Thinking about matter

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vogon13

Guest
I have remarked here a few times that what we think of as matter, isn't entirely matter at all.<br /><br />The constituent quarks, and gluons and whatnot in matter, are in motion. And it turns out, their motion is quite vigorous, and their energy of motion, when run through Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, turns out to be a significant portion of 'matter'.<br /><br />Matter isn't entirely matter, it is actually considerably augmented by energy.<br /><br />Energy seems (so far) to be a 'pure' fluid (if you will). But 'matter' is a hybrid, or composite construct.<br /><br />When matter spirals into a blackhole, a great deal of energy is released. Are we seeing the component energy of matter being 'wrung' out of the infalling material by the constiction of the black hole?<br /><br />When hydrogen fuses to helium, (IIRC) .7% of the matter is converted to energy. Perhaps more correctly, the new configuration of the helium nucleus has a surplus of constituent particle kinetic energy, which we observe being released in the reaction. <br /><br /> Matter hasn't really been converted into energy in either case, as an analogy, water in a sponge can be wrung out, no part of the spoinge itself changes into water. So to, the constituent kinetic energy of the particles in matter can sometimes be squeazed out, but the'matter matter' remains.<br /><br /><br />{If this is all obvious to physicists, and you feel compelled to skewer me here, be gentle}<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
I'd say that energy is a form of matter<br /><br />partly tongue in cheek I'd also ask, does energy matter? answer is, yes it does matter indeed and so it is matter<br /><br />you see matter is wider term than mass (which is a measure of intertia) mass has source in both kinetic and static energy, that is in kinetic energy of bodies and their rest mass<br /><br />electrons are considered matter, when positron and electron meet, they go puff and you are left with photons whose energy is purely motional (although perhaps not kinetic given they don't have rest mass)<br />also electrons don't seem to have any material substance - probing them didn't result in finding some 'hard core' matter<br /><br />heavier particles that have more substance to them like protons and neutrons also can go puff and convert intirely into photons of elmag radiation when meeting their anti particles but at least there is some solid hardcore and some definite radius to them when you bombard them with other partices but then they are made up of quarks...<br /><br />underneath it all, matter can be quite elusive, perhaps it is similar to temperature property of matter that is a macroscopic phenomenon, similarly matter might suffer the same fate<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

maxsage

Guest
i have no knoledge in this whatsoever but i just have one thought: how can you be sure matter really is a sponge? Actually, I consider most metaphors highly inaccurate<br />
 
V

vogon13

Guest
I find electrons to be even more mysterious than baryons. To the extent that our science can measure them, it seems electrons are 'points'.<br /><br />Being dimensionless (length, width, height = 0 ), where inside the electron is there room for matter?<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<i><br /> To the extent that our science can measure them, it seems electrons are 'points'. <br /><br />Being dimensionless (length, width, height = 0 )</i><br /><br />So, essentially you're saying that there is nothing inside an electron. I would agree with that up to a point (no pun intended). However, I would add, that there is probably an energy string (String Theory) inside an electron to energize or move it around. Energy strings are where EVERYTHING ends, according to String Theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Just where inside the electron would this string be?<br /><br />In the cupboard above the refrigerator?<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"it seems electrons are 'points'... Being dimensionless (length, width, height = 0 ), where inside the electron is there room for matter?"<br /><br />being 'point' just means not being at all<br /><br />I have pretty good idea to explain this, how the electron can be like that but if people flatly deny ether substance and insist on particles being isolated phenomenon - ie existing separately on their own appart from other particles, then I have nothing to explain to them, best let them live with their mysteries and make up some fantasies like those strings<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<i><br /> if people flatly deny ether substance and insist on particles being isolated phenomenon - ie existing separately on their own appart from other particles, then I have nothing to explain to them, best let them live with their mysteries and make up some fantasies like those strings </i><br /><br />There are matter particles that exchange force particles, and string theory incorporates both. Since you don't know (or refuse to believe) anything about String Theory, let me give you a brief history from The Elegant Universe p.136-137: In 1968 a young theoretical physicist named Gabriele Veneziano was struggling to make sence of various experimentally observed properties of the strong nuclear force. One day he came upon a striking revelation. Much to his surprise, he realized that an esoteric formula concocted for purely mathematical pursuits by the renowned Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler <i>some two hundred years earlier</i> called the Euler beta function seemed to describe numerous properties of strongly interacting particles in one fell swoop. Like a memorized formula used by a student who does not understand it's meaning or justification. Euler's beta function seemed to work, but no one knew why. It was a formula in search of an explanation. Then in 1970, the works of Holger Nielson and Leonard Susskind revealed the hitherto unknown physics lurking behind Euler's formula. These physicists showed that if one modeled elementary particles as little vibrating one dimensional strings their nuclear interactions would be described EXACTLY by Euler's function. If the pieces of string were small enough, they would still look like point particles, and hence could be consistant with experimental observations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
S

sponge

Guest
Lets not forget that when observing, or trying to measure very small particles, its is effected by the observer it itself "The "Hawthorne Effect" not only has this been the case with atoms but also people, something to think about if you are going to theorise about strings inside the electron. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
In quantum mechanics, it is simply refered to as the Observer Effect. The hawthorne effect is something quite different. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

sponge

Guest
My apologies, youre correct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"Since you don't know (or refuse to believe) anything about String Theory"<br />-----------<br /><br />whatever gave you that idea?? that I don't know or that I refuse to know<br /><br />you didn't think if I claimed that strings are nonsense that I wouldn't know at least in rough way what they are all about<br /><br /><br />I have criticized Einstein on here in another thread not long ago for falling prey in his later life to that nemesis of physics which I call juggling mathematics in the hope that something fruitfull falls out of it (as it did several times in the history of physics) and the string theory is an arch example of that approach<br /><br />although I wouldn't deny that such approach happened to have worked in past on several occasions I still see it as fundamentally wrong approach to doing science, it can only work in very specific delimited fashion and one can't rely on such approach in planned way IMO and certainly not in constructing a 'theory of everything'<br /><br />that's my two cents<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts