Hypothesis On Matter

[matterdoc]

A logical unified physical theory essentially requires that all physical phenomena obey same physical laws under all conditions. It will not have imaginary particles, mysterious properties of illogical actions. All actions will have definite reasons and mechanism. All causes will be followed by effects. Actions at a distance through empty space, singularities or effects without causes will not be tolerated. No real objects with zero volume can exist.

 

All physical laws, in a unified theory, will be derived from properties and actions of basic postulated particle. A theory based on more than one type of basic particles will not be very logical and it is bound to have circular logic. It will be difficult to explain more than one basic particle, because in a unified physical theory, each particle has to be made up of predecessor particles. This logic, ultimately will lead to a single type of basic particle. Number of postulated particles in a unified physical theory should be minimum, preferably only one.

 

I beg to submit an alternative unified theory for discussion and critical scrutiny by learned members. Mathematics may be a good tool for development of physical theories, but it should not dictate logical reasoning. Therefore, my aim is to establish a logical concept that suits a unified theory, before delving deeply into mathematical treatments and derivations.

 

This concept is based on only one type of postulated matter particles – the quantum of matter. Structure and properties of quanta of matter are so chosen that they are able to account for all physical phenomena in nature, including development and actions of an all-encompassing universal medium. No other (imaginary or postulated) particles, mysterious properties or assumed actions are used in the concept. Every action follows appropriate cause and all effects are preceded by appropriate causes. All superior matter bodies are formed from quanta of matter under definite mechanism. A structured universal medium, formed by quanta of matter, fill the entire space (outside 3D matter particles) to substitute for the present form-less space. Universal medium is in direct contact with all 3D matter particles and control their (apparent) interactions and actions. Matter is incapable of any action on its own. It can provide a platform for actions. The universal medium controls all phases of matter and actions in nature. Universal medium creates, sustains and destroys 3D matter bodies in all varieties (under appropriate conditions), to preserve the universe in a steady state for eternity. There are no actions at a distance through empty space, singularities, big crunch or big bang in this concept.

 

I am keen to discus development and merit of the concept. Topics covered in the book 'Hypothesis on MATTER' are great many and it will not be possible to discuss all of them here. However, if (at least) few learned members are willing, we may discuss as many topics are possible. In order to understand the chain of reasoning, it is essential to follow the concept in a sequential manner, starting from the very basics.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Entities:

All living beings perceive their surroundings or parts of their own body by identifying them. Perception is accomplished by analyzing information gained through sensory organs and comparing them with images stored in mind. Perceived entity has a distinct but separate existence from the perceiver (his mind). Perceived entity may be real or imaginary. Real entities have physical existence, while imaginary entities exist only in the mind.

Mind, itself a functional entity, is a combined action caused by changes in numerous living cells of a rational being. It has no independent existence from the subscribing cells. Mind identifies all entities by similar process of imagination and comparison. However, perception of real entities is aided by sensory perception. Perceiver (rational being) may identify and name an entity. A name is a word (or group of words) referring to an individual entity, which singles out an entity by directly pointing to it. Named entity may be real or imaginary.

An entity that is sensed by sensory organs or tangible by spatial standards and is relatively stable in its form is a real object or real body. A real entity is a thing with distinct existence that can be sensed by rational beings. It has existence in itself. To exist is to have a place in objective reality. A place that contains a real entity is usually understood as space. Although, space is a functional entity and very vague, such a place of existence is always presupposed by rational beings, whenever a real entity is envisaged. No reasons or logical considerations are used for this presupposition, other than the empirical evidence that two bodies cannot exist in same place simultaneously. Space acts as a container, without form or structure to contain all real objects.

All physical entities are real. In physics, they are generally referred as bodies or objects. They are assumed to have inherent (apparent) properties of gravitation and inertia. By gravitation, they (apparently) attract each other. By inertia, each real body (apparently) tends to maintain its state of motion or rest. Real bodies have substance and they occupy space. Since they have structure, they can be displaced in space; causing their motion or deformation. Hence, the physical actions of motion or deformation are real and can happen only to real entities.

An imaginary entity is functional in its character. It is developed or created from mind’s own faculty, without any need to sensory information. Sensory information may some times help to create, develop, change or enhance imaginary entities (e.g.: virtual images). Imaginary entity has no substance or real existence in space. Many functional entities may exist simultaneously, in association with a real entity. A functional entity fulfills functions assigned to it by rational beings. Since it has no substance, it has no form or structure. It can neither initiate nor undergo physical actions. It cannot deform or move.

[Rade]

Entities:

 

All living beings perceive their surroundings or parts of their own body by identifying them.

For me, perception is the process of uniting individual energy sensations from entity to conscious observer so as to produce a {set of sensations} that are stored as memory. Thus, the process of perception stops at this state of consciousness--at the stage where unique {set of sensations} are stored in memory for each "entity" perceived. In terms of organic evolution, many forms of life have not evolved the mental capacity to move past perception--to come to grasp that some entity exists as a {set of sensations}, but this is fine because it is all they need to survive and reproduce over evolutionary time. They have no need for additional knowledge of the entity other than "it exists"--it has an identity.

 

So, if what I claim is true....then I cannot agree with your next statement:

 

Perception is accomplished by analyzing information gained through sensory organs and comparing them with images stored in mind.

For me, what you have here is the step after perception, the step of using information gained via perception (the sets of sensations} to differentiate (=compare) other such sets of images. For me what you describe is the first step of conception--and well past the mental complexity of perception.

 

I hope you do not find my comments to be nit-picking--I just do not agree with your definition of "perception". I discussed this in another thread 'Is Reality an Unknown Thing". It has to do with my rejection of the philosophic representational model of Descartes on the role of perception and consciousness.

 

==

 

I'll not comment further on your "Entity" essay until I hear from you on the above. It is likely I will have a great interest in your thread. But, if we cannot agree on definitions, our dialog will end quickly. Cordially.......

[matterdoc]

Dear Rade,

Thank you very much for your comments.

Points, raised in your comments and in posts in the thread ‘Is reality an unknown thing’, are concerned more with philosophical discussion. You are right.

However, I intend to propose a unified physical theory. I am trying to discuss ‘terms’ in general, to suit presentation of a physical theory, rather than their accurate definitions. My aim is to show that by postulating only one type of ‘basic matter particle’, a unified physical theory can be formulated to logically explain all physical phenomena.

[Boerseun]

A logical unified physical theory essentially requires that all physical phenomena obey same physical laws under all conditions. It will not have imaginary particles' date=' mysterious properties of illogical actions. All actions will have definite reasons and mechanism. All causes will be followed by effects. Actions at a distance through empty space, singularities or effects without causes will not be tolerated. No real objects with zero volume can exist.[/quote']

Not necessarily. When looking at the radioactive decay of matter, you can never tell which particle will decay at any given time. Yet, you will know with 100% certainty that at the time when the lump of matter reached its half-life, exactly 50% of the particles in the mass have decayed. So I would venture to say that any final unified theory would probably include a smattering of statistics as well, which will allow for all the illogical oddities you describe above.

I think in order to cater for all the quantum-physics spookery we've seen so far, a unified theory will not be in the line of 1+1=2. It will be more to the tune of (the average of 1)+(the average of 1)=(an average of 2). I apologize for the crude analogy, but it illustrates the point.

[HydrogenBond]

One observation about matter that always struck me is that matter has two extremes, when it comes to longevity. On the one hand, we have electrons and protons, which can last billions of years and have been around since early in the universe. Then we have the substructure of matter, such as quarks, which lasts only a tiny fraction of a second. In the middle, toward the upper end, we have combinations of the long lasting electrons and protons, forming atoms. Closer to the lower end, we have chemical states which tend to degrade, with chemical states like free radicals, being even closer to the bottom end of longevity.

 

The question that came to me is how could one explain the paradox of the two bookends of longevity, with one theory. One explanation had to do with time dilation. If the brief time states of the lower end substructure were time dilated, they could last longer. But based on the observed mass of say a proton, the fundamental state of mass would need to be almost nothing, so the final mass is finite like that of the long lived-proton. If we extrapolate this relativity to distance, it would appear contracted into a tiny observational size, yet its effect in distance would extend way beyond its apparent size.

 

What also seemed to suggest this explanation was the conversion of matter to energy and vice versa. Since light/energy is at C, if mass was at C-, it would not only have all the effects listed, but it would be a nudge between the two states.