What is the substance matter is made of? What is the material

>>7801520
literally the particles themselves. the fundamental particles are called fundamental for a reason. they are the smallest unit of "something"

Strings... I mean photons.

>>7801531
sounds like "dunno lol"

>>7801520
quantum foam at the smallest scale

for everything else you were one youtube search away, or google it - try to get lots of information about easy stuff and study papers on the harder stuff like quantum world concepts.. as they're not generally expected behavior in our human scaled experiences.

That's why everything is purely theoretical and testing is very hard to figure out.

>>7801531
>literally the particles themselves. the fundamental particles are called fundamental for a reason. they are the smallest unit of "something"

But that is precisely what they used to say bout atoms. When will they know they've found "the absolute kernel of EVERYTHING"

it's energy

have you noticed that particle masses are measured in elecrtonvolts? well there's a reason for that - they are made of energy

>>7801520
bacon. in the end, it's all made of bacon, infinitely finely rolled into the 7 additional dimensions, that string theory tells us are there.

>>7802108
I'm vegan. Can it be made of lettuce? That would make much more sense since lettuce does look like it is made up of layers and layers

>>7801543
If string theory turns out to be true, then it should be the most fundamental form of anything.

>>7802116
huh, if that were true, then we could apply lattice... errr.... i mean lettuce theory to the universe. quick, to the science cave!

>>7801520
My precum

>>7802154
>quick, to the science cave!
Always wanted to hear someone say that. Dibs on saying it next time

>>7801520
Energy, and we don't know exactly what it is, just how it behaves. But then again, if energy is the most fundamental then there is nothing else to understand.

File: DSC_0319.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>7801520
According to my book here 1D(4D) strings and 2D(5D) membranes swing in a different frequency, and their frequency and energy of swinging determines the type and energy level of matter

>>7801520
i no rite

>>7802226
That's what I don't understand. At the lowest level, potential creates an object like a sphere that can not be entered or split. So what is this potential's physical make up? Is it like a fluid or is it just like a kink in an energy field that's indivisible?

>>7802352
It's a force field made up of midichlorians

>>7802322
Do strings actually look like strings in this model or is it just a graphical representation of this thing that you're modeling? (for example an atom is graphically represented as a sphere but in real life it's not really a sphere)

There is no fundamental particle. Existence is a fractal.

Wood is wood. Flesh is flesh. Dirt is dirt.

Nothing beyond that is relevant

>>7802122
>If string theory turns out to be true
Why would string theory turn out to be true? It was pulled out of the hat and while it has been useful in driving some exotic maths forward, it's still a silly theory based on nothing, just because.

>>7802520
You have clearly never studied string theory.

Since everything allegedly originated in an ultradense pointlike structure that expressed itself entropically as the Big Bang, then ultimately everything is made from 'frozen' energy. Pump enough energy into matter, it melts back into the primal state in the so-called singularity.

>>7802420
[Citation needed]

>>7802370
what shape is an atom in real life then?

They keep insisting that the universe is discrete as opposed to continuous, despite observational evidence suggesting otherwise. If it is discrete, then the fundamental building block is information

>ctrl+f
>"field"
two results: invisible energy field and midichlorians
>ctrl+f
>"string"
many ore un-ironic posts about string theory

/sci/ has no idea what they are talking about.

>>7802628
Every particle is that same point-like structure "viewed" from a different "angle". Two "different" particles at two different points in space actually have the same "identity", that is they are identical, that is they are the same "thing". There is no distinguishing feature that makes that particle "different" from this one. Particles' differing properties do not account for distinctness. That's how entanglement is possible.

>>7801520
According to modern string theory, there various fundamental objects of different "sizes" called p-branes. These are p-dimensional object.

A 0-brane would be a particle, a 1-brane would be a string, and so on to higher dimensions.

So the notion of everything being made up of strings isn't even true in modern string theory.

>>7802766
Also, I forgot this part, if M-theory is right then strings might not even exist. And the only reason the superstring theories predict them is because they are not 11-dimensional theories. So a what appears as a string would actually be a M2-brane with one of it's cycles wrapped around a circular 11th dimension.

>>7802766
>>7802770
what is this nonsense? modern physics sucks balls

>>7802533
I have to agree with other anon that the problem so far with string theory is that it can in no way be checked experimentally. The math might be able to explain all the fundamentals and thus make it a good model. It can never be accepted as 'true' until there is a way to show experimentally Strings exists.

>>7801520
excitations in the quantum field

photons wrapped into balls of condensed spacetime