fundamental structure of matter

What are the theories as to what the fundamental structure of matter is? This may seem like a broad question, but I’m interested to see what’s out there and how it’s justified. Anyone with any knowlege of physics, metaphysics, or philosophy of science should at least have an opinion on this. Tell me what you guys are thinking. If the thread gets going well, I’ll probably ask some more questions along the way…
Thanks!
Scott

As far as I’m aware the current trend in physics has “string” thoery as the fundemental building blocks.

To be honest I don’t really get past quantum thoery myself. Especially the “action at a distance”/“quantum entanglement” stuff.

Damn it Schrödinger’s cat is alive or dead, just because we don’t know which one it is doesn’t mean that it is a quantum probability state :slight_smile:

About Schroedinger’s Cat, Luke Razor is correct! :smiley: There is no such thing as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or “probability” in destiny. I, for one, side with destiny- absolutely. There is no “probablity” of the cat being alive or dead until you open the box. All there really is in the moment, is the action, which, of course, is relative to the moment. While I understand what they are attempting to convey with that example, they have missed the point entirely in that theory. The past is cast in stone, as is the future. Try remembering your future some time, it is absolutely possible. I can elaborate on that some other time.
I guess you could say I have a bit of education in physics, relativity, unified field theory, and metaphysics. The book I have written and would maybe like to publish someday, is a book I wrote about the necessary marriage between physics and metaphysics, and true knowledge about either must also incorporate the other. I have a new theory in that book that is regarding relativity, but it is not just hypothetical, it was tested and there are actual results.
The whole theory of chaos is not chaotic in the least. In a world of interconnection between all things, one action will absolutely influence another action, right down to the rocks, the plants, the trees, etc. Hence the saying “One flap of the butterfy’s wings leads to the tornado in Kansas.” Everything happens for a reason. Considering “probability”, when you are standing underneath an oak tree, there was no “probablity” of that Oak’s acorn not seeding out and growing into the Oak tree-there was no probablity of that whatsoever, and the Oak’s future was written in stone, in the same way as all of our pasts. The oak necessarily grew, and had to, in order for you to be standing beneath it 50 years later. Perhaps the squirrel ate the acorn next to the the one that grew, but could not eat that particular one, as the Oak’s destiny demanded its future. Its past and its future were one and the same. Of course a person cannot think about time in this manner until they realize linear time only applies to body’s of significant mass.
I think, if you can, research David Hudson’s work on Irridium/Rhodium as his work on his patented ORMS material is stunning in this lifetime. His study about these superconductors and their behavior in and out of the zero point (Planck’s Constant) is nothing other than stunning. In his tests, he watched his ORMS material sample turn into a negative weight when it went into the zero point through supercooling and superheating, and when it went into negative weight, it could no longer be seen, yet was delivering readings on their scales. The sample disappeared, but as it either re-heated or re-cooled, it came back to being visible again. Their question…“Where did it go?” The most interesting aspect of the superconducting material of Irridum and Rhodium is that living creatures have both Irridium and Rhodium in the composition of their brains…cool info if you want to delve into some interesting stuff about matter, mass, etc. I haven’t talked to Dave in a couple years, so I don’t know what he’s up to here lately, but his 20 years worth of research certainly was cool.

I would say matter is everything that consists of particles or is a particle. Thus the most basic form of matter is the atom. The atom is called “a-tom” because it is un-cut(table). If you keep cutting any clump of matter into smaller parts, eventually you will end up with the atom. But the atom itself also consists of “stuff”, though it is not matter. This stuff is the so-called “subatomic particles”, which are not particles at all. For instance, the “photon”, the particle of light, is only regarded as a particle for the sake of workability (which ultimately is the only consideration in physics). You may have heard of the wave-particle duality. Light is supposed - by laymen - to be both a particle and a wave, or now this, now that, or whatever. But it’s neither particle nor wave, but something else, which now behaves like a particle, now like a wave. Note the word “like”. It behaves “like” those things, and for that reason those things are used as an analogy to make light at least imaginable to laymen. But it is something else entirely.

Quantum mechanics, or the idea behind it, is actually quite simple. Classical mechanics regarded the universal process as determined by collisions of particles. Quantum mechanics, simply put, acknowledges that particles consist of force, and regards said process on a smaller scale as determined by the interaction of “quanta” (amounts) of force. It replaces the “unities” (particles) by “units” (quanta) as the smallest things. It is therefore a simplification of force.

Let us consider two quanta. Let us say they are for all (our current) practical purposes equal. Let us say they are both 2 (in whichever unit). 2 + 2 = 4, nothing simpler. But they are not really equal, cannot be equal. For a quantum of 2 is a quantum of 2.000…, of 2 to a precision of an infinite number of decimals. But there is no way to measure that precision, as force does not consist of particles. If it would consist of particles, you might say it consists of exactly 2, or 2,000, or 2,000,000, particles. But it does not. Therefore two equal quanta, indeed, even one exact quantum, is theoretically impossible. Beneath the level of particles, there is no definiteness. We may regard two - indefinite - quanta, which have both approximately a value of 2, and therefore on the still relatively large scale on which we operate are for all our practical purposes equal, but this is, as everything in “science”, a simplification.

monads

(not to be confused with stooge balls)

-Imp

Can anyone answer the question…

Why do scientists believe that the structure that they postulate is the most fundamental and that further reduction is unnecessary?

If not I’ll think about it and try to formulate a better question.

they think they have the answers…

they don’t of course, but have them admit that and no more funding…

-Imp

So what sort of reasoning to they use in explaining why the structure is the most fundamental? (in order to keep the funding)

So it would seem to be “nothing”/emptiness according to Youlan’s cosmology. Arguing along the lines of superstrings would be arguing along Zheng Zai’s scientific mysticism, within this context since superstrings themselves follow a principle.

I thought matter is a state of energy? When a particle and it’s anti-particle collide they annihilate each other, converting mass into energy.

ok matter is made up of atoms and according to string theory its made up of thousands of tiny vibrating strings

ok matter is made up of atoms and according to string theory its made up of thousands of tiny vibrating strings

Matter is a combination of molecules, and those molecules are like points of concentration. Points, dots or spikes of focus, which have a scalar field and a rotation around themselves. It was once thought that atoms were the smallest things existant, and also that they were very dense, but at center they’re empty space and the molecules pop in and out of existence aswel as shifting between existence as a wave and existance as a particle.

There’s no full explanation for this yet,
And no way to observe what those smaller parts are made of yet.

I think the best scientific theory would be one which does not assume, that is to say, a somewhat neutral stance.

Every thing is a phantasm, meaning that there is nothing there.

Simply from E=mc2 we can deduce m = E/c2.

Quarks and gluons are massless. Mass of ordinary matter (better than 99%) comes from the mass of protons and neutrons. Protons and neutron; which in turn , are built up from quarks and gluons. There is energy stored in the motion of the quarks, and energy in the color gluon fields that connect them.

aip.org/pt/nov99/wilczek.html

Interesting. Go on…

I don’t know and I don’t think scientists really know.

They discover new sub-atoms or whatever all the time (bozons and zogons, and stuff).

Matter is product of a perturbation in space.

Old physics discribed existence as matter in space. Space had no substance to itself and matter moved through it.

New physics tells how matter is a product of space. Space is a field of energy.

glafreniere.com/matter.htm

So why do they think that the structure postulated is the most fundamental, and not just another reductionist move?

The most fundamental? I don’t think it currently is (our concepts of matter). To think that our concept is as far as we can go could kick us in the ass later on. We could be wrong if we stop where it stands now.