E=mc² — Razorback kitten

'm' is for mass, but it approximates matter. 'e' is a heck of a lot of energy.

'Energy' was originally about how much work could be done; we aren't getting too far here as to what energy is, at heart. I would have to go with Rovelli's covariant quantum fields as being the All of what's fundamental, but what are fields?

An image of waves comes to mind, but what are waves, other than a field?

Meanwhile, note that spacetime is exactly Einstein's gravitational field.

Waves? They must seemingly the the simplest form, which preserves the fundamental arts, that of it having no further parts. Looks like the composite and the complex must always be 'above'/beyond.

This didn't say what waves really are yet. Further, waves are ubiquitous in nature, which adds to our guess about them being so.

The waves are something; that doesn't tell us much new about wha they're made of.

Some think that there are waves of something and an anti-something, as like matter versus anti-matter. Their frequency would give rise to what we think of as their energy. Their amplitude would be positive and negative charge. Their extension would give rise to dimension.

Some go further, that they can make a 'Big Bang', if there are so many that they have to explode due to infinite density not being able to be, like any infinity can't, if they get compressed du to their weight or if they swirl inward until there's no inward left. Of course, /I am somewhat presuming through all this.

The explosion, eventually, spews out "centers of oscillation", protons being more or less the waves and the electrons being the wave envelopes.

There are only three main stable particles in free space (and their anti-particles), this suggesting that there are only these limited number of ways to make them. Note that neutron's decay in free space within 12 minutes, leaving us only the proton, the electron and the photon, this also bolstering the wave symmetry idea, as we will see.

It appears, then, that there can be only two positively charged matter particles, the proton(+) and the electron(-), and only one energy particle, which must have a neutral charge, it being its own anti-particles, it possible being the electron and the positron (that it can be broken into) somehow living in peace because of something like that they are 180 degrees out of phase for some reason.

This curious symmetry about the three stable particles calls out to us very Loudly!

But what are waves made of? I have to wave good-bye now.

It seems impossible to find an ultimate ingredient of reality.

Atoms were thought to be primary and indivisible but that was confounded by the discovery of quarks.

Idealism posits that everything is simply mind which is a solution that seems to satisfy Ockham's razor in my opinion but then you have the primary question of what is mind.

I think there is always going to be the problem of infinite regress about the constituents of reality.

Religion has offered some kind of solace by claiming that the gods know and when you meet them they will reveal the answer. This is what I believed as a child. Maybe the problem is the limitations of our intelligence?

stuff.

Matter is made of stuff.

I am not kidding. This is the latest (of what I have heard) theory in physics. Matter is stuff.

I would like to hear some ideas about what you think matter is made of. — Razorback kitten

To answer that question I usually ask myself,

what can never cease from being?

I think if one finds the characteristics that are ever-present in reality/existence then one gets a much better definition of what that reality/existence is. So far I have - identity, activity, force/influence, form/space, time.

[1.] Identity - Basically, we can't deny something and we can't affirm nothing. Therefore, every conversation, information, knowledge or understanding about anything begins with the identity of a something.

[2.] Activity - At the very least, the something that is fundamental to everything, call it energy/god/life or whatever, must be performing the action of being. It must be representing itself to itself (internal characteristics) and to others (external influences). Else, there would be no such considerations.

[3.] Force/Influence - This is just the ability and capacity to be and to express that being-ness.

[4.] Form/Space - This is defined by the field, range or extent of activity or force/influence by any identity.

[5.] Time - This is the rate of activity or relative activity. It could be current activity vs past activity, a particular designation of form/space in comparison to another, certain configurations relative to others, etc.

So far, this seems to tick all my boxes.

I think there is always going to be the problem of infinite regress about the constituents of reality — Andrew4Handel

This is the point of view I hit upon. And I couldn't accept the most common answer of it just being made of stuff. Nor will I ever intertain the idea that the universe cares about our consciousness and therefore has nothing to do with mind or the awareness of it. So my reasoning is that it's nothing. Not in the nihilistic sense but in the sense that the building blocks of reality are made of empty space. Light is a wave of empty space. Matter is closed pockets or knots of empty space, within a bubbling sea of fluctuating empty space. I know it sounds ridiculous but the more I think about it, the more realistic it becomes. After all, no matter how small you divide something, each half can always be divided again. I see the only logical solution must be nothing, because nothing else works.

sea of fluctuating empty space — Razorback kitten

This is the quantum foam, ever jittering, for some reason like that QM can never be definite, as mostly noise, items coming and going in a kind of sub-time/pre-time, sub-space/pre-space, sub-stuff/pre-stuff mode since they don't endure; but then, somehow, something lasts for more than an instant, even for a bit, and some chain reaction occurs, and then there are more happenings unto some more…

It isn't enough for me to accept it on its influence in reality. To me, it seems the same as saying energy.

How about NOTHINGness, just empty space. Interacting with other empty space, until SOMETHING is happening out of nothing. I believe you really can make something out of nothing.

It isn't enough for me to accept it on its influence in reality. To me, it seems the same as saying energy.

How about NOTHINGness, just empty space. Interacting with other empty space, until SOMETHING is happening out of nothing. I believe you really can make something out of nothing. — Razorback kitten

It's all the same no matter the name we call it. Even in your analogy, the empty space is interacting and out of that a configuration called "something" arises. In the end, the narrative is all the same despite the different names and only the characteristics or qualities we assign to that fundamental state of reality/existence really determines what we're referring to. The rest is just perspective to help us understand where everything diverges from and converges to.

I get what you mean but there is a truth to all things and regardless of whether that thing is this or that, it still matters to me that it be defined. Deeper understanding is only possible when you know enough about what's come before to bridge the next gap. Just settling for characteristics or qualities won't give enough insight to see around the next corner, even if at first it's just an assumption, what it leads to could be more than the sum of its parts. I think a label on what energy is, is the key to understanding how the universe works, and what it's made of. You have to admit, accepting energy for it's qualities hasn't brought much to the table.

I get what you mean but there is a truth to all things and regardless of whether that thing is this or that, it still matters to me that it be defined. — Razorback kitten

I think a definition is just an organisation of characteristics and qualities and their significance.

You have to admit, accepting energy for it's qualities hasn't brought much to the table. — Razorback kitten

On the contrary, it has given science a perspective that is relative to everything. Also, it allows us to build on an idea that is more fixed than others, that way we don't have to undo the previous structure just to cope with new information, for example, with the realisation of the strangeness of quantum mechanics.

A label without a proper definition is meaningless. And we can't have a proper definition without the right perspective of its characteristics and qualities.

How about NOTHINGness, just empty space. Interacting with other empty space, until SOMETHING is happening out of nothing. I believe you really can make something out of nothing. — Razorback kitten

You have Newton's absolute space, whose only quantity would seem to be volume. Einstein replaced this notion with the gravitational field, that is, space-time.

Note that 'Nothing' has no existence, no properties; 'it' doesn't even have an 'it' (a what), an arena (a where), a time (a when), etc., so it is not.

Matter isn't comprised of something that's not matter. It's comprised of elementary particles, in particular dynamic relationships with each other.

Energy is matter in motion.

Motion or change is also what time is. However, with energy, we're concerned more with the relative strength of motion--"the ability to do work," whereas with time we're concerned with relative motion--and in particular, seemingly regular relative motion.

Space is the extension of matter and the extensional relations of matter.

See this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8grN3zP8cg

We're not what most of us think we are. "And that, is incredibly cool!"

I think nothing is completely something. Nothing on its own is a useless, non reality. When there is something, like a universe, then nothing has everything.

Space is made of nothing. Lots and lots of waves of nothing. So many bands of empty space at different frequencies, coming from all directions, creating a fabric of nothingness. The absurd part is believing that empty space, however non existent, must build up in some way to create a something. I can't see any other alternative.

The problem with this question is that eventually are bound to come to two options:
1. there's a basic building material which is not made up of anything else.
2. infinite regression you can reduce matter to other constituents and also these to other constituents etc ad infinitum.

It depends on your belief of a universe which is finite or infinite.
I believe in an infinite universe so I'll take the second option.

So many bands of empty space at different frequencies, — Razorback kitten

You sure have a lot of not nothingness here.

2. infinite regression you can reduce matter to other constituents and also these to other constituents etc ad infinitum. — MathematicalPhysicist

I don't see how an effect could ever surface.

Cause and Effect are just an illusion ask Hume.

Space is the extension of matter and the extensional relations of matter. — Terrapin Station

Thus leaving no independent 'space' that is additional beside the span of the relations.

I'm open to a better suggestion. But I've been open to a better idea for a while. A may well of gone mad.

Thus leaving no independent 'space' that is additional beside the span of the relations. — PoeticUniverse

Correct. It doesn't exist as "something in itself."

I'm open to a better suggestion. But I've been open to a better idea for a while. A may well of gone mad. — Razorback kitten

You are facing a paradox about the base Existence, like we all do; yet, we can be assured that there are no true paradoxes, since there is existence, even with humongous and near unimaginable amounts of stuff/energy seemingly so easy to come by.

On the one hand, there doesn't seem to be anything to make existence out of; hence your conclusion of from 'Nothing', but really your 'Nothing' so far is but a near 'Nothing', for you introduce a capability and possibility (as something) to make our existence of stuff.

If truly there was/is a lack of anything, then how could anything make itself?

On the other hand, which is only that there is an eternal something, then it would be that it is here without it ever having been made!

Time to go mad? Don't go yet, for, right here, we have the answer to All, as either from Nothing or as eternal. Astounding! We have surrounded the TOE and have caged it in! Good progress!

More later.

Matter is made of stuff. — god must be atheist

Nope. Maybe 2% stuff, 98% not stuff. See the video referenced above. (And never mind the opening, it's just a joke.)

Nope. Maybe 2% stuff, 98% not stuff — tim wood

Yes, good video. Lincoln posts on the science and philosophy chat forum sometimes.

I hope so because what you said was really beautiful. It sums it up really well. I have decided empty space can do things it shouldn't be able to.

However I'm completely convinced that space and energy can only be made of emptiness.

In a field of something, like a cloud or fabric, an area of nothing has a presence. If you walk along a path and the path is replaced with nothing. The opposite of nothing happens and you fall.

I know 'nothing' wouldn't have any effect on something real but what if the things we consider real, are also made of nothing. I find it hard to explain. I'll just keep on believe in nothing, until something comes along.

until something comes along — Razorback kitten

Well, something has come along and it exists, so, then, there has to be a way for it to be.

Not that 'Nothing' can have an existence, but if there could be a lack of anything as an absolute 'Nothing' then 'it' would have no properties and 'it' would then still be the case, but 'it' ain't, and I am quite wrong to even refer to it herein, for 'it' cannot even be meant.

Still, we need to eventually account for the apparent zero-sum balance of opposites in nature. For example, the potential negative energy of gravity matches that of the positive kinetic energy of 'stuff', which is very curious.

Also, the net electric charge of the universe appears to be zero. Matter and anti-matter annihilate, but photons are the result, not 'Nothing'. Some propose that photons are a plus and a minus peacefully amounting somehow to a neutral charge without blowing up.

QM has virtual particles fluctuating in and out of existence.

There is also the finding from QM by Anton Zeilinger to several sigma that "randomness is the bedrock of reality", meaning perhaps that there can be outputs with inputs,

A 'null physics' theory has it that the Totality is a 'Nothing' nonexistence externally, while, internally, it still also sums to nothing. Since our three dimensions must be additive, then it can only be the fourth that accomplishes the full nullification, which, in the theory, if I remember, is electric charge.

So, we are ever looking into existence to get more clues like the above, which favor your case, somewhat, but ever add to it some kind of potential/way, making the 'Nothing' no longer a 'Nothing', as if the something-like potential/way is mandatory, and thus some timeless eternal, which state we ever seem to get forced back to.

What else does the known existence suggest or tell us? Anybody?

For the timeless eternal notion, there is that: due to the impossibility of a total 'Nothing' that existence has no alternative and so there can be no opposite to being, leaving something basic as what has to be, plus that this then necessarily must be everything, not just some, since eternal stuff doesn't arrive, but just already 'IS', and everywhere, since there couldn't even be little spacers of 'nothingness' in the fabric of the All. Sounds like covariant quantum fields.

Let's go have a drink at the Madhouse Tavern in the middle of no-where, us being now-here to do so.

I love you. That's amazing. But you are still made of nothing so how on earth can I take you seriously?

Joking

Beautifully said again though.

I want to hear your idea of what could possibly be at the centre of stuff?

If nothing isn't good enough for you...

I want to hear your idea of what could possibly be at the centre of stuff? — Razorback kitten

'Stuff' would mostly be energy/interactions going 'round, although I lean toward calling 'stuff' to be happenings/events, with apparently stable 'stuff' being just long events.

But you are still made of nothing so how on earth can I take you seriously? — Razorback kitten

We are so temporary that we are changing zillions of times a second, since the All, whether eternal or of 'Nothing', is continuously transitioning and so thus is never anything in particular, but leaving the events/happenings to be to us what is, with things not.

Both Everything, as a Library of Babel, and Nothing, as an empty hut, tell us zip, neither of them having any information content. The only benefit of existence would seem to be experience; so, drink of it..

The Eternal Return?

Behind the Veil, being that which e’er thrives,
The Eternal IS has ever been alive,
For that which hath no onset cannot die,
Nor a point from which to design its Why.

Some time it needed to learn Everything for,
And now well knows how these bubbles to pour,
Of existence, in some like universe,
As those that wrote your poem and mine, every verse.

So, as thus, thou lives on yester’s credit line
In nowhere’s midst, now in this life of thine,
As of its bowl your cup of brew was mixed
Into the state of being that’s called “mine”.

Yet worry you that this Cosmos is the last,
That the likes of us will become the past,
Space wondering whither whence we went
After the last of us her life has spent?

The Eternal Saki has thus formed
Trillions of baubles like ours, and will form,
Forevermore—the comings and passings
Of which it ever emits to immerse
Of those universal bubbles blown and burst.

So fear not that a debit close your
Account and mine, knowing the like no more;
The Eternal Cycle from its pot has pour’d
Zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

When You and I behind the cloak are past
But the long while the next universe shall last,
Which of one’s approach and departure the All grasps
As might the sea’s self heed a pebble cast.

'Stuff' would mostly be energy/interactions going 'round, although I lean toward calling 'stuff' to be happenings/events, with apparently stable 'stuff' being just long events. — PoeticUniverse

Oh, a particle is a long event happening.

I should of known.

Where are all the better ideas?