Is there anything in the Universe that is not fundamentally made up of matter?

[Amazed]

Modern physics quite simply views "matter" to be any of the 17 quantum fields that appear in the Standard Model (SM) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model):
View attachment 369572
and an 18th field "gravitation", described classically by General Relativity (GR), that likely arises from a quantum field of "graviton" particles. In SM+GR, all 18 of these fields are equally fundamental and none are made of anything else, as far as we can tell. But if "dark matter" does indeed exist, and it can be detected and characterized, it may well add one (or more) additional quantum fields to the list of the 18 forms of matter currently known to physics.

Thank you very much.

Is there anything that is not fundamentally made up by any of these things?

 

[Hill]

Modern physics quite simply views "matter" to be any of the 17 quantum fields that appear in the Standard Model (SM) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model):
View attachment 369572
and an 18th field "gravitation", described classically by General Relativity (GR), that likely arises from a quantum field of "graviton" particles. In SM+GR, all 18 of these fields are equally fundamental and none are made of anything else, as far as we can tell. But if "dark matter" does indeed exist, and it can be detected and characterized, it may well add one (or more) additional quantum fields to the list of the 18 forms of matter currently known to physics.

Plus anti-particles?

 

[PeterDonis]

Well, now I'm confused.

@Borek threw you a curve ball, yes. But it's not as bad as you think:

Bosons do not obey PEP.

For fundamental bosons, i.e., bosons with no internal structure, yes, this works as a good simple heuristic. But...

He⁴ is bosonic.
Therefore He⁴ does not obey PEP.

...He4 does have internal structure, so things get more complicated. He4 doesn't "obey the PEP" in the sense that, for example, it can be superfluid, while He3 can't. But it does "obey the PEP" in the sense that it takes up space just like any atom; you can't stuff an arbitrary number of He4 atoms into a finite sized box, the way you can with photons. And the reason why that's the case has (at least in part--see below) to do with the fact that the internal structure of He4 includes fundamental fermions.

And this rabbit hole goes even deeper, because the PEP is not the only thing involved here. Some time back we had a thread discussing a paper by Dyson and others on the stability of matter, which goes into the gory details of all this. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[PeterDonis]

Why do the people in this forum say some things that contradict each other?

Because they're using different definitions of ordinary language words. That's why we don't do physics using ordinary language. We do it with math.

Who has the 'right answer', and, what is the 'agreed up and accepted answer'?

There is no single right answer to the questions you're asking, because they're not actually questions about physics. They're questions about how we use ordinary language words to describe physics, and that involves human choices about which not everyone in the field agrees.

 

[renormalize]

Plus anti-particles?

The 18 quantum fields already encompass anti-particles where appropriate. For example, the 4 complex components of the Dirac electron field consist of 2 for the electron and 2 for the positron.

 

[bhobba]

It seems to me a bit like saying all the people in the world are men, if we count women and children as part of "mankind".

Love it.

My definition is 'Particles are excited states of an underlying physical field, often called field quanta'.

If you want to delve into the issue of what a particle is at an advanced level, see:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02354

Personally, a much more interesting question is the implications of the proposed graviton, the particle of gravity. Since gravity is a manifestation of space-time curvature, it is an interesting question what its status is. Hint - look into linearised gravity in flat space-time and note its gauge symmetry is infinitesimal general space-time coordinate transformations.

The details are explained in:
https://www.amazon.com.au/Gravitation-Spacetime-Hans-C-Ohanian-dp-1107012945/dp/1107012945

Thanks
Bill

 

[Hill]

The 18 quantum fields already encompass anti-particles where appropriate. For example, the 4 complex components of the Dirac electron field consist of 2 for the electron and 2 for the positron.

Thank you.
The 18 quantum fields encompass the anti-particles. I wanted to point out that the schematics in that post, do not.

 

[renormalize]

Is there anything that is not fundamentally made up by any of these things?

You need to define "anything". Things that physicists characterize as matter/material/substance are all made up of one or more of these fields.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'll see if I can find it.

Found it:

Graduate Post in thread 'How can a 'Principle' produce a 'Force'?'

Jul 30, 2023

A good reference on this topic is the classic paper by Dyson and Lenard on the stability of matter (note: this is the first of two papers, I haven't been able to find the second one online in a non-paywalled source):

https://fisherp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1.1705209.pdf

• PeterDonis

The paper is by Dyson & Lenard, from 1967; as noted in the post linked to, it's the first of two, but the second is behind a paywall.

https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.mit.edu/dist/9/2055/files/2020/05/1.1705209.pdf

Another relevant paper is by Oppenheimer and Ehrenfest, from 1931, which unfortunately is also behind a paywall, but at least the abstract is here:

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.37.333

 

[Amazed]

Because they're using different definitions of ordinary language words. That's why we don't do physics using ordinary language. We do it with math.

Okay great. What is 'the math', or the math symbol, for 'All existing matter, space, energy considered as a whole'?

There is no single right answer to the questions you're asking, because they're not actually questions about physics. They're questions about how we use ordinary language words to describe physics, and that involves human choices about which not everyone in the field agrees.

So, could this explain why there is so much disagreement, conflict, and/or controversy among those who do 'physics'? After 'the maths' is known through words and what some call 'ordinary language'.

Also, and by the way my question remains, which is about physics, 'Is there anything that is not created by matter, itself?

 

[Amazed]

Love it.

My definition is 'Particles are excited states of an underlying physical field, often called field quanta'.

If you want to delve into the issue of what a particle is at an advanced level, see:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02354

I would prefer to delve into and and look at and see how you define a particle at the most fundamental level instead.

See, if particles are excited states of an, already, underlying physical field, (often called whatever), then surely the 'underlying physical field' consists of, or is made up of, or by, matter itself. To me it would seem contradictory if a 'physical field' did not already consist of particles of matter.

But maybe you are using a definition of 'particles' that I am not yet aware of?P

Personally, a much more interesting question is the implications of the proposed graviton, the particle of gravity. Since gravity is space-time curvature, it is an interesting question what its status is. Hint - look into linearised gravity in flat space-time and note its gauge symmetry is infinitesimal space-time curvature.

The details are explained in:
https://www.amazon.com.au/Gravitation-Spacetime-Hans-C-Ohanian-dp-1107012945/dp/1107012945

Thanks
Bill

Personally, I find more interesting what the implications of the proposed 'graviton' has and is causing in 'physics' and in what is called the 'particle of gravity'.

 

[Hill]

Spacetime is not fundamentally made up of matter.

 

[Amazed]

You need to define "anything".

Okay.
I used that word to refer to a 'thing', no matter what.

Now, I know that using the same word or part of the word in a definition of a word does not suffice, but a 'thing' is being defined as an object that one need not, cannot, does not wish to give a specific name to, or does not have a specific name for.

So, is there any 'thing' that is not fundamentally made up or created by matter, itself.

Things that physicists characterize as matter/material/substance are all made up of one or more of these fields.

What are your words 'these fields' here referring to?

Also, I am not asking about what "physicists" character as matter/material/substance. I am asking whether there is any 'thing', that exists or has existed, which is not created by matter/material/substance.

I think we have already agreed upon, in this forum, that there are some 'things', that exist or have existed, which are not made up 'of' matter. But I am still just wondering if absolutely anyone knows of any 'thing' that is not fundamentally made up, nor created, 'by' matter?

If there are none, then that is the end of my wondering, and questioning here..

 

[Amazed]

Spacetime is not fundamentally made up of matter.

I had already changed my question from '... made up 'of' matter', to '... made up 'by' matter', sorry.

 

[Hill]

I had already changed my question from '... made up 'of' matter', to '... made up 'by' matter', sorry.

Spacetime is not fundamentally made up by matter.

 

[Amazed]

Spacetime is not fundamentally made up by matter.

Thank you, this is very helpful indeed.

 

[renormalize]

So, is there any 'thing' that is not fundamentally made up or created by matter, itself.

You're still way too vague. Does your list of "things" include, e.g.: energy, entropy, the color red, music, love, thoughts and prayers? Give us specific examples of the "things" you'd like to know the matter-content of.

 

[bhobba]

I would prefer to delve into and and look at and see how you define a particle at the most fundamental level instead.

That is what the paper I linked to examines.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Amazed]

You're still way too vague. Does your list of "things" include, e.g.: energy, entropy, the color red, music, love, thoughts and prayers? Give us specific examples of the "things" you'd like to know the matter-content of.

I am supposedly still way too vague in regards to 'what', exactly?

How do you define the word 'thing'? I have already provided my definition. Is your definition more specific and provides more clarity?

Are any of those things that you listed not fundamentally made up of nor created by matter?

 

[Amazed]

That is what the paper I linked to examines.

Thanks
Bill

Did you write that paper?

If no, then I am still more interested in how you define a 'particle' at the most fundamental level.

I note that you did not respond to what I said in response to your claim about particles being excited states of an underlying physical field, if the physical field itself is not made up of particles in the first place.

 

[PeterDonis]

What is 'the math', or the math symbol, for 'All existing matter, space, energy considered as a whole'?

There isn't one. That isn't a concept that plays any role in our actual physical theories.

could this explain why there is so much disagreement, conflict, and/or controversy among those who do 'physics'?

There is? What kind of disagreement, conflict, and/or controversy are you talking about? Can you give specific examples?

'the maths' is known through words and what some call 'ordinary language'.

No, math is known through math. There is some ordinary language involved in linking the symbols in the math to things we actually measure. But the whole point of using math is to avoid going around and around in circles, the way this thread is doing because you keep obsessing over what particular ordinary language words "mean" instead of looking at the physics.

my question remains, which is about physics, 'Is there anything that is not created by matter, itself?

No, that question is not about physics. It's about the meaning of the ordinary language expression "created by matter". Which, like the other phrase you asked about (in what I quoted at the top of this post), does not correspond to anything in our actual physical theories.

 

[PeterDonis]

how you define a 'particle' at the most fundamental level.

There is no one single definition of "particle" in physics. The paper @bhobba linked to talks about one popular meaning that can be assigned to that term, but it's not the only one.

what I said in response to your claim about particles being excited states of an underlying physical field, if the physical field itself is not made up of particles in the first place.

I assume you mean this?

if particles are excited states of an, already, underlying physical field, (often called whatever), then surely the 'underlying physical field' consists of, or is made up of, or by, matter itself. To me it would seem contradictory if a 'physical field' did not already consist of particles of matter.

Then the response is simple: the claims following your your "surely" and "it would seem contradictory" are just wrong. You need to stop obsessing over ordinary language words and start looking at the actual physics. The actual physics does not correspond to anything in your current intuitions. That's a key reason why it takes people years to develop an understanding of what our best current physical theories say: because they have to first unlearn many things that seem obvious to them when they start out, but which are actually wrong.

 

[PeterDonis]

@Amazed I am closing this thread because it is not going anywhere. The questions you are asking are not answerable, because, as I've already commented, they're not about physics, they're about vague ordinary language words that don't have single well-defined meanings--at least not as far as physics is concerned.

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: I have moved this thread to Other Physics Topics because it is not a General Discussion thread; it is a physics thread, though the OP question, as has been said, is not answerable.

 

[Ibix]

In everyday life the items you encounter (chairs, you, your phone, etc) are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons held together by electromagnetic and strong force interactions. If that is what you mean by "matter" then there is a lot of stuff that isn't made up by any of that.

Whether any of the stuff that doesn't make up everyday items counts as "matter", though, is a personal choice. You'd have to decide that for yourself. For a physicist, the answer is probably context dependant. If I'm building a bridge, neutrinos probably aren't matter. If I'm studying a supernova they probably are.

 

[Amazed]

There isn't one. That isn't a concept that plays any role in our actual physical theories.

Why is there not a concept about 'All existing matter, space, energy considered as a whole', which plays any role in your actual physical theories?

How are you meant to , study, observe, and measure the whole when you have not yet even arrived at a concept of it?

There is?

Is this a rhetorical question, or, an open question genuinely posed out of curiosity and asked for clarification?

What kind of disagreement, conflict, and/or controversy are you talking about? Can you give specific examples?

One example of a kind of disagreement among those who do physics is that some say that 'light and electromagnetic radiation count as "matter", while some say the very opposite. These people are in a disagreement.

Which can turn into conflict. Like, for example, some of "einstein/bohr" debates could be classed as conflicts, as both of them fought for and over their own personal beliefs and claims.
Is there not still also a conflict, of some sort, between quantum physics and classical physics?
Does not quantum mechanics regard the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regard the flow of time as malleable and relative?

If you do not find it controversial that some "scientists" say and claim one thing while other "scientists" say and claim the exact opposite, things sometimes, then okay. But some people consider this disagreeing a conflict, in terms, and a controversy.

I hope I have provided specific enough examples for you.

No, math is known through math. There is some ordinary language involved in linking the symbols in the math to things we actually measure. But the whole point of using math is to avoid going around and around in circles, the way this thread is doing because you keep obsessing over what particular ordinary language words "mean" instead of looking at the physics.

Could you be misinterpreting what I am actually doing here?

Could I be just asking questions for clarity sake, only?

To me, I am certainly not obsessing over anything at all here.

What physics do you want me to look at exactly? The individual and separate physics, and not the whole physics considered as a whole?

No, that question is not about physics. It's about the meaning of the ordinary language expression "created by matter". Which, like the other phrase you asked about (in what I quoted at the top of this post), does not correspond to anything in our actual physical theories.

If one claims that they cannot or do not have a concept that corresponds with 'All existing matter, space, and energy, considered as a whole', then the actual physical Theory Of Everything nor the Grand Unified Theory can also not be conceptualised nor considered as a whole.

To me, to be able to construct and present these two actual physical theories, then the whole of physicality, considered as a whole, needs to be looked at and addressed.

I am sorry that I appear to have upset you so much, but I am just trying to gain a better understanding of how and why some theories, like the two above, have still not yet been peer-reviewed and published. Just maybe a more generally agreed upon and accepted 'ordinary language' has not yet evolved enough and come into being.

I would not like to get side-tracked here by your dislike of 'the way' I speak and write my questions and of my obsession, but if we can not find nor agree upon a basic language in regards to all physics, considered as whole, then formulating a TOE and GUT is going to take a bit longer than I thought.

 

[Amazed]

There is no one single definition of "particle" in physics. The paper @bhobba linked to talks about one popular meaning that can be assigned to that term, but it's not the only one.

If there is still no one single definition of 'particle' in physics, then what is 'it' that people who do physics look at, discuss, and talk about, exactly?

Uncovering this answer will help tremendously in the formation of the two very big theories.

I assume you mean this?

Yes.

Then the response is simple: the claims following your your "surely" and "it would seem contradictory" are just wrong.

If the claims following my 'surely' and 'it would seem contradictory' are just wrong, then just please explain what is right. If particles are excited states of an, already, underlying 'physical field', then what does the 'underlying physical field' consist of, and is made up of, exactly?

What is a 'physical field' if it is not made up of matter?

But, if a 'physical field' is not made up of matter, like 'electromagnetic radiation' and 'spacetime', then why not just say so?

You need to stop obsessing over ordinary language words and start looking at the actual physics.

Could you need to stop obsessing that I am obsessing over ordinary language? If you cannot explain something simply, then do you really understand it?

If a 'physical field' does not consist of matter, then it is just another thing, which is just not made up by matter?

If a 'physical field' is not made up of matter, then just maybe the word 'physical' in 'physical field' is a bit misleading, or was just me wrongly assuming.

I found that when words 'hint' at more of what they actually are, instead of at what they are not, then this helps in wrong assumptions not being made.

Maybe new words that are made up and created could follow more in what actually is, instead of being what is actually not, so that people's 'current intuitions' do not get skewed. For example, if one talks about a 'grass field', then some 'intuit' a field made up of grass. But, then again, "scientists" and "physicists" are known for not coming up with the most logically created wording and language.

The actual physics does not correspond to anything in your current intuitions.

If the 'actual physics' does not correspond to absolutely anything in 'my current intuitions', then how did this happen and occur. I am, after all, made up solely of 'actual physics', correct?

Also, when did you find out and know that the 'actual physics' did not correspond with anything in 'your current, or previous, intuitions'?

That's a key reason why it takes people years to develop an understanding of what our best current physical theories say: because they have to first unlearn many things that seem obvious to them when they start out, but which are actually wrong.

Okay, and fair enough. But equally fair is, could "scientists" and "physicists" just use language that is more suited to the ordinary common folk? Keeping language, terms, words, and/or definitions like they are some sort of secret message and code to only be known and understand very few and so only some can come to understand and obtain does not really help society itself.

If one can only come to understand what only some understand and know, by spending many, many years and lots and lots of money, then only a very few have the opportunity to ever come to know and understand.

Have you come to fully realise and understand that the 'actual physics' does not correspond with anything in 'your current intuition'?

As the actual two theories of the Theory Of Everything and the Grand Unified Theory will show and verify, if we are to follow and accept your claim here.

 

[Amazed]

In everyday life the items you encounter (chairs, you, your phone, etc) are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons held together by electromagnetic and strong force interactions. If that is what you mean by "matter" then there is a lot of stuff that isn't made up by any of that.

Thank you profusely for answering the question.

So, if there is a lot of 'stuff' that is not made up by any of 'that', then what is 'that stuff', then what are they made up by?

Whether any of the stuff that doesn't make up everyday items counts as "matter", though, is a personal choice. You'd have to decide that for yourself. For a physicist, the answer is probably context dependant. If I'm building a bridge, neutrinos probably aren't matter. If I'm studying a supernova they probably are.

So, one just decides what is matter and what is not, depending on what they are 'doing', correct?

I thought in a physics forum where people talk about what is being done in 'physics' an agreement would already exist.

 

[Ibix]

So, if there is a lot of 'stuff' that is not made up by any of 'that', then what is 'that stuff', then what are they made up by?

Somebody already posted the standard model particle list upthread. Ignore photons (the electromagnetic field), gluons (the strong force), up and down quarks (they make up protons and neutrons) and electrons. Everything else is made up of the other stuff on the list. Plus, we don't know yet what dark matter and dark energy are (if they're not just a flaw in our understanding of gravity).

So, one just decides what is matter and what is not, depending on what they are 'doing', correct?

I thought in a physics forum where people talk about what is being done in 'physics' an agreement would already exist.

I think the problem is that you aren't really asking questions about physics, just about words. Here is the Lagrangian for the standard model:

(from Wikipedia). This is a "Theory of Everything Except Gravity". There is no term in it for "everything" (or even "everything except gravity"). There is no term in it for "matter", although there are terms in it that describe the behaviour of everything in the standard model list posted earlier, so some subset of the terms describe whatever you choose to mean by the word.

Agreeing exactly which of the terms in that expression correspond to the word "matter" is entirely irrelevant to getting anything done - it's just stamp collecting, as Rutherford once said. If we believe we know which of the terms are relevant to an experiment we can calculate the behaviour of the experiment and compare our prediction to the reality. If it matches, great. If it doesn't (and we can't explain it as some other term we forgot to account for) then we have evidence for something new. Whether the terms we include are labelled "matter" or not changes nothing about the outcome.

(Note that most physics is not done starting with the standard model Lagrangian. It would be like trying to predict the outcome of a football match by studying the motion of every atom in the stadium at the match start. Possible in principle but absurd in practice.)

Finally, here are three examples of this thinking in practice, although in the field of gravity rather than particle physics. In the 1980s we noticed some of our space probes weren't quite where we predicted them to be. That turned out to be something we forgot to account for - a small rocket effect due to an interaction between the crafts' radiothermal generators and their antenna. In the 1840s we noticed that some of the outer planets weren't quite where we predicted them to be. That turned out to be something we didn't know to account for - Neptune, then undiscovered. In the 1890s we noticed that Mercury wasn't quite where we predicted it to be. That turned out to be that our theory of gravity was wrong, and was explained by General Relativity.

Notice that none of this hinges on arguments about names - it's all quantitative prediction and testing. Our problem at the moment is that we know our theories aren't completely correct, but we have never been able to generate a situation where they make detectably incorrect predictions. So we have little leverage in trying to develop better theories.

 

[Motore]

I thought in a physics forum where people talk about what is being done in 'physics' an agreement would already exist.

There is agreement on the physics for which we use math. "Particle" is not physics it's a word, that has many definitions in the real world and also in physics. If you want a commonly used definition in physics than that was provided by @bhobba, but it is not the only one. So the actual equations that describe quantum mechanical behavior are the same for everyone, what you call what those equations are describing is more or less a personal choice.