the structure of substance and what we call matter

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

slowzone

Guest
it apears to me that everyone trying to discover the basic unit of substance is starting at the wrong end. instead of back engineering matter, why not start at the beggining? no matter how minute a particle is, if it has dimentions then it can be divided. there is however, a point where even taking away a piece that has no dimentions will produce a 2 dimentional object.
also food for thought; if atoms are mostly empty space, and the smallest possable piece of substance is a nothing piece from 2 dimentional status, are we (matter) really the holes in the fabric of space and time??
 
O

origin

Guest
slowzone":2835j99z said:
it apears to me that everyone trying to discover the basic unit of substance is starting at the wrong end. instead of back engineering matter, why not start at the beggining? no matter how minute a particle is, if it has dimentions then it can be divided.
Apparently a quark cannot be divided. Using a 'common sense' approach to things this small will get you into trouble. At this size the everything gets a little nebulus; particle, wave, position all tend to blur.

there is however, a point where even taking away a piece that has no dimentions will produce a 2 dimentional object.
Huh? A zero dimension object (whatever that is) will become a 2 dimensional object? Really? Do you have anthing to back that up with.

also food for thought; if atoms are mostly empty space, and the smallest possable piece of substance is a nothing piece from 2 dimentional status, are we (matter) really the holes in the fabric of space and time??
This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

edited to add - Welcome to space.com
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Indeed, word salad that will soon be moved from Physics....
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
slowzone":c3zniccl said:
it apears to me that everyone trying to discover the basic unit of substance is starting at the wrong end. instead of back engineering matter, why not start at the beggining? no matter how minute a particle is, if it has dimentions then it can be divided. there is however, a point where even taking away a piece that has no dimentions will produce a 2 dimentional object.
also food for thought; if atoms are mostly empty space, and the smallest possable piece of substance is a nothing piece from 2 dimentional status, are we (matter) really the holes in the fabric of space and time??
Has anyone ever given a thought to the idea that 'matter is formed first', then atoms took their shapes?
In other words, inside a nucleus or quark are the original matters?

I know there are many 'how', 'when', and 'what' of that thought can not be answered at this time.
 
O

origin

Guest
emperor_of_localgroup":1o75rgq7 said:
slowzone":1o75rgq7 said:
it apears to me that everyone trying to discover the basic unit of substance is starting at the wrong end. instead of back engineering matter, why not start at the beggining? no matter how minute a particle is, if it has dimentions then it can be divided. there is however, a point where even taking away a piece that has no dimentions will produce a 2 dimentional object.
also food for thought; if atoms are mostly empty space, and the smallest possable piece of substance is a nothing piece from 2 dimentional status, are we (matter) really the holes in the fabric of space and time??
Has anyone ever given a thought to the idea that 'matter is formed first', then atoms took their shapes?
In other words, inside a nucleus or quark are the original matters?

I know there are many 'how', 'when', and 'what' of that thought can not be answered at this time.
Huh?
 
5

5hot6un

Guest
Since I'm already an established idiot on this board, I'll take the bait offered by the subject of this thread and pontificate.
What do I have to lose?

To me e=mc^2 implies that matter is energy "captured" or "locked" or "crystallized" into atomic particles.

Being thoroughly ignorant of the science, I do not know how far off I am with this concept, so I just keep on thinking from here.

I imagine the big bang. And I imagine the sudden outflow of energy at all wavelengths.

And I come up with 2 scenarios.

Scenario 1 if my favorite: As the different wavelengths of energy bounced around in the small but expanding universe, the tight quarters allowed some waves to harmonically tangle with other waves and form "bubbles" of matter. That would mean matter is 2 or more wavelengths of energy bound by some harmonic resonance. Sub-atomic particles would be the individual waves.

Scenario 2 seems more like an absolute fantasy: The edge of spacetime was a barrier that the energy released could not cross. Perhaps the energy was traveling at the speed of light and the edge of spacetime was expanding slower than the speed of light.
So as energy encountered the the edges of spacetime it was "compressed" into a "foam" to become matter. Maybe even a tiny piece spacetime itself entangled with energy to create the foam of matter.

Sorry for all the "" Let the flames from the big brains begin. Believe it or not, I welcome finally learning the errors in my thoughts. It will allow me to move on to a new level of misunderstanding.
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
origin":2kc6jqg2 said:
Has anyone ever given a thought to the idea that 'matter is formed first', then atoms took their shapes?
In other words, inside a nucleus or quark are the original matters?

I know there are many 'how', 'when', and 'what' of that thought can not be answered at this time.
Yes, I know, I didn't explain much about my comment. Yes, it goes against big bang theory.
I'm saying objects of arbitrary shapes were formed first, but they were not a solid, or liquid, or gas, or plasma as we know now, but of certain 'still unknown state of matter'. Then inside the objects due to properties of those matter atoms took shape by forming protons, neutrons, nuclei and we got solids etc. as we know now. This unknown state of matter may still be present inside quarks or protons or neutrons.

Bose-Einstein condensate may be a candidate for such state of matter.
Just a wild thought. But instead of a bottom-up model, I thought, a top-down model should also be considered.
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
MeteorWayne":32ew55iu said:
Indeed, word salad that will soon be moved from Physics....
I agree that the thoughts expressed are undeveloped - to put it kindly. The fundamental question, however, is one that has intrigued mankind since at least the time of the Greek philosophers.

I'm fascinated by the idea that at high energy levels such as are postulated to have been present in the beginning nanoseconds of the Universe, electromagnetic radiation in its quantitized form (photons) would be able to spontaneously form particle/anti-particle pairs of matter within the limits of uncertainty. I wonder if gravity in its quantitized form (gravitons, should they be shown to exist) might similarly have contributed to partilce/anti-particle formation at this early stage in the evolution of the Universe.

Aside from that personal speculation, the accepted equvalence of matter and energy continues to perplex us all. The questions "what is matter" and "what is energy" beg for answers that are more than just descriptive in nature. It seems to me that both questions are worthy of discussion.

I would be very interested in any posts that offer more than vague home-brewed theories.

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts