an attempt to predict what will happen, not describe what is in existence.

When something happens - it happens. There is no math involved - nothing complex about it. What makes it complex is our obsession with prediction and numbers. We are still so ignorant as to attempt to understand quantum physics through numerical constraints - to develop quantifiable predictions from something that is decidedly beyond quantification.

It's like trying to measure wind-speed with a probe. Simply by entering the probe into the stream, you create a point of turbulence - a point of disruption that has an impact on the rest of the system. It's considerably negligible for most applications - but the very act of attempting to quantify one set of data introduces various other factors that cannot be measured.

The example is a little inadequate - but carries the meaning.

Another example would be attempting to look at the back of your head in a mirror (with only one mirror available). Trying to look at the back of your head in the mirror causes you to no longer see the mirror. This frustrated the living daylights out of me as a child.

Math works for our every day world. It breaks down when you get into a realm where nothing can be defined. You cannot use math to describe our existence. That's something for experience to teach, and experience alone.

And once again - we forget about the role and perception of time.

Time and space are intrinsically linked in our universe (or perception thereof - however you want to look at it). Our concept of space is based off of the propagation of energy over time. Our concept of time is based off of the propagation of energy through space. Even mass is linked to the way a body reacts to energy over time and space.

Yet, we often view time as linear - even if we try to say we accept the notion that it does not need to be linear. Choose one region of space, and one point in time. We now know the location and velocities of everything. However, according to quantum physics, we do not know where it all came from, or what paths it took along the way (again, slightly oversimplified example - simply to demonstrate the concept).

The debate is mostly philosophical. It's the equivalent of making the argument that you are merely an anomaly generated by random errors in the server, causing posts to be stored on the server. Of course - that would not rule out the possibility that such errors could be caused by an intelligent force operating by mechanisms we do not yet understand (IE - paranormal/ghost) but no one has yet to come up with a test capable of determining any given sequence to be of intelligent or random origin - proving intent versus mass coincidence.

However, it's something we must keep in mind. It's like automechanics - you have to stop driving and get out of the car if you want to figure out what is making that rattle. Similarly, we have to 'get out' of our universe, and realize that the driver's seat is not the best place to try and troubleshoot an engine.

I'm not sure what the poster is driving at here - but I agree, its not possible to prove matter exists - regardless of observation or not.

Even when we observe it 'directly' it isn't possible to prove that matter actually exists.

The possibility is independent of definitions of observation, matter and proof.

Some might think that an objective definition of those terms might be useful or even necessary, but due to the second hand way we receive data an objective definition isn't really worth pursuing.

Data is experienced second hand, our senses collect data, it is converted to electrical signals - then translated by our brains by application of subjective elements of experience, wisdom and understanding etc.

Therefore no external data can be objective, without objective data no conclusive external truth can be established.

Data you generate yourself as an idea does not necessary pass through the same interpretation process - so it could be argued that this data is truly objective. Therefore truth can only be established within, so long as its not based on external data. In other words, if you dream up a fantasy, it has greater objective truth than what you experience through your senses.

However - if you try to explain this truth to someone else - then they receive it through their senses, and the 'truth' is necessarily destroyed by this process.

Truth is unique to an individual - and is destroyed in transmission. So if you intend to enlighten someone - save your breath.

Of course - this is all just possibility.


I have a saying that I like to try and abide by;

Truth is a mind killer, it is an insidious poison - if you find it in your mind, cast it out and replace it with doubt.

If you are searching for something - then search for understanding, which is just to accept the possibility of every truth, and try see any patterns.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Amagnon]

Define SCIENCE.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Define OBSERVATION.

1. an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.

Therefore, to prove that matter exists beyond our perception would be unscientific - it's not possible and is not even science.

[edit on 22/4/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
Define SCIENCE.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Define OBSERVATION.

1. an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.

Therefore, to prove that matter exists beyond our perception would be unscientific - it's not possible and is not even science.

[edit on 22/4/2009 by C0bzz]

In the double slit experiment they say "observe" which slit the electron or whatever went through. To figure out which slit it went through they cant do anything like put a little camera on the side of a slit and try to watch it go through a slit. It's waaay too small for that. They have to somehow detect it though and their detection means that they have to have something where one of the slits are to capture the electron and interact with the electron to detect the electron. They cant watch it wiz by the slit. they have to have measuring equipment to touch it to find out which bloody slit its going through. How else do you find an electron? It's constantly popping in and out of existance...

If matter exists in the realm of possibility as demonstrated by Feynman's double split experiment, and matter's existence is based upon perception, then would it not be possible to have a totally seperate law of physics based simply on perception.

This could explain how UFO's tend to defy our knowledge of the basic laws of physics as we know them. They are not breaking any laws of physics, they are simply operating off of an entirely different perception creating a whole new set of laws.

Very interesting stuff.

I tend to agree. There is no scientific proof for matter or reality or practically anything else.

You say that matter cannot exist without an observer. OK. Now define what kind of observation. Visual? Tactile? Lets say you're in a dark room. You hear the sound of a car. Does the car exist as matter or is there just the sound of the car? I think that one would need visual or tactile observation/confirmation for matter to come into existence.

Let me know what you think.

My interpretation of the Slit Experiment and Schrodingers Cat experiment is that particles smaller than atomic size up to and including atoms themselves behave as either a wave or particle when observed.

Depending on the way it is observed, the particle will 'choose' where to be or end up. The weirdness happens when looking at the results of not watching and watching the epxeriment progress.

I gather that when it behaves like a wave, the particle is in all places at once. When observed, probablilty decides where it should be.

In essence, maybe it is possible that matter co-inhabits an infinite amount of universes when unobserved; it is everywhere at once, in different universes, but there is still just 'one' particle. Depending on past observations, probablity would dictate where and when a particle would be when it is observed in the present.


In regards to proving that matter exists - this is impossible precisely due to the nature of this phenomenon of quantum mechanics.

I have a rudimentary understanding of this stuff but I have a question about how the OP is contorting the double slit experiment to fit his own ends. In that experiment isn't it the case that when there is an observer the photon "chooses" one slit or the other and when there is none the photon acts like a wave and goes through both? In that case wouldn't the photon exist in both instances? It's not like in the "unobserved" portion of the experiment nothing happens, right? Again I could be misunderstanding things so who knows.

That being said it was mentioned before but how can you "scientifically" prove anything without somehow "seeing" it happen? It seems like this thread is a giant tautology.

This is certainly a great philosophical question, but science? Not yet, we're not at the level where our accepted sciences can prove these types of things IMO.

Originally posted by Most Infamous
Very interesting stuff.

I tend to agree. There is no scientific proof for matter or reality or practically anything else.

You say that matter cannot exist without an observer. OK. Now define what kind of observation. Visual? Tactile? Lets say you're in a dark room. You hear the sound of a car. Does the car exist as matter or is there just the sound of the car? I think that one would need visual or tactile observation/confirmation for matter to come into existence.

Let me know what you think.

There's still the thing everyone forgets: time.

Let's say I make an observation now. A truck passed by one window. Several seconds later, I make another observation - a truck passed through my view of a second window overlooking the same road.

Based on this data ALONE, I can only verify that the truck was present on the road during the observed times. Classical logic would tell us that the truck simply drove down the road. However - this cannot be verified by any observable data. The truck could have stopped, or done a few donuts in the road, for all I know.

However, there's more to the story.

Later, I go outside, and take note of dirt that forms the pattern of a tire's tread. From this observation, alone, I can know what path the truck took but not its speed, or its future location. But, compile that with my earlier observation, and we have confined, substantially, the space and time that truck occupied.

Now - back to philosophy.... how did the truck choose the path it chose? Perhaps most importantly.... WHEN did the truck choose its path?

Let's say there was no trail of dirt. The truck could have come from 18th street, or 22nd street. From there, it could have come from any number of intersections and connecting streets. More importantly, it can be going virtually anywhere. Even though its position has been ascertained once - it can double-back and pop up anywhere, at almost any time. Its present location and position have little bearing on where it will be in the future.

That is, unless you have more 'observations' to restrict that truck to a given region of space and time. Now here is where things get interesting.

Since the truck could feasibly have come from any number of different roads.... is it possible for both to have happened - for two people to have witnessed that truck outside their homes at the same time?

Conventional wisdom would say no. And quantum physics would also say "no, it doesn't quite work that way" - or, so we have yet to witness. And, obviously, a truck would be driven by an observer, which would work to confine it.

The idea, though, is whether or not it's possible for two observers, experiencing 'separate time lines,' to communicate? Where/how would it be possible? If those two could not... could I communicate with either/both of those individuals? Perhaps they could not communicate with each other... but I could act as a proxy? Or would the mere act of meeting one end up ruling out the ability to communicate with the other?

The interaction of multiple observers (or multiple reactions) and their influence on time and our perception of it is a rather interesting concept to me. The above set of thought essentially establishes that the observation of energy and/or forces opens up the possibility for observation of forces leading up to that observed event. Thus, I assert that consciousness, perception, and existence (matter) are all intrinsically linked. Having one mandates that you have the other two. However, since perceptions can vary - "we" do not all necessarily have to experience the same universe. Perhaps we 'collide' at points in time - instances where our combined observations do not 'break' the universe, before moving on.

Granted - it's all very theoretical and mostly meant to be 'food for thought.' If it's 'wrong' and uses 'misunderstood physics' - then I would contend that we have little in the way of understanding, these days. Seems Science is finding more we don't know than things to know. Not that it's a bad thing - but our desire to know ends up causing us to jump to conclusions that cannot be rightfully made.

I'm not attempting to make any conclusions. I'm simply tossing out some things to think about - flawed, oversimplified, or incomplete as they may be.

Originally posted by platosallegory



Show me scientifically that matter has an existence independent of our observation.

Why even ask this question. It is unanswerable to your skewed satisfaction.
Any evidence or citation anyone will give you is Quite DEPENDENT of observation.

you might as well shove a water hose in Schrödinger's cat box.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didactically speaking, seminal evidence seems to explicate the fact that your repudiation of entropy supports my theory of space-time synthesis. Of this, I am irrefutably confident...

[edit on 22-4-2009 by drsmooth23]

Originally posted by grey580
I'm pretty sure I can prove that matter exists. I'll need a baseball bat and a willing subject to take a few hits from it. I'm sure in the end after the broken knee cap the subject will enthusiactically agree that the matter ie:Bat does exist.

Or just ask anyone that's been hit by a car or in a car accident.

well that would just be you somewhere(you cant point to it) IN THE 2ND DIMENSION DOING SOMETHING TO ANOTHER 2ND DIMENSION PERSON. AND LIGHT AND THIS HOLOGRAM universe makes you believe you are 3d. sry for the caps

Forgive me, I'm on lunch, and do not have much time. I don't know if anyone's brought it up, but the OP is, I believe, referring to T'Hooft and Susskinds's interpretation of String Theory called the holographic principle. here's a Wiki link for those interested: Linky

Originally posted by Amagnon
I'm not sure what the poster is driving at here - but I agree, its not possible to prove matter exists - regardless of observation or not.

The same goes for 1 + 1 = 2. which is an axiom. The existence of matter is self-evident and axiomatic in nature, but a subject to a useless musing by pseudoscientists and other assorted charlatans, some of them holding PhD.

What we know is that matter doesn't exist absent observation.

Um, how do we know this? Logically, that's a really difficult one to prove, I find that might have interesting implications re the back of my head.
Is this a recent discovery, or have things always been like this.

(Just on the off chance, I do like the idea of loving God and matter and space and light existing whether we observe that or not)

science tends to prove matter doesn't exist indeed

look in mollecule, you find emptiness and atoms

look in atoms you find emptiness and particules

look in particules they say they found quarks

look in quarks...

Then Einstein proved it his way: did he say anything else than "matter is energy" ?

These arguments are for the most part circular. Going back to the OP, the original question of "Does matter exist?" and if yes, prove it... How is this relevant?

My question to the OP is this: If matter "does not exist" or is an "illusion," what relevance does this have to every day life?

The world as we know it may be defined by our perception, but if defined this perception still becomes reality. It is a logical fallacy to claim that because something is defined is such a way, it is somehow null.

If my hand on the table, the table, the air, the knife in my other hand, etc etc etc are nothing more than perceived illusions of my mind, I will still bleed, feel pain, potentially die if I stabbed myself.

This whole argument is meaningless, and impossibleto win.

No dude, matter exists, thats final.

I already posted this - it seems people didn't read it. This is a proof.


Its not possible to prove matter exists - regardless of observation or not.

Even when we observe it 'directly' it isn't possible to prove that matter actually exists - mainly because we don't observe anything directly.

You don't need definitions for observation, matter or proof.

Some might think that an objective definition of those terms might be useful or even necessary, but due to the second hand way we receive data an objective definition isn't really worth pursuing.

Data is experienced second hand, our senses collect data, it is converted to electrical signals - then translated by our brains by application of subjective elements of experience, wisdom and understanding etc.

Therefore no external data can be objective, without objective data no conclusive external truth can be established.

Data you generate yourself as an idea does not necessary pass through the same interpretation process - so it could be argued that this data is truly objective. Therefore truth can only be established within, so long as its not based on external data. In other words, if you dream up a fantasy, it has greater objective truth than what you experience through your senses.

However - if you try to explain this truth to someone else - then they receive it through their senses, and the 'truth' is necessarily destroyed by this process.

Truth is unique to an individual - and is destroyed in transmission. So if you intend to enlighten someone - save your breath.

Somebody please tell this guy to quit watching the Matrix. Hes starting to think hes in the movie and wants a choice of pills.

OP what you're asking us to do is IMPOSSIBLE. To anyone attempting to accept the OP's challenge; you're wasting your time.