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?