What is "matter" in the quantum age?

@prothero,

prothero;121702 wrote:

I suppose I have a different take. We believe "know" matter is mostly empty space and discontinous despite its "solid" "impenetrable" continuous appearance "reality or perception" to us. So we "believe" what we cannot directly perceive. It is mind "knowing or belief" over matter "perception or direct experience". Also, it is only the first of many things which mind tells us are "true" despite our direct sensory appearance or perception telling us something different.
Space is fixed and rigid, it is not.
Matter is inert, insensate, and indivisible point particle, it is not.
Time is fixed, it is not.
Mass is fixed it is not.
Time and space are independent of gravity, they are not.
There may be many things which are "true" which neither our senses nor our instruments can reveal to us. Perhaps some "true" things are only revealed to reason and the mind. There goes my romantic idealism and rationalism again.

honestly I'm right there with you man. The real question is: can we ever overcome "matter" with mind?

@jeeprs,

[QUOTE=jeeprs;121467]I was with you up until the last paragraph. I think what we are all contemplating here is one or another form of the Integral or Perennial Philosophy. (Well I am anyway, which is what I usually do.) Within this context, the 'code of life' discovery is an important facet - but I don't think it provides the imagery or the lexicon to address the whole scope of the subject at hand.[/QUOTE]

Heh... it's just another angle friend. Support from the information sciences, allowing the dialectic materialist a back door entry into the Immaterial realm sans the perceived dogma of admitting spiritualism.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;121467]One issue: this idea of 'immaterial realm of thought' - I would challenge that, on the basis that thought itself is material (as all the neural scientists say).[/QUOTE]

The very same neural scientists that cannot separate mind from brain, instead insisting they are one. The medium is never the message, unless Information is God.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;121467]It is understandable to say this, as the Western tradition has usually equated thought with the immaterial. However I believe conscious thought, the act of thinking, is definitely correlated with, if not reducible to, neural activity.[/QUOTE]

Then you disagree with Weiner. If thought is Information, and neural activity is energy/matter, then how does he claim:

"Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present".
Cybernetics, p147

[QUOTE=jeeprs;121467]But when you start to consider the meaning of thought itself, or the totality of an act of conscious awareness, then already you are seeking a different level of explanation.[/QUOTE]

Thought is Meaning. They are one in the same, right alongside Intentions.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;121467]To do that is to be 'choicelessly aware of every movement of thought' as Krishnamurti used to say.[/QUOTE]

Jiddu or U.G. ? I'm still kind of new to both of them

[QUOTE=jeeprs;121467] Or you could say[/QUOTE]

jeeprs;121467 wrote:

If thought is a cognitive act, then being aware of the nature of thought is a meta-cognitive act.

That sounds more like Jiddu. Yes?

[QUOTE=jeeprs;121467] Now perhaps this has only really been grasped by Wittgenstein in recent Western philosophy, with his analysis of the uses and limitations of language. However it is stock-in-trade for many schools of Indian philosophy because they have the perspective provided by 'samadhi' which is not explicitly part of Western philosophy at all (except for within the contemplative orders). But by its nature, this perspective is 'beyond thought', or 'trans-rational'. So it is in the context of 'the higher awareness' - not your plain old garden varieties of thinking - that consciousness can be identified with the immaterial.[/QUOTE]

Not identified with the immaterial? Do you speak of Hindu or Buddhist Samadhi? Either way, isn't Samadhi the highest level of meditation designed to promote oneness with the essence of object observed... back to non-dualism (as it was before the Biblical fall)?

What you suggest is that no mere language can account for this ultimate union of essence. That which can be experienced but cannot be described with thought or language. That is the QuinticNon my friend... The unknowable fifth unknown. I attempted to relate my first encounter with the QuinticNon a few years ago, attempting to describe it as beyond language and more inclined to being an "Infusion of Essence". As if a new instinct had arisen out of nowhere. An instance of "now here" becoming "nowhere".

Time stopped. Space wasn't. Body vanished.

What mere brain could endure this spectacle?

[QUOTE=jeeprs;121467] I suppose I am getting at the idea that just has reality has levels, so to does cognition.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Our local Washington University has an extensive Cognitive Studies department. Beyond the nominal tests for motor skills and sensory equipment, they have no less than 70 different language tests which are paramount for determining "different levels" of consciousness.

This carries many implications for the human and animal worlds. Consider a baby less conscious than an adult specifically for the reason of their lacking language skills.

Consider a Bee conscious only to the degree its Figure 8 Waggle Dance can encode for distance, direction, wind current, and even provide suggestions for an optimal route. To become more conscious (a higher level), the Bee must be capable of expressing a new concept with a new word. If the Bee's dance ever changes, and begins to relate a new abstract, perhaps taste, then the Bee has become more conscious of the reality surrounding him.

Interesting to note that Bee encodes for distance and direction. This suggests math skills.

Apparently Whale Song is an extensive language used for everything from mating calls to hunting tactics. This language allows the Whale to be more consciously aware of reality than the Bee.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;121467]The structure of consciousness, language, and therefore thinking itself, somehow reflects, or some would say is the nature of reality itself. (Which seems to be what Bhartihari is saying, ...[/QUOTE]

Yes. But you must categorize them properly. Language is the only thing physical. Consciousness and Thinking are not physical things. They are intrinsically related, but they are not the same. Language is the physical tool to measure conscious awareness with because as a tool, it is the very mechanism for authoring Thought.

Now if you insist upon claiming thought is from Brain, instead of Mind, then you are claiming that Energy/Matter alone can author Information. This negates the sentient authorship requirement that you know I'm so terribly fond of.

As well, this physical brain you speak of. Is it not itself nothing more than an assemblage of "quanta"? Is it not itself under question of actually existing beyond the notion of "discontinuous units"? Where exactly is this physical brain you speak of and how is it different from anything else in the physical (material) realm?

@jeeprs,

It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact. ... That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at-a-distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

So far I have explained the phenomena by the force of gravity, but I have not yet ascertained the cause of gravity itself. ... and I do not arbitrarily invent hypotheses. (Newton. Letter to Richard Bentley 25 Feb. 1693)

In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material point, or particle.

Thus matter is considered a priori to be discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of material points on one another as action-at-a-distance. Since the latter concept seems quite contrary to everyday experience, it is only natural that the contemporaries of Newton - and indeed Newton himself - found it difficult to accept. Owing to the almost miraculous success of the Newtonian system, however, the succeeding generations of physicists became used to the idea of action-at-a-distance. Any doubt was buried for a long time to come. (Albert Einstein, 1950)

@prothero,

It was J. Krishnamurti.

It has begun, and nothing in the world can stop it now.
Here is a song about exactly this.

Be sure to take in the lyric.

nothing you can do about it

@prothero,

Maybe matter is the condensed thoughts of God, we can easily extract enormous amounts of energy of of a little matter but the revere is extremely difficult. The large Hadron Collider will attempt to convert energy into fundament matter

@prothero,

incidentally apologies if my enthusiasms have derailed the thread here, I realise there is a serious discussion going on and I shall keep out of it henceforth unless I have something directly relevant to the OP.

@prothero,

QuinticNon;121616 wrote:

Bingo! Therein lies the rub. To see without belief is the deception. "Belief" is a property of mind. If we can see that matter is discontinuous, but nonetheless insist upon believing it is impenetrable, then have we not in some fashion deceived ourselves into claiming "matter over mind"?

I do not think any one here or in the scientific realm has claimed matter to be discontinous. But, prothero do seems to say the discontinous property of quantum materials. The electron if defined by particle theory appears deterministic, and therefore measurable, while if defined by wave function theory it is not perceivable/observable or measurable due to 'some kind of "superpositions' it takes.

But since 'truth should lie normally between the objective experience and subjective interpretation, only further research into the duality of matter will resolve the crisis in physics.

prothero;121702 wrote:

I suppose I have a different take. We believe "know" matter is mostly empty space and discontinous despite its "solid" "impenetrable" continuous appearance "reality or perception" to us. So we "believe" what we cannot directly perceive. It is mind "knowing or belief" over matter "perception or direct experience". Also, it is only the first of many things which mind tells us are "true" despite our direct sensory appearance or perception telling us something different.
Space is fixed and rigid, it is not.
Matter is inert, insensate, and indivisible point particle, it is not.
Time is fixed, it is not.
Mass is fixed it is not.
Time and space are independent of gravity, they are not.
There may be many things which are "true" which neither our senses nor our instruments can reveal to us. Perhaps some "true" things are only revealed to reason and the mind. There goes my romantic idealism and rationalism again.

While i am not sure whether i should agree with your observations or not, one reason being that those statements are very definitive in purpose, and i also would like to believe in them, but i would rather be skeptical of such assertions and reserve judgement.

For example, the statement - Time and space are independent of gravity, they are not - This could have three possible meanings.
1) Time and space are dependent on gravity, the obvious derivation.
2) Time and space are dependent on something else other than gravity. - the corollary.
3) Time and space are dependent on gravity and other forces.

While time is relativistic - einsteinian gravitational differentials, and very much dependent on anthropic faculties, there is a consensus that there cannot be an absolute time. However, what about space. Why should space be dependent on gravity or any other forces. For me space is the playground, the games matter plays over it is different at different times. Gravity is almost related to matter. Both gravity and matter 'should' exist in space.
This i suppose is the traditional view in physics or dynamics.

In quantum theory, i think, space exists within matter, and outside of it. But, Space cannot be discontinous taking the above principle of playground into the picture, matter definitely can be. I think, matter can seem to be discontinous, at that level because matter appears to exist as a boundary of a cause-to-effect event, (relative to the observer/mind contextual paradigm) under the wavefunction (theoretical) paradigm.

Pauli exclusion theory does effectively explain radiation like x-rays or gamma rays which also suggests the vibrancy of matter within an atom. The vibrancy or movement of electron or any energy within it does only and without exception indicates a semblance of space in the deepest reccesses of matter.

Or am i wrong?

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;121742 wrote:

Maybe matter is the condensed thoughts of God, we can easily extract enormous amounts of energy of of a little matter but the revere is extremely difficult.

But don't you agree that energy/matter are really the same things but present in differing levels of densities?
E=mc2 Explained

Alan McDougall;121742 wrote:

The large Hadron Collider will attempt to convert energy into fundament matter

Right. They're basically attempting to reproduce the same conditions as at the beginning of our universe. They want to explain their one free miracle... you know, the Singularity. The "Happy Accident" as Hawkings referred to it. Funny, if indeed they succeed, they will by default give credence to notions of the required "Intellect" present in order to cause Singularity.

How could the Singularity be a result of mindless cause/reaction, when it is the very Mother of said, cause/reaction? The Singularity was not caused into existence. It was reasoned (thought, planned) into existence, just like the Hadron... (well maybe not just like):sarcastic:

---------- Post added 01-22-2010 at 12:30 PM ----------

Jackofalltrades;121746 wrote:

I do not think any one here or in the scientific realm has claimed matter to be discontinous.

Well that's how I read both Pauli and Planck alike. Pauli determines the set smallest size that matter can assemble before being compounded in on itself by supergravity of black hole. It still never touches itself, but seems to create space where there was none before it. It is difficult to conceive of space warping as such. To our naked intellect, things must get smaller in order to fill the same space with more objects. Yet supergravity warps space so that the particles may remain the same size, but in effect, still be compressed, virtually occupying the same space... which opens doors for multi-dimensional abstracts to allow for this phenomenon.

Planck on the other hand notes that energy also has a smallest unit. It appears to leap out of nowhere for anything less than this smallest unit does not seem to exist whatsoever.

Since both are measurable to smallest units, the term discontinuous is applied to illustrate the "non-connectedness" of all energy/matter relationships. What comes out of this is a theory of existence built purely upon notions of immaterial relationships... thought.

Jackofalltrades;121746 wrote:

In quantum theory, i think, space exists within matter, and outside of it.

Yes, hence the "discontinuous" nature of matter... nothing is physically connected.

Jackofalltrades;121746 wrote:

But, Space cannot be discontinous taking the above principle of playground into the picture, matter definitely can be.

Yes, nobody is arguing that, matter definitely "can be". But its "being", is in a discontinuous state. As well, "space" is now thought to consist primarily of Dark Matter. Yes it is theory (Dark Matter), but without this theory we cannot explain the weight or gravitational properties of the universe. I don't have the exact figures, but apparently, Dark Matter accounts for 98% of the physical universe that we cannot even see or detect.

Jackofalltrades;121746 wrote:

I think, matter can seem to be discontinous, at that level because matter appears to exist as a boundary of a cause-to-effect event, (relative to the observer/mind contextual paradigm) under the wavefunction (theoretical) paradigm.

Yes, nothing ever physically touches anything else.

Jackofalltrades;121746 wrote:

The vibrancy or movement of electron or any energy within it does only and without exception indicates a semblance of space in the deepest reccesses of matter.

Well that's not typically considered the same type of "space" as the space between Jupiter and Mars. Open space of the universe is typically considered as just that, open space, basically a void. But I have no doubt that void cannot exist within the physical realm, and that some "thing" indeed must be there to fill that void, even if we cannot see or detect it. Perhaps Dark Energy/Dark Matter fills the void of space... perhaps not.

The space you refer to within quantum particles is more or less an energy field... not the same as the open space of outer space. Yet, one must consider, the very slight possibility, that clues to the Dark Matter/Dark Energy theory may in fact one day be found within the Spacial Energy Field between the fermion and boson.

@prothero,

I appreciate your efforts to make me learn somethings which are peripheral to my knowledge. This space is dubious ( d. becoz there is a certain uncertainty about it) as I understand it, also is highly energised and the matter is maintained by strong forces within the system. The discontinous matter proposition is what i think may find favour with superstring or string theoriests as they too suggest multi-dimensional space (the doughnuts are often given as examples). Could there be a multi-verse, since the proposal being made is multi-dimensional objects like strings (the so-called primary units of physical structures) works within their own laws or principle's.

Isn't such proposals mystical for one. And prima facie appears quite illogical, at the first point of meet. Anyway, these are undoubtedly very fascinating theories in Physics. And thank you once again for clarifying certain aspects of quantum mechanics.

But before i take leave (since i have exhausted my thoughts on this) a sentence by you caught my dubious attention.
your quote:
Since both are measurable to smallest units, the term discontinuous is applied to illustrate the "non-connectedness" of all energy/matter relationships. What comes out of this is a theory of existence built purely upon notions of immaterial relationships... thought.

Notions of immaterial relationships......... is very interesting idea, and i anticipate something very profound out here. Here lies something on which i ponder on the relationship between the subject and the object. If such immaterial relationship exists and can be deduced thus, and as hinted or suggested by a 'this theory of existence', than it could possibly solve the mystery of the connection between the abstract and the concrete. The above appears rational and logical. But it also leads to a possibility that is worth examining. If 'thought' makes it possible for 'an immaterial relation to be established' in a physical world', than the implication is that 'this kind of thought' exists outside the mind. Can this be possible?

Or are my extrapolations a bit far fetched and out of the context of your observations.

@prothero,

Jackofalltrades;121746 wrote:

But since 'truth should lie normally between the objective experience and subjective interpretation, only further research into the duality of matter will resolve the crisis in physics.
While i am not sure whether i should agree with your observations or not, one reason being that those statements are very definitive in purpose, and i also would like to believe in them, but i would rather be skeptical of such assertions and reserve judgement.

All human and thus scientific "truth" is tentative, partial and incomplete. Absolute certainty is not our lot. Take a position based on the best available evidence and your intuition. It is just too much trouble to state everything with equivocation.

Jackofalltrades;121746 wrote:

While time is relativistic - einsteinian gravitational differentials, and very much dependent on anthropic faculties, there is a consensus that there cannot be an absolute time. However, what about space. Why should space be dependent on gravity or any other forces. For me space is the playground, the games matter plays over it is different at different times. Gravity is almost related to matter. Both gravity and matter 'should' exist in space.
This i suppose is the traditional view in physics or dynamics.

There are conceptual and logical paradoxes involved. Energy becomes matter, matter generates gravity, gravity warps (you could say generates or creates) space time. The fact is all these "things" are interrelated and interdependent. They do not have "real" independent existence. Our reductionist approach to reality gives the false impression of independent "being". There are no empty universes (composed of space alone). Time does not exist in a changeless universe (no change, no process, no time) There is no space time without matter, energy and gravity (the reverse could also be stated). Time is the rate of change (cesium clocks, radioactive decay) and the rate of those events is relativistic to gravity and acceleration. Reality is not composed of independent "things" (being); reality is composed of events (mass, energy, gravity, space, time) in relation (process or becoming).

Jackofalltrades;121746 wrote:

In quantum theory, i think, space exists within matter, and outside of it. But, Space cannot be discontinous taking the above principle of playground into the picture, matter definitely can be. I think, matter can seem to be discontinous, at that level because matter appears to exist as a boundary of a cause-to-effect event, (relative to the observer/mind contextual paradigm) under the wavefunction (theoretical) paradigm.

It depends on the scale of examination. In most of our everyday world the continuous and point particle assumptions and nature of Newtonian classical mechanics gives more than sufficient precision of results.
Under extremes of gravity or of acceleration speed we need Einstein's general relativity equations which are also continuous and point particle. In the realm of the very small "matter" no point particle can be located (uncertainty principle) and the equations are discontinuous (quantum mechanics). The graininess of reality is only apparent at tremendous scales of magnification (Planck lengths, mass, etc). Matter appears in human experience as solid and impenetrable but on other scales matter appears mostly empty space. What is "matter", depends: it is a paradox.

Jackofalltrades;121746 wrote:

Pauli exclusion theory does effectively explain radiation like x-rays or gamma rays which also suggests the vibrancy of matter within an atom. The vibrancy or movement of electron or any energy within it does only and without exception indicates a semblance of space in the deepest reccesses of matter.

The electron jumps from one allowed orbit to another allowed orbit without passing through the "space" between them. For practical purposes the space between the allowed orbits does not exist. Otherwise black body and other forms of radiation would be continuous and of infinite energy. One could say "that space" between the orbits does not "exist" because space itself is discontinuous and quantitized.
[QUOTE=Jackofalltrades;121746]Or am i wrong? [/QUOTE] There is no conceptual model for the world of quantum mechanics it so foreign to human experience that our minds can not conceive it. Matter in the quantum age is not the atom of Democritus, the point particle of Newton or Einstein. Matter is not the independent inert, insensate basis of "being" or reality at all. Matter is an "event" a process which "exists" only in relation and which has different "properties" depending on the method and the scale of its "observation". Statements about "ultimate reality" based on everyday perceptions, measurements or observations deserve the "am I wrong?".
I am just encouraging an alternative way of viewing "matter" and other forms of "reality", "exists", "being" more of a "process" "becoming" view of reality. Reality may consist of events (moments or droplets of experience) rapidly following one another not any kind of fixed, independent "being". It is "being" "matter" that is the illusion it is flux, change "events" becoming that is the reality. A notion worthy of consideration and contemplation.

@prothero,

At the very fundamental level all matter is made up of the following sub -elements

The standard model

Physicists have developed a theory called The Standard Model that explains what the world is and what holds it together. It is a simple and comprehensive theory that explains all the hundreds of particles and complex interactions with only:

6 quarks.
6 leptons. The best-known lepton is the electron. .
Force carrier particles, like the photon. All the known matter particles are composites of quarks and leptons, and they interact by exchanging force carrier particles.

The Standard Model is a good theory. Experiments have verified its predictions to incredible precision, and all the particles predicted by this theory have been found. But it does not explain everything. "For example, gravity is not included in the Standard Model."

@prothero,

P,
I thank you for all the clarifications you have given. It was very fruitful, and has given me lots of points to ponder upon.

I really appreciate your effort and that of Q, and all the others who participated in this discussion. I think i have gained some insight, and made me realise that quantum matter to be more mysterious and mystical in nature.

At the moment, matter is over mind. Mind does not matter.
Thanks

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;121923 wrote:

Notions of immaterial relationships......... is very interesting idea, and i anticipate something very profound out here. Here lies something on which i ponder on the relationship between the subject and the object. If such immaterial relationship exists and can be deduced thus, and as hinted or suggested by a 'this theory of existence', than it could possibly solve the mystery of the connection between the abstract and the concrete. The above appears rational and logical. But it also leads to a possibility that is worth examining. If 'thought' makes it possible for 'an immaterial relation to be established' in a physical world', than the implication is that 'this kind of thought' exists outside the mind. Can this be possible?

Now you're getting it. Yes, it is very possible for thought (immaterial relationships) to be established in a physical world. The mechanism to allow this is language... code.

Your code to me and my code to you has established an immaterial relationship of our thoughts. The code (ABCDEFG) is a physical object used to represent a non-physical thought. We could not share our thoughts without it.

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God. And the Word became flesh".

Think of "discontinuous units" as the same thing as pixels on your computer monitor. Think of code as the binary 1's & 0's that make the pixels possible. Think of mind as the programmer that writes the program of thought. The thoughtful mind arranges code to suit his pleasure. That code builds houses, bridges, automobiles, computers... galaxy's? nebula?

We've already found the code of Life... DNA. Now we need to find the code of Origins... All codes have sentient authors.

WE ARE PIXELS IN A PUZZLE

Funny thing about pixels, when you turn them off, the information that makes them possible still remains. In fact, it spreads. The information, the immaterial information of this entire thread is currently represented by dozens of computer, servers, hubs... and every mind that has witnessed it.

Information cannot die.

IT MULTIPLIES JUST BY LOOKING AT IT!!!:eek:

---------- Post added 01-23-2010 at 03:43 AM ----------

I used to think we authored our own essence during this physical life, and that we became that pure essence in the afterlife. We may author an essence of evil, or good, or hope, or deception...

But I have heard stories of near death experiences, where people claim to have a life review, and many have claimed that they actually feel the very emotions of everyone they've ever encountered. If they made a person sorrowful, then they felt their sorrow. If they made a person joyful, then they felt their joyfulness.

How would this life review be possible if there is not a source of Information being recorded somehow? Is it feasible to fantasize about mind being that source of Information? That purely immaterial Thought from a mind is the very Information? Where else could Information come from?

If this lunacy is true, then is it so that others will help craft my ending eternal essence based upon their opinions of me, every bit as much as I would contribute? Will I end up as the immaterial essence of all thought from me and about me from others?

Hahahahahahaha...

You may all have the last word friends... It's been a ride!

@prothero,

From Sir James Jeans, physicist and philosopher, 'A Universe of Pure Thought'

Quote:

Today [i.e., around 1931] there is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science, approaches almost unanimity that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter - not, of course, our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown exist as thoughts.

The new knowledge compels us to revise our hasty first impressions that we had stumbled into a universe which either did not concern itself with life or was actively hostile to life. The old dualism of mind and matter, which was mainly responsible for the supposed hostility, seems likely to dissappear, not through matter becomeing in any way more shadowy or insubstantial than heretofore, or through mind becoming resolved into a function of the working of matter, but through substantial matter resolving itself into a creation and manifestation of mind.''

Quoted in Quantum Questions: The Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists; ed Ken Wilber; 1985; Pp 143 -144.

There is an abundance of similar passages from the likes of Schrodinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Einstein, and Eddington in this text.

@prothero,

Q,

I am sorry, but your ideas, it seems to me are getting esoteric, eclectic and perhaps quixotic too! Thats because of my limitations, perhaps.

I will shamelessly take Pro's quote here to say that "There are conceptual and logical paradoxes involved."

However, your summation and conclusions being somewhat mystical and mysterious, i may think (again to shamelessly take a quote from Pro) it to be "A notion worthy of consideration and contemplation."

Thanks

Incorrigibly yours!

@prothero,

The more science plies matter apart the more empty space they find, the so called fundamental particles are really just empty voids take a neutrino it does not interact with matter and can go right through a light year of lead, without slowing down

Philosophy Forum

What is "matter" in the quantum age?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know