what is matter anyway?

[xxx200]

a matter can be reduced to atom and atom is reduced to electron, protron and neutron which are nothing but charges. if we link up all ideas from electron to matter then what is matter anyway? smallest charges accumulate o create atom and atoms accumulate to create matter. so the matter is nothing but charges. be it solid, liquid or gas, it is nothing but charges.

 

what do you think?

[CaptainPanic]

what do you think?

I think that the burden of proof is on your side. Also, you might as well give us a workable proposal how to continue if there is no matter. How to measure it, how to describe the universe.

 

Because right now we have a pretty cool system of theories, which seem to work quite well. And they include the concept of matter.

[xxx200]

all i say that charges like electron accumulate in a particular pattern to appear as matter; solid, liquid or gas. they are measurable like solid, liquid or gas but actually they are charges.

 

universe is nothing but gathering of charges like electrons in a particular pattern. that pattern is a cause of appearence as solid, liquid or gas. that pattern is temporary. in time slowly slowly the pattern changes and so the appearence of matter.

 

sometimes the pattern is altered by men causing change in appearence of matter.

 

there is no such thing as solid, liquid or gas. its only the appearence of matter.

[ACG52]

What's the charge on a neutron?

 

Step in front of a bus and see if it has only the appearence of matter.

 

Shouldn't this be in speculations? It's certainly not physics.

Edited September 13, 2012 by ACG52

[xxx200]

What's the charge on a neutron?

 

Step in front of a bus and see if it has only the appearence of matter.

 

Shouldn't this be in speculations? It's certainly not physics.

 

every physics was first a speculation and then become physics. there is nothing wrong in speculation. it is the first step towards discovery.

 

take the example of ice. what is ice? isn't it water that appear solid? or is it something more than water? the same way if matter consists of atoms and atoms consists of charges, then logical conclusion is matter consists of charges.

 

so my theory is logically correct.

[ACG52]

Atoms do not consist of charges. They consist of elements which have charges, but the charge is only one aspect of the element.

[xxx200]

Atoms do not consist of charges. They consist of elements which have charges, but the charge is only one aspect of the element.

 

you mean electron, proton and nutron are not charges, they are elements? what are they then? they are in solid, liquid and gas. what are they then?

[derek w]

I think 'xxx200' has a valid point.But an electron and positron will annihilate and produce photons,which have no charge and no mass.

On the other hand 2 photons with enough energy can produce an electron/positron pair,which do have charges.

 

So although I think xxx200 has a point,I think he is wrong to say that matter is nothing but charges.

 

A neutron which has no charge does add to the mass of an atom.

Edited September 14, 2012 by derek w

[MigL]

What is matter anyway ???

 

Mostly empty space permeated with overlapping fields. Two of these fields happen to be an electromagnetic field which gives rise to the bosonic photon, and the associated electron field which gives rise to the leptonic electron, the heavier versions called ( I believe ? ) mu and tau and their antiparticles. But they are not the only fields. there are also 'colour' and 'weak' fields along with their associated leptonic fields.

 

The jury is still out on gravitational fields.

Edited September 14, 2012 by MigL

[xxx200]

I think 'xxx200' has a valid point.But an electron and positron will annihilate and produce photons,which have no charge and no mass.

On the other hand 2 photons with enough energy can produce an electron/positron pair,which do have charges.

 

So although I think xxx200 has a point,I think he is wrong to say that matter is nothing but charges.

 

A neutron which has no charge does add to the mass of an atom.

 

ok i withdraw my caim that matter is nothing but charges. but if these electrons don't have any charge then what they actually are? a matter(solid/liquid/gas) or something else/ we must know that in order to understand matter.

[ACG52]

Solids, liquids, and gases are states of molecules, not atomic and subatomic particles.

[xxx200]

Solids, liquids, and gases are states of molecules, not atomic and subatomic particles.

 

look A molecule (/ˈmɒlɪkjuːl/) is an electrically neutral group of two or more atoms held together by covalent chemical bonds.^[1]

 

 

so molecules consist of atoms. many atoms gather to create a molecule. ok? the nature of molecule must come from nature of atoms or the that of the bonds. solid atoms gather to create solid molecules. then these Solids, liquids, and gases are states of atoms too.

 

so by this logic there are 3 types of atom :Solids, liquids, and gases. now furthur info on atom:

 

atoms contain elements called electron, protron and nutron. they r called composite subatomic particle. these particles are made of elementary sub atomic partcles called flavours or quirks. quirks carry on electric charge, color charge, mass and spin. they cannot be separable. these elementary particles give matter the flavour: color, mass, spin, electric charge etc. so matters are no more than these elementary sub atomic particle called quirks.

 

there are also many elementary sub atomic particle: lepton, gauge boson, gluon, higgs boson. they all give the matter its property. so matters are no more than these elementary sub atomic particle.

 

links:

 

subatomic particle

[ACG52]

Ah, another wikipedia scavenger.

 

the nature of molecule must come from nature of atoms or the that of the bonds. solid atoms gather to create solid molecules. then these Solids, liquids, and gases are states of atoms too.

so by this logic there are 3 types of atom :Solids, liquids, and gases.

 

You are ridiculously incorrect.

 

Reading a wikipedia article does not give you any insight into particle physics. At least take some high school physics classes.

 

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

This topic has been moved to Speculations - please take a few seconds to read the special rules that apply to that forum.

[Bignose]

so molecules consist of atoms. many atoms gather to create a molecule. ok? the nature of molecule must come from nature of atoms or the that of the bonds. solid atoms gather to create solid molecules. then these Solids, liquids, and gases are states of atoms too.

 

so by this logic there are 3 types of atom :Solids, liquids, and gases. now furthur info on atom:

 

So, the water that falls from the sky has different atoms depending on whether it is raining, snowing, or just humid out? I think that it is pretty well known that the phase change is well described without invoking changing the constituent atoms.

[derek w]

The majority of the mass comes from the gluon holding the quarks in a bound state.The sum of the the mass of 2 up and 1 down quark(the constituent parts of a proton) is much less than a proton.And most of the mass of an atom is in it's nucleus.

 

So if the question is what is matter,you need to ask what is a gluon.

 

I have a question,is a gluon similar or related to the Higgs field?

[timo]

Is a gluon similar or related to the Higgs field?

No.

[JohnStu]

Asking what is matter is like asking the definition of a randomly chosen word.

 

 

 

The definition of the chosen word can only be explained by a definition that will require a different defintion to define if asked.

 

 

 

So really, we don't know nor we will never know? Knowing is a stupid thing anyways in the eye of the universe. ha!

[newts]

so molecules consist of atoms. many atoms gather to create a molecule. ok? the nature of molecule must come from nature of atoms or the that of the bonds. solid atoms gather to create solid molecules. then these Solids, liquids, and gases are states of atoms too.

 

so by this logic there are 3 types of atom :Solids, liquids, and gases.

Getting a proper answer on here is hard, because mostly all the regulars really want to do, is sneer at people for being ignorant.

 

The terms gas, liquid and solid, only apply to collections of atoms not individual ones. You can create a hydrogen atom, by introducing an electron to a proton. This is because they attract each other, and the process results in the release of an ultraviolet photon of 13.6 eV. The process is reversible, so if you bombard a hydrogen atom with photons of more than 13.6 eV, you can get back a lone electron and a lone proton. For this reason above about 10000 K, hydrogen atoms disintegrate to produce a plasma.

 

If you introduce two hydrogen atoms, there is again attraction due to the electric charges, and when they mate they release an ultraviolet photon of 4.7 eV, producing a molecule of h2. Above 3000 K there are sufficiently energetic photons flying around to break these bonds, and the h2 molecules split into atoms.

 

There is also attraction between h2 molecules, again due to protons and electrons attracting, but this time the binding energy is so small that solid hydrogen only exists near absolute zero. Above about 15 K, there are sufficiently energetic heat photons flying around to break the electrical bonds between the h2 molecules, so the h2 molecules start flying around as a gas.

 

Most things that happen can be explained by gravity, and by the interactions between electric charges and photons. Electrons are lone negative charges; and positrons, which have the same mass, lone positive charges. Protons cannot be lone charges as they are 1836 times as heavy as electrons/positrons. The obvious conclusion, as you implied, is that protons are a just a ball of electric charges, as illustrated by my avatar.

 

Unfortunately nobody considered this idea at the opportune moment; and having once started to believe that protons are made from quarks, physicists are stuck with the idea, despite the experimental evidence to the contrary. Indeed Cardinal Bellarmine has declared the idea that protons are a collection of charges, to be heresy; and has expressly forbidden me to mention the idea again. So this may be my last post, as I am likely to be brought before the inquisition, excommunicated, and sentenced to eternal damnation.

[ACG52]

and having once started to believe that protons are made from quarks, physicists are stuck with the idea, despite the experimental evidence to the contrary

 

Do you have any kind of reference for that statement? Because there is good experimental evidence of quarks going as far back as 1968.

 

http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/PUS/dis/SLAC.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experimental_tests

[newts]

Do you have any kind of reference for that statement?

No. It is a personal opinion based on the fact that quarks cannot be isolated like real particles; and the fact neutron decay can be explained far more simply by saying a neutron is a proton with an electron stuck to it, than by hypothesising about quarks performing extraordinary transformations.

[ACG52]

No. It is a personal opinion based on the fact that quarks cannot be isolated like real particles; and the fact neutron decay can be explained far more simply by saying a neutron is a proton with an electron stuck to it, than by hypothesising about quarks performing extraordinary transformations.

 

 

So your statement

despite the experimental evidence to the contrary

 

is not true. Edited September 19, 2012 by ACG52

[newts]

So your statement is not true.

Your definition of truth, is clearly the current mainstream physics view. I am not interested in scientific authority, but rather concentrate on the experimental evidence. Have you never thought it a bit odd, that all the particles ever discovered have integer charges, but quarks are believed to have fractional charges? And is it not a bit convenient, that this belief can never be experimentally refuted, because quarks have been awarded the unique property of non-isolatability?

[uncool]

Your definition of truth, is clearly the current mainstream physics view. I am not interested in scientific authority, but rather concentrate on the experimental evidence.

 

You are being dishonest again, newts. Read his post again. His post is exactly about the experimental evidence; it is about the fact that as you have agreed, your statement is not based on experimental evidence but rather on your own opinion, and therefore that your add-on of "despite the experimental evidence to the contrary" is false. You have agreed that you have no experimental evidence to back up what you are saying.

=Uncool-

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Let's not continue to derail this thread with someone else's pet theory.

Newts, hijacking someone else's thread is against our rules. Staff have warned you time and time again not to do this. Enjoy your vacation.