Just what is matter anyway?
S D Rodrian
"Gary Grella" <All...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Anybody out there who can tell me what matter actually is?
Lucky for you: Yep... Moi!
> Is it
> congealed energy?
It is exactly the complete opposite of that! (No, not
360 degrees, just 180, smarty pants.) Energy is motion
and motion is energy: "That is all ye know of all,
and all ye need to know." --Keats [puns] --SDR
Ironically, though, our human language betrays us
when it comes to understanding the nature of energy
(as opposed to/distinct from "matter")... because
although "energy is motion" it has never been part
of the human experience that there can be any
"motion without Something moving" ... and, of course:
Only "material" things ARE the "things" of "matter"
(i.e. "something").
Nevertheless, matter is as much an evolution of
energy as animals are an evolution of matter. So
we had better start getting used to a totally novel
way of thinking about the nature of energy/matter.
And we can begin by describing the "missing link"
between them: "What is the universe of energy and
what is the universe of matter?" Well, one way to get
to that link between them is by reverse-engineering
matter to energy; so that we understand that matter
(or... "the material particles/subparticles/virtual
particles," et al) are not fundamental "singularities"
(not a one of them); and, instead, are (all) merely
constructs of lesser or greater energy (motions) in
discrete (and distinct from each other) classes of
internal organization (architectures we know as the
different "particles"). And just as the atom proved
to NOT be fundamental after all, but to be only a
convergence (only an outwardly-projected framework)
of its inner architecture: EVERY other prosssed so-
called "singularity" (strings, monopoles, et al) is/are
doomed to be. as was the atom, eventually unmasked .
Now, if we understand that the universe is imploding,
it becomes easier to understand that every form of
matter is "stressed" to its greatest degree (because
it/they are all "moving" at the greatest possible
velocity in the universe--in the direction of shrinking).
And therefore ANY linear acceleration NOT in the
"direction of shrinking" tends to counter that natural
greatest velocity of matter [just like making a turn
counters (stresses) the velocity of a car moving in a
straight line.] The easiest way to speak of this is by
saying that any "bit" of matter that undergoes any
linear (relativistic) acceleration is in (the "absolute")
reality (of the imploding universe) actually decelerating
(or, simply: "moving in the direction of absolute rest").
[The classical example of this is the notorious "twins
paradox" in which the energy/motion of the matter in/of
the linearly-(relativistically)-accelerating twin begins
indeed to "move in the direction of absolute rest;" and
therefore when the twins meet again their "clocks" (or
nuclear/material inner-processes) show that the linearly-
(relativistically)-accelerated twin/clock has "slowed
down" (under the "stress" of going against that "fastest-
possible velocity" in the universe... which is always
only "in the direction of shrinking," of course. -- The
so-called Lorentz transformation is yet another example
of this... as a "charged particle" will indeed "grain" mass
in proportion to its linear acceleration: Again, because
of the "stress" that going against the "normal" velocity of
the universe (in the direction towards shrinking) places
upon it... Or, you can simply use the language that "its
internal motions (energy) slow down (decrease), or "move
in the direction of absolute rest" whenever it undergoes
linear acceleration --a direction which is always one "in
conflict" with/to "the direction of shrinking"-- And this
is most obviously reflected in its "gaining" of mass.]
Therefore that "missing link" is located exactly where/when
the universe of energy gives birth to the universe of matter:
The easiest way to speak of this remains: in terms of the
human language we're so used to: If the universe of matter
consists of this "motion in the direction of shrinking" ...
then its "opposite" (the universe of energy) ought to consist
of "no motion in the direction of shrinking" (which is just
another way of speaking of it as "absolute rest," given that
the aforementioned "motion in the direction of shrinking" is
the absolute (singular) motion of the universe of matter). And
now you begin to approach the semantic distinction between
matter and energy: Consider a (the) universe of energy as a
"figurative singularity of non-motion in the direction of shrinking"
[because it is the only "thing" that exists, of course... even
though ALL motion is relative... the universe ("singularity") of
non-matter (non-gravitational) energy is, by definition, "at" (i.e.
IS) absolute rest (relative to the universe of matter)... which is
all just "human-speak" since we humans have not yet learned
to speak of "motion without some matter moving"]. However,
even if we choose to think of the universe of energy as being
in the grip of an all-repelling force (since the universe of matter
is obviously in the grip of an all-attracting force, "ergo")... the
instant that the laws of thermodynamics manifest any motion
contrary to absolute rest (or, towards shrinking, as evidenced
by the formation of discrete gravitational systems across its
extent), this marks the instant when/where the universe of matter
is born. [And note that this instant is NOT, and never could be,
marked by any Big Bang expansion/explosion of the primordial
"singularity" of energy... but, rather, is an evolution which, from
this "instant" on, forever will proceed mostly from: unimaginably
massive/slower motions to: unimaginably small/faster motions.
[And, as with ALL gravitational systems, we are never talking
about a simple individual vortex; but, as you know, once each
"discrete gravitational system" organizes itself "it" immediately
begins to interact with all other alike gravitational systems
in its vicinity... so that it isn't long before the universe begins to
build more and more complex-ly interacting systems which then
themselves begin to build even higher interactions... which
themselves also build yet even higher and higher interactions...
until we get black holes---Which undoubtedly will themselves
build (will become the constituents of) unimaginably greater so-
called "particles" quite, quite, quite ad infinitum.] So you see: It
would be a mistake to speak of "matter" as "congealed" energy,
when energy is quite literally "nothing but" motion (even when it is
a class/kind of "motions" outside our human understanding).
> If so, what is mass, inertia (both types)?
START QUOTE
"mass" (from the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA)
In physics, quantitative measure of inertia,
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,43331+1+42378,00.html
a fundamental property of all matter. It is,
in effect, the resistance that a body of matter
offers to a change in its speed or
position upon the application of a force.
The greater the mass of a body, the smaller
the change produced by an applied force. Although
mass is defined in terms of inertia,
it is conventionally expressed as weight. By
international agreement the standard unit
of mass, with which the masses of all other
objects are compared, is a platinum-iridium
cylinder of one kilogram. This unit is commonly
called the International Prototype
Kilogram and is kept at the International Bureau
of Weights and Measures in Sèvres,
Fr. In countries that continue to favour the
English system of measurement over the
International System of Units (SI), the
current version of the metric system, the
avoirdupois pound is used instead. Another unit
of mass, one that is widely employed
by engineers, is the slug, which equals 32.17 pounds.
Weight, though related to mass, nonetheless
differs from the latter. Weight essentially
constitutes the force exerted on matter by
the gravitational attraction of the Earth,
and so it varies from place to place. In contrast,
mass remains constant regardless of
its location under ordinary circumstances.
A satellite launched into space, for example,
weighs increasingly less the further it travels
away from the Earth. Its mass, however,
stays the same.
For years it was assumed that the mass of
a body always remained invariable. This
notion, expressed as the theory of conservation
of mass,
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/idxref/0/0,5716,222579,00.html
held that the mass of an
object or collection of objects never changes,
no matter how the constituent parts
rearrange themselves. If a body split into
pieces, it was thought that the mass divided
with the pieces, so that the sum of the masses
of the individual pieces would be equal
to the original mass. Or, if particles were
joined together, it was thought that the mass
of the composite would be equal to the sum
of the masses of the constituent particles.
But this is not true.
With the advent of the special theory of
relativity
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/idxref/0/0,5716,222580,00.html
by Einstein in 1905, the notion of
mass underwent a radical revision. Mass lost
its absoluteness. The mass of an object
was seen to be equivalent to energy, to be
interconvertible with energy, and to
increase significantly at exceedingly high
speeds near that of light (about 3 X 10^8
metres per second, or 186,000 miles per
second). The total energy of an object was
understood to comprise its rest mass as
well as its increase of mass caused by high
speed. The mass of an atomic nucleus was
discovered to be measurably smaller than
the sum of the masses of its constituent
neutrons and protons. Mass was no longer
considered constant, or unchangeable. In
both chemical and nuclear reactions, some
conversion between mass and energy occurs,
so that the products generally have
smaller or greater mass than the reactants.
The difference in mass is so slight for
ordinary chemical reactions that mass
conservation may be invoked as a practical
principle for predicting the mass of products.
Mass conservation is invalid, however, for
the behaviour of masses actively involved in
nuclear reactors, in particle accelerators,
and in the thermonuclear reactions in the Sun
and stars. The new conservation
principle is the conservation of mass-energy.
See also energy, conservation of:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,33198+1+32628,00.html
END QUOTE
> Before
> matter was created, did the four forces exist?
The "four forces" are not distinctly separate creations.
Rather, the "strong force" and "the weak/electromagnetic
force" are merely quantitative expressions of the ONLY
force that exists (Gravity), at quite a different level.
As everybody knows, and Einstein expressed so charmingly:
'It's inconceivable that God would have set any number of
parameters to create the universe.' Or, more to the point:
One cannot imagine that the universe could have evolved
from a complex primordial state--Every lesson of evolution
teaches us that complexity hath simplicity as its mother.
For one thing, ALL the forces with the exception of gravity
require the pre-existence of nuclear "matter" --at the same
time that "matter" itself requires the pre-existence of
gravity. So that the inevitable conclusion is a lot more
inevitable than is usually acknowledged in the physics culture.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> Thanks,
> Gary Grella
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/