Blog
20160203 Matter and motion are abstractions
George Coyne and Glenn Borchardt
In
its entry on “matter” Wikipedia states: “..., matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it
a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance
that makes up all observable physical objects.”
For
well over a century physicists have been searching for this “substance” called
“matter”—the ultimate tiniest particle. But this will never be found because
matter is not composed of particles just as vegetables are not composed of
carrots, potatoes, or spinach etc. It is more accurate to state that the
category called “vegetables” includes those items but the category as an entity
itself has no actual existence. Thus, that category is an abstraction, a mental
construct, whereas only particular members of that category can actually exist.
It is impossible to eat a mental construct, only specific vegetables, such as
cauliflower or carrots, can be eaten.
Seeing
that “vegetables” is simply an abstraction, it would be absurd and foolish to
attempt to discover what this abstraction is composed of. Because matter is
also an abstraction, it is equally ridiculous to seek its “building blocks.” With
this knowledge, it is possible to successfully delve further into understanding
the universe.
Realizing
that only individual things that exist can be subdivided, and knowing that
matter does not exist because it is merely a conceptual category, it is clear
that matter cannot actually be subdivided. Only specific examples of matter can
be subdivided.
What
has actual existence are particular microcosms. One may ask “What are microcosms
composed of?” The only rational answer is that they contain smaller submicrocosms
and that these contain subsubmicrocosms ad
infinitum. Per the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have
characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as
characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things) and its required
infinity, no two of the submicrocosms are identical. So we cannot
say that any particular type of them is the ultimate tiniest submicrocosm
that does not contain an even smaller submicrocosm.
In
addition, there is no ultimate macrocosm than can be labeled “the universe.” Every
macrocosm is a microcosm in a still larger macrocosm ad infinitum. Any conceptualization that we generate for this
infinity will never be complete or truly representative of “infinity” because
all concepts by definition are limited, and what is being referred to in this
article is not limited in any sense.
Comprehending
how the universe functions also requires understanding that every microcosm and
the macrocosm that surrounds it are in continual motion. Without motion, there
would be no microcosm or macrocosm. Motion, too, is an abstraction. There are
only specific motions pertaining to specific microcosms. It is extremely
important to never forget that although these specific motions can be measured,
these motions are not a measurement because they occur independent of measurement.
Because time is motion[1], time
also is an abstraction and may be used as a substitute for motion. No matter
what we call that abstraction, we find that we can only observe and measure
specific examples of it. Furthermore, “motion” or “time” is relative. Universal
time is the motion of all things with respect to all other things in the
infinite universe. Because it is impossible to measure universal time, we must
settle for individual measurements of the motions of specific microcosms. These
all must be done with respect to the motions of still other specific
microcosms. By convention, we compare those specific motions with the motion of
Earth's rotation on its axis or the motion of the microwave signals generated by atomic clocks when electrons in atoms change
energy levels.