[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Actually ... the way you put it makes it seem perfectly understandable. I myself have never really thought of matter as fundamental particles in the way that the English Language defines the word 'Particle'. I apply a little test (may sound crazy .. but works for me) If a particle has no substructure then : Can it be Hard, Can it be Soft, Can it be Large, Can it be Small, Can it be 'felt' with any of our senses.... of course ... all my answers are NO. So a fundamental Particle, if you like, is something not really of our world. The semantics of our language can not seem to touch a fundamental particle. Mr Nobody's explanation below, came as a godsend to me. My test, crude and simple, reflects what Mr Nobody is saying scientifically. (To me it does) makes me feel that I am not alone. greg

After reading your statement again, I may be mis-interpreting you here. Let me know if you mean no fundamental particle, yet absolutely real fundamental substance, or no real substance. I can't interpret your response as clear as I'd like too. And I do agree that life is not an absolute principle, but merely a product of evolution, and maybe weak anthropy. I just don't like the word anthropy, because it's been so abused by many, in the post-modernist movement. It really has too many meanings... I really choose just straight evolution from random to uniform motions and finally life and sense... Other than the dislike of the word, anthropy, Mr.Nobody's points are fine and sound.

Greg, David and I are not talking or meaning to say fundamental particle, that is not our understandings of absolute fundamental substance. Iff there be fundamental particles, they, at the same time, must come from a one source universe, that means a universal absolute fundamental substance, that pruduces the particles, you speak of, to exist first. Dave and I don't accept the ridiculousness of particle points___we both accept quantum physics more rational deffinition of zpe, as Einstein coined the meaning, i.e., in the quantum well, is a fundamental minimum size to the fabric, if you like, as Mr.Nobody called it, of the absolute fundamental substance. This is called ground state in quantum mechanics. I extend it beyond Einstein's meaning, to zue, or 0K universal energy[thermal substance motion]. There's no way of extricating oneself, scientifically, out of the absolute fundamental substance, not particle, but substance's absolute ground state of phase state existence, meaning its thinnest density possible, and still make scientific sense. Once one leaves the ground state of scientific understanding, one is standing on the, already dropped, wall of metaphysics, and then one is truly alone, in the world of modern philosophy and physics, because all modern philosophers and physicists, of note, have dropped metaphysics, completely, from their interpretations of reality, and I agree, they are correct, in doing so, as it's no more than talking from the beyond of any possible physical reality. That's not for me. I have life and a real physical body, with working emotions and desires of excitement, in this world, not a beyond world. The meta-beyond is for the mystics, not the scientists...

regards,

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie After reading your statement again, I may be mis-interpreting you here. Let me know if you mean no fundamental particle, yet absolutely real fundamental substance, or no real substance. Greg, David and I are not talking or meaning to say fundamental particle, that is not our understandings of absolute fundamental substance. Iff there be fundamental particles, they, at the same time, must come from a one source universe, that means a universal absolute fundamental substance, that pruduces the particles, you speak of, to exist first. regards,

Originally Posted by Mr .Nobody However, if we coin the fundamental entity to be matter, we need to flush out false definitions. The term matter, still conjures up images of spinning nuggets of something solid, which has been proven as false. Still not being characterized as tangible (since even quantum mechanics shows particles to be nothing more than force relationships), matter is looking for a new description be coined in everyday language? Matter is what?

Lloyd .... I am referring to a 'particle' as a 'spinning nugget'. I no longer believe in this particle as a nugget.. I do believe in a real fundamental substance. Would you refer to this as plasma?.

I believe our (human) senses are entirely electrical in their detection. A fundamental particle arising from plasma would be quarks. However as these do not meet any of the properties associated with our 5 senses, they cannot be defined by our language semantics. As Mr Nobody says, a new description needs to be coined in our everyday language to describe matter.

In short I agree with Mr Nobody, hope I haven't confused you more.

greg.

NB: Still reading the rest of your post. reply soon

[Mr. Nobody]

Very interesting!
Supercooling provides an exterpolation to the ground state. As we approach absolute 0, as quantum states become the norm, as all bonds between of the matter-waves disolve and unravel, we can see the real thing. If we stop all motion, every spinning, jitter and udulation, we get closer to what I think matter really is: a disturbance of space
The fundamental entity comes in the form of a probablity wave spread out within space. A bunch of these disturbance waves interact and decohere at the interference points to create bonds. These bonds then form our reality
What we are seeing are electromagnetic waves that excite our retinas to be interpreted as solid things. But those things are not solid. Nothing is solid.
Simply put all you see is force fields between bonded space disturbances.
Stop all motion and you are left with cold space. As space continues to expand, as all motion approaches stillness, as all particles disolve into radiation, the cosmos will still have the same energy (yes I said the bad E word), but it will be in the form of a spatial fabric stretched so thin and devoid of any motion that there is no hope for any interactions
And then the universe will wait for eons, and restart or not... how?...I don't know, perhaps that illusive inflaton field has been waiting patiently, jittering along unnoticed.....until its time to breath
Now realize how hot 2.73 kelvin really is.

Human consciousness as the cause of this beauty, No......I beg to differ, life is insignificant, self awareness a tragic accident of complexity run amock

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Lloyd .... I am referring to a 'particle' as a 'spinning nugget'. I no longer believe in this particle as a nugget.. I do believe in a real fundamental substance. Would you refer to this as plasma?. I believe our (human) senses are entirely electrical in their detection. A fundamental particle arising from plasma would be quarks. However as these do not meet any of the properties associated with our 5 senses, they cannot be defined by our language semantics. As Mr Nobody says, a new description needs to be coined in our everyday language to describe matter. In short I agree with Mr Nobody, hope I haven't confused you more. greg. NB: Still reading the rest of your post. reply soon

Greg, I agree with you referring to a "particle as a spinning nugget." A fundamental particle violates evolution from absolute fundamental substance, thus, IMO, is impossible. As to plasma as the absolute fundamental substance, the figures 10^-69^3cm[Dave's] show the fundamental substance to be well below h [10^-43cm], and plasma we know to be charged particle/waves, at and well above h___although I would state that a non-viscous fluid fundamental substance would be very much like a plasma field, only with much thinner density. BTW, both Dave and I agree this would be a linear only motion field of absolute fundamental substance. We just don't yet agree on its evolutionary motions. Both our theorizings go well before the big-bang, in search of what actually happened then, to form the big-bang.[which I happen to see as an explosion at the center of the fundamental substance, while the rest of the fundamental substance still exists as the cold linear field substance motions, outside finiteness, all the way to infinity] If you've read his toronic model, you realize he thinks it was two clumps of fundamental substance colliding. Thermodynamically, I can't accept that analogy, as it is against the laws of thermodynamics, as I see them. I see a more gentle substance motion radiation evolution over 10^137 years of thermal space storms, ever pushing closer to the center, thus forming the quantumizing singularity that exploded, in the big-bang, thus creating space vacuum, gravity, em waves, strong and weak forces, and all the rest of real universal cosmology, we are quite well aware of. We are realists...

However as these do not meet any of the properties associated with our 5 senses, they cannot be defined by our language semantics.

I have no idea what you may be saying by this statement. IMO Greg, our language semantics have no problem defining absolute fundamental substance as a non-viscous wave fluid. I could make a joke here and call it 3 in 1 oil, sense it requires three aspects to exist; 1.fundamental substance 2.fundamental thermodynamics, and 3.fundamental motion... But after looking at this, I do sort of recognize what Mr Nobody and you mean by matter, itself, also needing a new solid definition. That is really strange. I've been thinking so long in this mode, I hadn't recognized the lack of matter's true definition. It seems when we split it down, define it down to such a thin substance, it almost loses definability___verdi, verdi strange. Let me see___it matters to have a fundamental substance to be, to have a body, to have a mind___matter___what is it? It can't be energy, because energy must be produced by the motions of matter___hmmmm. I guess I'd have to settle for this definition; Matter, as distinct from mind and spirit, is a broad word that applies to anything perceived, or known to be occupying space: solid matter; gaseous matter; liquid matter. The only thing occupying space is fundamental matter, substance in all its changed and changing states of phase space changes. If that sounds circular, so be it, all truth tautologies are circular in nature, even pi.

Let me tell you a story about pi. One night my wife and I were watching a documentary on how the engineering was figured to build the pyramids. We were about 3/4 the way through the show, when she said; "Oh, for christ's sake, why are you watching this?" Of course, I was shocked, so I asked her, "What do you mean?" She said, "You been watching this for how long, and you haven't figured out how they did it?" I said, "No, I'm waiting for the end of the show to know the engineering figures." And she said, "You're real bright. It's right in front of you." I said, "What to hell do you mean?" Her answer, "All they needed was a magic string." Before I could ask her, I realized what she meant. All the Egyptians needed to build the pyramids based on pi, was one string, the length of one bottom side. That's it, she was right, the rest is history...

This is how thick we sometimes are...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Very good Mr. Nobody, I only have a few comments, but I sure like the company of your thinking. My understanding of low temperature physics is that even in the quantum well, or these real low temperature experiments, at only .1mK above absolute zero, we can not stop these fundamental motions, and herein lies the key to the universal motions. Even at Einstein definition zpe or my definition of zue[0k universal energy], one degree of motion is required, even at the most radiation decayed state of matter or all of finiteness, at 10^137 years out, or at the very thinnest state of fundamental substance. And matter is nothing but a disturbance of space, the fundamental non-viscous thermal motioning substance, possibly, that simply changes state to what we experience as real solid matter. Being a realist, myself, the solid matter does exist, after big-bang explosions and stars cook the fundamental substance into rocks, etc.. We do experience them as solid, but I suppose if you look at them deep enough, they are really just tight wound initial fundamental substance, but that substance absolutely must be real to have something, in place of nothing. Since no-one or anything can stop motion, what you refer to as force fields, actually form into real galaxies, stars, and planets___they are real to our senses, and at the most dynamic levels of understanding___but they are formed out of something, fundamental substance, that seems almost unreal, as it's so thinned in true density. The universe will have the same total energy[fundamental thermal substance in motion] even after all total decay, because it's impossible to change the universes perpetual motion energy of thermo-hydro-dynamics on fundamental substance. It exists, it will always exist, as you said, by the first law of thermodyanics. The universe never reaches full stop motion, even in a total finite decay state, because that radiation decay is real substance motion, ever continueing said thermal matter motion, just in its thinned changed state of fully decayed to the initial ground state of fundamental matter motion. The hope for interactions, as you put it, is there in real thermal motions, as temperature is always required to exhibit motion, no matter what temperature___that's a scientific fact___at the least, one degree of motion at absolute 0k. Some have said one degree of freedom, well that would be true in the quantum well, but out in the decayed universe of only a state of initial fundamental matter motion, that motion must be one degree of motion, as the only direction of motion possible, in this state, is implosion, so it would be 360 degrees of imploding inward motion only, thus re-constituting another universe. The universal re-incarnation will be saved by nothing but a simple weather system. This is what I call a self-geneses weather system universe of real random motion substance evolving to uniform motion substance, of our solid reality___unless one chooses to exaggerate it abstractly, metaphysically, subjectively, or mysticly.

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody Very interesting! Supercooling provides an exterpolation to the ground state. As we approach absolute 0, as quantum states become the norm, as all bonds between of the matter-waves disolve and unravel, we can see the real thing. If we stop all motion, every spinning, jitter and udulation, we get closer to what I think matter really is: a disturbance of space The fundamental entity comes in the form of a probablity wave spread out within space. A bunch of these disturbance waves interact and decohere at the interference points to create bonds. These bonds then form our reality What we are seeing are electromagnetic waves that excite our retinas to be interpreted as solid things. But those things are not solid. Nothing is solid. Simply put all you see is force fields between bonded space disturbances. Stop all motion and you are left with cold space. As space continues to expand, as all motion approaches stillness, as all particles disolve into radiation, the cosmos will still have the same energy (yes I said the bad E word), but it will be in the form of a spatial fabric stretched so thin and devoid of any motion that there is no hope for any interactions And then the universe will wait for eons, and restart or not... how?...I don't know, perhaps that illusive inflaton field has been waiting patiently, jittering along unnoticed.....until its time to breath Now realize how hot 2.73 kelvin really is. Human consciousness as the cause of this beauty, No......I beg to differ, life is insignificant, self awareness a tragic accident of complexity run amock

This last sentence, I totally agree with.

Thanks for your closeness of ideas to my own,
Lloyd

[Mr. Nobody]

Yeah I threw the last sentence in to get back on topic.
I am amazed at the continued overemphasis of self awareness. It is as if there is no distinction between an invention (active participation that changes out comes) and a discovery (passive participation that does not).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody Yeah I threw the last sentence in to get back on topic. I am amazed at the continued overemphasis of self awareness. It is as if there is no distinction between an invention (active participation that changes out comes) and a discovery (passive participation that does not).

I couldn't agree more. I guess it's just most were never taught critical thinking, at any point in their lives. What a great service it would be for this board to try and teach critical thinking, but I don't know if it's even possible in a public forum. What do you think?

As to the question "Matter is what?", I don't think I gave a good enough definition, in my last post, so let me try to expand. We know matter must be the absolute substance, as there must be such an absolute substance, to have something as verses nothing, and nothing we know is impossible of existing, as I stated. But, my last post eludes to what this substance is, without particularly mentioning it. There is one more abstract word in the lexicon of physics that must be more fully interpreted, and that is space, what is space? We look in the quantum well and we find Einstein's predicted zpe being found in the three most recent experiments. I have stated this zpe to also be the same fundamental non-viscous fluid like substance as zue, or 0k universal energy[thermal substance motion], but failed to mention space is this absolute fundamental substance, or matter in its most thinned state. IMO, this would be true in the zpe of the quantum well, as well as the macro universe of zue, befor or after the big-bang. The absolute fundamental substance is space, or space fabric, as you have stated. This, I feel, is the greatest metaphysical demon to exponge from physics theories, to complete a truer understanding of the absolute fundamental motions of substance. It allows all theories to come full circle, in their collective understanding of the totality of theory integrations.

Iff, more physicists could see this fundamental understanding of space as the absolute fundamental substance, in all its state changing phase space changes, we could certainly advance physics, and maybe all understanding, to the next level. So, in the end here, IMO, space is the absolute fundamental substance, underlying the quantumized aether, we know to exist. It exists permanently, before and after the big-bang. It is the thinned linear state of true fundamental substance space___absolute matter. How do I know this? The Hawking mathematics of the decay time, 10^137 years, which is impossible of decaying to nothing, but something___the absolute fundamental substance, in this thinned state form___fundamental space matter. No matter can decay without state changing into its thinner state form, and as Dave has estimated its size, at a possible 10^-69^3. That's a good enough figure for me. If it's arbitrary, we can always redo the math, but be warned, if it's exaggerated to too thin a state, it just takes that many more eons to reconstitute another universe, and 10^137 is a lot of years, already figured, because that requires another 10^137 years for a full round trip. The speed of light kinda makes it most impossible to be anything else. As far as to this absolute fundamental substance, it must self-re-radiate itself back from absolute 0k, to a new finiteness, after total finite decay. It self-re-radiates itself back to finiteness from infinity, again, by the absolutely necessary scientific mechanics of the second law of thermodynamics___any thermal temperature must cause thin non-viscous-like fluid substances to move, from low to high entropy, and from high entropy to low entropy___the prime mover. We are living on the decaying side of this ever revolving evolution of absolute fundamental substance motion...

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
Let me know if I haven't been plain speaking enough, for clear understanding...