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

[javisot]

I think the problem is that you aren't really asking questions about physics, just about words.

It's incredible how often this happens, ending up discussing language instead of physics.

 

[Amazed]

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).

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:View attachment 369579(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.

As long as there is a realisation that your theories are not completely correct, then all is well and good.

Words are used in theories, and words are denoted by symbols. Every symbol in equations is known and understood by words alone. So, if, and when, we just find the correct and right words, then developing far more correct and better theories can begin again.

 

[Amazed]

It's incredible how often this happens, ending up discussing language instead of physics.

It is not surprising how often people end up disagreeing, bickering, and even fighting over things like different interpretations, in things like physics, instead of just discussing and agreeing upon the words being used in language

 

[PeroK]

As long as there is a realisation that your theories are not completely correct, then all is well and good.

Words are used in theories, and words are denoted by symbols. Every symbol in equations is known and understood by words alone. So, if, and when, we just find the correct and right words, then developing far more correct and better theories can begin again.

There are underlying concepts in physics and mathematics that have to be understood in themselves. Words are the labels we give them so we can talk about them.

That's true beyond science. A child understands what food is before it learns the word.

 

[martinbn]

May be it is better to first study physics and then think about philosophical catogories such as matter.

 

[Ibix]

It's incredible how often this happens, ending up discussing language instead of physics.

I don't think school science or pop science do a very good job of describing the distinction between models, applications of the models, correspondence between model entities and the real world, and verification and validation of the predictions made once you've understood all that. And how that applies to literally everything, including your own mental model of everything. And how mathematical it is once you get much beyond the caveman "can I hit that rabbit with a thrown rock" level.

 

[Hill]

Even better would be to first study physics and then to realize that thinking about philosophical categories such as matter is immaterial. (Pun intended.)

 

[Ibix]

A child understands what food is before it learns the word.

I was fascinated by the fact that my child could clap three times in time to a song long before he was introduced to numbers.

 

[Dale]

Just ask me an open question, from an open perspective, for clarification.

What do you define as matter?

 

[Dale]

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?

The reason there is not a defined concept for this is because there is no measurement that depends on it. There is no “matter-ometer” that measures whether something is matter or not. So it is something that individual authors are free to define or ignore, as they find convenient.

 

[Hornbein]

There are many words that do not have a definition on which everyone agrees. I don't worry about it. I just state the definition I'm using then take it from there. Maybe in some other paper I will use some other definition for the same word.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is not surprising how often people end up disagreeing, bickering, and even fighting over things like different interpretations, in things like physics, instead of just discussing and agreeing upon the words being used in language

Which is why we use math. Math is not ambiguous.
And why we don't concern ourselves with the semantics of words. Words are ambiguous.

Words are used in theories, and words are denoted by symbols. Every symbol in equations is known and understood by words alone. So, if, and when, we just find the correct and right words, then developing far more correct and better theories can begin again.

You have that entirely backwards.


I would point out that you - who are not a physicist, and do not know physics - are spending a lot of time and effort telling others - some of whom are physicists, and know physics - that they're wrong.

Maybe learn some physics before making declarations about it?

It may also benefit you to read up a little on the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[Amazed]

There are underlying concepts in physics and mathematics that have to be understood in themselves. Words are the labels we give them so we can talk about them.

That's true beyond science. A child understands what food is before it learns the word.

An adult has to understand what meaning is first before it can learn how the Universe works and what the Universe is made up of and made by.

Understanding meaning comes from learning words first. For example to understand the meaning of 'e=mc2' an adult and a child has to first learn and understand the words, and their meanings, that those letters, symbols, and number are referring to exactly.

What each of those letters, symbols, and numbers refer to exactly are words. Each word has a meaning and definition.

To understand what 'e=mc2' actually means, and is actually referring to exactly, words and their definitions and meanings need to learned, known, and understood, first.

"physicists" may well be so accustomed to reading letters, symbols, and.numbers and subconsciously or "automatically" already understanding and knowing what they mean and are referring to, but "physicists" can not deny that how they understand and know what those letters, symbols, and numbers mean and refer to is through language, which is done by first learning words and learning the meanings of those words.

You are not going to try to deny this fact are you?

Even the underlying concepts in physics and mathematics that have to be understood in themselves are known and understood through first learning to use language. Which again is done first by learning words and their meanings.

Words may well be the labels human beings give to and place on 'things', so that they can then talk about them. But contrary to your belief and claim above here the underlying concepts in physics and mathematics that have to be understood in themselves are known know and understood without learning the labels/words and their meanings prior.

A child may well, in a sense, understand what food is before it learns the word, but no "scientist" not "physicist" understands what 'e' is before they learn 'the word', and 'that word's' meaning.

Their is not a human being alive who first understood the underlying concepts of 'e=mc2' in themselves without first learning what each of those letters, symbols, and numbers is referring to exactly.

How people understand know what those 'things' mean and are referring to is again through the use of already have long learnt words and their meanings.

Through the use of language is how the understanding of the underlying concepts in physics and mathematics is understood and known in themselves.

Language is used by first learning words and learning their meanings.

To prove this true, see if you can read the following letters, symbols, and numbers, or what you might refer to with 'the word', 'equations', 'e=mc2' or 'e+s=w2', without reading them as words and being able to understand the underlying concepts at the same time.

If you take notice you may well read each letter as a letter, but you already consciously know them as a word, and when you read each symbol and number you read them as individual words.

The underlying concepts in physics and mathematics, which have to be understood in themselves, are understood and known through and by words. Which are the labels we give them not just so we can talk about them but also so we can think and know about them.

Without agreed upon and accepted words and language physics and mathematics could never become known and understood.

 

[weirdoguy]

@Amazed, could please stop telling me, and other physicists, how to do, understand and think about physics? You don't go to surgeons and tell them how to perform surgeries, do you? So I don't see why you do that with physics. Don't waste your time, take textbooks and LEARN PHYSICS. At some point you'll understand what are everyone is talking about. Thank you.

 

[Amazed]

May be it is better to first study physics and then think about philosophical catogories such as matter.

So, to you 'matter', itself, is a philosophical category. Which I find amazing to be a view and perspective within a physics forum. Considering that it could be said and argued that physics is solely in regards to 'matter', and literally coming to understand the physical world of 'matter' itself.

Just like I was also surprised and amazed to find out that in a physics forum that there are somethings that are not made up of matter.

To talk about and understand physics you first need to study language, words, and meaning. Maybe it is better to first study these things before reading the new to be released physical theories.

 

[weirdoguy]

To talk about and understand physics you first need to study language, words, and meaning

Oh please, stop this nonsense. Even in ordinary language there are tons of words that have multiple meanings, depending on the context. It may be a problem for those who are learning the language, but not for those who are fluent. The same goes with physics, maths, every science, and other disciplines.

 

[Amazed]

I don't think school science or pop science do a very good job of describing the distinction between models, applications of the models, correspondence between model entities and the real world, and verification and validation of the predictions made once you've understood all that. And how that applies to literally everything, including your own mental model of everything. And how mathematical it is once you get much beyond the caveman "can I hit that rabbit with a thrown rock" level.

I agree wholeheartedly. If the science taught in schools was expressed in a much more entertaining, clear, and distinct manner, and explains these things you referred to here in a much more succinct way, then there would not be so many complete idiots like me who end up just trying to learn how to make sense of and understand what 'it' is exactly that you "experts" know and talk about.

But, then again, maybe an 'us' and 'them' attitude and society is what is really preferred and desired.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are not going to try to deny this fact are you?

What you wrote is not a fact; it is an opinion.

You can tell it's an opinion in the first few words:

"physicists" may well be so accustomed to reading letters, symbols,

You say "may well be" because you are guessing.


It is a guess - about how scientists (who know how to science) think - by someone who is not a scientist (and does not know how to science).

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree wholeheartedly. If the science taught in schools was expressed in a much more entertaining, clear, and distinct manner, and explains these things you referred to here in a much more succinct way, then there would not be so many complete idiots like me who end up just trying to learn how to make sense of and understand what 'it' is exactly that you "experts" know and talk about.

But, then again, maybe an 'us' and 'them' attitude and society is what is really preferred and desired.

No. You learned just enough about science in school to see for yourself if you are interested in pursuing it. What you learned was built on a lack of the necessary maths (which you will learn later).


If you decide you are interested in it, you will have to put on your big boy pants and start learning it. And that's the math.

It has nothing to do with "us versus them". that a cop out.

It is the fact that - not just science, but vertually all specialties - require a lot of training and education. You cannot build a suspension bridge with the knowledge you learned in grade school. You have a layperson's knowledge of bridges but you will have years of engineering ahead of you if what you want to do is build bridges.

If you want to be a violinist, you will have to learn the violin. Knowing what the word "fortissimo" means doesn't get you very far if you don't hunker down and do the hard work.


No one is holding you back - except you. It's just harder than you expect it to be.

 

[Amazed]

Even better would be to first study physics and then to realize that thinking about philosophical categories such as matter is immaterial. (Pun intended.)

This attitude helps in showing and explaining why human beings in the 21st century still have not yet been able to form a unified theory of everything.

They tended to work against each other instead with each other. A lot learned that being ahead or separated from others and 'winning' a personal prize of some sort, was more important than just working together to reach a goal where everyone benefits.

Notice how most here bond together to keep 'the others' away.

 

[DaveC426913]

Notice how most here bond together to keep 'the others' away.

This smacks of paranoia.

You are being lazy. If you want to be good at something, put in the work. Everyone else did. We all started off in the same place. Some of us put in the work.

 

[Amazed]

I was fascinated by the fact that my child could clap three times in time to a song long before he was introduced to numbers.

I am more fascinated about how children can know the meaning of words without being directly taught what they mean.

What is even more fascinating is that some of those children get older believing that they knew the underlying concepts of numbers and symbols before they ever understood the words and meanings of what those symbols and numbers were denoting.

The two paragraphs above might appear contradictory at first sight to some who read with more insight, but they are not at all contradictory without curiosity and explanation.

 

[Amazed]

What do you define as matter?

I am not allowed to present that here as my idea has not yet been peer-reviewed.

However, if I was first granted written permission to, then I will.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not allowed to present that here as my idea has not yet been peer-reviewed.

If you are unwilling or unable or express your ideas here in the language of physics (math), what makes you think you understand it well enough to have an informed opinion on it?

Don't you think you should understand it first?

 

[Amazed]

The reason there is not a defined concept for this is because there is no measurement that depends on it.

Okay.

But, if one considers that a theory of everything would help them, then I suggest a measurement of some sort in regards to all existing matter, space, and energy considered as a whole is needed. After all a theory of 'everything' could be considered insufficient without a measurement of everything considered as a whole.

To me a well considered definitive concept of 'Everything', as a whole, is needed first in order to be able to begin formulating a Theory Of Everything, which in turn would be depended upon a measurement. How could one formulate a Theory Of Everything, fully and accurately, in physics, without
1. Depending upon a measurement of some sorts?
2. Without have a defined concept, which is dependent upon a measurement?

There is no “matter-ometer” that measures whether something is matter or not.

Really?

If yes, then how did some people measure that spacetime and electric magneticradiation, for example, are things that are not matter?

So it is something that individual authors are free to define or ignore, as they find convenient.

Which could explain why physics has not really progressed that much at all since the early 1900's.

 

[Amazed]

There are many words that do not have a definition on which everyone agrees.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I just thought that when a group of people, who are studying the exact same thing, would have an agreed upon and accepted definition of the very thing that they study, and/or look at.

I, however, have been finding the exact opposite is true in many disciplines.

I don't worry about it. I just state the definition I'm using then take it from there. Maybe in some other paper I will use some other definition for the same word.

Okay, thank you very much for your information here. It is these sorts of replies that are actually really helpful to people like me who do not know much at all and are just seriously wanting to learn more.

 

[DaveC426913]

... people like me who do not know much at all and are just seriously wanting to learn more.

We have all been trying to tell you how you can learn more, but you are rejecting everything we try to teach you.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am not allowed to present that here as my idea has not yet been peer-reviewed.

And it seems as though your only reason for starting this thread in the first place was to try to get to a point where you could present that idea. Which is out of bounds here. And which means you have basically wasted a bunch of people's time on a fool's errand.

people like me who do not know much at all and are just seriously wanting to learn more.

And yet, as has already been remarked on, you have spent a lot of time in this thread trying to tell people who know more than you do--in some cases quite a lot more--that they are wrong in how they are approaching physics. That does not seem like a good way for you to learn. And in any case it seems like you are not really trying to learn in general, but to find support for your own personal theory. Which is out of bounds here anyway.

Thread closed.