There's no such thing as matter

Strange post But I chime in .
What boggles me is the atom's are mostly space thing ( a neutron star has compacted matter down so much a table spoon weighs tons . ( Heavy stuff )
But of corse matter is matter there is just lots of space in most matter .
But another weird thing is matter ( atom's are always moving ( In theoy absolute 0 should stop all movement as the movement is heat .
But science had to go and show nothing absolute about absolute 0 and get it even colder so there must still be movement going on .

So next time you sit in your chair hope you don't just fall through because wile it may look solid its any thing but .
LOL Got to love True weird science .

a reply to: neoholographic

OK, let's try to tackle this another way...

Why is it only matter which you say does not exist?
Other things are essentially immaterial: light, pain, thoughts, computer programs, information, in fact everything! So by your definition nothing can be said to exist.

Cutepants asked whether you thought light exists, but you didn't comment.

You say I offer opinion in place of scientific proof, but that's all I'm trying to offer. I'm not arguing against the science but your perverse definition of the word 'exist'. Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less", but the rest of us try to use words the way others do, because language can only function with some degree of consensus.

If you notice, nobody who says matter exists has presented any evidence to support this notion.

All you get is opinion and then outrage that you're even asking the question. This sounds like the Jehovah Witnesses that knock on your door. The difference is they have a belief, people who say matter exists are worse because they don't even recognize that it's a blind belief.

Everything I say, I present sources to back up what I'm saying.

This shouldn't be that hard. If everyone "knows" that matter exists, evidence should have been presented on the 1st page and this thread wouldn't need to be 4 pages long.

The fact that people can't present any scientific evidence that matter exists speaks volumes.

a reply to: neoholographic

OK - could you answer the question: in your opinion does light exist or has any evidence ever been presented to support the notion that it does?

a reply to: EvilAxis

Again, this is just nonsense. You said:

Why is it only matter which you say does not exist?

Have you even read the post?

There's evidence light, mass, electrons, protons and more exists. These things have been measured. There's no evidence that any of these things are material or contain any material called matter.

MATTER HAS NEVER BEEN MEASURED.

There's no reason the universe has to be material in order for us to perceive it. In fact, there's no evidence that the 3rd dimension exists. It's just an illusion we perceive as the third dimension. You can describe these things without invoking anything called matter or any material substance.



Again, this isn't just me saying these things but people who are considered some of the brightest mindss in Science are saying these things.

If you take the view matter exists, you need to provide measurable evidence that something called matter exists or that there's a need for anthing material to exist.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

There's evidence light, mass, electrons, protons and more exists. These things have been measured. There's no evidence that any of these things are material or contain any material called matter.

MATTER HAS NEVER BEEN MEASURED.

You say there's no evidence that electrons or protons contain any material called matter. That seems a very odd statement, and is surely where the confusion lies. Why would anyone expect them to? It's the other way around - matter is made of atoms and atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons.

So electrons, protons, neutrons exist because they have been measured. Atoms are made of these, so they also exist.

You see where I'm going with this?

Matter is made of atoms so it also exists.

protons and neutrons are made of quarks, which have been measured. The mass of Protons and neutrons mostly comes from the constrained forces. About one percent is mass that is not from forces. forces and mass are the same thing E=MC/2

a reply to: EvilAxis

Again, your post is nothing but opinion without a shred of evidence to support anything you're saying. You said:

Matter is made of atoms so it also exists.

This means nothing.

If matter is made of atoms then what is matter? I know what atoms are and atoms have been measured but why do atoms need something called matter? Where is the scientific evidence showing that this matter exists?

If you say matter is atoms, then that makes sense. Matter is just a name we use to call a collection of data points that we perceive as 3D objects. It's not anything material.

The fact is, you blindly believe that "matter also exists" but you don't provide a shred of evidence to support this. We're supposed to believe it just because you say it?

Again, I don't want your opinion, show me some scientific evidence that something called matter "also exists."

There's no evidence that anything material called matter exists or is needed. I'm just waiting to see any actual Science from you and your friends. All of these posts and not a shred of science just opinion. You do know this is the Science & Technology forum?

If we're part of the hologram, then we're just points on a 2D surface i.e. the surface of the hologram. But if you scroll to about 3:20 in the video, the example shows a wallet falling into the 3D space of the black hole from the OUTSIDE. The information about the wallet is recorded on the holographic surface and apparently could be used to recreate the wallet. Something was added the system - but what was it?

So the question is about the wallet. If it fell into the black hole, do we know what form the wallet was in? Was it just information or was it a wallet made of material or matter? How much information/energy does it add to the holographic system? If we don't know what the wallet was made of, doesn't that leave open the possibility that the wallet was a material object?

And the process must be reversible according to the description - if the information on the holographic surface was reconstructed, what does it reconstruct? A wallet that's just redundant information or a wallet made of matter as suggested by the video? And the wallet came from OUTSIDE the system, so we can say that the system is not isolated. Is it a cyclic system where equal amounts of energy at the same temperature moves into and out of the black hole?
If that's the case, then what's the entropy of the system - doesn't it have to equal zero?

I don't know the answers to these questions but it seems to me that whatever exists in the black hole has to be characterized in some way that describes its state-space. Maybe someone can explain it.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

If matter is made of atoms then what is matter? I know what atoms are and atoms have been measured but why do atoms need something called matter?

If a house is made of bricks then what is a house? I know what bricks are and bricks have been measured but why do bricks need something called a house?

Well they don't of course, no more than atoms need something called matter.

originally posted by: neoholographic
If you say matter is atoms, then that makes sense. Matter is just a name we use to call a collection of data points that we perceive as 3D objects. It's not anything material.

Absolutely. Matter is just a name we use. Atom is just another name we use, but for some reason you insist one exists but the other doesn't. You need to define 'material' for your last sentence to have any meaning. If by 'material' you mean 'made of matter', then you just said, 'matter is not made of matter', which isn't terribly insightful.

originally posted by: neoholographic
The fact is, you blindly believe that "matter also exists" but you don't provide a shred of evidence to support this. We're supposed to believe it just because you say it?

Not because I say it, more because all the scientists you quote say it and just about everyone else in the world says it. That wouldn't count against you if this was about science, although it might give you pause to consider whether you were in error.

But what you seem unable to grasp is that we're arguing about language. For your statement, "matter does not exist" to mean anything we require some agreement about the definition of the words 'matter' and 'exist'.

Clearly to you the word 'exist' entails the property of 'materiality'. What you (or anyone else) means by 'materiality' is unclear, but more to the point, as I said before, the universe is full of things which we all agree both exist and are essentially immaterial.

matter, derived from the latin 'mater' meaning mother, was originally conceived by the Father Spirit. The Consciousness of this Creative Spirit manifests as the human body - i.e. made in God's image. We are His children. When we conceive this truth we are set free because we no longer are slaves to matter, but are masters of it:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter."

-Max Planck [The Nature of Matter 1944]

a reply to: EvilAxis

You said:

But what you seem unable to grasp is that we're arguing about language.

This isn't about language, it's about Science.

You have none to support anything you're saying. This is why your posts are filled with opinion.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that shows that a material substance called matter exists.

Again, when energy is added to a system it's mass varies and is proportional to r squared.

Let me say that again.

When energy is added to a system it's mass varies and is proportional to r squared.

Here's more:

Entropy is also a measure of the amount of information it would take to describe a system completely. The entropy of ordinary objects—people, sand buckets, containers of gas—is proportional to their volume. Double the volume of a helium balloon, for instance, and its entropy will increase by a factor of eight. But in the 1970s, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein discovered that the entropy of a black hole obeys a different scaling rule. It is proportional not to the black hole’s three-dimensional volume but to its two-dimensional surface area, defined here as the area of the invisible boundary called the event horizon. Therefore, while the actual entropy of an ordinary object—say, a hamburger—scales with its volume, the maximum entropy that could theoretically be contained in the space occupied by the hamburger depends not on the volume of the hamburger but on the size of its surface area. Physics prevents the entropy of the hamburger from ever exceeding that maximum: If one somehow tried to pack so much entropy into the hamburger that it reached that limit, the hamburger would collapse into a black hole.

www.pbs.org...

So, physics prevents a material substance called matter from existing. If the hamburger were an actual volume of a material substance called matter it would exceed maximum entropy.

Why do you need to invoke this magical material substance called matter in order for the hamburger to exist when entropy of the system is proportional to r squared? All you need is the projection of information on a 2D surface area.

Pleas answer with some Science and not just your opinion.

a reply to: cooperton

Great quote and it needs to be highlighted:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter."

-Max Planck [The Nature of Matter 1944]

There are only two things in the universe, matter and energy. They are interchangeable. If you measure all the energy in an atom, it equals 99 per cent, the other one per cent is matter. this has been measured many times.

a reply to: neoholographic

You're picking on a word that is an ill-defined placeholder word as if it's a precise mathematical entity type word.
It's not a fundamental word at all.

It's like calling a bunch of atoms "stuff" and then saying "stuff" doesn't exist so a different physics theory must be true.

In some cases you could measure matter, why not? Take some anti-matter and matter and combine them and measure the energy coming out of the annihilation. That's how much matter you had.

If you don't like materialism then show actual material concepts are false, like mass and energy.

Data points makes no sense either, you can't data point quantum entities.

a reply to: joelr

This post is like those old Starburst commercials about contradictions. You said:

You're picking on a word that is an ill-defined placeholder word as if it's a precise mathematical entity type word.
It's not a fundamental word at all.

You should have just ended it right there or said this is why I agree with you. OF COURSE matter is an ill-defined word and OF COURSE there's nothing fundamental or anthing that's material that deals with this ill-defined word as you describe it.

It's ill defined because there's no evidence that a material substance called matter exists.

You then went on to talk about matter as if it was fundamental or well defined LOL. You said:

In some cases you could measure matter, why not?

Why not? Let me quote you again, matter is "a word that is an ill-defined placeholder word."

What exactly are you measuring? Why is it ill defined if this mythical material substance called matter or as you say, it's not a fundamental word, whatever that means?

The reason you guys are making "ill-defined" posts that ramble at points because there's no evidence that this magical material called matter exists.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

This isn't about language, it's about Science.

With respect, I think joelr makes the point quite eloquently, and without rambling, that this is about language. It's impossible to describe a scientific theory without it, be it linguistic or mathematical, and particularly in science its use has to be precise and accurate.

I found the Max Planck quote fascinating. But note carefully what he actually says: "There is no matter as such!" Notice the qualifier, "as such". In other words, there is no matter as matter was once defined. His next sentence states categorically that, "matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together." Again, it exists, but only by virtue of that force.

I'm particularly intrigued by his remark about "conscious and intelligent Spirit" as "the matrix of all matter" because it chimes with Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle which I was trying to defend recently against two sceptical materialists.

EvilAxis:

I found the Max Planck quote fascinating. But note carefully what he actually says: "There is no matter as such!" Notice the qualifier, "as such". In other words, there is no matter as matter was once defined. His next sentence states categorically that, "matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together." Again, it exists, but only by virtue of that force.

With all due respect, you are still not understanding what Planck is saying. When he used the words 'as such', he is actually pertaining to something 'other' by which we come to experience that which we term as matter. Yet, it is not matter that we actually experience, but a 'force' we experience as matter. It requires seriously detailed articulation to express the full meaning of what Planck said.

As you may know, energy expresses as one of two types: stored (potential) and working (kinetic). The most primary (indivisible) unit of so-called matter that has so far been discovered is that of the 'quark' and corresponding 'anti-quark'. They are quite simply point-like units of density of (stored) energy. Quarks are to energy as water droplets are to the sea.

As you may further know, all particles without exception, no matter how long or brief their existence, have an attendant field surrounding them. This field is a spatial vector of 'influence' predicated by the particle's vibrational wavelength, which is expressed mathematically by Planck's Constant 'h' (= to 6.63 × 10-34 J), being the smallest spatial vector in which motion can occur.

Quarks come together in particular ways by exchanging gluons (a vector boson) to form larger particles such as protons and neutrons. By exchanging gluons with one another, quarks are held together by what is called the strong interaction, hence gluons mediate the strong force between quarks.

Speaking of 'force', you will be aware that there are four known fundamental natural forces, which are in order of strength; strong force (very short range), electromagnetic force (long range), weak force (short range), and gravity (long range). It is these forces we experience directly or by proxy interaction. That is to say, we experience gravity and electromagnetic forces macroscopically, through Newton's 3rd law of equal and opposite reaction, from which physicality arises.

Nowhere, in any of this is matter, because the term is actually a convenient misnomer that refers to a 'something' that does not exist in real terms, but can be expressed only as an abstract of vector qualities, such as extension, volume, depth, etc. We only ever experience forces in terms of qualia.

it's kinda like your boner....it's not really that solid.....just pressure in containment....a boner!

editt....are stand up comedians allowed here?

a reply to: neoholographic

I remember when those "old Starburst commercials" were of the Opal Fruit variety. Or maybe it's the Mandela effect at play?