Could Information Be More Fundamental Than Matter? Rethinking Particles, Strings, Vibration, and the Architecture of Reality

When I was in Class 9, I wrote a letter to a research institute expressing an idea that had been occupying my mind: perhaps fundamental particles contain information, and perhaps their behaviour is determined, at least in part, by the information encoded within them—somewhat like DNA contains biological information that guides the development and functioning of living organisms.

At that time, this was simply an intuition. I did not have the mathematical language of modern physics to express it.

But the question has become even more interesting as our understanding of nature has progressed.

Physics has repeatedly taught us that what appears fundamental at one level may turn out not to be fundamental at a deeper level. Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms contain nuclei and electrons. Nuclei contain protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Modern theories go still deeper, with string theory proposing that what we perceive as particles may arise from different vibrational states of extremely small strings.

This naturally leads to a profound question:

If matter can have deeper layers of structure, could information itself exist at a level deeper than the physical structures we currently call fundamental?

And there is an even more radical possibility:

What if the universe does not ultimately consist of a finite list of fundamental particles, but of an unlimited hierarchy of structures, with what we call “fundamental” merely representing the deepest level accessible to a particular theory?

These are not established facts. They are philosophical and theoretical possibilities. But they provide a fascinating framework for thinking about one of the oldest questions in science:

What is reality ultimately made of?

From Particles to Patterns

Human beings have traditionally imagined matter as being composed of increasingly smaller pieces.

A stone can be divided into smaller pieces.

A piece of matter consists of molecules.

Molecules consist of atoms.

Atoms consist of electrons and nuclei.

Nuclei contain protons and neutrons.

Protons and neutrons contain quarks.

At every stage, the apparently solid world becomes less solid and more abstract.

Eventually, modern physics stops describing reality in terms of tiny billiard balls.

Quantum field theory describes particles as excitations of underlying fields. In this picture, an electron is not simply a microscopic object moving through empty space in the classical sense. It is associated with an excitation of the electron field.

String theory goes one conceptual step further. Instead of treating different particles as fundamentally different point-like objects, it proposes that they may correspond to different vibrational modes of an underlying string.

The metaphor is powerful.

A violin string can vibrate in different modes and produce different notes.

Similarly, in string theory, different vibrational states can correspond to different particles.

This raises a remarkable conceptual possibility:

Perhaps what we call “different things” are different manifestations of a deeper underlying structure.

But then another question appears.

What determines the pattern of vibration?

Why does one state correspond to one particle and another state correspond to something else?

Why do particular mathematical relationships exist?

Why do physical laws have the form they do?

And, more fundamentally:

Could information be involved in defining these possibilities?

Information Is Not Simply Data

The word information can be misleading.

When we say that DNA contains information, we do not mean that DNA contains little sentences written inside molecules.

Information exists in relationships and arrangements.

The sequence of nucleotides in DNA carries biological information because particular sequences participate in processes that produce particular molecular outcomes.

Similarly, a computer stores information through physical states.

A bit can be represented by different physical configurations.

A photograph is information because of the arrangement of pixels.

A language is information because symbols are arranged according to relationships and rules.

A melody is information because sounds occur in a particular temporal pattern.

Information, therefore, is not necessarily a separate substance.

It can be understood as structure, distinction, correlation, and pattern encoded in a physical system.

This makes the question much deeper.

Perhaps asking whether information is "inside" a particle is not quite the right question.

Perhaps we should ask:

Is the physical state of a system fundamentally describable as information?

Could Information Be Deeper Than Strings?

Suppose string theory—or some future theory beyond string theory—turns out to describe nature accurately.

We might then say:

Particles → arise from vibrations → of strings.

But this does not necessarily answer the ultimate question.

We could immediately ask:

Strings themselves are made of what?

Perhaps the answer would be: strings are fundamental.

But science has encountered this idea many times.

An object is declared fundamental because the current theory does not explain a deeper structure.

Later, a deeper theory appears.

This does not mean that every supposedly fundamental entity must necessarily have smaller constituents. There could ultimately be a genuinely fundamental level.

But we should distinguish two ideas:

Ontological fundamentality

Something actually has no deeper physical structure.

Theoretical fundamentality

Something is treated as fundamental because our current theory does not describe anything beneath it.

The second does not automatically imply the first.

This distinction is extremely important.

The Information-First Possibility

Imagine a hypothetical hierarchy:

Information → rules → structures → vibrations → particles → atoms → molecules → matter → life → mind

This is not an established description of nature.

It is a conceptual model.

In such a model, particles would not be the ultimate constituents of reality. They would be expressions of deeper informational relationships.

The universe would then resemble something less like a box filled with objects and more like a system generating patterns.

The analogy to a computer is tempting, but we must be careful.

The universe need not literally be a computer.

There does not necessarily have to be a cosmic programmer, external storage device, or digital code.

"Information" could simply refer to the mathematical structure of physical states and their relationships.

The important idea would be:

Reality may be characterized more fundamentally by relationships and possible states than by tiny objects.

But What Does “Information Before Matter” Actually Mean?

Here we encounter a major philosophical difficulty.

Information normally requires something that can carry or instantiate it.

A message requires a medium.

DNA requires molecules.

A computer requires physical states.

A book requires physical marks.

If we say that information exists before physical reality, we must explain what "exists" means in that context.

This is why the statement

"Information is more fundamental than matter"

cannot simply be treated as an established scientific fact.

It is a hypothesis or philosophical interpretation unless supported by a precise physical theory.

A serious theory would need to explain:

What exactly is information?

What mathematical object represents it?

How does it generate physical states?

How does spacetime emerge?

How do quantum mechanics and gravity emerge?

Why do particular physical constants exist?

How are particles produced?

Why does the universe obey particular laws?

Without answers to these questions, "information is fundamental" remains an intriguing conceptual proposal rather than a completed theory.

The Universe May Not Have a Final “Particle List”

There is another part of this idea that deserves serious attention.

We often imagine physics as eventually producing a final catalogue:

> Particle A

Particle B

Particle C

Particle D

...

and nothing deeper.

But why must reality work this way?

There is no logical requirement that nature contain a finite number of fundamental particles.

It is possible, at least conceptually, that what we call particles are manifestations of deeper structures.

There could be:

one underlying entity → many states

rather than

many fundamentally different entities → one universe.

String theory itself illustrates this type of thinking: different particle properties can arise from different vibrational states rather than requiring a completely separate fundamental object for every particle.

However, the stronger claim that there are infinitely many fundamental particles is not something established by current physics.

It would require a coherent theory consistent with experiments.

Infinite Particles or Infinite Compositions?

There is an important distinction here.

Suppose there are only a small number of fundamental constituents.

They could potentially generate an enormous number of combinations.

Consider the alphabet.

English has only 26 letters, yet those letters can produce an enormous number of words, sentences, books, and ideas.

The number of possible compositions can be vastly greater than the number of fundamental symbols.

Nature could work similarly.

A limited set of fundamental degrees of freedom could generate an enormous—or mathematically unbounded—space of possible configurations.

So we don't necessarily need infinitely many fundamental particles to obtain immense complexity.

Conversely, it is also logically possible that a deeper theory contains an unbounded spectrum of states or structures.

The question is therefore not simply:

"How many particles exist?"

It may be:

"What mathematical space of possible physical states exists?"

That could ultimately be a much more meaningful question.

The Difference Between “Infinite” and “Very Large”

Human intuition often struggles here.

Suppose nature contains a trillion possible fundamental states.

That number is unimaginably large.

But it is still finite.

Suppose there are \(10^{100}\) possibilities.

Again, enormous—but finite.

An infinite collection is fundamentally different.

Therefore, before saying that the universe contains infinitely many fundamental particles, physics would need to establish what "infinite" means mathematically and physically.

An infinite number of possible states is not necessarily the same as an infinite number of particle species.

A theory could have:

finitely many particle types,

infinitely many possible configurations,

infinitely many quantum states,

continuous parameters,

or an infinite-dimensional mathematical space.

These are very different possibilities.

Maybe the Fundamental Object Is Not an Object

This may be the most interesting conceptual shift.

We usually ask:

What is the smallest thing?

But perhaps the question itself is based on an outdated mental model.

If reality is fundamentally quantum and relational, perhaps there is no smallest "thing" in the classical sense.

Instead, the deepest level might consist of:

relations, symmetries, quantum states, mathematical structures, fields, amplitudes, information, or something that today's physics has not yet discovered.

In that case, searching for the "smallest particle" could be like searching for the smallest sentence in a language.

A sentence is not fundamentally a collection of physical letters in the conceptual sense. Its meaning comes from relationships among symbols.

Likewise, perhaps a physical entity is defined less by some tiny material core and more by its relationships with other entities.

From DNA to the Universe

Your original Class 9 intuition about DNA provides an interesting analogy.

DNA demonstrates that highly complex behaviour can emerge from encoded structure.

But there is an important difference between DNA and fundamental physics.

DNA is a biological molecule operating inside an already existing physical universe.

Its information is implemented through chemical structures.

Fundamental physics asks a much deeper question:

Could the laws and states of physics themselves be understood informationally?

If the answer were eventually yes, then biology would represent one relatively familiar example of a much broader principle:

Nature produces complexity through structured information and rules of transformation.

DNA would not be the origin of information.

It would be one manifestation of information processing within nature.

Could the Laws of Physics Be Information Rules?

Consider a simple game.

A game has:

possible states,

rules,

transitions between states,

constraints,

and outcomes.

For example, chess has a finite set of pieces but an enormous number of possible configurations.

The pieces do not determine everything independently.

The rules determine which configurations are possible and which transitions can occur.

Now imagine the universe at a much deeper level.

Perhaps reality also has:

fundamental states,

transformation rules,

conservation principles,

symmetries,

constraints,

and relationships.

Particles could then be stable patterns within this system.

Fields could describe deeper collective behaviour.

Spacetime itself might even emerge from underlying relationships.

Again, this is not established fact.

But it is one of the directions in which modern theoretical physics and philosophy of physics have explored the nature of reality.

Could Spacetime Itself Be Emergent?

This possibility makes the information question even more interesting.

We normally assume that everything exists inside space and time.

But some approaches to quantum gravity investigate whether spacetime might itself be emergent from something deeper.

If spacetime is emergent, then asking:

"Where does the fundamental object exist?"

may become problematic.

The deepest level might not have ordinary spatial location at all.

That would radically change our conception of "smaller."

The deepest level would not necessarily be something located at an incredibly tiny point.

Instead, the familiar concepts of distance, location and perhaps even time could emerge only at higher levels.

Then the hierarchy might look something like:

unknown fundamental structure

↓

relations / quantum information

↓

emergent spacetime

↓

fields

↓

particles

↓

atoms

↓

matter

↓

life

↓

conscious experience

This diagram is speculative, but it illustrates an important possibility:

The ultimate layer of reality may not resemble the objects we encounter in everyday life.

What Comes After String Theory?

If string theory eventually proves incomplete or incorrect, that would not mean the search ends.

Science has repeatedly replaced deeper assumptions with more comprehensive frameworks.

Classical mechanics was expanded by relativity and quantum mechanics.

Atoms were once considered indivisible.

Later they were understood as composite systems.

Protons and neutrons were once treated as fundamental.

Later their quark structure became part of the Standard Model.

Today, the Standard Model successfully describes an enormous range of particle phenomena, but it does not provide a complete theory incorporating gravity.

String theory is one attempt to go beyond the Standard Model and address deeper questions.

Other approaches to quantum gravity explore very different possibilities.

The future theory—if humanity discovers one—may look completely different from both the Standard Model and string theory.

It might involve strings.

It might not.

It might involve information.

It might involve geometry.

It might involve something for which our current vocabulary is inadequate.

Perhaps “Vibration” Is Also Not the End

There is another fascinating possibility.

Suppose we eventually discover that strings are not fundamental.

Perhaps strings emerge from a deeper mathematical structure.

Then we could ask:

What produces the vibration?

And then:

What produces the structure that permits vibration?

And then:

What determines the rules governing those structures?

This creates a potentially endless chain:

particle → string → deeper structure → deeper relation → deeper rule → ...

Does this lead to an infinite regress?

Not necessarily.

A scientific theory might eventually reach a level where the question "what is it made of?" no longer makes sense.

For example, mathematics does not necessarily need to be made of smaller physical objects.

A fundamental physical theory might similarly be defined by relationships rather than material components.

The ultimate theory might therefore not answer:

"What is the smallest object?"

but instead:

"What is the smallest set of principles from which physical reality can be mathematically generated?"

That would be a profound change in the question itself.

The Universe as Composition

Your second idea—that different fundamental components could combine into countless different structures—is particularly important.

Complexity does not necessarily require complex ingredients.

A few simple rules can produce extraordinary complexity.

From a limited alphabet, we create unlimited literature.

From a limited number of musical notes, we create enormous musical diversity.

From a small number of genetic bases, life produces enormous biological diversity.

From relatively simple physical laws, the universe contains:

quarks → nuclei → atoms → molecules → stars → planets → chemistry → biology → brains → language → mathematics → civilization.

The remarkable point is that complexity can emerge from relatively simple underlying rules.

Therefore, even if physics ultimately discovers only a small number of fundamental ingredients, that would not make the universe fundamentally simple.

The composition space could be extraordinarily rich.

Information, Composition and Emergence

This leads to a broader conceptual framework.

Perhaps reality can be understood through three ideas:

Information

What states are possible and how they are distinguished.

Rules

How states can transform into other states.

Composition

How simple structures combine to produce increasingly complex structures.

From these three ingredients, enormous complexity could emerge.

At some level:

information + rules → patterns

Then:

patterns + interactions → structures

Then:

structures + complexity → emergent phenomena

And eventually:

emergent phenomena → life, intelligence and consciousness

This is not a demonstrated universal theory.

It is a conceptual lens through which one can connect ideas from physics, information theory, biology, complexity science and philosophy.

Could Consciousness Be Part of the Same Story?

This question should be approached carefully.

It is tempting to jump from "information is fundamental" to "consciousness is fundamental."

That conclusion does not follow automatically.

Information processing occurs in many physical systems without evidence that those systems possess consciousness.

The relationship between physical processes and conscious experience remains an open scientific and philosophical problem.

Nevertheless, the information perspective creates an interesting bridge.

The human brain processes information.

DNA stores biological information.

Computers manipulate information.

Quantum systems possess states and correlations that can be described informationally.

The universe itself can be described through mathematical information.

Whether these are manifestations of one deep principle or merely useful analogies remains unknown.

A Scientific Idea Must Eventually Become Testable

This is perhaps the most important qualification.

Beautiful philosophical ideas are not automatically scientific theories.

If someone proposes:

"Information is more fundamental than particles."

science must eventually ask:

What prediction follows from this?

Could an experiment distinguish this hypothesis from conventional theories?

Could it predict a new particle?

A new relationship?

A new quantum phenomenon?

A measurable deviation from known physics?

Could it explain something that existing theories cannot explain?

Without such consequences, the idea remains philosophy or speculation.

That does not make it worthless.

Many scientific breakthroughs begin as conceptual questions.

But the transition from philosophy to physics requires mathematics, consistency and ultimately empirical evidence.

The Most Important Question May Be Different

Perhaps humanity has spent centuries asking:

"What is matter made of?"

A deeper question may be:

"Why does reality have the structure that it has?"

And deeper still:

"Why are these particular possibilities allowed, while others are not?"

And perhaps deeper:

"Can physical reality be understood as a space of information and relationships governed by fundamental rules?"

If someday we discover that the answer is yes, the history of physics may look very different in retrospect.

Particles may turn out to be not the ultimate ingredients of reality, but stable manifestations of something deeper.

Strings may turn out not to be the final layer, but another level of description.

And information may turn out to be not merely something that exists within physical systems, but a fundamental language for describing the structure of physical reality.

Or perhaps future physics will demonstrate that this entire picture is wrong.

That possibility is equally important.

From a Class 9 Question to a Frontier of Physics

The most remarkable aspect of such an idea is not whether the original intuition was immediately correct.

Science does not advance merely because someone guesses the final answer.

It advances because people continue asking deeper questions.

A Class 9 student asking whether particles might contain information is asking a question about the relationship between matter, structure and behaviour.

Modern physics asks increasingly sophisticated versions of the same fundamental problem.

We have moved from atoms to subatomic particles, from particles to fields, and from fields toward deeper attempts to understand quantum spacetime.

But there is no guarantee that the next level will be another smaller object.

Perhaps the next revolution will involve relationships rather than objects, information rather than substance, emergence rather than construction, or mathematical structures that our present language cannot adequately describe.

And perhaps the ultimate lesson will be this:

The universe may not be built like a wall made from smaller and smaller bricks. It may be more like a vast system of relationships in which what we call particles, forces, space and even time emerge as different levels of an underlying structure.

We do not yet know.

And that uncertainty is not a weakness of science.

It is one of its greatest strengths.

Because every time humanity has believed that it had reached the final layer of reality, nature has offered another question.

Perhaps the deepest frontier is therefore not finding the smallest particle.

Perhaps it is discovering whether the universe has a smallest description—and whether, beneath matter, vibration and spacetime, there exists a deeper architecture of information, relationships and possibility.

The search for the ultimate nature of reality may have only just begun.