Does it matter if matter exists? I think the answer is no but either way, it seems like matter does exist in reality. The solidness in nature and things seem real and this question for most people seems downright ridiculous.
Materialism is a metaphysical position, not a scientific or empirical one. What that means is that science can’t explain fundamentally what matter is. Just look at sciences description of what matter is and how it has vastly changed over the last century and a bit. Matter started out as very solid and real stuff but has now been shown to be virtually non existent - over 99.
Does it matter if matter exists? I think the answer is no but either way, it seems like matter does exist in reality. The solidness in nature and things seem real and this question for most people seems downright ridiculous.
Materialism is a metaphysical position, not a scientific or empirical one. What that means is that science can’t explain fundamentally what matter is. Just look at sciences description of what matter is and how it has vastly changed over the last century and a bit. Matter started out as very solid and real stuff but has now been shown to be virtually non existent - over 99.999999+% empty. So even though current science still clings to the idea of a physical reality, it’s becoming less and less material. The moral of this story then is that even if you believe we live in a material, physical reality what we’re experiencing is really an illusion.
Many QM physicists are now saying matter does not exist at all and reality is actually mental in nature and physical reality is only what the Universe ‘looks like’ to us. So matter either barely exists and it’s virtually an illusion or it actually doesn’t exist and it’s fully an illusion.
Okay, I just wrote the details on the linked page, but so that everyone has easy access to an answer I include it here.
This very same question keeps popping up on Quora...
Being very specific to your question:
Matter is well-defined though often used casually. This is common: Energy, momentum, and heat are a few examples of well-defined quantities that are used casually in other contexts.
The 5% energy density of the Lamda-CDM model is one such example of casual use for the purpose of distinguishing between the luminous and dark sectors of the model. The 5% luminous "matter" contains both quant
Okay, I just wrote the details on the linked page, but so that everyone has easy access to an answer I include it here.
This very same question keeps popping up on Quora...
Being very specific to your question:
Matter is well-defined though often used casually. This is common: Energy, momentum, and heat are a few examples of well-defined quantities that are used casually in other contexts.
The 5% energy density of the Lamda-CDM model is one such example of casual use for the purpose of distinguishing between the luminous and dark sectors of the model. The 5% luminous "matter" contains both quantum matter fields and boson fields so it is not all "matter" in the rigorous sense of the word.
All physicists agree on Dark matter and Dark energy: It is an area of physics that requires further study - that's all we can say. We don't know the actual connection, if any, to quantum matter fields.
Mary Midgley is a philosopher and maybe philosophers have trouble with defining matter. In decades of conversations with other physicists there has never been ambiguity: Electron matter fields are ALWAYS matter fields and photon, gluon, graviton, boson fields are NEVER matter fields. Sure, we use matter to mean fluids and solids as they are built up from quantum matter fields and contain non-matter fields and while the superfluidic behavior of liquid helium may make things interesting, there is never any confusion.
The question details ask:
So what actually is it that we are experiencing that causes us to conceive of 'matter'?
We don't experience matter. We experience the workings of our brain. What causes us to conceive of 'matter' is that matter behaves in such a way that it cannot occupy the same place at the same time. So the matter in something else interacts with our matter through non-matter electromagnetic fields, and if the interaction is sufficient it stimulates nerve signals that register in our mind as perceiving something else.
Anyway, I read the question and thought maybe the following might help:
MATTER
An Analogy for Beginners: Imagine a guitar with 17 strings and we pluck one of the strings.
A string represents a fundamental quantum field. The musical note you get from exciting the string, say G#, is a particle. All vibrating strings have energy, and if the energy moves slower than the speed of light, we give this energy the name "mass." Our guitar has 17 strings because there are 17 fundamental fields discovered so far (see below). Of the 17 strings, 12 of them play matter notes and 5 play non-matter notes (the difference explained in definitions section).
We can play chords on our guitar; let's play a chord called "the proton." This chord requires 3 matter notes: 2 called "up quark" and one called "down quark." In order to combine our 3 quarks into the beautiful sounding proton, we need many other notes called gluons which do exactly what their name suggests and glues the quarks together. There is also a string called the Higgs, and quark notes will resonate with the Higgs string causing it vibrate and these couple in such a way that the quarks and thus the whole proton moves slower than light. The gluon notes do not vibrate the Higgs string.
The "mass" of the proton is the sum of all the energies of this entire vibrating mess, including all the light speed notes and less-than-light-speed parts; this is because the light speed parts are contained inside the slower than light proton. About 98% of the mass is associated with the gluon field and about 2% is from Higgs field.
NOTES: Guitar strings are made of metal or nylon, quantum fields are not made of anything. I used the word "string" and so do string theorists, but those strings are different. Nowhere do I say "Higgs note or particle" that is because while the Higgs field can resonate with, ie couple to, some other fields (not all) the Higgs field can play its own note called the "Higgs boson." The collective descriptions of Higgs couplings and the Higgs boson is properly called the Higgs mechanism.
DEFINITIONS
Matter, the definition: Matter is any excitation of a quantum "matter field" or collections of such excitations. This includes, but is not limited to, all fermionic particles, nuclei, atoms, molecules, solids, liquids and gases.
Matter, its defining characteristic: Matter particles can be used as building blocks, they are the LEGO bricks of the universe. Non-matter particles can occupy in the same place at the same time (technically, occupy the same quantum state) and any number of them can get packed into an arbitrarily small volume. In the guitar analogy, waves on the string can overlap (ie superposition). Matterparticles cannot do this: matter particles cannot occupy the same place at the same time, but they can sit next to each other, need larger volumes and therefore can be used to build the structures in our universe. Matter is a description of behavior - not a fundamental quantity. Matter is that behavior of, for example quarks and electrons, that allows them to be built up into giraffes, computers, carbon dioxide, and planets: "A house built out of photons cannot stand."
NOTE: It is acceptable to use "matter" in a non-rigorous context in an everyday way to mean "stuff," as in the term "dark matter." It's also acceptable to do this with energy too: If I say "I don't have the energy to wash the laundry today;" energy in this context is referring to my emotional state and not to a particular symmetry of my Lagrangian (a technical way physicists define energy).
MASS
- The technical definition: For an object or system, the mass is a relativistic invariant quantity equal to the pseudo norm of its momentum 4-vector.
- A non-technical definition: Mass is the name we give to all the energy and momentum, added together, that is inside of an object.
The Connection: The 2 definitions above seem sufficiently dissimilar to merit an explanation. Each particle in some system of particles has a 4 component vector that describes its energy and momentum. There exists a way in relativistic dynamics to add the components of the particles in such a way as to get the mass of that system. This is impossible in practice when there are trillions upon trillions of particles, so we determine the mass of an object using one of energy's other properties: inertia and gravitation.
The Big Question Is...
If mass and matter are fundamentally different, the how can they be converted into each other?
THEY CAN'T -They are completely and fundamentally different!
- Mass is a relativistic invariant quantity
- Matter is a description of a particular type of behavior.
However... particles are excitations of quantum fields, which have energy, momentum and other properties and these quantities can be transferred to other quantum fields (minding appropriate conservation laws of course!).
A simple example: An electron and anti-electron annihilate each other and produce a pair of gamma ray photons.
The Analogy: The electron and anti-electron are excitations on a quantum field (notes on the guitar). When they interact they annihilate each other, which is a fancy way of saying that all their energy (and other defining properties) got transferred to a different guitar string or strings, and in this example the energy transferred to the electromagnetic quantum field) which produces excitations on that field we call photons.
The disappearance and creation of particles is just the shuffling of energy between fields. If some of those particles happen to move slower than photons, then part of their energy is called "mass." If some of those particles happen to have non-integer spin, then they are called "matter." No connection between them, the physics of particle interactions is dependent on conservation laws and not to the before and after amounts of mass or matter.
Here's a table of the fundamental particles; the 6 green and 6 purple are the matter particles. It's only the Generation I particles that factor into everyday matter.
Well, it turns out that our intuitive notions of matter are very, very different from what they turn out to be when you try to characterize them rigorously. Under extreme circumstances, the whole notion of what it means to be "matter" goes up in smoke.
But there's clearly something driving those intuitions of what it means to be matter. Johnson's "I refute it thus!" does apply. Matter as we understand it may be nothing more than an illusion, but it's a very compelling illusion because the underlying phenomena are very, very reliable.
Midgely's point is nonetheless well taken: the notion of "matt
Well, it turns out that our intuitive notions of matter are very, very different from what they turn out to be when you try to characterize them rigorously. Under extreme circumstances, the whole notion of what it means to be "matter" goes up in smoke.
But there's clearly something driving those intuitions of what it means to be matter. Johnson's "I refute it thus!" does apply. Matter as we understand it may be nothing more than an illusion, but it's a very compelling illusion because the underlying phenomena are very, very reliable.
Midgely's point is nonetheless well taken: the notion of "matter" is poorly defined. From a physicist's standpoint, the intuitive version of it (having mass and taking up space) are useless: mass and energy turn out to be dependent on your point of view, and the space it takes up turns out to have small but very real uncertainty.
These are deep epistemological issues with no clear resolution as yet. That's partly because the concepts themselves are still being investigated. That is, even if you manage to throw off the shackles of your intuitive notions of space and time, the equations that replace them are incomplete. There are conflicts between the relativistic and quantum mechanical views that have not been resolved.
There's a hope that once those are resolved, there will be something to replace the faulty intuitive notion of matter, but that's far from certain.
My advice to philosophers would be to try their best to understand quantum mechanics and relativity as they are understood now. I've seen too much bad philosophy that sticks to the outdated notions, spinning its wheels. The intuitive but outdated notions can be quite beneficial in many areas of philosophy, but anybody attempting to pursue an "ultimate" answer in metaphysics or epistemology without getting up to date on the state of the art in physics is playing a parlor game at best, and being actively misled at worst.
Existence is the ability to detect or be detected. What we detect of matter directly comes primarily thorough our senses and memory. What we can infer of matter comes through sense extending instruments and logical deduction. The further these instruments and logics get from the scale of human bodies, the less the sense they make resembles the common sense we experience on our native scale.
It's a two way street. The closer you get to our familiar experience of the world, the less it resembles astrophysical or quantum mechanical phenomena which we can detect and model by empirical methods. It's
Existence is the ability to detect or be detected. What we detect of matter directly comes primarily thorough our senses and memory. What we can infer of matter comes through sense extending instruments and logical deduction. The further these instruments and logics get from the scale of human bodies, the less the sense they make resembles the common sense we experience on our native scale.
It's a two way street. The closer you get to our familiar experience of the world, the less it resembles astrophysical or quantum mechanical phenomena which we can detect and model by empirical methods. It's clear to me that this continuum of scales or detection schemas is more fundamental than the contents of any particular channel of sense within the spectrum. The macrocosm is not a scaled up version of the microcosm. There is no mechanism by which a threshold is broken to convert one sense to another, they are both continuous and discrete, multivalent and exclusive. The macrocosm and microcosm both affect each other, in a different sense, in the same sense, and in another sense they do not affect each other. There are limits of relevance and relativity, diminution and attenuation.
We understand through 20th century physics that matter and energy are a relation rather than fixed separate entities. It is the sense that they make between them which is more fundamental in the cosmos. A similar transformation occurred to unite time and space into a single continuum of sense. This too is more fundamental than either manifestation of space or time.
I propose that the principle of sense itself, which underlies timespace and mass-energy is fundamental and is the same principle underlying electromagnetism-gravity, sensorimotive-entropy which governs every phenomena, subjective or objective, experiential or existential, in the cosmos.
Using this model, with sense as the fundamental unit, space becomes a true void, having no nature other than that which objects define in relation to each other. A universe of a single object can have no space, as there is no frame of reference to move against or concretely occupy. There is only an object, and not an 'object in space'... space is an abstraction.
If we look at time this way, temporality is a function of change within something which can perceive that change has occurred. Without some form of 'memory', there can only be a single endless moment. Time then, is null as well . Quoting myself on another answer (Is time discrete or continuous, in both absolute terms and in terms of our perception?
"time is just an aggregate measure of physical change modeled in a linear fashion. It has no existence of it's own beyond our sense of sequential causality (which evaporates predictably under altered states of consciousness - dreams, drugs, trance, etc). We are the ones who interpret the digits on the clocks and the calender squares as a shared temporal text. In reality, there are no days, just astrophysical orientations woven together by our memories and monitoring of regular oscillating patterns.
Like space, time can only be as discrete or continuous as the substances and processes we use to measure it. What we are measuring is not an objective condition, but our own normalized intersubjective detection of relations between patterns of energy/change"
So, with space defined as the gaps separating matter (and this gets complicated with different states of matter, but again, its the sense of the relation that makes matter what it seems), matter is defined as everything else. It bridges the gap of space in one sense, according to the logic of its material properties, but it is divided by space in another sense. Compared to our dense tissues, most gases don't 'exist'. We have to put them under pressure to feel or hear them with our body. Otherwise we need to learn about their existence to understand and manipulate them.
Once we rely on instruments at the far micro end of what is discoverable by direct means and by indirect means through everything that we have discovered or can calculate, we find a world where we find no trace of our own existence. Nothing familiar except to our own mathematical imagination to make sense of our measurements.
If matter is anything, it is the singularity which prefigures the big bang. An indivisible host through which all space is created through self-division and all time through sensorimotive-electromagnetic change, memory, repetition, and relation: first hand experience in a third person context.
Yes, matter exists. In physics and chemistry, matter is defined as anything that has mass and occupies space. It includes everything around us, from solid objects like rocks and trees to liquids like water and gases like air. Matter is composed of atoms and molecules, which are the building blocks of all physical substances.
In addition to the traditional states of matter—solid, liquid, gas, and plasma—there are also other phases such as Bose-Einstein condensates and fermionic condensates that occur under specific conditions. Overall, matter is a fundamental concept in understanding the physic
Yes, matter exists. In physics and chemistry, matter is defined as anything that has mass and occupies space. It includes everything around us, from solid objects like rocks and trees to liquids like water and gases like air. Matter is composed of atoms and molecules, which are the building blocks of all physical substances.
In addition to the traditional states of matter—solid, liquid, gas, and plasma—there are also other phases such as Bose-Einstein condensates and fermionic condensates that occur under specific conditions. Overall, matter is a fundamental concept in understanding the physical universe.
Creation of our universe. A reaction took place at some point. No matter to exist there must be a void, far without this void matter could not reproduce itself. Or it is the reproduction stage that puts us where we are at this time and our momen these Vegas exist through a cycle, this cycle is a continuous and repetitive currents. You have reproductive matter, which is matter that we do not see or identify with. Then there is current matter which is matter that we are experiencing at this moment. For this to occur there must be a void to exist. A void is required for matter to reproduce. The r
Creation of our universe. A reaction took place at some point. No matter to exist there must be a void, far without this void matter could not reproduce itself. Or it is the reproduction stage that puts us where we are at this time and our momen these Vegas exist through a cycle, this cycle is a continuous and repetitive currents. You have reproductive matter, which is matter that we do not see or identify with. Then there is current matter which is matter that we are experiencing at this moment. For this to occur there must be a void to exist. A void is required for matter to reproduce. The reproductive manner evolves into current matter, which we exist in at this moment. Reproductive matter continuously leads and replicates from current matter. This reaction is taking place in a void repetitively and continuously, so there is no need for us to think that the universe is still expanding. For it is the retraction of the reaction also known as The Big bang. That we existed in. The void was created through the reaction. Matter or pure energy, was able to come in contact with itself at the time of the retraction. When matter developed at that moment the retraction slow down. We are continuously going back to the center of the reaction or if the universe was actually expanding, then matter would not be able to develop ,for there would be no void for matter to exist in.
The term matter is ambiguous as the meaning of the term in philosophy is different then in physics.
Philosophically, matter denotes the presence of an objective reality outside and independent of one’s consciousness. What that objective reality is ‘made up’ from is the task of science. Only in general terms one can say that matter exists in space and time and is in motion always.
Physics uses a different concept of matter, and distinguishes phenomena like atoms and light. The first are fermions, the other bosons, disinguished by Pauli exclusion principle. So the concept of matter in physics is l
The term matter is ambiguous as the meaning of the term in philosophy is different then in physics.
Philosophically, matter denotes the presence of an objective reality outside and independent of one’s consciousness. What that objective reality is ‘made up’ from is the task of science. Only in general terms one can say that matter exists in space and time and is in motion always.
Physics uses a different concept of matter, and distinguishes phenomena like atoms and light. The first are fermions, the other bosons, disinguished by Pauli exclusion principle. So the concept of matter in physics is linked to fermionic behaviour of physical existents, but not all physical existents are matter (in the physical sense of the word ‘matter’).
So, basically, materialism is the doctrine or assumption that material reality exists in primary sense (independent of any mind or cognition) and as compared to physical matter, matter in the philosophical sense encompasses all physical existents - so both atoms and light would be called matter in the philosophical sense, due to their existence apart, outside and independent of consciousness, and existing in space and time and always in motion.
Where do I start?
I’m a huge financial nerd, and have spent an embarrassing amount of time talking to people about their money habits.
Here are the biggest mistakes people are making and how to fix them:
Not having a separate high interest savings account
Having a separate account allows you to see the results of all your hard work and keep your money separate so you're less tempted to spend it.
Plus with rates above 5.00%, the interest you can earn compared to most banks really adds up.
Here is a list of the top savings accounts available today. Deposit $5 before moving on because this is one of th
Where do I start?
I’m a huge financial nerd, and have spent an embarrassing amount of time talking to people about their money habits.
Here are the biggest mistakes people are making and how to fix them:
Not having a separate high interest savings account
Having a separate account allows you to see the results of all your hard work and keep your money separate so you're less tempted to spend it.
Plus with rates above 5.00%, the interest you can earn compared to most banks really adds up.
Here is a list of the top savings accounts available today. Deposit $5 before moving on because this is one of the biggest mistakes and easiest ones to fix.
Overpaying on car insurance
You’ve heard it a million times before, but the average American family still overspends by $417/year on car insurance.
If you’ve been with the same insurer for years, chances are you are one of them.
Pull up Coverage.com, a free site that will compare prices for you, answer the questions on the page, and it will show you how much you could be saving.
That’s it. You’ll likely be saving a bunch of money. Here’s a link to give it a try.
Consistently being in debt
If you’ve got $10K+ in debt (credit cards…medical bills…anything really) you could use a debt relief program and potentially reduce by over 20%.
Here’s how to see if you qualify:
Head over to this Debt Relief comparison website here, then simply answer the questions to see if you qualify.
It’s as simple as that. You’ll likely end up paying less than you owed before and you could be debt free in as little as 2 years.
Missing out on free money to invest
It’s no secret that millionaires love investing, but for the rest of us, it can seem out of reach.
Times have changed. There are a number of investing platforms that will give you a bonus to open an account and get started. All you have to do is open the account and invest at least $25, and you could get up to $1000 in bonus.
Pretty sweet deal right? Here is a link to some of the best options.
Having bad credit
A low credit score can come back to bite you in so many ways in the future.
From that next rental application to getting approved for any type of loan or credit card, if you have a bad history with credit, the good news is you can fix it.
Head over to BankRate.com and answer a few questions to see if you qualify. It only takes a few minutes and could save you from a major upset down the line.
How to get started
Hope this helps! Here are the links to get started:
Have a separate savings account
Stop overpaying for car insurance
Finally get out of debt
Start investing with a free bonus
Fix your credit
Matter seems to me to be a concept that operates on the program of reducibility. Reduction has been an impressive scientific program in the last two hundred years, but like some others have said in this thread matter doesn't hold up really to any logical analysis especially pertaining to vagueness. I think matter is a usable idea, obviously physicists would agree, but outside of the natural sciences I think it might be important to shrug off reduction and rediscover the kind of strange and provocative thinking that comes from a standpoint of irreducibility. Here the pitfall is essentialist thi
Matter seems to me to be a concept that operates on the program of reducibility. Reduction has been an impressive scientific program in the last two hundred years, but like some others have said in this thread matter doesn't hold up really to any logical analysis especially pertaining to vagueness. I think matter is a usable idea, obviously physicists would agree, but outside of the natural sciences I think it might be important to shrug off reduction and rediscover the kind of strange and provocative thinking that comes from a standpoint of irreducibility. Here the pitfall is essentialist thinking, but I think even social scientists and humanities scholars recognize the entropy facing all objects. In any case, matter is an interesting idea with a rich history unto itself ( Presocratics, Atomists, Descartes, Planck, Heidegger), that I think we will see continue to evolve and spin off into other areas beyond the natural sciences (cybernetics, history, literary criticism, etc...).
I will risk to simplify the subject, in front of a huge amount of data, interpretations, descriptions, definitions, etc. that exist in some or the other form on this planet since thousands of years ago, esp. from knowledgeable people on the subject. I can only honor all that knowledge. Yet, I believe that the question can be approached in two main ways, and I wish I could marry them so that they both coexist and live in harmony! :)
1) From consciousness view — let’s say the human one, since I don’t think that fish or ants wonder about such things — matter exists as something that can be perceiv
I will risk to simplify the subject, in front of a huge amount of data, interpretations, descriptions, definitions, etc. that exist in some or the other form on this planet since thousands of years ago, esp. from knowledgeable people on the subject. I can only honor all that knowledge. Yet, I believe that the question can be approached in two main ways, and I wish I could marry them so that they both coexist and live in harmony! :)
1) From consciousness view — let’s say the human one, since I don’t think that fish or ants wonder about such things — matter exists as something that can be perceived through the senses, and it has the aspect of a solid object. (This statement may be greatly improved, but I hope that the main idea of what I said is clear.)
2) From an atomic and sub-atomic view, many (most?) scientists claim that it does not exist, based on the fact that atoms don’t even touch each other but are held together by electromagnetic forces, and thus there’s only energy. But even in this case, we could say that matter is “packed, condensed energy”. (Again, this description may be much improved — I am not a physicist. But again, I believe that the main idea of what I said is clear.)
Conclusion: If matter exists or not depends on how one views it. And, since the vast majority among us 1) are not scientists 2) don’t have any practical use of the “ethereal” nature of matter and 3) need to have something concrete as a reference in our communication, I’m personally very satisfied with the idea (even if it's an illusion) that matter does exist! :)
I once met a man who drove a modest Toyota Corolla, wore beat-up sneakers, and looked like he’d lived the same way for decades. But what really caught my attention was when he casually mentioned he was retired at 45 with more money than he could ever spend. I couldn’t help but ask, “How did you do it?”
He smiled and said, “The secret to saving money is knowing where to look for the waste—and car insurance is one of the easiest places to start.”
He then walked me through a few strategies that I’d never thought of before. Here’s what I learned:
1. Make insurance companies fight for your business
Mos
I once met a man who drove a modest Toyota Corolla, wore beat-up sneakers, and looked like he’d lived the same way for decades. But what really caught my attention was when he casually mentioned he was retired at 45 with more money than he could ever spend. I couldn’t help but ask, “How did you do it?”
He smiled and said, “The secret to saving money is knowing where to look for the waste—and car insurance is one of the easiest places to start.”
He then walked me through a few strategies that I’d never thought of before. Here’s what I learned:
1. Make insurance companies fight for your business
Most people just stick with the same insurer year after year, but that’s what the companies are counting on. This guy used tools like Coverage.com to compare rates every time his policy came up for renewal. It only took him a few minutes, and he said he’d saved hundreds each year by letting insurers compete for his business.
Click here to try Coverage.com and see how much you could save today.
2. Take advantage of safe driver programs
He mentioned that some companies reward good drivers with significant discounts. By signing up for a program that tracked his driving habits for just a month, he qualified for a lower rate. “It’s like a test where you already know the answers,” he joked.
You can find a list of insurance companies offering safe driver discounts here and start saving on your next policy.
3. Bundle your policies
He bundled his auto insurance with his home insurance and saved big. “Most companies will give you a discount if you combine your policies with them. It’s easy money,” he explained. If you haven’t bundled yet, ask your insurer what discounts they offer—or look for new ones that do.
4. Drop coverage you don’t need
He also emphasized reassessing coverage every year. If your car isn’t worth much anymore, it might be time to drop collision or comprehensive coverage. “You shouldn’t be paying more to insure the car than it’s worth,” he said.
5. Look for hidden fees or overpriced add-ons
One of his final tips was to avoid extras like roadside assistance, which can often be purchased elsewhere for less. “It’s those little fees you don’t think about that add up,” he warned.
The Secret? Stop Overpaying
The real “secret” isn’t about cutting corners—it’s about being proactive. Car insurance companies are counting on you to stay complacent, but with tools like Coverage.com and a little effort, you can make sure you’re only paying for what you need—and saving hundreds in the process.
If you’re ready to start saving, take a moment to:
- Compare rates now on Coverage.com
- Check if you qualify for safe driver discounts
- Reevaluate your coverage today
Saving money on auto insurance doesn’t have to be complicated—you just have to know where to look. If you'd like to support my work, feel free to use the links in this post—they help me continue creating valuable content.
Our reality is made up of information (think mathematics), a set of rules for how the information can be accessed and experienced, and a network of consciousness (think Internet but itself awake) to access and experience the information according to the rule set. What is the source of the information, the rules and consciousness itself are the new version of “where did the Universe come from, what existed before the Big Bang, etc.?
Warning:
This is a highly controversial statement. It will probably be deleted from this thread and won’t last, even here. Repeating this will probably cause conflict
Our reality is made up of information (think mathematics), a set of rules for how the information can be accessed and experienced, and a network of consciousness (think Internet but itself awake) to access and experience the information according to the rule set. What is the source of the information, the rules and consciousness itself are the new version of “where did the Universe come from, what existed before the Big Bang, etc.?
Warning:
This is a highly controversial statement. It will probably be deleted from this thread and won’t last, even here. Repeating this will probably cause conflict and I advise it not be shared in our archaic education system unless you are prepared to be ridiculed and censored. Nonetheless, this idea is not new. In fact, it goes all the way back to Plato’s cave. Growing numbers of mainstream scientists are begging to understand and embrace this reality and generally frame it as a shift away from materialism and back to idealism. While a growing number mainstream scientists are embracing this the vast majority of us prefer certainty to truth and honestly aren’t ready for it.
Watch and enjoy all to the end. We think of the mind as being in the head when really the head and whole body could be in the mind. perception is reality and everything you perceive the brain filters and puts together with the help of the 5 senses. We see matter as existing when really it's just vibratory rates slowed down and pick up by our mind. Life is a relation with out the sun heat it will be no you and without your nervous system to feel it then it will be no sun. like Berkeley mention immaterial and Descartes question everything till he got I think therefor i
Watch and enjoy all to the end. We think of the mind as being in the head when really the head and whole body could be in the mind. perception is reality and everything you perceive the brain filters and puts together with the help of the 5 senses. We see matter as existing when really it's just vibratory rates slowed down and pick up by our mind. Life is a relation with out the sun heat it will be no you and without your nervous system to feel it then it will be no sun. like Berkeley mention immaterial and Descartes question everything till he got I think therefor i am. The other philosophers use Descartes as template to based their ideas of or either disprove or use as a starting point. Basically everything is mental everything is consciousness whe see reality you call matter because of frequency and vibrations that our 5 senses percie a filter version of what's really out there.
Matter does exist. But the point is that matter is not the ”stuff” we used to think of during thousands of years. There is no fundamental stuff we can call matter with mass.
Simply: the thing we call mass (or more exactly inertia) is a mathematical expression of how strongly any particle feels the Higgs field. The photons and gluons (and possible gravitons) don´t feel it at all, and so they are massless. The strongest connection here is with the top quark (172 GeV).
There is (the usual) baryonic matter (you, earth,sun, galaxies etc). And then we have (so far not very well known) dark matter. Not
Matter does exist. But the point is that matter is not the ”stuff” we used to think of during thousands of years. There is no fundamental stuff we can call matter with mass.
Simply: the thing we call mass (or more exactly inertia) is a mathematical expression of how strongly any particle feels the Higgs field. The photons and gluons (and possible gravitons) don´t feel it at all, and so they are massless. The strongest connection here is with the top quark (172 GeV).
There is (the usual) baryonic matter (you, earth,sun, galaxies etc). And then we have (so far not very well known) dark matter. Not to speak of dark energy. What the dark matter/dark energy are, here we have a number of good candidates.
And remember mass=energy=mass.
Absolutely not.
The entire ‘Big Chill’ concept, one of the two possible fates of the end of the universe, is based on the concept that all ‘matter,’ which is actually just wave functions, have decayed away to photons and leptons.
The idea that ‘matter,’ AKA ‘particles’ are like tiny cannon balls is 19th century thinking. There are no ‘particles, nothing is solid, there are only wave functions and fields.
The concept, matter cannot be created nor destroyed is high-school mistranslation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. However, in that mistranslation, matter is not defined, and the statement is th
Absolutely not.
The entire ‘Big Chill’ concept, one of the two possible fates of the end of the universe, is based on the concept that all ‘matter,’ which is actually just wave functions, have decayed away to photons and leptons.
The idea that ‘matter,’ AKA ‘particles’ are like tiny cannon balls is 19th century thinking. There are no ‘particles, nothing is solid, there are only wave functions and fields.
The concept, matter cannot be created nor destroyed is high-school mistranslation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. However, in that mistranslation, matter is not defined, and the statement is therefore non-sequitur.
What we call matter, solid stuff, is so because it is solid, e.g. fermions, wave functions with 1/2 integer spin. all fermions except electrons and electron neutrinos decay to electrons and electron neutrinos. electrons and electron neutrinos have no known internal structure and have never been observed to decay; except for reverse processes such as neutrino capture and so on.
quarks are fermions, and as such, all baryons, such as neutrons (free neutron half life about 15 minutes via beta decay) and protons (half life 10^32 years via lepton plus neutral pion) decay.
the only stable boson is the photon.
The Big Chill model is based on the idea that in a googol years all of these wave functions will have translated (decayed) to photons and leptons spread out so thinly, that a cubic megaparsec of space might see a passing photon or lepton. Very much like the Norse tradition of the end of the universe freezing.
As for mass conservation, another mistranslation. for instance, an electron and positron, each have mass, but slam them together and they make a massless gamma photon. The energy is conserved, but the mass? Higgs model does not explain this.
As for the amount of mass-energy being continuous in the cosmos, we have no evidence for this, just babble. If we were to take the actual evidence and look at it without 19th century gas laws as our guide, it would be clear that indeed, energy is still being pumped into the system. And why not? If we look at Freidman’s equations:
and substitute
G’ = 6.67384(80)×10-11 m3/Kg (s)2
Substitute t’ for s
G’ = 6.67384(80)×10-11 m3/Kg (t’)2
using gravimetric time dilation
then
Furthermore, there is a self-similar (fractal) occurring:
Since G’ = 6.67384(80)×10-11 m3/Kg (t’)2
And
noting the G’ inside the equation, and the self similar characteristic becomes:
making
For instance, the Swarzschild Radius of the mass-energy (observable) of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion light years.
1.
Valev, Dimitar (October 2008). "Consequences from conservation of the total density of the universe during the expansion". arXiv:1008.0933 [physics.gen-ph].
2.
Deza, Michel Marie; Deza, Elena (Oct 28, 2012). Encyclopedia of Distances (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media. p. 452. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30958-8. ISBN 978-3-642-30958-8. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
At that time, t’ was approaching infinity. Since that time, space-time has been expanding, because G’ was zero, t’ has been falling off to some tangible value, and G’ has been steadily increasing as shown in the graphs rendered above. As G’ has been steadily increasing as a result of t’ decreasing, H0 has been increasing. I will therefore render H the variable H0’. And we will say that H0’ is directly related to G’ by:
then becomes the fractal
The lambda term is not vital to the equation. In any case, H0’ increases with time as G’ increases because t’ decreases as gravimetric time dilation decreases as the cosmos expands away from the Swarzschild Radius (13.7 billion light-years).
That is, what the artifact is, the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the cosmos, is a decrease in gravimetric time dilation.
What is my point? That lambda (the upside down V) is considered ‘Dark Energy,’ causing the universe to accelerate as it expands. What is happening is that the apparent acceleration is an artifact of gravimetric time dilation.
In order for ‘Dark Energy’ to be true, all of these particles must decay in a fraction of the time predicted by Particle Physicists - ‘matter’ must decay to energy logarithmically faster than predicted by hands on observation in the lab.
Dark Energy, according to the equations above and the logic provided is gibberish.
It depends on your basic assumptions about reality.
For a materialist (philosophical materialist), the world is in primary sense matter in motion, requiring space and time to exist. Since then matter is primary, it is independent of something else for it’s existence. Which leads to the conclusion that matter itself is eternal, it just takes different shape and forms over time.
For an idealist (philosophical idealism), the world in primary sense is mind or spirit. Matter in the idealist conception is not the essential or primary ingredient, because in the idealist conception, matter is dependent
It depends on your basic assumptions about reality.
For a materialist (philosophical materialist), the world is in primary sense matter in motion, requiring space and time to exist. Since then matter is primary, it is independent of something else for it’s existence. Which leads to the conclusion that matter itself is eternal, it just takes different shape and forms over time.
For an idealist (philosophical idealism), the world in primary sense is mind or spirit. Matter in the idealist conception is not the essential or primary ingredient, because in the idealist conception, matter is dependent on mind or spirit (or sometimes it is said that everything physical is information or a mathematical structure). So for idealism the only eternal ‘thing’ is mind.
Scientifically we could say that the eternity of matter can be assumed on the basis of conserved quantities as explained in modern quantum mechanics. But these conservation laws might sometimes get broken.
Just as a remark: based on scientific reasoning, it is often said that the universe started to exist from the big bang, with nothing before, which would then lead to the conslusion: matter did not always exist.
This is however not a scientific fact at all, just an interpretation of the scientific theory, bended into a form that some people see fit for their worldview (idealism). The truth is of course that the big bang theory is not a theory about absolute cosmic origin, but of cosmic development. The theory states in short nothing more then that the universe on cosmic scales expands (and in ‘recent’ times even accelerated), and thus in earlier times was smaller, denser and hotter. What started that expansion is NOT part of the big bang theory, and is open for further scientific investigation.
The scientific community that investigates this, makes clear that the basis of the big bang theory is General Relativity in combination with observational evidence (redshift-distance relation of far away galaxies; the cosmic microwave background radiation). A mathematical model of that theory would lead to a singularity in the beginning. But that is something physical impossible. So in that sense, the only conclusion is that physical theory breaks down there. The reason it breaks down is because the whole model is based on an assumption that only the effects of General Relativity (gravity) are taken into account, not the contribution of Quantum Mechanics. In the circumstance (as they exist now) that matter is spread out over large distances (galaxies far away), that assumption holds, but as we get back in time and come closer to the ‘singularity’ that assumption no longer holds, because effects of Quantum Mechanics (which effects only come into play at short distances) have to be taken into account.
But a unified theory combining General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics does not exist.
Great question.
This is actually a very simple, yet, interesting phenomenon.
We start with energy. Energy comes in many forms. But we are going to discuss two forms of energy. Then we will discuss the combination of these, which will provide a fascinating answer to this question.
Longitudinal Waves
Consider a sound wave in the air. This is a form of energy which is a longitudinal wave. All this is are particles bumping into other particles, passing the energy in a given direction. The movement of the medium is in the same direction as the energy is traveling:
Animation from Lecture 14 (Waves, Wave
Great question.
This is actually a very simple, yet, interesting phenomenon.
We start with energy. Energy comes in many forms. But we are going to discuss two forms of energy. Then we will discuss the combination of these, which will provide a fascinating answer to this question.
Longitudinal Waves
Consider a sound wave in the air. This is a form of energy which is a longitudinal wave. All this is are particles bumping into other particles, passing the energy in a given direction. The movement of the medium is in the same direction as the energy is traveling:
Animation from Lecture 14 (Waves, Wave Equation and Intensity)
(If viewing on a phone, you may need to follow the link to see the animation. Then change your browser settings to view in desktop mode.)
We can see that the medium moves left and right and back again, but the wave energy travels through from left to right. This is analogous to neutrinos, which are also longitudinal waves. If it helps you to remember, the word longitudinal has the word “long” in it. Thus the waves are traveling a-“long” the direction the particles are moving.
Transverse Waves
The other kind of energy we will discuss are transverse waves. These only occur primarily in solids but can occur at the surface of liquids. In this case, the wave direction and the motion of the medium are at a 90 degree angle to each other:
Animation from Lecture 14 (Waves, Wave Equation and Intensity)
As we can see, the energy keeps moving while the medium remains rigid. The medium moves up and down while the wave energy moves from left to right.
A great example of this would be if you took a crystal and scraped something along its edge. This will produce a sound wave through the crystal which is a transverse wave. Or rubbing your finger around the rim of a crystal glass. You can also make a transverse wave with a rope by moving it up and down. Additionally, you could rotate it in a circle giving it an angular momentum. A helix would form and the wave would pass through, carried by the rigidity of the rope, moving away from you. Yet no part of the rope would move away from you.
Light is also a transverse wave. It can take a sinusoidal form, usually that of a helix. It can also be polarized, like our rope moving up and down.
Combining These Two Waves
What do you think would happen if a Transverse wave and a Longitudinal wave were to meet?
Animation from Lecture 14 (Waves, Wave Equation and Intensity)
Carefully watch the yellow dots in the center of the above graphic. What shape do they make? They travel in a circle. What path does matter-waves take? This is also a cyclical path:
Images from schoolphysics ::Welcome::
The concept that matter are waves(referred to as matter-waves) was first introduced by Louis de Broglie and is a central part of Quantum Mechanics:
One common experiment used for determining the wavelike nature of matter is the double slit experiment. When sending electrons through two slits one at a time, the outgoing electrons slowly make a diffraction pattern on the screen.
Animation from Wikipedia
One of the “eigenvalues” (think basic property) of a particle of matter is that of “spin”. This implies that there is some angular momentum(or cyclical motion) within each particle. This we found in the Stern-Gerlach experiment:
Stern–Gerlach experiment - Wikipedia
Thus it would seem combining transverse waves(light) and longitudinal waves(neutrinos) would produce…(drum roll please)… cyclical waves(matter). And everything which is stable that we’ve been able to identify from particle accelerators falls within these three categories.
As you can see, it’s not all that complicated!
The Dirac Equation
Consider the Dirac equation - Wikipedia, one of our most accurate (to date) descriptions of massive particles. The equation is given as:
[math]i\hbar \gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\psi -mc\psi =0[/math]
Where:
[math]\psi[/math] is the Wave function - Wikipedia
[math]i[/math] is the imaginary number and is commonly used in Digital signal processing - Wikipedia such as the Discrete Fourier transform - Wikipedia. In other words, analyzing wave functions.
What is the imaginary number and why is it useful in describing wave functions?
If [math]x[/math] describes how far to move linearly on the x-axis, the imaginary number [math]i[/math] describes how far to move perpendicular to the x-axis. If taken as a power of e, it describes how far to move on the Unit circle - Wikipedia function. [math]i[/math] moves counter-clockwise while [math]-i[/math] moves clockwise. So if we wish to describe something moving in a circle, [math]i[/math] is an effective mathematical tool to do so.
Multiplying by i is the same as describing this secondary wave function from a 90 degree angle of the other wave function [math]-mc\psi[/math].
Notice that the wave function actually contains two wave components? The function tells us what is happening to the momentum of the system. These two wave functions are at an angle of [math]i[/math] from each other - which is 90 degrees. And their momentum equal each other, canceling out the other, resulting in both remaining stationary. What is especially interesting is that the left wave function is multiplied by matrix components that result in two opposite possibilities for helicity (direction of spin). And that is the difference between matter and antimatter.
Cyclical Wave of an Electron
What does a cyclical wave look like in the case of an electron? Fortunately, some Swedish researchers filmed an electron in 2008 for the first time using rapid laser pulses:
The above is one form or geometry which a 3D cyclical wave can take.
If you found this article helpful, please take a moment to upvote so that others can find it.
Thank you for reading!
Yes.
See this thing? It's called a donut.
See that space where there isn't anything? It's called a hole. Does a hole exist? That's an interesting question. Obviously it does, or you couldn't put your finger through it, but, it wouldn't exist without the donut. The hole itself isn't made of matter.
I'll let you decide.
Edit.
I'm glad that I left it up to you to decide. I've certainly learned a lot, reading the many comments. What I've come to realize is that the hole is actually part of the space in which the universe exists. The hole doesn't need the donut to exist. The donut needs the hole. Nothin
Yes.
See this thing? It's called a donut.
See that space where there isn't anything? It's called a hole. Does a hole exist? That's an interesting question. Obviously it does, or you couldn't put your finger through it, but, it wouldn't exist without the donut. The hole itself isn't made of matter.
I'll let you decide.
Edit.
I'm glad that I left it up to you to decide. I've certainly learned a lot, reading the many comments. What I've come to realize is that the hole is actually part of the space in which the universe exists. The hole doesn't need the donut to exist. The donut needs the hole. Nothing can exist if there is no space for it to exist in.
Be the donut.
Try and think of something that you know exists. Apples, oranges, and pears. Easy.
Now try and think of something you don’t know exists. Dragons, unicorns, and her possible love for me. Just thinking about it is still easy.
Now try and think of something you can’t know, period. This is a dead end.
Existence is the product of the mind, and they are called abstractions. If you’re a programmer then creating them is part of your job. But there is a shorter, less technical name which we are all familiar with. They are words.
Words are the names we give abstractions. If we can circle a pattern we wish t
Try and think of something that you know exists. Apples, oranges, and pears. Easy.
Now try and think of something you don’t know exists. Dragons, unicorns, and her possible love for me. Just thinking about it is still easy.
Now try and think of something you can’t know, period. This is a dead end.
Existence is the product of the mind, and they are called abstractions. If you’re a programmer then creating them is part of your job. But there is a shorter, less technical name which we are all familiar with. They are words.
Words are the names we give abstractions. If we can circle a pattern we wish to recall, we can give that something a name. We can give it a word or a description. From then on, our words become that thing. Our entire collection of words then make up our language.
Language is the interface to all that exists within that reality. Some existences are obvious enough to warrant one word. But for the rest, we articulate with sentences and metaphors and stories and answers. To your question exists answers. This is one such answer.
You might think there are things with no words. Except, such an existence is expressed with words precisely by the class of existences that fall under “that which cannot be described with words” (we just described them with words).
So there is no escaping existence, and there is no access to non-existence unless we have it already. Our capacity to abstract is a physical capability provided by our brain. The patterns we extract are also dependent on our physical senses and our experiences. That is what makes everything real and also physical. Words may seem superficial, arbitrary, and symbolic, but they are real associations to real existences.
And that is also what makes philosophy real. You’d think we’d get nowhere just shuffling words in our head from our armchairs, but as it turns out, that is all we need to do to think and philosophize about all that exists — for it is all in our head. Our brains don’t go anywhere, so neither must we. Language holds all of what is real to us already, and by handing a philosopher this work, they have all they need.
New existences emerge from new experiences and new technology. They also emerge from new patters we create with words. I can combine “pink” with “lemonade” and create the phrase before creating the drink. This works, because words too form patterns. Just as words can generate more words, abstractions can generate more abstractions. And words too are things. We can type them, share them, stare at them. They are things that refer to other things, but they too exist and have consequences, such as consuming ink, or consuming our breath.
This is all an ongoing, progressive, adaptive process, and it is happening as we speak. Because language is shared, this entire process is happening in parallel through a group effort. As those of us who are pretty much physically identical share our relatively identical experiences, our words can be identical also.
Nothing would be the same if you did not exist. Every place you have ever been and every person you have ever spoken to would be different without you.
You're not here just to fill a space or to be a background character in someone else's movie.
We are all connected and we are all affected by the decisions and even the existence of those around us.
Every life has a purpose. Everything and everyone is interconnected, interdependent and interrelated. We are the droplets in this big universal ocean and we are all connected in the most beautiful way.
NOTHING WOULD BE THE SAME IF YOU DID NOT EXIST.
Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals abstract concepts which include , knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. One thing we can say about each branch of thinking is that each is a collection of opinions that have gained support over the years to be categorised as justified belief systems.
Regardless of how many people support a belief it still does not make it true. Quantum Mechanics and Relati
Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals abstract concepts which include , knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. One thing we can say about each branch of thinking is that each is a collection of opinions that have gained support over the years to be categorised as justified belief systems.
Regardless of how many people support a belief it still does not make it true. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are beautiful opinions that come part of the way to explaining things but they are still just opinions with nothing to do with absolute truth.
Man continues to chase clouds by attempting to use thinking in order to explain that which transcends thought. It is like asking a computer to describe its user.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle explains how the act of observation affects the results of any experiment and this borne out in the famous double slit experiments in Quantum Mechanics during which the electron behaves like a particle when observed and a wave when not. This phenomenon continues to baffle Physicists because they are victims of their own limiting belief systems.
If the act of observation affects the results of an experiment then surely the conclusion would be that the experiment itself must be a part of what constitutes the experiment. In other words all matter is thought including the body and held in the mind. It is the mind that continues to construct the reality we imagine is separate from us. We are stuck because we choose to believe that the illusion is real and our collective thought manifests a reality that does not exist. This is why whenever we attempt to scrutinise this reality we cannot do so but nobody wants to see this as evidence for the grand illusion I refer to.
All we can do is continue to offer each other opinions and ideas and becoming more knowledgeable in anyone else's opinion about matter is still not going to make it true because all opinion and belief is thought.
In my opinion, in order to make any real progress we must first free ourselves from the mind that is calling all the shots. We need a Resurrection from the Mind: http://manxhypnosis.com/blog/?p=514
The fact that matter has volume and other properties that we value on a macroscopic scale comes from interactions between fundamental particles. A fundamental particle has no volume on its own. It is only through interactions with other fundamental particles that the building blocks of “matter” are made (i.e. protons, neutrons, atoms, etc.)
The composition of matter depends on how deep you are willing to look. The matter of the human body, for example, is made from organs such as skin, bones, heart, brain, glands, etc.. The organs are composed of cells of various structures, and the cells are composed of various types of molecules. The molecules are composed of various types of atoms, and the atoms compose from basically two types of subatomic particles.
It is the level of subatomic particles where modern physics get stuck at. Because modern physics is hung up with the belief that subatomic particles are probability functions, or
The composition of matter depends on how deep you are willing to look. The matter of the human body, for example, is made from organs such as skin, bones, heart, brain, glands, etc.. The organs are composed of cells of various structures, and the cells are composed of various types of molecules. The molecules are composed of various types of atoms, and the atoms compose from basically two types of subatomic particles.
It is the level of subatomic particles where modern physics get stuck at. Because modern physics is hung up with the belief that subatomic particles are probability functions, or mathematical constructs, they describe the subatomic particles in terms of waves, particles, energy, and mass. But waves, particles, energy, and mass are just perceptions of humans and not realities of subatomic particles. A wave means something is waving. A particle means there is a finite piece of something material. Energy is nothing but the unit of work; and mass is just a dimension with no more material structure than length or time.
An electron is quantified in whole by Planck’s constant. There is no difference between Planck’s constant and the electron; they are the same thing. And electron is primary angular momentum. In order to understand primary angular momentum, we have to discuss a topic that modern physicists are deathly afraid of, the Aether.
The Aether is a quantifiable and measurable quantum of space, which is characterized as a quantum rotating magnetic field. Whether physicists want to admit it or not, non-material quantum rotating magnetic fields pre-exist the state of matter. And quantum rotating magnetic fields even have a more primary cause, which is the Gforce. Gforce is the common denominator of the fundamental forces of gravity, electrostatic force, and magnetic force. And even Gforce arises as a split in the Singularity. The Singularity is mathematically represented with the number 1. The concept of Gforce is best described as an all powerful, all encompassing, dynamic heartbeat that drives the entire physical Universe and is the source of the fundamental forces, the speed of light, and all the basic constants of physics.
Concurrent with the arising of Gforce are vibrating strings of mass, which modern physicists have identified by proxy as “dark matter.” Also concurrent with the arising of Gforce are two types of charges, electrostatic charge, and magnetic charge. These two types of charges are reciprocals of each other.
The Gforce acting on the dimension of strong charge produces the Aether, or quantum rotating magnetic fields. These quantum rotating magnetic fields can absorb and capture a finite amount of vibrating strings of mass (dark matter). The string of mass becomes a structured quantum of primary angular momentum within the Aether unit, and forever maintains its angular momentum and charge characteristics, and becomes either an electron or a proton (or a positron or a antiproton) depending on which half of the Aether unit the string of mass occupies.
And so what we ultimately think of as physical matter in its complex form, arises from non-material existence at its most primary form. The part about the non-material existence that scares modern physicists the most, however, is that the Gforce too closely resembles the concept of “God,” the non-material Creator of the Universe. Even though the physics clearly shows the existence of the Gforce, today’s physicists become so unnerved by the concept that they experience the feeling of anti-religion, and run from this knowledge even at the cost of knowing the truth.
You can read the technical discussion about the Gforce and how it is derived from the known physical constants here.
Of nothing.
Physics has come down to the most basic level, particles.
The problem is that we tend to think «matter is made of something». Yes, it is made of particles. Yes, but what are the particles made of? Particles are made of quantum field excitation (see the reply of Hadrien Chevalier). Well, fine, but what are the quantum fields made of? Etc.
In fact, I think physicists arrived at the metaphysical level (note 1), that is the ultimate causes of physical existence and of the laws of physics. (Meta-physics = beyond physics) What did they found? Structures, in the sense of Set Theory, and symm
Of nothing.
Physics has come down to the most basic level, particles.
The problem is that we tend to think «matter is made of something». Yes, it is made of particles. Yes, but what are the particles made of? Particles are made of quantum field excitation (see the reply of Hadrien Chevalier). Well, fine, but what are the quantum fields made of? Etc.
In fact, I think physicists arrived at the metaphysical level (note 1), that is the ultimate causes of physical existence and of the laws of physics. (Meta-physics = beyond physics) What did they found? Structures, in the sense of Set Theory, and symmetries which operate within these structures, each giving a field and its particles. Example: the structure of 3D space «generates» our space in three dimensions, the electromagnetic field and the photon. At this point of abstraction, there is nothing «material» left, which would «constitute» ordinary matter. There only remain equations (unfortunately complicated, but what they describe could be grasped by more people, with a more imaged presentation).
.
Note1: the notion of metaphysics is often decried by scientists, who see there only untestable beliefs. It is too bad, because they miss the very last step which leads to the ultimate understanding of physics and existence. There is simply nothing to «understand» or any «mystery» left, as soon as one agrees not to look for «something which would behave according to the mathematical laws of».
Note 2: this conception nicely matches the Buddhist conceptions of emptiness. Not totally at random, because the Buddhists wise persons just bypassed all the complex physics, to directly try to understand how it exists.
Matter is a behavior, not a something.
I just wrote up a answer to a similar question here: What is the difference between mass and matter? but to save you a "click" I copied the relevant material here.
MATTER
An Analogy for Beginners: Imagine a guitar with 17 strings and we pluck one of the strings.
A string represents a fundamental quantum field. The musical note you get from exciting the string, say G#, is a particle. All vibrating strings have energy, and if the energy moves slower than the speed of light, we give this energy the name "mass." Our guitar has 17 strings because there are
Matter is a behavior, not a something.
I just wrote up a answer to a similar question here: What is the difference between mass and matter? but to save you a "click" I copied the relevant material here.
MATTER
An Analogy for Beginners: Imagine a guitar with 17 strings and we pluck one of the strings.
A string represents a fundamental quantum field. The musical note you get from exciting the string, say G#, is a particle. All vibrating strings have energy, and if the energy moves slower than the speed of light, we give this energy the name "mass." Our guitar has 17 strings because there are 17 fundamental fields discovered so far (see below). Of the 17 strings, 12 of them play matter notes and 5 play non-matter notes (the difference explained in definitions section).
We can play chords on our guitar; let's play a chord called "the proton." This chord requires 3 matter notes: 2 called "up quark" and one called "down quark." In order to combine our 3 quarks into the beautiful sounding proton, we need many other notes called gluons which do exactly what their name suggests and glues the quarks together. There is also a string called the Higgs, and quark notes will resonate with the Higgs string causing it vibrate and these couple in such a way that the quarks and thus the whole proton moves slower than light. The gluon notes do not vibrate the Higgs string.
The "mass" of the proton is the sum of all the energies of this entire vibrating mess, including all the light speed notes and less-than-light-speed parts; this is because the light speed parts are contained inside the slower than light proton. About 91% of the mass is associated with the gluon field and about 9% is from Higgs field.
NOTES: Guitar strings are made of metal or nylon, quantum fields are not made of anything. I used the word "string" and so do string theorists, but those strings are different. Nowhere do I say "Higgs note or particle" that is because while the Higgs field can resonate with, ie couple to, some other fields (not all) the Higgs field can play its own note called the "Higgs boson." The collective descriptions of Higgs couplings and the Higgs boson is properly called the Higgs mechanism.
DEFINITIONS
Matter, the definition: Matter is any excitation of a quantum "matter field" or collections of such excitations. This includes, but is not limited to, all fermionic particles, nuclei, atoms, molecules, solids, liquids and gases.
Matter, its defining characteristic: Matter particles can be used as building blocks, they are the LEGO bricks of the universe. Non-matter particles can occupy in the same place at the same time (technically, occupy the same quantum state) and any number of them can get packed into an arbitrarily small volume. In the guitar analogy, waves on the string can overlap (ie superposition). Matterparticles cannot do this: matter particles cannot occupy the same place at the same time, but they can sit next to each other, need larger volumes and therefore can be used to build the structures in our universe. Matter is a description of behavior - not a fundamental quantity. Matter is that behavior of, for example quarks and electrons, that allows them to be built up into giraffes, computers, carbon dioxide, and planets: "A house built out of photons cannot stand."
NOTE: It is acceptable to use "matter" in a non-rigorous context in an everyday way to mean "stuff," as in the term "dark matter." It's also acceptable to do this with energy too: If I say "I don't have the energy to wash the laundry today;" energy in this context is referring to my emotional state and not to a particular symmetry of my Lagrangian (a technical way physicists define energy).
MASS
- The technical definition: For an object or system, the mass is a relativistic invariant quantity equal to the pseudo norm of its momentum 4-vector.
- A non-technical definition: Mass is the name we give to all the energy and momentum, added together, that is inside of an object.
The Connection: The 2 definitions above seem sufficiently dissimilar to merit an explanation. Each particle in some system of particles has a 4 component vector that describes its energy and momentum. There exists a way in relativistic dynamics to add the components of the particles in such a way as to get the mass of that system. This is impossible in practice when there are trillions upon trillions of particles, so we determine the mass of an object using one of energy's other properties: inertia and gravitation.
The Big Question Is...
If mass and matter are fundamentally different, the how can they be converted into each other?
THEY CAN'T -They are completely and fundamentally different!
- Mass is a relativistic invariant quantity
- Matter is a description of a particular type of behavior.
However... particles are excitations of quantum fields, which have energy, momentum and other properties and these quantities can be transferred to other quantum fields (minding appropriate conservation laws of course!).
A simple example: An electron and anti-electron annihilate each other and produce a pair of gamma ray photons.
The Analogy: The electron and anti-electron are excitations on a quantum field (notes on the guitar). When they interact they annihilate each other, which is a fancy way of saying that all their energy (and other defining properties) got transferred to a different guitar string or strings, and in this example the energy transferred to the electromagnetic quantum field) which produces excitations on that field we call photons.
The disappearance and creation of particles is just the shuffling of energy between fields. If some of those particles happen to move slower than photons, then part of their energy is called "mass." If some of those particles happen to have non-integer spin, then they are called "matter." No connection between them, the physics of particle interactions is dependent on conservation laws and not to the before and after amounts of mass or matter.
Here's a table of the fundamental particles; the 6 green and 6 purple are the matter particles. It's only the Generation I particles that factor into everyday matter.
Yes, to me, matter has always existed. The Big Bang was a reset of existing matter.
Since we really don’t have a lot of hard data about the “Big Bang,” we have theories based on observations and not everyone agrees. Here is a speculation that works for me.
The concept of the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest and cosmologist in the 1930’s. However, Fred Hoyle is credited with coming up with the actual term in 1949.
The universe (the space itself) is infinite and has always existed. I will also propose that the matter in the universe was also there. About 14 billion
Yes, to me, matter has always existed. The Big Bang was a reset of existing matter.
Since we really don’t have a lot of hard data about the “Big Bang,” we have theories based on observations and not everyone agrees. Here is a speculation that works for me.
The concept of the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest and cosmologist in the 1930’s. However, Fred Hoyle is credited with coming up with the actual term in 1949.
The universe (the space itself) is infinite and has always existed. I will also propose that the matter in the universe was also there. About 14 billion years ago all the existing matter in the universe (or at least in our part of our infinite universe), due to gravity, collapsed in on itself and formed a “huge” black hole (or white hole). This transformational beginning contained most of all the matter in the universe at that point. It became so powerful it “exploded” driving matter all across the universe. This matter eventually (again due to gravity) came together as suns, planet, moons, etc. and formed all the stuff in our current universe. This was a “reset” of the existing matter in the universe.
We hear descriptions using terms like “singularity” and “infinitely dense” small point as the origin of the big bang. This black hole beginning didn’t have to be a tiny spec. A black hole the size of our sun or even the size of our entire solar system is really a “small point” compared to the size of the infinite universe.
None of this conflicts with anything I’ve read from science and if you want to give God credit for doing it, it doesn’t conflict with what is in the Bible. See Genesis 1:3
At some point gravity may again take over and it will all collapse again, and we will have another “big bang.”
My speculation is that we needed the big bang to restart our universe (at least our part of our universe). As all the pre-Big Bang existing suns converted all their hydrogen into helium, they became burned out stars and the universe became darker and darker. This set the stage for the big bang as all these former stars (and other stuff) combined to form the black hole. Somehow when the big bang occurred, it converted all (or much) of that helium back into hydrogen so stars could again form and we would have our now existing universe full of stars.
TL:DR: from an OBJECTIVE point of view, nothing matters. from a SUBJECTIVE point of view, everything you care about matters. And you decide which point of view to use
“Mattering” is a human construct. The universe doesn’t care about you. It doesn’t care about humans. It doesn’t even care about itself. It just exists. We are just a bunch of hairless apes roaming (and ruining) the planet we call Earth, and one day we are all going to die, unless we can move to another planet before the sun explodes in a few billion years. And that’s assuming we don’t die from global warming, nuclear war, asteroid
TL:DR: from an OBJECTIVE point of view, nothing matters. from a SUBJECTIVE point of view, everything you care about matters. And you decide which point of view to use
“Mattering” is a human construct. The universe doesn’t care about you. It doesn’t care about humans. It doesn’t even care about itself. It just exists. We are just a bunch of hairless apes roaming (and ruining) the planet we call Earth, and one day we are all going to die, unless we can move to another planet before the sun explodes in a few billion years. And that’s assuming we don’t die from global warming, nuclear war, asteroid strikes, and tons of other natural or human-made threats first, which is extremely unlikely. Things can only matter for humans and their society, which doesn’t even matter.
Happiness, or any emotions for that matter, don’t matter. They are just chemicals in the brains of hairless apes that make them feel good or bad. There is no objective good/bad in the universe, that too is a human construct. You don’t matter, because you are just one of these hairless apes that are almost certainly going to die out in the next few billion years, and likely much sooner.
Even though nothing really matters, we can choose to think that things matter. Most humans feel empty when they recognize that nothing matters, and trick themselves into believing that things do matter, whether with religion, family values, or regular moral principles, because we feel comfortable (just brain chemistry again) when we believe in something, even if the belief is irrational. Sometimes ignorance makes life more meaningful! It is up to you to choose whether to believe that anything matters or not.
As with every philosophical question out there, it’s a question of perspective, relativity and subjectivity.
If you mean in general, no, not terribly.
As for why -
Imagine you’re a human, living at the dawn of our evolution, around 120,000 years ago. You live a simple existence - you know only the few dozen others of your kind whom you’ve lived around all your life - you’ve never really been fully anchored to one place, instead, living a classic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. You have lived, and will continue living, a fairly standard life, in this harsh world, where uncertainty reigns and every day
As with every philosophical question out there, it’s a question of perspective, relativity and subjectivity.
If you mean in general, no, not terribly.
As for why -
Imagine you’re a human, living at the dawn of our evolution, around 120,000 years ago. You live a simple existence - you know only the few dozen others of your kind whom you’ve lived around all your life - you’ve never really been fully anchored to one place, instead, living a classic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. You have lived, and will continue living, a fairly standard life, in this harsh world, where uncertainty reigns and every day is a fight for survival.
Does your life matter?
It might, to those close to you, and yourself. Your life will end, perhaps of some malady, starvation, or of a violent death. As the years wear on, you will be forgotten. No one will ever utter your name again, and those of your parents’, or your children’s, past a few generations, lost - to the march of time and relevance.
Even now, important figures in human history can only be remembered from a few thousand years past. Forget the average farmer, slave or tradesman. And that was from times long ago, where the human population was never above a few dozen millions.
Every 10 seconds, 18 people are dead. Do you ever consider those people? Do you ever mourn for those you do not know, will not ever know and have no interest in knowing? In all likelihood, they are a mere statistic to you. As they are to me.
So I guess that’s the thought process behind why I don’t think my existence is important. If, or when, I die, obviously those who were close to me would feel saddened for a period. But come a few decades and I would most likely have been relegated to a name on a family tree. Do I feel depressed by this? No. Because billions of others have met the same historical irrelevance.
But how do we measure importance? Is it in how we are remembered, or by how many? After all, the human I spoke of that lived 120,000 years ago probably is one of my ancestors, and yours too. His or her impact is farther than one would fathom, in the form of Homo sapiens found all over this Earth. But we will never know their name, nor think of them unless we are studying human evolution. Though they had their own relationships, moments both happy and sad, and life experiences, no one will or would think or remember theirs. Billions of people’s lives are lost to history, never to be remembered again. These people will eventually include your grandparents’, your parents’ and then you and your descendants’ lives.
In the end, you choose to define your own existence. Whether you think it is important for you is up for yourself to decide. For example, should you decide to devote your life to the advancement of the human race - by making some sort of impact on the general condition of everyone - by exploring the vast frontiers of space, or finding a cure for age, or just helping other people - I’d argue your life does have meaning, and a real impact.
I believe my existence is important, as I bring fulfillment to my family and friends. And, obviously, my existence is important to me. But when I think on the grand scale of time and space, as has been stated before - my existence is utterly unimportant.
what is time? is it an illusion of us or something else let's find out.
first, find out what we think about time.
A day has 24 hours, an hour has 60 min and, a min has 60 sec. Did you ever think where these hours, min, and sec came from, I tell you these are the pure assumptions these are the quantities to measure the amount of time passed for us for your own convenience. If you didn't assume quantities to measure something then we never know how much it's gone.
so we know that hour, min and sec are the assumptions made for your convenience to measure the time and know the existence of time. then
what is time? is it an illusion of us or something else let's find out.
first, find out what we think about time.
A day has 24 hours, an hour has 60 min and, a min has 60 sec. Did you ever think where these hours, min, and sec came from, I tell you these are the pure assumptions these are the quantities to measure the amount of time passed for us for your own convenience. If you didn't assume quantities to measure something then we never know how much it's gone.
so we know that hour, min and sec are the assumptions made for your convenience to measure the time and know the existence of time. then what really time is?
Time is an illusion.
In 19's Einstein bring the concept of theory of relativity, according to him space and time didn't exist separately they are part of same fabric called spacetime. If there is no space there is no time. Take an example we experience time because of space between us, if there is no separation(space) between us then we can't talk out time. Take another example many of us ask what is before big bang all you are asking is that the past of big bang but this question is wrong to ask because before the big bang there is no space, in that case, we can not talk about time. After the event of the big bang happened space and time itself come in existence.
so it means we can say that time is an illusion because of space between us and theory of relativity explains it.
according to relativity time is not absolute, it means in different parts of the universe the rate of flow of time may not be same, time is affected by gravity and speed, as we know when we move fast enough to approaching speed of light time slows down for us, same in case of high gravity area like near black holes. This is called time dilation, but it is not right to say because space is also effected by gravity and speed and hence space and time are related. Therefore be can experience relativity in time because of space.
without space or time, we cannot define an event lets say you want to meet someone, you tell him a place to meet but you didn't tell him where and when you two meet. what do you think this person will never meet that person. space and time are inseparable.
The dimension of time.
what is the dimension of time well we call its a fourth dimension as combing space and time, 3 dimensions of space and 1-time dimension of time makes 4-dimensional spacetime.
But here is a question arrives in our heads, we can move forward backward right and left in space but in time we can only move forward why is that so? well for this we have to understand the second law of thermodynamics.
the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. let me explain this. what is entropy? in simple words its amount of disordersness of a system, for example, a plane mirror falls by mistake and brake into pieces, it means that the entropy of mirror is increased because mirror becomes more disordered when compared to a solid plane mirror. so the law of thermodynamics says that entropy of the universe is always going to be increase. And we know that today, your universe is continuously expanding, the more the expansion, more the disorders and more the entropy but what time has to do with that let's find out.
arrow of time.
expansion of universe means the expansion of space itself into itself and as we learn earlier space and time are related to each other and space is expanding that is why time is always increasing means moving forward this is called arrow of time. suppose space become suddenly start contracting than time moves backward, but that is not true because the entropy of an isolated system is always increasing, therefore, time is always moving forward not backward.
As of now science has working on it and maybe in the future, we will know more about space, time and universe.
***thanks for reading please upvote my answer if you like it.***
I hope you are not begging the answer of anti-matter, since it would simply be wrong. Anti-matter has mass. Positive mass.
That said, there are chances for a thing to have zero (no) mass. Shchwarzchild arrived at a solution from Einstein’s theory of relativity which describes the nature of space-time around a point-like mass. This is the well-known black hole solution, which is hidden behind a surface called the event horizon. At least, for positive mass.
The idea of Negative matter intrigued cosmologists and theoretical physicists. Negative matter was trivially ignored since it could not satisf
I hope you are not begging the answer of anti-matter, since it would simply be wrong. Anti-matter has mass. Positive mass.
That said, there are chances for a thing to have zero (no) mass. Shchwarzchild arrived at a solution from Einstein’s theory of relativity which describes the nature of space-time around a point-like mass. This is the well-known black hole solution, which is hidden behind a surface called the event horizon. At least, for positive mass.
The idea of Negative matter intrigued cosmologists and theoretical physicists. Negative matter was trivially ignored since it could not satisfy the energy condition which arrives from the naked singularity posed by the concept of a negative mass. The problem with the concept of negative matter is that it violates the energy condition. But a discovery could lead to the understanding and potentially creating of wormholes .
Mbarek and Paranjape made a breakthrough by approaching the object as a perfect fluid rather than a solid, in a de Sitter space-time. And when they solve the equations for a perfect fluid, it turns out that the energy condition is satisfied everywhere, just as in all other solutions of general relativity that support reasonable universes.
So bottom-line, if a thing with negative mass can exist, a stable mass condition which we can describe as zero (no) mass can exist.
Matter is ultimately made of energy vibrating at different speeds.
A quantum field can transfer energy into the kinetic energy of the reaction products, and the result is that a particle disappears and its energy turns into kinetic energy. The point of all this is that matter is energy in the form of excitations of quantum fields.Oct 31, 2014
Note that this article was written in 2014, yet materialists still don’t believe matter ultimately derives from the activities of energetic fields. In simple words, the seen is created by activity in the unseen.
The word "existence" comes from the Latin word existere meaning "to appear", "to arise", "to become", or "to be", but literally, it means "to stand out" (ex- being the Latin prefix for "out" added to the Latin verb stare, meaning "to stand").
Existence is an abstraction like Love or Happiness, and thus not a concrete object, but a property we ascribe mentally to concrete objects, so how can it exist completely onto itself, when it depends completely on concrete objects? Might as well say "only concrete objects exist", which is obvious. Your thoughts? Am I wrong? If so, let me know.
You exist,
The word "existence" comes from the Latin word existere meaning "to appear", "to arise", "to become", or "to be", but literally, it means "to stand out" (ex- being the Latin prefix for "out" added to the Latin verb stare, meaning "to stand").
Existence is an abstraction like Love or Happiness, and thus not a concrete object, but a property we ascribe mentally to concrete objects, so how can it exist completely onto itself, when it depends completely on concrete objects? Might as well say "only concrete objects exist", which is obvious. Your thoughts? Am I wrong? If so, let me know.
You exist, I exist but does Existence exist?
Existence is not nothing, but in a certain sense everything: it is that without which a thing would be nothing at all. It is by a sort of 'transcendental illusion' that existence appears to be nothing, or a mere concept we decide to impose on some objects but not others. Not finding existence as a discriminable feature of objects, existence is not 'out there' but 'in us' as our very interiority. Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable.
You are made up of Matter .
So YES it does Matter to MATTER that you exist. Every atom of Matter has a role to play in the game of Conciousness in relation to other atoms which co-exist with it. Everything is there for a reason. We may know or know that .
From the Reality point of view it does not Matter .
Why ?
Reality is ” THAT EVERYTHING IS ENERGY “. ENERGY CAN NOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED. IT ONLY CHANGES FORMS.
So if nothing is being created or destroyed , what can ever happen ?
No-thing .
The eternal play of ENERGY is nothing but a illusionary process of changing forms in the infinite fields of
You are made up of Matter .
So YES it does Matter to MATTER that you exist. Every atom of Matter has a role to play in the game of Conciousness in relation to other atoms which co-exist with it. Everything is there for a reason. We may know or know that .
From the Reality point of view it does not Matter .
Why ?
Reality is ” THAT EVERYTHING IS ENERGY “. ENERGY CAN NOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED. IT ONLY CHANGES FORMS.
So if nothing is being created or destroyed , what can ever happen ?
No-thing .
The eternal play of ENERGY is nothing but a illusionary process of changing forms in the infinite fields of EMPTINESS which makes up everything which exists in creation.
How do you explain this process in our lives.
DREAMS .
The dreamer experiences person places things situations etc etc in the dream and real in their mind without even getting up in their sleep. On waking up everything in the dream vanishes & is understood to be only a illusion . The so called “ OUR “ existence is exactly the same. It is found to be a illusion on leaving the body. In fact in deep sleep the dreamer too vanishes & so does it's world . No ? Both the dreamer & its dream are only illusions, finally.
ILLUSIONS DONT MATTER, FINALLY !
Reality is only ONE .
And everything is THAT only .
There are no others .
So the final Question to ask & know is “What is Reality” ?
©
Did Matter Always Exist, or Did It Come into Existence at Some Point? A Comprehensive Framework
To understand whether matter always existed or came into existence at some point, we need to approach this question from the perspective of Space-Mass-Energy Equivalence, the concept of Absolute Origin, Absolute Totality, and the underlying principles of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. By integrating these advanced concepts, we can build a coherent and mathematically rigorous framework to address the nature and origin of matter.
1. Space-Mass-Energy Equivalence
The Fundamental Principle:
Eins
©
Did Matter Always Exist, or Did It Come into Existence at Some Point? A Comprehensive Framework
To understand whether matter always existed or came into existence at some point, we need to approach this question from the perspective of Space-Mass-Energy Equivalence, the concept of Absolute Origin, Absolute Totality, and the underlying principles of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. By integrating these advanced concepts, we can build a coherent and mathematically rigorous framework to address the nature and origin of matter.
1. Space-Mass-Energy Equivalence
The Fundamental Principle:
Einstein’s famous equation [math]E = mc^2[/math] describes the equivalence of energy ([math]E[/math]) and mass ([math]m[/math]) via the speed of light squared ([math]c^2[/math]). This relationship implies that mass can be converted into energy, and vice versa. However, within the broader context of Space-Mass-Energy Equivalence, space itself is not an inert backdrop. Space, mass, and energy are all interconnected manifestations of the same underlying quantum field.
In this framework, space is not just an empty void. Rather, it can be thought of as a dynamic, energy-filled medium that participates in the creation and transformation of matter and energy.
- Space is the field where matter and energy exist and interact.
- Matter (or mass) is a form of condensed energy within this space, formed under specific conditions of spacetime curvature and quantum field interactions.
- Energy is the dynamic expression of this interaction and transformation.
Thus, matter is not separate from space but emerges from the fluctuations of space itself, governed by the laws of energy conversion.
2. The Absolute Origin: The Beginning of Matter
Concept of Absolute Origin:
The Absolute Origin can be conceptualized as the moment or the initial state from which both space and time emerge. This idea is consistent with the notion of the Big Bang in cosmology, where both space and time were created at the singularity from a point of infinite density and temperature. At this moment, both space and energy (in the form of high-energy radiation) were in a state of extreme fluctuation.
In the context of Absolute Totality, this is the pre-condition for the emergence of the entire universe. It refers to the entirety of existence as a unified whole — a state of maximum symmetry, where space, mass, and energy are undifferentiated.
- At the Absolute Origin, all three components (space, mass, and energy) existed as a singular, undifferentiated entity. The concept of mass and matter did not yet exist in a separated, observable form.
3. The Emergence of Matter: Transition from Energy to Mass
According to the Space-Mass-Energy Equivalence Principle, matter is essentially condensed energy. As the universe expanded from the Absolute Origin, high-energy radiation and quantum fields underwent cooling and condensation, leading to the formation of elementary particles. This process can be understood through quantum field theory and general relativity.
As the universe cooled, energy in the form of high-energy photons began to convert into mass through the process of pair production, where energy transforms into particle-antiparticle pairs. This is a direct manifestation of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence. Matter emerged in discrete packets, or quanta, where energy fields condensed and formed the first forms of elementary particles.
Mathematically, the energy density of the early universe (right after the Big Bang) can be approximated as:
[math]u = \frac{\pi^2 \hbar c}{720 T^4}[/math]
Where:
- [math]\hbar[/math] = reduced Planck's constant,
- [math]c[/math] = speed of light,
- [math]T[/math] = temperature of the early universe.
As the temperature dropped (from millions of Kelvin to around 3000 K), photons had less energy, and matter began to form, following the famous equation:
[math]E = mc^2[/math]
This shows that matter arises from energy as the universe cools and condenses.
4. Absolute Totality and the Nature of Matter
The Totality of Existence:
The principle of Absolute Totality suggests that all components of existence — space, energy, and matter — are interconnected as part of a larger, unified structure. This unified structure suggests that there was never a "creation" of matter in isolation; rather, the universe as a whole, in its entirety, underwent processes of transformation that led to the emergence of matter from energy.
- Matter is thus a manifestation of this totality, arising from the quantum fluctuations in the energy fields that fill space.
- Energy in the early universe was distributed uniformly, but as it cooled and condensed, the universe transitioned into a state where localized clusters of energy formed what we perceive as matter (through the condensation of energy fields into particles).
This reflects the dynamic and ongoing transformation between energy and mass, suggesting that matter has not always been "fixed" but has evolved from a more primordial state.
5. Framework for the Emergence and Persistence of Matter
Framework Summary:
- The Absolute Origin represents the undifferentiated state of the universe, where space, mass, and energy were unified.
- As the universe expanded and cooled, energy underwent condensation and transformation, leading to the formation of mass through processes governed by Space-Mass-Energy Equivalence.
- Matter emerged as localized condensations of energy within the fabric of space, which continues to interact, transform, and evolve based on the dynamics of the quantum field.
Equations:
- Space-Mass-Energy Equivalence: [math]E = mc^2[/math]
- Energy Density in the Early Universe: [math]u = \frac{\pi^2 \hbar c}{720 T^4}[/math]
- Matter from Energy (via pair production): [math]E_{\text{photon}} = 2mc^2[/math] for each pair of particles.
6. Contradiction and Resolution
Contradiction: One potential contradiction arises when considering the continuity of matter. If matter emerged from energy during the Big Bang, then does that mean that matter is not eternal, and was there a point where matter did not exist?
Resolution: Matter, as we observe it today, emerged from energy in the early universe. However, this does not imply that the potential for matter to exist is dependent on some external event. Rather, matter’s existence is governed by the fundamental interactions between energy fields in space, which are constantly evolving.
- In essence, matter has always existed in some form — initially as energy, and later as localized packets of mass.
- The totality of existence has always included the possibility of mass arising from energy fluctuations, suggesting that while observable matter may have formed at a certain point, the potential for mass (as an aspect of total existence) was always latent in the fabric of space-time.
7. Conclusion: The Evolution of Matter
Matter did not always exist in its current form, but its potential has always existed as part of the unified fabric of space, energy, and time. The Absolute Origin marks the beginning of observable forms of matter, emerging from energy fluctuations in the early universe. This evolution was a direct result of the interplay between space, mass, and energy, governed by the Space-Mass-Energy Equivalence principle.
In conclusion, matter is a transient manifestation of energy and space, and it will continue to evolve as the universe progresses.
©
The question is:
Did matter always exist, or did it come into existence at some point?
There is an immense potential out there and its fundamental nature is non-physical.
Apparent furious vibrations in this potential project the subjective consciousness and the objective cosmos simultaneously in the observation/perception.
This projection is not much different from the projection of a dream world by thoughts/memory in our dreams.
In other words, creation is a dream in this potential.
In the absolute state this potential is immaculate silence.
Nothing is truly happening! No time, no space and no creat
The question is:
Did matter always exist, or did it come into existence at some point?
There is an immense potential out there and its fundamental nature is non-physical.
Apparent furious vibrations in this potential project the subjective consciousness and the objective cosmos simultaneously in the observation/perception.
This projection is not much different from the projection of a dream world by thoughts/memory in our dreams.
In other words, creation is a dream in this potential.
In the absolute state this potential is immaculate silence.
Nothing is truly happening! No time, no space and no creation!
This depends upon the definition of matter. A general definition of matter is something that occupies space and has a rest mass. The test for rest mass is if something would resist changing its state of motion or, in other words, have inertia. Anything with mass is subject to the effect of the gravitational field and is attracted to other items with mass. The part of the definition about occupying space is a bit shaky lately because of the existence of a substance that seems to exist and can be noticed because it can be observed only because of the particular gravitational influence of galacti
This depends upon the definition of matter. A general definition of matter is something that occupies space and has a rest mass. The test for rest mass is if something would resist changing its state of motion or, in other words, have inertia. Anything with mass is subject to the effect of the gravitational field and is attracted to other items with mass. The part of the definition about occupying space is a bit shaky lately because of the existence of a substance that seems to exist and can be noticed because it can be observed only because of the particular gravitational influence of galactic orbital speed.
In the first few seconds of the so-called big bang, matter only existed as sub-atomic particles, but there were no atoms yet. This is a very long answer to your question, but it would seem that yes, there has always been matter.
Matter was created, came into existence, about 400,000 years after the beginning of the physical universe. Before then there was only quantum energy and forces, then quantum particles, strings, fields and antimatter, then subatomic then atomic particles, then came matter. So, no, matter did not always exist. But, energy, it seems, has always existed.
There are two definitions of "to exist" that I use:
Definition 1
Only the current content of you consciousness exists. Your feelings, perceptions and thoughts. It's the only thing that you can be sure of.
If you accept this definition, then the answer is no, existence doesn't exist, because existence is not the content of your consciousness.
Definition 2
When you say Eiffel tower exists, you mean that if you travel to Paris, you'll see the Eiffel tower. More generally - when you say something exists, you make a prediction about your future perceptions. You predict, that you'll see the Eiffel tower.
There are two definitions of "to exist" that I use:
Definition 1
Only the current content of you consciousness exists. Your feelings, perceptions and thoughts. It's the only thing that you can be sure of.
If you accept this definition, then the answer is no, existence doesn't exist, because existence is not the content of your consciousness.
Definition 2
When you say Eiffel tower exists, you mean that if you travel to Paris, you'll see the Eiffel tower. More generally - when you say something exists, you make a prediction about your future perceptions. You predict, that you'll see the Eiffel tower.
But – this prediction is not a certainity – you can only say that it's very very likely that you'll see the Eiffel tower in Paris. You can never predict your future perceptions with absolute certainity. For example, you can be in a Matrix, and everything you hear and read about the Eiffel tower is just a trick to make you believe that it exists.
Now, what about the definition of existence? The only reasonable definition I can think of is that it's just a very very vague idea, concept, in our heads. I personally think it's not a very useful word.
According to definition 1, existence does not exist, because it's not part of my current content of consciousness.
According to definition 2, existence does not exist too, because – let's say that it doesn't predict anything (not sire if that's a good explanation).
Forget all the fancy-shmancy explanations you heard from people trying to impress you, or read in books written by people trying to appear smarter than they are.
Grab something heavy. Lift it. Feel its weight. Feel the force pulling it down.
Yup, I'd say it's definitely a force.
How we explain that force (talking about things like a spin-2 symmetric tensor field that couples universally and minimally to all matter fields, such that the interaction can be reinterpreted as geometric curvature) is another matter. It can be very interesting if you are into theoretical physics, and it remains one of t
Forget all the fancy-shmancy explanations you heard from people trying to impress you, or read in books written by people trying to appear smarter than they are.
Grab something heavy. Lift it. Feel its weight. Feel the force pulling it down.
Yup, I'd say it's definitely a force.
How we explain that force (talking about things like a spin-2 symmetric tensor field that couples universally and minimally to all matter fields, such that the interaction can be reinterpreted as geometric curvature) is another matter. It can be very interesting if you are into theoretical physics, and it remains one of the great unfinished projects of science. But whatever the explanation is, it does not change the fact that when you lift something heavy, gravity pulls it down with a very tangible force that you experience first-hand.
Matter is infinite and eternal.
——————————-
According to Vázquez-Reyna (2008), the matter has the following fundamental properties:
First. It is indestructible, and exists in infinite quantity, for which nothing has not existed, does not exist, and will never exist, and conservation laws are generated. The universal order comes from the immutable nature of the properties of the original components of matter.
Second. Matter is impenetrable at noticeably short distances. It is and has its own space. At large distances, the spaces of the atoms (elemental particles) are penetrable, being fields and ov
Matter is infinite and eternal.
——————————-
According to Vázquez-Reyna (2008), the matter has the following fundamental properties:
First. It is indestructible, and exists in infinite quantity, for which nothing has not existed, does not exist, and will never exist, and conservation laws are generated. The universal order comes from the immutable nature of the properties of the original components of matter.
Second. Matter is impenetrable at noticeably short distances. It is and has its own space. At large distances, the spaces of the atoms (elemental particles) are penetrable, being fields and overlapping, generating ordinary space, which is, as they say, a property of matter, and cannot be empty, since it itself is matter.
Third. Matter is made up of atoms (elementary particles). The atomic components of Matter have energy or inertia, they are heterogeneous among themselves, and the character of heterogeneity is energetic or inertial, for this reason movement and opposition to it are generated, the tendency to rest universal, and the global diversity.
Quarter. By virtue of their energy or inertia, the atoms (elemental particles) of matter with energy and the atoms of matter with inertia are contradictory to each other, apply forces outside of themselves and therefore become ponderable. These atoms (elemental particles) are components of the so-called atoms of the chemical elements.
Fifth. Atoms (elemental particles) are associated with each other by their energy, or by their inertia, that is, those of the same essence are integrated with each other, and by their association, those that move, those of the dynamic essence generate universal movement, life, the universal process of evolutionary integration and universal diversity, and those of the static essence, which are opposed to life, generate gravity and inertness and try to stop progress tending to rest, without truce.
Sixth. The existence and way of being of matter do not depend on any Being observing it, that is, it exists by itself and is, and therefore has an objective character.
Seventh. It is knowable by itself being an integrated being. And, it is reiterated, it generates knowledge of itself, by itself.
Eighth. Its properties are immanent to it, that is, they constitute it, and were not created.
Ninth. Life is the property of dynamic matter. This property manifests itself as organic life when a dynamic entity reaches a certain level of evolutionary integration, that of archaea, bacteria, and algae, for example, in which the phenomenon of individuation appears for the first time in the history of the evolutionary integration process. And much later, in time, consciousness appears in beings who have reached the last level of evolutionary integration, achieved to date.
Does time exist? To answer this question, we first need to understand what time is. For one, time is not the measurement of duration. Time is fundamental. Time determines duration. Get ready for a completely new way of thinking about time. One which no philosopher or scientists has ever considered. This is an actual definition of what time is.
Let me start with an analogy. Does movement exist? Yes I know things move, but is movement a physical thing? Can we see movement or can we only see things move? Can movement go faster, or make things move faster? Can we touch movement? Weight it? No! Can
Does time exist? To answer this question, we first need to understand what time is. For one, time is not the measurement of duration. Time is fundamental. Time determines duration. Get ready for a completely new way of thinking about time. One which no philosopher or scientists has ever considered. This is an actual definition of what time is.
Let me start with an analogy. Does movement exist? Yes I know things move, but is movement a physical thing? Can we see movement or can we only see things move? Can movement go faster, or make things move faster? Can we touch movement? Weight it? No! Can we measure it? No, but we can measure how far things move. Movement exist as a physical phenomena. It's something that physical things do. Well, so is time.
Time is a term describing temporal motion. That's motion from the past to the future. From the present moment, to the next. You see, our universe exists in a 2 dimensional fabric which I call temp-space. One temporal dimension and one spatial dimension. We move through the spatial dimension and we time through the temporal dimension. So time is a physical phenomena similar to motion. It's temporal motion.
Time doesn't move. Time is not something we move through. Time is not the rate of motion through space or the duration of events. Time is the motion of objects through the temporal dimension. Temporal distances are not like spatial distances. Instead of meters and feet, we have seconds, minutes, hours, etc. These are actual physical distances things move through an actual physical dimension. Distances which we can physically measure with the aid of clocks, which are basically temporal tape measures.
It's the rate at which things time, which determine the duration of events. Our temporal velocity determines the speed at which atomic, biological and mechanical processes occur and as I said earlier, our temporal velocity is inversely proportional to our spatial velocity. This is why clocks tick slower the faster you move through space. Not just our wall clocks but our biological clocks as well. We actually age slower.
I'm gonna take a break here, but feel free to read my other answers on time, attached below.
Zane's answer to How can gravity slow down time, if time isn’t something tangible you can touch?
The speed of light is 300,000 km per second. Why does light not travel faster/slower?
Why do I exist?
There is no why. You just do. Existence is one of those properties philosophical wordplay and other games can’t quite deny. ‘You’ are. However you define that You, which is debatable, since you technically aren’t the ‘same person’ you were yesterday. And person is defined rather shakily: are you your bundle of senses? Your ‘memories’? What is memory? Or is the You just Something?
Science only postulates the ‘how’.
Do I matter?
Not really. Or actually, I can’t say. Since matter is a matter of interpretation.
Does anything matter?
Not really. But does it matter? Or should I say, what g
Why do I exist?
There is no why. You just do. Existence is one of those properties philosophical wordplay and other games can’t quite deny. ‘You’ are. However you define that You, which is debatable, since you technically aren’t the ‘same person’ you were yesterday. And person is defined rather shakily: are you your bundle of senses? Your ‘memories’? What is memory? Or is the You just Something?
Science only postulates the ‘how’.
Do I matter?
Not really. Or actually, I can’t say. Since matter is a matter of interpretation.
Does anything matter?
Not really. But does it matter? Or should I say, what gives you the right to make that decision?
Simultaneously, you sort of do, and have to take charge of making things matter to yourself and the people around you.
Of course, if you stick to the rules.
The thing is, “matter" is a man-made definition that helps us rationalise the whole universe we live in.
According to this definition
, matter is anything that takes up a volume and has a mass. From here you can easily see that there exist things that cannot be classified as such:- time;
- light;
- heat;
- vacuum.
Footnotes