Oh, a particle is a long event happening. — Razorback kitten

Especially protons.

it might decay with a half-life of about 10**32 years — Gooooooggle

Okay. I can easily accept that. Seeing I know nothing about what makes up matter.

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

And matter is the extension of interaction.

And matter is the extension of interaction. — Possibility

I have no idea what that would amount to. It sounds incoherent to me, but maybe you could explain it so that I wouldn't think that.

I have no idea what that would amount to. It sounds incoherent to me, but maybe you could explain it so that I wouldn't think that. — Terrapin Station

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

Matter is comprised of interaction: particles in dynamic relationship with each other. As @tim wood‘s video showed, what we see as matter, mass, is mostly the energy of these relationships, and only a very small percentage is the particles themselves.

So, the way I see it, interaction is at the heart of all matter, more so than the elementary particles. What we know as matter, therefore, is the extension of this interaction.

Does that make more sense or less?

Matter is comprised of interaction: particles in dynamic relationship with each other. As tim wood‘s video showed, what we see as matter, mass, is mostly the energy of these relationships, and only a very small percentage is the particles themselves.

So, the way I see it, interaction is at the heart of all matter, more so than the elementary particles. What we know as matter, therefore, is the extension of this interaction.

Does that make more sense or less? — Possibility

You can't just focus on the relations or interactions, because there needs to be something relating or having interactions.

You can't just focus on the relations or interactions, because there needs to be something relating or having interactions. — Terrapin Station

QM describes quarks as fast-moving points of energy - I’d like to see you try to focus on something else...

QM describes quarks as fast-moving points of energy - — Possibility

Energy sans something to have energy is incoherent. And there are no real "points."

In it's classic Aristotelian formulation, matter is simply that which can act or be acted upon; it is what Aristotle calls 'potential'. So matter = potential. This identifies matter not with some kind or substance or substances, but with anything whatsoever which has the capacity to act or be acted upon. It is substrate neutral, if you will. This is a far more interesting understanding of matter than any attempt to equate it with this or that particular kind of 'stuff'. The latter - along with the OP - is just vulgar philosophy.

Energy sans something to have energy is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

E=mc^2.

You might want to take a look at that sign in the middle; it's an equals sign. It means that energy and mass are equal, mediated by a number. There's an interesting video referenced above. I think you might like it.

You might want to take a look at that sign in the middle; it's an equals sign. It means that energy and mass are equal, mediated by a number. There's an interesting video referenced above. I think you might like it. — tim wood

So you were thinking that I'm probably just not familiar with this?

My fun video on Energy:

Energy sans something to have energy is incoherent. And there are no real "points." — Terrapin Station

Given that we don’t really know what energy IS (only what it does), I would suggest that it’s only incoherent because our language structure makes it so. I agree that there are no real ‘points’ - there doesn’t need to be.

What is matter made of? I think a better question is, "is matter made of anything?" This is ambiguous, it sounds like a challenge to creationists.So you can use its more to the point paraphrased form: "Is matter something that comprises some thing?"

No research went into the process of thinking up my post.

No research went into the process of thinking up my post. — god must be atheist

My pleasure to meet with a completely honest person, but the thought came from your brain and so there was perhaps some kind of inadvertent 'research' prompting the post.

What is matter made of? I think a better question is, "is matter made of anything?" — god must be atheist

Matter appears to be mostly made of energy, as some have indicated here. Energy is equivalent to mass, and mass is approximately matter, I guess. Some answer 'information', having it to be equivalent to energy.

creationists — god must be atheist

They could still say that 'God did it', this not being an answer, really, but rather an even larger question to ponder.

I just started a different, that is, distinct, thread, on the same principle, but expanded into the superstructure of things in this universe. There is a bit of a difference between this thread and what I started; this one concerns matter only, my thread proposes (again, with no research in the making of it), that the world is layer-upon-layer of things that look like substances, or are made of substance, but are not; and in upper layers they don't appear to be substance-like, unlike matter which does to us.

The upper layer things are "life", "love", thought, social and societal concepts, language, etc.

I proposed in this concurrent thread that the layering may be finite or infinite in both regress and progress.

There is nothing known that can fit the description of what matter is made of. Nobody here has come close. Even light or the field it's waving through must have a definition other than what it does or the potential it has. The ToE wont exist if this question isn't answered within it.

Nothing works.

The ToE wont exist if this question isn't answered within it. — Razorback kitten

ToE? Terms of Endearment?

Theory of everything.

But I think you knew that.

What about perspective? Somethings which are not matter to us may be matter to others, for example, magnetic energies can oppose each other as surely as solid objects, the same with light, etc. (In this case, matter refers to energies which allow tangibility, sensibility, recognition and response, etc.)

Perhaps, it's about the relation of energy to each other that gives the properties and characteristics we think are distinctive and constant while, in fact, outside the particular relations/interactions, those same energies display other quite varied properties and characteristics.

I think matter is an interaction between different energy levels and directions, spins and size. But again, it still doesn't help. What's any energy, regardless of perspective, made of?

What's any energy, regardless of perspective, made of? — Razorback kitten

It's made of Mass, Length squared, and Time negative squared.

It's made of Mass, Length squared, and Time negative squared. — PoeticUniverse

That’s how scientists measure it. It doesn’t explain what it is.

stuff — god must be atheist

Best answer so far. Painfully.

I still believe everything is made out of just empty space. However contradictory it is.

New question. Is empty space the same as nothing?

Empty is the same as nothing in most senses but space implies a size, a dimension. Or maybe the question is wrong.

stuff
— god must be atheist

Best answer so far. Painfully. — Razorback kitten

Yep. I'm still smarting.

Stuff.

Now measure out some kg m2 s**−2, and there you have it.

What's any energy, regardless of perspective, made of? — Razorback kitten

I find I can best describe it as the interaction of potentiality.