Talk:Matter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matter is the current 1.0 Collaboration of the Fortnight! Please help improve it to the standard for good articles.

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
Start	Matter has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high importance within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Slang 2 Vocabulary 3 Matter and Energy 4 What is Matter 5 Matter in role playing 6 expert-expansion-sources 7 Lenin An Authority on Physics? 8 The Lenin vandal 9 E=mc2

[edit] Slang

"Colloquially and in chemistry, matter is easy to define. Matter is the stuff which things are made of and consists of chemical substances. These are made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. In this way, matter is contrasted with energy."

Is it wise to use "Stuff" in the definition. The way I was taught "stuff" is slang and should be used in defining words if anyone can think of a better word please do so, it kinda looks out of place

I changed the wording in the Common definition section. I believe it's better now. :) --ionescuac^(Talk) 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocabulary

Matter:Anything that has mass and takes up space Mass:the amount of matter Weight:the pull of gravity

Property Solid Liquid Gas Has Weight Yes Yes Yes Takes up Space Yes Yes Yes Has its own definite shape Yes No No Take the shape of the Container No Yes Yes

States Particles Solid Move very slowly

                                        Very close to each other

Liquid Move faster than Solid

                                        Further apart

Gas Move very fast

                                        Very apart from each other

The general properties of matter result from its relationship with mass and space. Because of its mass, all matter has inertia (the mass being the measure of its inertia) and weight, if it is in a gravitational field (see gravitation). Because it occupies space, all matter has volume and impenetrability, since two objects cannot occupy the same space simultaneously. The special properties of matter, on the other hand, depend on internal structure and thus differ from one form of matter, i.e., one substance, to another. Such properties include ductility, elasticity, hardness, malleability, porosity (ability to permit another substance to flow through it), and tenacity (resistance to being pulled apart). Matter is ordinarily observed in three different states, or phases (see states of matter), although scientists distinguish three additional states. Matter in the solid state has both a definite volume and a definite shape; matter in the liquid state has a definite volume but no definite shape, assuming the shape of whatever container it is placed in; matter in the gaseous state has neither a definite volume nor a definite shape and expands to fill any container. The properties of a plasma, or extremely hot, ionized gas, are sufficiently different from those of a gas at ordinary temperatures for scientists to consider them to be the fourth state of matter. So too are the properties of the Bose-Einstein and fermium condensates, which exist only at temperatures approximating absolute zero (−273.15°C), and they are considered the fifth and sixth states of matter respectively.

I'm very keen to have an accurate and precise definition of "matter" and "mass" for physics. The article on Matter uses the term "substance" which is poorly defined as far as its use for Matter is concerned. Suggestions?

• One question: I understand and accept that matter occupies space, whatever that is, but does matter by definition or experiment have to exhibit mass as suggested in this article?

user bvcrist Bvcrist 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matter and Energy

"...MATTER AND ENERGY WERE FUNDAMENTALLY SEPARATE TYPES OF MATERIAL." EINSTEIN "SHOWED THAT MASS AND ENERGY WERE INTERCHANGABLE." THERE IS AN IMPLICATION THAT MATTER AND MASS ARE THE SAME. THIS IS CONFUSING AND NEEDS CORRECTING AND EXPLAINING.

This sentence "Matter can more accurately be defined as the energy that has a low vibratory rate, a compressed energy state." is very confusing. Matter is made of protons, neutrons and electrons and these all have very HIGH vibratory rates (Compton frequencies of approx 10^20 to 10^23 Hz). Why does it state "LOW" vibratory rate? It would be more accurate to state that matter is energy travelling at velocity less than c.

This article needs a lot of cleaning up! Dpr 22:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Dpr. "(among which the photon)"... what?

Current the article says this on the topic:

According to the theory of relativity there is no distinction between matter and energy, because matter can be converted to energy (see annihilation), and vice versa (see matter creation).

Which I don't think is a big improvement. —Pengo 10:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact 'Matter' in physics is no longer defined. Even its SI system prototype is being abondoned. Any scientific definition we put here would in some way be considered original research. However, said that, we have to decide whether to define matter as a 'loosely defined' term, or put the next best thing we can think of, if we agree. Note that Einstein showed matter and energy are equivalent, but he never said they are the same thing. In physics we study the structure of matter, the structure of the nucleus, the structure of electron shells, etc.. In my opinion, matter should be simply defined as a 'structure of energy'. Whether one believes such structure is 2D (like De Broglie waves), 3D, 4D,.. or whether it has a knot form or a spherical standing wave structure is open to discussion, but we know for sure that matter is defined by its energy field structure and its energy level. - Blaze Labs Research 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Structure of energy" is good. It is basically saying that the old-time philosophical concept of of "matter" amounts to that part of energy which has a natural rest frame (otherwise you can't catch it to look at its structure, or weigh it). So this essentially defines "matter" as any type of energy which isn't moving at c. Which is to say, that energy which has invariant mass. A proposal I put down someplace else, but which wasn't picked up. But it works better than the fermionic definition, subsuming kinetic energy and virtual particle mass, without also trying to take up classical EM radiation, and gravitational radiation, which we all agree doesn't fit will with the classical ideas of matter. So, I like it better.

But realize that we're on our own, here. Nobody else is really trying very hard to reconcile the old ideas in philosophy here, with the new realities of physics. SBHarris 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would stay away from any 'invariant' term as my own research and of many other scientists does show that the 'mass' property of matter is not as invariant as most of us think. According to Mach's principle it could well depend on the relative position and energies of other 'structures of energy' within the universe. In other words, one cannot isolate one particle from the rest of the universe, because it's part of it, and since the universe is dynamic, so is the mass property of any matter. I've been doing research on this subject for the past 10 years, and can say that scientists have different ideas on this subject, but the majority do agree with the broad definition 'structure of energy'. So, I suggest we give some time to see if any opposition comes up to such as statement in here, and later move this definition to the article page. - Blaze Labs Research 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is Matter

If you take a look at physics, matter is all that is studied by physics. But are photons matter? I am not sure. Photons are: massless, (gauge) bosons. Gravitons and gluons are also massless, but gluons are definately matter. The W and Z gauge bosons are massive, are they thus matter?MarSch 14:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

it seams that matter fields in QFT (Quantum Field Theory) are all fermion fields and that the bosonic interaction fields are not matter even though they may have mass. Thus weak vector bosons, which acquire mass through Higgs, would not be considered matter. MarSch 12:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

>> Matter, in the sense of content, is also used in contrast to form.

I love this sentence! It is cryptic, yet at the same time, concise and exact. -c neg

I agree that matter in physics is not easy to define. Nevertheless, I think mass is no longer fundamental for it, especially since modern physics does not postulate mass as an essential characteristic of particles anymore (only as a consequence of some interactions). Does matter appear only after symmetry breakdown through the Higgs mechanism? I think, matter is more general than that, in the same way I think electrons (leptons and fermions) are matter, too. They have much character of wave, but protons, too. Actually, atoms can be seen equally. And neutrinos (fermions), in the Standard Model they do not possess mass. They are fermions (leptons, such as electrons are) and within modern physics, all that is surely matter (or antimatter). Maybe bosons are not matter, bu then are Bose-Einstein condensates not matter? There are atoms which are bosons! What are they, then? Surely, what physics say does not have to be a law, but the frontier between matter and "not-matter" is surely not easy to propose. Maybe, matter should be something as "everything that react to some interactions" (that for the beginning!!)

-N.M.B.R., Mex-KN:132.248.162.7 15:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Without mass, neither electrons nor any other particle would act much like what we call "matter." So if you're going to be real technical, I would say that without the Higgs mechanism (assuming, of course, that it is what causes fermion masses) there would be no matter.

Also, nobody claimed bosons in general aren't matter. As you say, half of all nuclei are bosons, including many of the good ones like common isotopes of carbon and oxygen. What's been claimed is that fundamental bosons aren't matter, because they're force carriers. All this really amounts to is claiming that particles that can't be observed in any way in normal life aren't matter, and neither are photons, which seems fairly reasonable to me.

Maybe what we should really claim is that particles which can be bound permenantly in such a way as to have bulk properties constitute matter...? I'm pretty sure that won't work right either--you're right that this is hard. But it's better to start with one of the definitions I've mentioned than "everything that reacts to some interactions"--because that includes everything that it's possible to investigate scientifically. -- SCZenz 18:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

We have another problem, and that is that most of the mass of "matter" is now known to be the gluons and kinetic energy of quarks, in the nucleons. The rest mass of quarks and leptons in ordinary objects are 1% or less of their mass. The rest, we haven't defined as "matter," in this article. So as it stands, we're really suggesting that most of the weight of a lump of ordinary matter, isn't "matter." That's really unsatisfying. We can live with the idea that a small fraction of the mass of "matter" is energy (force bosons, kinetic energy) and not fermions. But almost ALL of it? We need a definition of "matter" which makes *most* of a lump of matter, MATTER. Not "energy."

Maybe we should quit trying to differentiate these particles, and just define matter as invariant mass, and be done with it. We generally do accept the idea of quantitating matter by means of weight and inertia, just as we do with invariant mass, do we not? SBHarris 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can say that Western languages use a bit confusing terms. Many articles interwiki-linked from here (not the English wikipedia, though) explicitly states that only fermions, or "massive" particles consist the matter (I mean similar foreign words with the same etymology). A work of Vladimir Lenin was mentioned at the top of this article, but Lenin used the term ru:Материя materia, which refers both to fermions and bosons, as generally accepted in modern Russian language. Interwiki from here points to another Russian word ru:Вещество, literally meaning what the things consist, used to denote only fermionic part of materia, as well as a chemical substance. In philosophy there are no difference between Russian materia and Western variants of this word. But it would be incorrect to translate the word matter in a physical article to Russian: Материя in most cases. гык 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matter in role playing

Doesn't this addition seem a little bit too far-fetched for this article? Karol 09:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Non necessarily, tho' it wasn't put in the right way. The article is "Matter", not "Matter (physics)", and "Matter (disambiguation)" does not exist. Many Wikipedia articles on words with many meanings but one of them very minor have at least a note explaining that another possible meaning exists.--Army1987 19:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we badly need a "Matter (disambiguation)" page, then. I've begun one. Feel free to expand. SBHarris 23:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but a fictional version of matter that exists (as one of nine spheres of magic) in a particular roleplaying game? How many different articles are you going to add little notes to, to cover all the spheres of influence? Doesn't there have to be a limit somewhere? It's not reasonable to write an article about what matter actually is without calling it Matter (physics)?? -- SCZenz 04:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but many minor meanings of words which don't deserve an article themselves have a Template:dablink note in the article for the main meaning of the word. For example, nobody would expect to find stuff about the program Eye Drops in the article for eye drop (singular and lowercase d, but nevertheless the latter has a dablink template note too.--Army1987 09:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

However, I may agree that this is not the place for details. They should be moved to the article for the game, however, since I've never played it, I'll simply delete the details here and add a stub note to the article for the game, leaving others to expand it.--Army1987 09:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] expert-expansion-sources

this article needs to be: more detailed (and hey, an image or two there is a lot of matter out there), more sourced (you know, like ANY), and an expert needs to go through and articulate the nitty-gritty. this is an article on MATTER in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. it's the least we can do. (wow, i sound kind of bitter posting this). JoeSmack ^Talk 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(Before I say this I want to be clear that it's not sarcastic, nor do I mean to discount the other things you mentioned.) What pictures would you choose to represent matter, given that a picture of absolutely anything would qualify? --Strait 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a representation of three-dimensional space (length, width, depth) in the form of a cube with a drawing or photo of the universe would go a long way towards helping to understand the definition of matter. Matter is discernable inside these three dimensions. Dark Matter is not. Therein lies the crux of the problem.Kchiles 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, who's an expert? I'm not sure the way a physicist would define "matter" exactly fits common usage, and since it's such an imprecise and general word I'm not sure all physicists would agree anyway. -- SCZenz 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's important to note that the definition of "Matter" is predicated on the unwritten understanding that our definition takes place inside of our three-dimensional world. Length, width, and depth define the limitations of matter in our world. Contrast this with "Dark Matter", which (I think we can agree on this point) operates outside the three dimensions that we perceive. It's important to note that we define matter within our three dimensions, in order to encourage exploration of ways to perceive items outside of "our" three dimensions. Once we can perceive items outside of these three dimensions, much more of the universe will be revealed to us.

The obvious experts in our journey will be mathematicians, who will be able to help us in our quest to understand and quantify dimensions beyond our three. Source: The Joy of Thinking: The Beauty and Power of Classical Mathematical Ideas (DVD Course by The Teaching Company) Taught by Michael Starbird & Edward B. Burger.Kchiles 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you added {sources} and {expert}, but I disagree about {expand}. Matter is a very general, vauge topic. All of the specifics should be covered in the pages about specific types of matter, I think. Can you name anything (besides images) that you'd like to see discussed here? --Strait 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

By: Brian Santos

[edit] Lenin An Authority on Physics?

I'm confused about the prominent quote by Lenin in the first paragraph of this article. He was a politician, not a physicist. What reason is there to use his working definition of matter? Why not a quote from John Dalton or Mendeleev or someone else with actual scientific credentials? --Robigus 04:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding that crap. I have removed it again. --Strait 05:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lenin vandal

This is one guy, posting from freenet.de in Germany. All the posts are from anon IP's which are of the form 89.50.y.xx, with y being 8,0,or 1. Examples from the last month, all adding the Lenin crap and going back to a long past article version, are:

• 89.50.8.59
• 89.50.8.92
• 89.50.8.62
• 89.50.0.164
• 89.50.1.32
• 89.50.8.38
• 89.50.8.92
• 89.50.8.62
• 89.50.0.164
• 89.50.1.32
• 89.50.8.38 This one twice...

This goes all the way back to the first Lenin quote addition of the LEAD, which was relatively pure, on Oct 16, by this same guy using the same anon 89.50.x.xx IP. By now, it's caught up with a lot of article previous versions, and conflicts with a lot of stuff later added by others. If you see IP anon additions to this article, beginning with IP 89.50...., just revert them. If I could write a bot to do this, I would. SBHarris 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E=mc²

E=mc² does not exactly "say they are the same thing". Let F be the number of finges you have, and T be the number of toes yu have. Then F=t (in all likelihood), but fingers are not the same thing as toes. The mathematical language of phsyics underdetermines metaphysics, that is why there are umpteen interpretations of QM.

however, interconvertability is hard to dispute isnce it is the basis of technologies such a nuclear energy.

Even if the question is debatable, it should not be debated in the introduction. 1Z 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of E=mc^2, it really does mean they are the same thing. It isn't just that one can be "converted" to the other. Rather, one never APPEARS without the other. E and M are two different names for the same stuff, like rain and snow. In the case of rain and snow, you never have either of them, without having H20 already. All forms of energy which are definable by multiple observers (ie. are objectively real, and don't depend arbitrarily on the reference frame chosen) HAVE an invariant mass. They aren't "converted" from mass. Mass is a property they always have, and never lose. My problem is that the way the article is writen now is misleading, and could be fixed with a little attention, and not all that much addition. But right now, it's subtly wrong. The real problem with differentiating energy from "matter" is that energy HAS mass, so it's already matter by the most important criterion for matter. All objective energy (not dependent on observer) can be weighed, has a gravitational field, inertia, and so on and so on. That's a much stronger statement than the idea that it could "turned into" mass if we wanted to. It already IS mass. See the point? SBHarris 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are using "matter" and "mass" interchangeably. However, by the fermion definition, energy and matter are still two different things because bosons and fermions are different.1Z 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)