Negating the need for anything actually solid

  • Thread starter RPOL382
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Solid
In summary, the conversation discusses the idea that everything in the physical world is made up of negatively charged electrons and that what appears to us may not necessarily be the true nature of reality. The concept of touch is also explored, with the suggestion that we may not actually be making physical contact but rather sensing the repelling force of negative charges. However, this theory is challenged by the fact that other particles, such as protons and neutrons, also make up matter. The conversation also touches on motion, which is defined as a change in position, and the various fundamental interactions that can cause it, including electromagnetic, nuclear, and gravitational interactions. The conversation is ultimately closed due to its violation of PF rules.
  • #1
RPOL382
1
0
If it’s true that every atom has negatively charged electrons on its outer shells, and if it’s true that all matter is made of such electrons, be it our finger or a mountain or a planet, (meaning that all ‘things’ are negatively charged) and if it’s further true that what appears is not necessarily what is ‘out there’ (since we have limited perceptive abilities which are then interpreted by our brains,) then can it be accurately stated that when we touch something, we may not be actually touching, but rather sensing the repelling force of the negative charge of what appears to us as our finger and that which is being ‘touched’?

If so, there need not be anything solid (even though perceptively it seems to appear that way), but it may be forces of some kind repelling each other.

Similarly, motion may be the interaction of what appears as negatively charged ‘things’ being repelled by the positive charges of the medium in which we live.

Where have I gone wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
RPOL382 said:
Similarly, motion may be the interaction of what appears as negatively charged ‘things’ being repelled by the positive charges of the medium in which we live.

Where have I gone wrong?
Posting a private, speculative theory to PF, in violation of our guidelines.
 
  • #3
Welcome to PF;
RPOL382 said:
If it’s true that every atom has negatively charged electrons on its outer shells,
... yes, it is.

... and if it’s true that all matter is made of such electrons,...
No it isn't.
Though "matter" is an imprecise term, there are particles other than electrons.
The atoms of everyday life are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons.

... be it our finger or a mountain or a planet, (meaning that all ‘things’ are negatively charged)
... such objects tend to carry a net neutral charge - although things like "fingers" may have a surface charge separate from them being composed of atoms.

... and if it’s further true that what appears is not necessarily what is ‘out there’ (since we have limited perceptive abilities which are then interpreted by our brains,) then can it be accurately stated that when we touch something, we may not be actually touching, but rather sensing the repelling force of the negative charge of what appears to us as our finger and that which is being ‘touched’?
This is correct though ... there is no such thing as surface contact in the classical sense.

If so, there need not be anything solid (even though perceptively it seems to appear that way), but it may be forces of some kind repelling each other.
That is the definition of "solid".

Similarly, motion may be the interaction of what appears as negatively charged ‘things’ being repelled by the positive charges of the medium in which we live.
"The medium in which we live" would be a mixture of air and water (mostly) ... which is composed of atoms, which have both positive and negative charges. Most of the interactions are between electrons, but some involve the nuclei more directly - such as when covalent bonds form.

Motion is change in position.
Interaction of charges is one way that motion can happen - but there are three other fundamental interactions to consider. As well as electromagnetic interactions between charges, there are nuclear interactions (2 kinds) and gravity.
We do not rely on our limited senses to tell us about Nature.
 
  • #4
Last edited:

What does "negating the need for anything actually solid" mean?

Negating the need for anything actually solid refers to the concept of using technology or scientific advancements to create and manipulate matter without the need for physical objects or materials. It involves breaking down and reconstructing matter at a molecular level.

How is this concept being studied and applied in the scientific community?

Scientists are currently studying this concept through fields such as nanotechnology, quantum mechanics, and material science. They are also exploring potential applications in industries such as medicine, energy, and manufacturing.

Is it possible to completely eliminate the need for solid objects?

While there have been significant advancements in this area, it is currently not possible to completely eliminate the need for solid objects. This concept is still in its early stages and requires further research and development before it can be fully realized.

What are the potential benefits of negating the need for anything actually solid?

The potential benefits of this concept include reduced material waste, increased efficiency in manufacturing, and the ability to create new materials with unique properties. It could also have a significant impact on fields such as medicine and energy production.

Are there any ethical concerns surrounding this concept?

As with any new technology, there are potential ethical concerns surrounding the negation of solid objects. These include the impact on the job market, potential misuse of the technology, and environmental implications. It is important for scientists to consider and address these concerns in their research and development.

Similar threads

I The electron as a smeared charge density
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
B Problems I Have With Electrostatics and Pith Ball Experiments
    • Classical Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
B How is surface charge accumulated?
    • Electromagnetism
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
I The electron is not point-like?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
21
Views
1K
B Questions about the Universe: Positive & negative fields and effects
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
3K
I Magnetic field as result of length contraction
    • Electromagnetism
Replies
17
Views
1K
I Meaning of "Static Electricity" and Physical Interpretation
    • Electromagnetism
Replies
20
Views
981
I Physics domain analysis of Voltage drop in series resistor
    • Electromagnetism
Replies
7
Views
1K
B Basic questions regarding theory of electrical capacitance
    • Classical Physics
Replies
11
Views
736
Do magnets that attract actually touch?
    • Electromagnetism
Replies
10
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top