Matter Theory: A Revolutionary Theory on the Reality of Matter

In summary, the conversation discusses a theory called Matter Theory, which proposes that the universe is filled with "energyless particles" that vibrate and appear as matter when they receive energy. These particles can transfer their energy through vibration and have different frequencies. The conversation also mentions the possibility of matter-particle theory becoming matter-wave theory and the idea of spacetime being the only true substance. One person claims to have a better understanding of matter and gravity but chooses not to share it, while another expresses interest in learning more about it.

What do you think of this theory?

  • an important theory on matter

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • fascinating

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • nonsense

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • no difference from other boring theory

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Total voters
    12
  • #1
physicskid
75
0
Matter Theory

I hope you can have the patience to read this thread. Thank you!

This theory is a revolutionary theory on the reality of matter which i thought of. In my theory, the entire universe is filled with a sea of 'energyless particles'. I call these particles 'empty spheres'. When these particles receives energy(e.g. from vacuum fluctuation), they would vibrate and to observers, they appear as matter. They are called heavy spheres now when they receives energy. When a particle moves from point A to B, the heavy sphere(s) of the particle transfer their energy from A to B through vibration.

Different particles have different quanta of energy(frequency) in their heavy spheres. These heavy spheres can split their energy into two by splitting into two waves of energy in two directions. The enrgy of the spheres are measured by their frequency of vibration. This explained the particle-wave nature of matter.

The wave of heavy spheres disfracts into the surrounding empty spheres, which is also the characteristic of waves.

In gratitude,
Physicskid
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It would help if you told us what this theory is, or at least give a reference. I don't think it's common knowledge.
 
  • #3
Seems reminiscent of Dirac's original conception of antimatter. He envisioned a sea of particles with negative energy, which can be promoted to a higher energy level of existence, creating a particle - the new energised particle and a "hole" which would be the antimatter. Annihilation thus occurs when a particle falls into this "hole".

The trouble is that conventional analogies don't translate very well to the quantum scale. Quantum concepts of spin, for example, are nothing like conventional spin of particles. I am unsure whether this theory preserves the theorem of superposition...
 
  • #4
I think you should look more into classical aether theory, or jellotivity.


What you have defined is the ultimate attempt of matter-particle theory to become matter-wave theory.

Scientists today are deluded because they chose not to heed their ancestors of only a century prior, but thankfully, many scientists are discovering that the theory post Einstien works less and less, and evnetually, (hopefully) it will be thrown out entirely.

The math may have worked in the 1920s, but i haven't heard anyone explain it to me lately in a way that logically made sense, with the evidence I've seen.

Is the universe a sea ? in some respects it is.
Does it loop back over itself ? I have no idea, that kind of thinking takes us into a zone of science fiction and speculation, which honestly, we don't have enough grounding into deal with just yet (even my own crackpot theory of Quantum Vortex Fractals, though having perfect symmetry, felt "wrong" even to me- another example that math isn't always the substance we should look to for the perfection of a theory)

If we stop thinking of matter as "dense" and think of it as "less dense", if we think along the lines of comic book phase theory (highly vibrating objects can pass through each other as if intangible), then the unsubstantiability of matter becomes evident, relative to spacetime- the only true substance.

If we stop thinking of spacetime as "negative matter", "zero point energy" , or "cosmic background noise", but instead, the only true substance, then everything works out fine, including the math.

In an attempt NOT to hijack this thread, I will conclude by saying " your theory makes only a little bit of sense to an Aether-Wave Theorist, which means it probably makes NO sense to a particle Theorist "
 
  • #5
Truth cannot be explained it will be an experience to anyone who truly questions it. I could show you logic proof of what matter is and gravity this I figured out in 1991 becuase "I needed to know" hint I do not place things in quotes often. If I showed you it's simplist cause you would believe but would it be a direct understanding to you. You would stop short. I gaurantee it. You would never push youself to that point. Some of you would create better tech with it. This is what is destroying the planet, human kind allways works with what it does not understand and is irresposible. The understanding itself is all you need. If you "think" you understand you do not. I am actying like a jerk, I am trying to get points accoss with quotes.
 
  • #6
Enlighten us, oh Jedi Master.
 
  • #7
It is not within the power of any human being or any being to be able to do such a thing. You may sometime interact in a way which yeilds an answer, but the work to get there is all on their own.
 
  • #8
physicskid, is this your a summary of your own model or something? Well anyhow, I don't really see where there's a gain in benefit from using this model over using one of the more popular ones. I there are any, you might want to state them. I think it would perhaps accredit a bit more justification for learning it.

So TENYEARS, you say you could show us with "logic proof" what "matter" and "gravity" are. This find intriguing, because I to believe I may have a better understanding of such things, in that I may understand the underlying principle for the existence and behaviour of matter. I started to explain it a while ago, near the end of last year. I have since withdrawn from that attempt, and determined it would be best that I did not share the knowledge of my theorm with those who I felt would not appreciate it, or respect the governing knowledge of it finer details. However I'm still skeptical concerning the truth of my model. Although there would appear to be no holes in logic, I think it only wise not to sign ones own certificate. After all, I may be generally acquainted with some of the failures of others, but it is the multitudes of my own fallacies and errs, which I know in intimacy.

If your interested, I would like to exchange information. We can sort out the how's by private messagging, you know, as not to hijack the thread.
 
  • #9
is there a place where crackpots convene ? like a club-crackpot or something ? If so I would like to join.

I may have gotten 100% Credits/Straight A's in my physics Course on Relativity, but that was 10 years ago. Today, I think its all bunk, even though the previous ten years filled me with more questions than answers, living in a limited universe consisting of a limited light speed.

I used to think a lot of things.


My thoughts on Paradigm shifts (boy was I wrong)

I used to think that everything was matter, and had mass.
I believed that spirits were also matter and had mass.
I believed that the speed of light was constant, and moving near the speed of light, or faster would distort, if not reverse time.
I used to think that photons had mass, and matter could be converted to energy
I used to believe that vacuum really was vacuum, and that anything out there away from the radiation of a nearby sun would be reduced to absolute zero temperature.
I used ot believe Einstien was a Genius, and Tesla was just a Fantasy, a Mad Scientist
I used to believe that lasers cut by pressure of concentrated photons, and you could create an infinitely accurate beam by creating a spinning liquid mercury mirror.
I used to believe that light had so little mass, that crystal reflection laser thrusting would be impractical, as it would be unable to accclerate the craft to fast speeds
I used to use the idea of Solar Sails to back up my “photons have mass” theory.
E=mc^2 used to mean something cosmic.
15 billion lightyears used to be the cosmic radius
15 billion years (later 13.7) was the standard age of the universe
Carbon dating was once accurate
Our planet was over 4 billion years old
Black holes sucked things in with infinite power growing forever until the universe ended
Only stars of 5 solar masses or greater could turn into black holes
I used to believe that you could not create something from nothing
I used to believe there was no possible sound in space
I used to believe that you could not completely annihilate anything, as the object at best would convert to energy and flash out of existence with light.
I used to believe that antimatter wasn’t really anti, only posive/negative charged, and the two together would only create an energy explosion
I believed that these energy particles would eventually come together because of gravity, form masses, and eventually create chain reactions which destroy themselves again through chain reactions such as solar life cycles.


How many of these things did YOU once believe ? how many of them do you still believe ?
 
  • #10
What exactly is the point of post? No, seriously, I don't think I got it.

I still believe Einstien was a Genius. I just see where he threw a pacth on physics. Just enough to get by until he or some one else came up with a complete TOE or atleast a working model that could accurately explain the various behaviors of quantum particles, if not giving a hypothesis for there existence. After all, if I'm correct I believe Eistien said not to use E=mc^2. An as for the speed limit it seems like that might have just been thrown into appease any possibly pestering critics. Maybe I'm giving him to much credit, but then again I'm familiar with the possible effects having to conform to some one of lesser competence can have on the way you present your theory, even to the point of excluding details and/or alterring or replacing them all together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
I'm sure you can start a crackpot group on MSN. That way, you and other cranks can talk about perpetual motion machines all day long and not accomplish a single thing for science in peace.
 
  • #12
I do not think I understand what gravity is, I know it. There is a difference. If I tell it on this forum what would the point be? If I e-mailed you would know and what would the point be? I have had a vision last summer concerning an event which will come to pass. I just do not know when, but I do know a precursor to the event in my personal life in which this vision will happen. This event in my interpretation will be the proving ground for that which is not understood or acknowleged.

I believe nothing that I have not questioned into existence wheather or not 5 billion believe it or not.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by shintashi
is there a place where crackpots convene ? like a club-crackpot or something ? If so I would like to join.

I may have gotten 100% Credits/Straight A's in my physics Course on Relativity, but that was 10 years ago. Today, I think its all bunk, even though the previous ten years filled me with more questions than answers, living in a limited universe consisting of a limited light speed.
Except that half the things you stated are in fact rooted in Quantum mechanics, which Einstien did initiate, but is not covered by the relativity course.

And notice that skepticism alone is absolutely useless scientifically - and that science never has anything to do with belief as you label it. So, one might ask, why did you believe all these things. Why do you now believe them to be wrong? The word is not believe, but understand, or conclude, or warily assume until shown otherwise. If you learned them all by rote as a matter of belief, you never understood or had answers in the first place. And may never will.
 
  • #14
And notice that skepticism alone is absolutely useless scientifically - and that science never has anything to do with belief as you label it. So, one might ask, why did you believe all these things. Why do you now believe them to be wrong? The word is not believe, but understand, or conclude, or warily assume until shown otherwise.
Semantics...
 
  • #15
FZ... obviously i listed so many things that it would take years to disect them all, especially with only one paragraph transferring back and forth a week.

Concerning belief.

It used to be a scientific fact that the world was flat. It used to be a scientific fact that the speed fo sound could not be exceeded. It used to be fact that lightspeed was constant in vacuum.

If we, in our process of learning, should draw conclusions based upon observations (emprical science), then we can conclude many false things to be fact (a greater sin), and many temporary or situational things to be universal (a lesser sin)
For instance, the idea that magnetic north will always be so. THis is not true, but much of our world for centuries was based upon this "fact". The concept of "lightspeed is constant throughout the space of the universe" was once thought to be fact but as i have posted many websites pointing to the counter, in the research field, including NASA as well as Australian observatories, allow me to say that:

Simple statements assumed to be fact, when inserted into the equations of logic, can create a cascade, nay, an exponential spiral of falsifications, growing ever more erroneous, when you deviate from the medium (middle ground) or situations in which that first "fact" was laid to ground.

Concerning the mathematics ? the proof ? proof is irrevelant. If I see a shiny metal object in the sky, and you see it too, is it a mass hallucination ? a weather balloon ? a magnetic ripple like Aurora Borealis ? Or perhaps an alien ? a military spacecraft ? a piece of glitter ? When a few scientists get together, and make these observations, they do NOT always agree, but they usually do agree with the idea of "majority rules", even though their "evidence" and proof is purely empirical.

So, I will say, I am currently scrapping all the old stuff, I'm even rethinking my way of looking at mathematics. Things will fall in place- that's one of the jobs of the subconscious. Toying with Quantum Arithmatic, Phi, Fibbonacci, wave harmonics, Tesla, Walter Russell, and a serious look at creation myths from Australia to India, I think I'm beginning to get a big picture.

I wouldn't recommend a normal scientist follow these trails, its an awful lot of work, and pays terribly, but I always seem to come away with more answers than questions, and the biggest questions I usually have are " so.. what should the next question be ?"
 

1. What is Matter Theory?

Matter Theory is a revolutionary theory that challenges traditional understandings of matter and its role in the universe. It proposes that matter is not a fundamental building block of the universe, but rather a manifestation of energy and information.

2. How is Matter Theory different from other theories of matter?

Matter Theory differs from other theories in that it does not view matter as something that exists independently of other forces, but rather as a dynamic and ever-changing part of the universe. It also takes into account the role of consciousness in the creation and understanding of matter.

3. What evidence supports Matter Theory?

While Matter Theory is still a relatively new theory, there is growing evidence that supports its ideas. For example, experiments in quantum physics have shown that matter can behave in unpredictable ways, challenging traditional notions of its stability and solidity.

4. How does Matter Theory explain the existence of matter?

Matter Theory proposes that matter is a result of energy and information interacting with each other. It suggests that at the most fundamental level, the universe is made up of vibrations and patterns of energy, and matter is simply a manifestation of these vibrations.

5. What are the potential implications of Matter Theory?

Matter Theory has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe and our place within it. It could lead to new technologies and advancements in fields such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence. It also has implications for philosophy and our understanding of consciousness and reality.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
878
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
368
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
0
Views
674
Replies
4
Views
557
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
6K
Back
Top