What is matter?

No, matter as we normally think of it - atoms - are a complete mixture of fields - definitely electromagnetic as you mention, but also other force fields - the strong in particular - and actual *matter* fields. Just as there is an electromagnetic field which is what gives rise to photons, there is an "electron" field that gives rise to electrons, and there are quark fields. But you are still very close in your thinking. The solidity we feel at the molecular level and above is almost entirely electromagnetic in origin. But the physcial size of the atoms is a property of the electron matter field, known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle. In fact, the definition of matter is essentially that that obeys the PEP. Two very good questions - I would say no and yes Now - must get back to Nosy's string theory questions...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Yes, and so is "empty" space It just doesn't have much in the way of excitations in the matter fields at those points. Go even further, and what we call "distance" becomes just excitations in the gravitational field, so even the idea of space disappears...

To me, it's quite the opposite. The 'everyday' world with its 19th century view of physics - objects, forces, and space - makes no sense to me and falls apart when you examine a bit too closely. This is what gave rise to the relativistic and quantum revolutions.And you only have to spend an hour with a good Mandlebrot Set viewer to understand the staggering levels of complexity that can arise from the most simple of mathematics. Have you ever done this? Yes, why not? But to me it speaks more to an Architect (re the Matrix) than a Christian-type deity. I would have thought that omnipotent gods would not be so constrained as to require a creation that is mathematically consistent... Well, it wasn't QFT that sparked Einstein's comment, it was physics in general - but I'm not sure I agree anyway. Our brains are based on the very mathematics that seems to underpin reality. We are one and the same. But that doesn't mean that the understanding is easy

Moose, you may want to look up terms such as Poincaré Recurrence and Boltzmann Brains - just because you think something looks like nonsense, does not meean that it is - unless you want to join the ranks of Buzsaw and co. in your approach to theoretical physics?Agobot's post had hideous typesetting (needs to learn to use exponents) but otherwise was merely mildly off-topic, and raised exteremely relevant points to the core EvC agenda that we haven't actually discussed before (not that I can remember anyway) here at EvC.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

While waiting for your suspension to expire, go and check out Mandelbrot sets. Here's a great Youtube reverse zoom:
This is just one timy glimpse at the Mandelbrot set and its complexity. Check out Wikipedia to see just how the most simple mathematics gives rise to more "complexity" than we usually see in the entire Universe.I have created videos of zooming in on the Mandelbrot set, that magnify it by billions of times more than magnifying an atom to the size of the observable Universe, and yet the complexity remains...ABE:I challenge anyone to claim that beauty, art, complexity, life, etc cannot arise from naturalistic processes, when the above is just one miniscule example of the power of the natural. There is more magic in the natural world than in the sum total of every deity ever imagined.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Yep, that's pretty much it. Except I say "Wow, that's amazing!" How we respond to major paradigm shifts says far more about our own particular state of mind at that time, than anything really about the paradigm shift itself. In a week, month or year, you'll be in another stae of mind and will be delighted by these revelations. Just wait and see. As long as ice cream still tastes as good, sex feels as good, and mountains, caves, and the night sky still look as good, then no harm done...