Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
ai_guardian

Fundamental components of the universe

35 posts in this topic

Perhaps this has been asked before but I'd like to get some fresh ideas/insight if I may.

The question is simple and I believe so is the answer but no one is infallable so I'd like your views on this matter and I don't want answers like eg. my mother, or conceptual or non-physical like love, life, GOD etc. - think of the most fundamental parts of the universe

Dig deep people - what do you believe to be the fundamental building blocks of the universe - what is the universe made of on the ultimate fundamental level. What cannot be broken down further or is not derrived from anything else.

To give some clues, I can currently think of ONLY 3 but two of those may very well be the one and the same (or in a way related) and once you hit on them I will elaborate.

The goal of this excercise is to uncover the truly fundamental. This may well turn into the shortest thread or the longest.

I don't have much time to respond but I'll try as hard as I might to uncover flaws in your thinking or to concur with your viewpoints. I'm just trying to cover all bases and make sure that I haven't missed anything before I start GIVING things away in my other thread 'Are we missing something really fundamental?' just popped off the first page - but not for long :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked they were quarks and leptons. And they all have their own categories.

edit:Yep, I read this wrong. I'll give my answer in a min.

Edited by Yelekiah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GRAVITY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you need to have mass to have gravity. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. :P

But you have neutrinos, some of which have no mass. And they are pretty fundamental in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably Superstrings, if that particular Unified Theory of Physics works out the bugs, and they find a way to test it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that lightwaves would be the most fundamental component.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably Superstrings, if that particular Unified Theory of Physics works out the bugs, and they find a way to test it.

If they're real that is.

I would say that lightwaves would be the most fundamental component.

Photons, I believe they're called.

I'd have to say Energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you.

Edited by Yelekiah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, you're all pretty much right (that shouldn't be a surprise though) but now we'll have to choose one or the other. See below what I mean...

Last time I checked they were quarks and leptons.
...mass

GRAVITY!
...from relativity this is believed to be caused by mass as Yelekiah pointed out BUT there are other parts to gravity that may be counted as fundamental...I will elaborate but not in this particular post, sry

But you have neutrinos, some of which have no mass. And they are pretty fundamental in my book.
Last time I checked (some 2 mins. ago) all neutrinos have a mass albeit small but my material may be outdated and you may have some more info on this. I am very interested to know if there is any neutrinos w/out mass but if there isn't then the references to neutrinos is once again 'mass'.

Probably Superstrings, if that particular Unified Theory of Physics works out the bugs, and they find a way to test it.
IF this theory proves out to be true (which I'd doubt) then the superstrings would be what? Energy + n-dimensionality (where n is, well, depends on which string theory you're looking at)

I would say that lightwaves would be the most fundamental component.
Aha. Energy?

With regards to the responses so far we really have MASS, ENERGY and something other than mass that makes gravity work.

We all know that mass and energy are related, well, they're pretty much the same thing as per Einstein's famous formula. So which of these is more fundamental? Is it mass or energy?

I believe it is energy. So, would anyone object if we just say that ENERGY is definitely ONE of the fundamental components of the U and that mass is a derrivative of energy? If you object or you have a different view please share. I want to know what you think.

Don't forget, there's more! Energy on its own will not yield a universe or will it?

Sorry T-Nemesis, you've obviously got it! Didn't see your reply as I was in the middle of writing this one. Cheers :tu:

Edited by ai_guardian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget, there's more! Energy on its own will not yield a universe or will it?

Yes it can. Energy can become matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked (some 2 mins. ago) all neutrinos have a mass albeit small but my material may be outdated and you may have some more info on this.

No, some are massless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, energy can become matter but there's obviously more to the universe. I believe it is not just energy and energy in the form of mass. And now I suppose it comes to the crunch whether you believe the dimensions (space-time) are part of the universe or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now I suppose it comes to the crunch whether you believe the dimensions (space-time) are part of the universe or not.

Which specific dimensions? Do you mean in terms of perception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, some are massless.

Its mass is very small compared to most other particles, although recent experiments (see Super-Kamiokande and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory) have shown it to be nonzero.
Perhaps I've missed something?? but can you please show me where it says they're massless? I may have gone temporarily blind. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy is more fundamental. Look at the equation. Massive amounts of energy turn into matter. And think about it...the planets (matter) were not always here, but supposedly energy was.

edit:go into find and type in massless, it's also on google.

Edited by Yelekiah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Energy is more fundamental. Look at the equation. Massive amounts of energy turn into matter. And think about it...the planets (matter) were not always here, but supposedly energy was.

edit:go into find and type in massless, it's also on google.

I know that Yelekiah :) , I am just making sure and giving everyone an opportunity to show the/other reasoning (that we can then put back on track). But seriously, thank you for writing that - we need that (I just did not want to do it myself).

As for the massless neutrinos, your reference implies that they cannot be massless, but it seems that the 'mass' of neutrinos is debatable, whether it is or not (massless) it is still energy :) So we'll just keep it at that, agreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, they're still researching dark matter and the site says that there are massless neutrinos around, etc. I think they're both.

We'll just let people give their reasoning about energy and the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you need to have mass to have gravity. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. :P

But you have neutrinos, some of which have no mass. And they are pretty fundamental in my book.

No, you need matter in order to have gravity. And massive amounts of energy have never been observed to change into matter. The only ovservable change is at a very small scale.

Space and time is my answer to whatever is meant by fundamental. The ability to measure is the greatest thing we can do. And from there is to interpret and lastly apply what we have come to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which specific dimensions? Do you mean in terms of perception?
...well, the ones we can perceive ourselves existing in.

And now I'll expand on the gravity mentioned earlier. We know from relativity that gravity is caused by space-time curvature due to mass(??) (q marks because we have just come to the conclusion that energy is more fundamental than mass - so could we say that the curvature MAY be caused by energy?)

We know that dimensionality is necessary for physical matter to exist, right? I don't know how to describe this properly but to me (the way I see it) dimensionality can be described sufficiently I believe in terms of only 2 things - distance & time. Your thoughts on this please....thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you need matter in order to have gravity. And massive amounts of energy have never been observed to change into matter. The only ovservable change is at a very small scale.

I meant to say matter. But technically matter is anything that has mass and occupies space.

True it hasn't been observed, but if you think about the Big Bang, massive amounts of energy had to change into matter. All the planets, etc. weren't here from the very beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And massive amounts of energy have never been observed to change into matter.
...I don't know, I may be off track here (there may not be anything to support this claim) but is there massive amounts of energy in the sun undergoing all sorts of fission/fusion - essentially creating matter? maybe not but I'd imagine that matter would be getting created/destroyed (not energy - energy is only converted) during many of the reactions in/at/on the sun.

One other thing (I've read some time ago) is that very strong and focused laser beams can create matter just out of the laser beams. hmmm, I'll have to look that up...but it's like there's a threshold of energy density in a point in space that once reached can give rise to matter (obviously converting the energy in the beams).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing Frosty,

Space and time is my answer to whatever is meant by fundamental.
...yep, I agree but do you believe that energy is still one of the fundamental components or is it somehow derrived from space & time?

And space is? in the most simplistic form, I believe, only DISTANCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mysterious graviton is what I ment when I said gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the initial wave function be considered if it existed only in probabilty? Without frame of reference it would be considered null. Kind of like the old if a tree falls in the forrest and noone sees it did it really fall? I believe that consciousness is the fundamental building block of the Universe. I believe that just as atoms communicate accross vast distances our consciousness leads back to our point of origin. I believe the observable Universe is virtual by nature, created by our thoughts and existing only because of us. I think it is possible that we are here as part of a great experiment in time and dimension. This may sound a bit radical or new age but I have given this much thought over the years. When you ask yourself why are we here? To accept an answer like it is a grand accident suggests an empty spirituality, to me at least. I dont want to force my views on others but I enjoy very much discussing who we are, why we are here and what our place in the Universe is. I believe the way back to origin is coded in our DNA. It is the Holy Grail that religion speaks of, only its not a cup its a mathematical sequence that permiates everything we can observe. Some call it the Golden mean or Sacred Geometry but I think its deeper than the Fabonacci sequence or Pi. I will never stop seeking the answer to these questions. But to close as pertains to this thread again I think consciousness is the fundamental building block of our Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ValpoSeeker, I think along similar lines although I would not go as far as taking our universe as being merely a product of our consciousness, however I do feel that there is a link between QM and consciousness. And no this is not because of interference patterns in the double slit experiments that 'mysteriously' disappear when the which-path is determined - this has been shown NOT to be caused by consciousness.

DNA is a little like the holy grail (to me) in that if we were to unravel how it formed originally I guess, we may have an idea of the primordial consciousness that has driven the development of more complex life.

The primary reason why I have started this thread is that I believe (I've had some insight :unsure: ) the universe can be broken down to ultimate fundamental simplicity from which all else has spawned and now even on particle level (because we can never truly isolate a particle from its surroundings) exhibits great complexity. But there's true elegance to the universe and it lies in its ultimate simplicity.

I like this that you have in your sig "If you ever figure out the secret of the Universe dont tell anyone or its all over." I've often thought that if I were to find the answer to the universe ie. what, how, when etc. that in a flash all would be over - afterall what else is there to live for if you have all the answers that matter outside of human-made concepts? But that is not so :D because one question that cannot be truly answered from within the universe is - WHY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.