What is matter? No one knows.

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
In here at 3:50:

Thats one way of looking at it.

I like to think of scale. Suns are a lot bigger than us and have longer life spans. Their lifetime is longer. We are smaller and live a shorter life span. The ant is even smaller, has even shorter life span and more condensed energy. You can step on an ant and it might survive. On our scale it can pick up a 400 lb. rock and run 30 mph with it. An atom is even smaller. The bonds that keep it together are even stronger. It moves even faster. The distance between atoms is comparable to the distance between suns on our scale. If you could stand on an electron in orbit around its sun (nucleus) the night sky would be filled with atoms (other suns) at about the same distance as they are in the night sky. Valence bonds are like gravity. It is all a matter of scale. That could lead to a further unification of some laws could it not? That the weak and strong force as applied to atoms is akin to the force of gravity of suns and planets? Just a matter of scale?

This is a dumb theory I have had forever with no proof and I am not theoretical scientist so someone tell me why its stupid.




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
I have often wondered this myself OP and I have come to the conclusion that I just don't know. lol

I still ponder the idea and the only thing I have come up with is matter is an observation from thought.

Without someone to experience thought.... matter does not exist.



Don't step to close to thought....you might end up on the rocks and breakers below...



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


That was a good read, well written. Plank has always been one of my favorites. Here is something to ponder...




"The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible . . . Atoms are not things." Werner Heisenberg


Read This


-Alien



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by morkington

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Baron01
 


It is truth. For example, butterflies can see more colors than use and dogs can hear more sounds...
edit on 28-3-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


I think the point may be that while butterflies may sense a broader range of light frequencies and dogs may sense a broader range of frequencies of air vibrations, to say they experience them as colours and sounds as we do is an assumption. The inner experiences we call colour and sound are qualia and can only be experienced subjectively so there is no way of knowing how another species (or indeed another human being) may experience them.

qualia
edit on 28/3/12 by morkington because: added link


Please describe blue for me.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Physical substance. What IS it? No one knows for sure. I have an idea though. But I'd rather hear yours right now.
edit on 28-3-2012 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)


oatmeal...


nice!



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Baron01
reply to post by arpgme
 


I'm done with you.


I'm a nerd....no you're a nerd.....



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Yeah, man. It is energy. It is potential force. It bumps into some other energy and seeks to understand. It recognizes another dense vibration that reflects the color pink. It is warm. It is moist. Mmmmm.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
reply to post by NorEaster
 


That was a good read, well written. Plank has always been one of my favorites. Here is something to ponder...




"The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible . . . Atoms are not things." Werner Heisenberg


Read This

-Alien


hmmm

Interesting, but this bit here - which is central to the theory - has me a bit troubled...


Following von Neumann's picture of quantum theory, Everett represents everything by proxy waves, but he leaves out the wave function collapse. When a quantum system encounters an M device set to measure a particular attribute, it splits as usual into many waveforms, each corresponding to a possible value of that attribute. What is new in Everett's model is that correlated to every one of these system wave functions is a different M-device waveform which records one of these attribute values. Thus if the measured attribute has five possible values, the quantum-entity-plus-measuring-device develops into five quantum systems, each with a different attribute value paired with five measuring devices each registering that value. Instead of collapsing from five possibilities to one actual outcome, the quantum system in Everett's interpretation realizes all five outcomes.

To account for the stubborn fact that no one has ever seen one M device turn into five, Everett makes a not-so-modest proposal. The apparatus actually does split into five different parts, says Everett, but each part occupies its own parallel universe. A human being—one of Everett's critics, for instance—dwells in just one of these universes (at a time) and cannot perceive the other four. Likewise the inhabitants of the other four universes are not aware of their parallel partners.


The whole "occupying its own universe" notion (and only 5, apparently) imposes a bit too much dominion over the obvious efficient predilection that reality otherwise displays in literally all other means of dealing with existential conflict. Allowing the emergence of entire (and I would imagine, fully populated) alternate universes seems to be the epitome of extravagance, and diametrically opposed to every other indication that physical reality gives us when we examine how it handles other such conflicts.

M-theory has always come across a bit desperate in its attempt to justify this extravagance without ever accomplishing it. Maybe reality is a lot more simple than we demand it to be? After all, why can't it be that a lot of what we see as cause and effect is actually the true nature of cause and effect? Why does it have to involve all this convoluted, bloated layers of quantum bureaucracy in order to satisfy a few extremely insignificant research study indications that can conceivable be explained by approaching these few indications with a much simpler, and fresher interpretation that doesn't insist on completely reconfiguring physical reality itself from the ground up?

Seriously. How many complete and fully populated universes do you think reality needs to produce in order to satisfy one physicist's stubborn refusal to take a new approach to the issue of avenues of potential? And how do these fully populated universes suddenly appear from literally nothing, when it takes an unimaginable amount of progressive development to bring together the original universe? Hell, how do you even know if one such universe actually exists at all by now or what it's become if it does? And if that's the case - that the original universe has nothing at all in common with any of the infinite number of initially identical universes that were spawned by the "5 new universes per instant of choice" strategy of dealing with progressive potential that physical reality was left with - then Christ...where do you go with such a completely overblown notion?

From the looks of it when you actually factor the implications of it out, you go right over a cliff. It reveals itself as being anathema to every other indication that reality presents to us as evidence of how progressive development operates. To me, that means something, and I can't ignore that just to indulge a few physicists and their need to reconstruct reality in their own conceptual image.
edit on 3/29/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yosemite Sam

Originally posted by MamaJ
I have often wondered this myself OP and I have come to the conclusion that I just don't know. lol

I still ponder the idea and the only thing I have come up with is matter is an observation from thought.

Without someone to experience thought.... matter does not exist.



Don't step to close to thought....you might end up on the rocks and breakers below...


Thanks for the concern ...do I owe you a fee now?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Baron01
 


Occur is not the right word. I think "filter" is a better one. The waveforms are all around and yet your body is like an instrument filtering it in a way that is understandable to the human mind.

Sound wave goes into the ear and translate from the brain into audio.

Waves of light go into the eye and translates from the brain into color.'

Instead of saying that everything is occurring in the brain, it is probably more accurate to say that waveform / energy is all around and our instruments (ear, eye, nose, etc.) is filtering it in a way that makes sense for the human brain.

For example, some colors, humans can not see, and some sounds humans can not hear...
edit on 28-3-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


Yeah. So what's really 'out there'? For all we know, there could be some sort of field of nothing but unlimited potentials and due to the presence of our brain, the potentials get converted into something defined and observable.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Nobody knows because it does not matter.


What if it does matter though? What if you learned that atoms were made of consciousness. This would lend credence to the idea of God as well as be a huge leap in the unification of biology and physics.

Of course, it being consciousness is, at this point, hypothetical, but the idea has PLENTY of anecdotal support which should not be overlooked.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
Quarks. Maybe preons.


Not "maybe". Instead: "definitely. Here is the overwhelming proof:
smphillips.8m.com...
smphillips.8m.com...
Here is what a quark consists of: three subquark states of E8xE8 heterotic superstrings bound by SU(3) hypercolour gluons in (3,2) torus knots of Nielson-Oleson vortices in the Higgs superfluid that permeates space-time.
Here's what the subquark superstring looks like:
smphillips.8m.com...
Ultimately, each of the ten closed curves making up the superstring consists of extremely small toroidal bubbles, seven being spaced evenly around a circle. They are cavities in a 5-brane - a 5-d chunk of space embedded in 26-d space-time.
It is wrong to say no one knows what matter is. What you really mean is that YOU don't know, that's all. A few of us have known what matter is for several decades. This website provides the research answers. People just need the intellectual courage and ability to examine it.


No. You don't get it. We know what matter is made of. We don't know what it is. What IS a quark? What is the essence of it? Trust me, no one knows, not even stephen hawking.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Glass

Open your mind to the idea that everything is based on energy (defined as an indirectly observed quantity), that the universe is in fact a large energy field of varying vibrations. "Empty space" is actually an area of low vibration, the virtual particals that we indirectly observe are this energy's vibration "popping in" to our observable spectrum. Perhaps imagine this energy field as a blank canvas; the energy field would be the paper itself, while the image on the paper is energy vibrating at a higher frequency.

Hope this makes some kind of sense
edit on 28/3/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)


What is energy then? lol. We know what it can do; what it is capable of. We know it is vibratory, all that. But what IS it? Its essence.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by smithjustinb
[Or observed. Which leads me to my definition of what matter, or energy, is. Consciousness.


Love this thread, but PLEASE don't go to some mystical magical god as an answer! PLEASE!


Why not? What if that's actually what it is?

Here's my supporting argument.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Does it really matter what matter is?


Maybe. Depends on what it is.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
I tend to think that matter is what happens when there is a vortex that spirals down into another dimension, and there are so many vortexes close to each other that they get all jammed up against each other to the point where there's no relative movement. Too many holes to fall down into.

Yeah, it's nuts.


Not nuts. At least you offer an explanation. Being that there currently is none, your guess is as good as anyone elses.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Don't bother offering a scientific, objective definition, because there isn't one. That's why I put this in the philosophy forum. Which is pretty astonishing when you think about it. We know of 100+ combinations of protons, neutrons, and electrons, we learned that matter is a form of energy, we even defined energy as the ability to do work, but even as we figured out that the spacetime speed limit is 300,000 km/s, we failed to define what matter and energy actually IS.

So what IS it?

That which occupies space and has mass? ... ... okaaay... but what IS it?

Condensed energy? What does that even mean? Condensed 'ability to do work'. That still doesn't describe what it IS.

Physical substance. What IS it? No one knows for sure. I have an idea though. But I'd rather hear yours right now.
edit on 28-3-2012 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)


WTF?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Man, I knew this thread would come in handy.


I liked this excerpt from your thread and the thread itself in general.



If you want to experience weightlessness within our atmosphere, they fly you in a large open bay cargo plane until you reach a height where they can then dive the plane at the exact rate you'd fall if you jumped out (32 ft per second), and for that brief period, you feel weightless within the confines of that cargo bay. That's because you're in descent sync with the plane itself. The plane around you is motionless, even though you and the plane are dropping at 32 ft per second. Perception has you weightless, even though you're literally dropping like a stone.


In your thread, you defined material existence as, "structured action". Of course, we know action is a product of energy. While your thread was entertaining, it still did not answer the question I provided in the original post. What is the essence of energy?

I saw how you related perception and energy, which is highly appropriate since the universe, consisting of energy, went on to create perception and that the observer is a part of this "structured matrix". In my search for the answer to the question, "how and why does life emerge?", I've personally concluded, without proof, that matter itself is made of life, but its not as obvious as a "life form".



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Yeah. So what's really 'out there'? For all we know, there could be some sort of field of nothing but unlimited potentials and due to the presence of our brain, the potentials get converted into something defined and observable.


Yes, it's call the "void" or "vacuum".



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


There is nothing 'out there' because there is no 'out there'. There is no in or out. It is one. You are one. It is all happening in you as you. You are IT.
What are you?
You are nothing until something matters then you are the 'thing'.
edit on 29-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


There is nothing 'out there' because there is no 'out there'. There is no in or out. It is one. You are one. It is all happening in you as you. You are IT.
What are you?



I am whatever I say I am. You are whatever I say you are. Although you might not see yourself this way, it doesn't matter, because I see it that way and I, as well as you, are what the universe created to define itself. However, all definitions of what the universe are entirely internally localized to each individual. Thus you may have contradicting views, however each view is valid. The point is, when it gets defined it becomes that somewhere regardless of the fact that that somewhere is infinitely small in comparison to everywhere else. The point is, if I say you stink, then you smell bad, regardless of whether or not you think you smell good. We, the life, are responsible for the QUALITY of the universe, so when I say "What is matter?", I am referring to the quality of it. The quality of matter is whatever quality you choose it to be. That is the answer to my question proposed in the original post. So in truth, the essence of matter can be many things, all of which are defined by observation.

Therefore, without life and consciousness, what is matter? Can something without quality be said to be anything at all? Due to our collective imaginations defining the quality of anything and everything, matter itself is an infinite range of qualities that become actualized into what we observe as the physical universe. Matter is freedom.

Booyah.
edit on 29-3-2012 by smithjustinb because: Booyah





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join