What is the meaning of “matter” in physics?Gauge Symmetry & Off-Shell Current Conservation in QEDDoes effective theory have the same meaning in particle and condensed matter physicsIs a “shift in the meaning” of Accuracy and Precision occurring?What are the “generations of matter”?Why is the definition of mass and matter interlinked?Matter: how much of it exists?What is the meaning of “moment”?If it's impossible to create matter then how can a Higgs Boson field give objects mass?Are bosons matter?Operational definitions in Newtonian Physics
Why does Principal Vagina say, "no relation" after introducing himself?
Does the US require a House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry?
Which culture used no personal names?
Accidental duration in measureless music
Did Terry Pratchett ever explain the inspiration behind Luggage?
What does this text mean with capitalized letters?
Would preaching in a church be advantageous for becoming a lecturer?
A man condemned to serve his sentence in other times
Code Golf Measurer © 2019
What are the branches of statistics?
Idiom for a situation or event that makes one poor or even poorer?
When to use the gestalt principle of common region?
Is it possible to have 2 ports open on SSH with 2 different authentication schemes?
Why should be velocity through the nozzle throat be sonic?
Consequences for Trump if the White House continues blocking witnesses and ignoring subpoenas?
Front hydraulic disk brake is too powerful on MTB — solutions?
Charges from Dollar General have never shown up on my debit card - how to resolve?
If I did not sign promotion bonus document, my career would be over. Is this duress?
Self-inflicted killing utility
Can there be an atomic nucleus where there are more protons than neutrons?
How do you handle simultaneous damage when one type is absorbed and not the other?
Why is technology bad for children?
Do more Americans want the Bidens investigated than Trump impeached?
Where does the upgrade to macOS Catalina move root "/" directory files?
What is the meaning of “matter” in physics?
Gauge Symmetry & Off-Shell Current Conservation in QEDDoes effective theory have the same meaning in particle and condensed matter physicsIs a “shift in the meaning” of Accuracy and Precision occurring?What are the “generations of matter”?Why is the definition of mass and matter interlinked?Matter: how much of it exists?What is the meaning of “moment”?If it's impossible to create matter then how can a Higgs Boson field give objects mass?Are bosons matter?Operational definitions in Newtonian Physics
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
What is the meaning of matter in physics? By defining matter in terms of mass and mass in terms of matter in physics, are we not forming circular definitions? Please give a meaning of "matter" in Physics that circumvents this circularity.
mass terminology matter
edited May 6 at 17:47
knzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
asked May 6 at 10:39
Burhan AwanBurhan Awan
423 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
What is the meaning of matter in physics? By defining matter in terms of mass and mass in terms of matter in physics, are we not forming circular definitions? Please give a meaning of "matter" in Physics that circumvents this circularity.
mass terminology matter
edited May 6 at 17:47
knzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
asked May 6 at 10:39
Burhan AwanBurhan Awan
423 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could these be of interest? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Particle_mass_acquisition
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:42
6
$begingroup$
what is the context? For what particular experiment are you asking this?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:36
1
$begingroup$
This is very google-able. For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
$endgroup$
– aquirdturtle
May 6 at 22:53
$begingroup$
Mass is not defined in terms of matter in physics (it is defined, roughly, as the energy remaining when something is not moving), so no need to worry about circularity.
$endgroup$
– Rococo
May 7 at 4:32
$begingroup$
Mass can be defined gravitationally or inertially, and while no measurement has yet demonstrated a difference between the two, I'm not aware that current theories require them to be equal.
$endgroup$
– chepner
May 7 at 14:01
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
What is the meaning of matter in physics? By defining matter in terms of mass and mass in terms of matter in physics, are we not forming circular definitions? Please give a meaning of "matter" in Physics that circumvents this circularity.
mass terminology matter
edited May 6 at 17:47
knzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
asked May 6 at 10:39
Burhan AwanBurhan Awan
423 bronze badges
$endgroup$
What is the meaning of matter in physics? By defining matter in terms of mass and mass in terms of matter in physics, are we not forming circular definitions? Please give a meaning of "matter" in Physics that circumvents this circularity.
mass terminology matter
mass terminology matter
edited May 6 at 17:47
knzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
asked May 6 at 10:39
Burhan AwanBurhan Awan
423 bronze badges
edited May 6 at 17:47
knzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
asked May 6 at 10:39
Burhan AwanBurhan Awan
423 bronze badges
edited May 6 at 17:47
knzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
edited May 6 at 17:47
knzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
edited May 6 at 17:47
knzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
asked May 6 at 10:39
Burhan AwanBurhan Awan
423 bronze badges
asked May 6 at 10:39
Burhan AwanBurhan Awan
423 bronze badges
asked May 6 at 10:39
Burhan AwanBurhan Awan
423 bronze badges
423 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Could these be of interest? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Particle_mass_acquisition
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:42
6
$begingroup$
what is the context? For what particular experiment are you asking this?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:36
1
$begingroup$
This is very google-able. For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
$endgroup$
– aquirdturtle
May 6 at 22:53
$begingroup$
Mass is not defined in terms of matter in physics (it is defined, roughly, as the energy remaining when something is not moving), so no need to worry about circularity.
$endgroup$
– Rococo
May 7 at 4:32
$begingroup$
Mass can be defined gravitationally or inertially, and while no measurement has yet demonstrated a difference between the two, I'm not aware that current theories require them to be equal.
$endgroup$
– chepner
May 7 at 14:01
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Could these be of interest? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Particle_mass_acquisition
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:42
6
$begingroup$
what is the context? For what particular experiment are you asking this?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:36
1
$begingroup$
This is very google-able. For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
$endgroup$
– aquirdturtle
May 6 at 22:53
$begingroup$
Mass is not defined in terms of matter in physics (it is defined, roughly, as the energy remaining when something is not moving), so no need to worry about circularity.
$endgroup$
– Rococo
May 7 at 4:32
$begingroup$
Mass can be defined gravitationally or inertially, and while no measurement has yet demonstrated a difference between the two, I'm not aware that current theories require them to be equal.
$endgroup$
– chepner
May 7 at 14:01
$begingroup$
Could these be of interest? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Particle_mass_acquisition
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:42
$begingroup$
Could these be of interest? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Particle_mass_acquisition
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:42
6
6
$begingroup$
what is the context? For what particular experiment are you asking this?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:36
$begingroup$
what is the context? For what particular experiment are you asking this?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:36
1
1
$begingroup$
This is very google-able. For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
$endgroup$
– aquirdturtle
May 6 at 22:53
$begingroup$
This is very google-able. For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
$endgroup$
– aquirdturtle
May 6 at 22:53
$begingroup$
Mass is not defined in terms of matter in physics (it is defined, roughly, as the energy remaining when something is not moving), so no need to worry about circularity.
$endgroup$
– Rococo
May 7 at 4:32
$begingroup$
Mass is not defined in terms of matter in physics (it is defined, roughly, as the energy remaining when something is not moving), so no need to worry about circularity.
$endgroup$
– Rococo
May 7 at 4:32
$begingroup$
Mass can be defined gravitationally or inertially, and while no measurement has yet demonstrated a difference between the two, I'm not aware that current theories require them to be equal.
$endgroup$
– chepner
May 7 at 14:01
$begingroup$
Mass can be defined gravitationally or inertially, and while no measurement has yet demonstrated a difference between the two, I'm not aware that current theories require them to be equal.
$endgroup$
– chepner
May 7 at 14:01
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
What is the meaning of "matter" in physics?
It doesn't matter. Sometimes matter means "particles with rest mass". Sometimes matter means "anything that contributes to the stress-energy tensor". Sometimes matter means "anything made of fermions". And so on. There's no need to have one official definition of the word "matter", nothing about the physical theories depends on what we call the words.
Discussing this any further is just like worrying about whether a tomato is really a fruit or a vegetable. A cook doesn't care.
answered May 6 at 10:46
knzhouknzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
+1 Definitely agree with the way you answered the way you interpreted the question, but a more interesting interpretation is: what gives matter mass? This question seems much more fundamental and meaningful to me.
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:50
1
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon then you should ask your own question.
$endgroup$
– user207455
May 6 at 11:04
2
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon not to disregard your curiosity, but that is what 10000 scientists at CERN are figuring out
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
@aaaaaa Not really. Just because something gives mass to electrons doesn't mean it also gives mass to protons (and we're pretty sure they're completely unrelated, beyond the general "mass is just the energy of a system").
$endgroup$
– Luaan
May 6 at 19:59
10
$begingroup$
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato into fruit salad."
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
May 7 at 0:51
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Please give a meaning of "matter" in Physics that circumvents this
circularity.
In modern physics, mass is definitely not defined in terms of matter, and there is no circularity.
What we classically called mass was really a definition of its effects on and by other objects. We saw this as an intrinsic quality of an object, and definitional in that statement is that different types of matter had different masses - a 1m sphere of steel is more massive than a 1m sphere of water. We saw that as "obvious", different types of matter have different amounts of mass and that just makes sense.
Critically, the mass of an object defined its gravitational effect. That is, gravity was something caused by mass. This made mass "a thing", and objects with mass were "matter". Compare this to, for instance, a water wave. This clearly exists but is not of itself material, it's simply the water that was already there moving up and down. A body of water would cause a certain amount of gravity, and adding waves, which are "non-material", would not change that.
With the introduction of General Relativity in the early 20th century, this definition was seen to be incorrect. Earlier, Einstein concluded that E=mc^2, which means that mass is (although this terminology is very misleading) "another form of energy". Pondering this, a number of contemporary physicists helped develop GR, in which any and all energy causes gravity (though a mathematically complex system). So in GR, adding waves to water does increase its gravity, because the system has more energy. A shotput will have a certain gravity, and that will change if you heat it. Etc.
At this point, the link between mass and matter was broken. Mass was previously "that thing that causes gravity", but in GR, that was gone. Matter was previously "those things with mass", and while one could change that to be "rest mass" and still have a reasonable definition, we no longer needed it, there is no real need to have a definition of matter.
This is not a theoretical issue - it one "weights" an electron it will have higher "mass" if it's moving faster. Nothing in the electron changed, the change was what we thought we were actually measuring, not some intrinsic property of the object, but its total energy.
In QM, these definitions are further blurred. Particles, energy, fields, mass, all of it is "flexible" and not trivial to pin down. One can have a "mass-like concept" in QM which would be "the total internal energy of an object", but such a definition no longer serves a purpose. Another definition might be that matter is the class of particles called fermions, as opposed to bosons, but both cause gravity and have "mass like effects", because, under them, there's no real "mass".
This may sound confusing, but this true of most modern physics. Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today.
answered May 6 at 12:04
Maury MarkowitzMaury Markowitz
5,6931 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today." I presume you mean the 'spin' measurement of a particle. I'm not sure it makes sense to say 'spinning' is something different that we typically think given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening. It's kind of like asserting that the general understanding of 'charm' or 'strange' is wrong because it doesn't consider how the properties of the types of quarks that bear those names.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 18:11
$begingroup$
"given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening" - exactly.
$endgroup$
– Maury Markowitz
May 6 at 20:15
1
$begingroup$
I don't want to give you too hard a time here because it's good answer overall, it's just that picking the wrong word for a phenomena doesn't mean the word means something else. A good example is 'lead': there's the metal and there's the kind in your pencil (graphite). That doesn't mean we are confused about what lead really is. It's just a misnomer applied to pencils. What mass is or isn't is a far more substantial question. It's not just semantics.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 21:42
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
One way matter is sometimes defined is that it has mass and takes up space. I'm not sure if this really makes sense in quantum mechanics, but it is related to one particle physics definition: Fermions follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle which says that no two identical fermions can have all the same quantum numbers while they occupy the same quantum system(which corresponds roughly to our notion of "place"). This is why only two electrons can occupy the same orbital in an electron. Sometimes, matter is defined as fermions.
On larger scales most of what we think of as matter is made of atoms. Atoms tend to repel other atoms if they get too close. (According to Andrew Lenard and Freeman Dyson, this is also because of the Pauli Exclusion Principal. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1705389) This property of ordinary matter leads to the "normal force" in classical physics, and is why particles in gases bounce off each other.
One good definition for mass is that it is a property of matter which determines it's motion according to certain equations. In classical mechanics, these are:
- Newton's Second Law: $F=ma$
- Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation $F_g=Gfracm_1m_2r^2$
(You can find explanations for these easily.)
Sometimes m in the first equation is called "inertial mass", and m in the second equation is called "gravitational mass", but the two are always proportional (ie. equal with the right choice of the constant G)
Einsteins Theories of Special and General Relativity caused some reinterpretation of the concept of mass and introduced some new (more accurate) equations relating mass to motion. Νotably it is necessary for inertial and gravitational mass to be equal for the general theory of relativity to be true.
For some definitions of mass, it might interest you to start looking at the Wikipedia page if you haven't already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Definitions
answered May 7 at 1:49
H. H.H. H.
211 bronze badge
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't know if it's wise to propagate the "matter = fermions" definition, since even at the subatomic scale it's violated by lots of things that we normally call matter. In particular, according to your definition, all mesons are not matter, because they are all bosons with integral spin.
$endgroup$
– probably_someone
May 7 at 8:39
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478273%2fwhat-is-the-meaning-of-matter-in-physics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
What is the meaning of "matter" in physics?
It doesn't matter. Sometimes matter means "particles with rest mass". Sometimes matter means "anything that contributes to the stress-energy tensor". Sometimes matter means "anything made of fermions". And so on. There's no need to have one official definition of the word "matter", nothing about the physical theories depends on what we call the words.
Discussing this any further is just like worrying about whether a tomato is really a fruit or a vegetable. A cook doesn't care.
answered May 6 at 10:46
knzhouknzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
+1 Definitely agree with the way you answered the way you interpreted the question, but a more interesting interpretation is: what gives matter mass? This question seems much more fundamental and meaningful to me.
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:50
1
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon then you should ask your own question.
$endgroup$
– user207455
May 6 at 11:04
2
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon not to disregard your curiosity, but that is what 10000 scientists at CERN are figuring out
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
@aaaaaa Not really. Just because something gives mass to electrons doesn't mean it also gives mass to protons (and we're pretty sure they're completely unrelated, beyond the general "mass is just the energy of a system").
$endgroup$
– Luaan
May 6 at 19:59
10
$begingroup$
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato into fruit salad."
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
May 7 at 0:51
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
What is the meaning of "matter" in physics?
It doesn't matter. Sometimes matter means "particles with rest mass". Sometimes matter means "anything that contributes to the stress-energy tensor". Sometimes matter means "anything made of fermions". And so on. There's no need to have one official definition of the word "matter", nothing about the physical theories depends on what we call the words.
Discussing this any further is just like worrying about whether a tomato is really a fruit or a vegetable. A cook doesn't care.
answered May 6 at 10:46
knzhouknzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
+1 Definitely agree with the way you answered the way you interpreted the question, but a more interesting interpretation is: what gives matter mass? This question seems much more fundamental and meaningful to me.
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:50
1
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon then you should ask your own question.
$endgroup$
– user207455
May 6 at 11:04
2
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon not to disregard your curiosity, but that is what 10000 scientists at CERN are figuring out
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
@aaaaaa Not really. Just because something gives mass to electrons doesn't mean it also gives mass to protons (and we're pretty sure they're completely unrelated, beyond the general "mass is just the energy of a system").
$endgroup$
– Luaan
May 6 at 19:59
10
$begingroup$
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato into fruit salad."
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
May 7 at 0:51
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
What is the meaning of "matter" in physics?
It doesn't matter. Sometimes matter means "particles with rest mass". Sometimes matter means "anything that contributes to the stress-energy tensor". Sometimes matter means "anything made of fermions". And so on. There's no need to have one official definition of the word "matter", nothing about the physical theories depends on what we call the words.
Discussing this any further is just like worrying about whether a tomato is really a fruit or a vegetable. A cook doesn't care.
answered May 6 at 10:46
knzhouknzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
$endgroup$
What is the meaning of "matter" in physics?
It doesn't matter. Sometimes matter means "particles with rest mass". Sometimes matter means "anything that contributes to the stress-energy tensor". Sometimes matter means "anything made of fermions". And so on. There's no need to have one official definition of the word "matter", nothing about the physical theories depends on what we call the words.
Discussing this any further is just like worrying about whether a tomato is really a fruit or a vegetable. A cook doesn't care.
answered May 6 at 10:46
knzhouknzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
answered May 6 at 10:46
knzhouknzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
answered May 6 at 10:46
knzhouknzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
answered May 6 at 10:46
knzhouknzhou
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
56.8k14 gold badges161 silver badges275 bronze badges
4
$begingroup$
+1 Definitely agree with the way you answered the way you interpreted the question, but a more interesting interpretation is: what gives matter mass? This question seems much more fundamental and meaningful to me.
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:50
1
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon then you should ask your own question.
$endgroup$
– user207455
May 6 at 11:04
2
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon not to disregard your curiosity, but that is what 10000 scientists at CERN are figuring out
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
@aaaaaa Not really. Just because something gives mass to electrons doesn't mean it also gives mass to protons (and we're pretty sure they're completely unrelated, beyond the general "mass is just the energy of a system").
$endgroup$
– Luaan
May 6 at 19:59
10
$begingroup$
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato into fruit salad."
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
May 7 at 0:51
|
show 2 more comments
4
$begingroup$
+1 Definitely agree with the way you answered the way you interpreted the question, but a more interesting interpretation is: what gives matter mass? This question seems much more fundamental and meaningful to me.
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:50
1
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon then you should ask your own question.
$endgroup$
– user207455
May 6 at 11:04
2
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon not to disregard your curiosity, but that is what 10000 scientists at CERN are figuring out
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:35
2
$begingroup$
@aaaaaa Not really. Just because something gives mass to electrons doesn't mean it also gives mass to protons (and we're pretty sure they're completely unrelated, beyond the general "mass is just the energy of a system").
$endgroup$
– Luaan
May 6 at 19:59
10
$begingroup$
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato into fruit salad."
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
May 7 at 0:51
4
4
$begingroup$
+1 Definitely agree with the way you answered the way you interpreted the question, but a more interesting interpretation is: what gives matter mass? This question seems much more fundamental and meaningful to me.
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:50
$begingroup$
+1 Definitely agree with the way you answered the way you interpreted the question, but a more interesting interpretation is: what gives matter mass? This question seems much more fundamental and meaningful to me.
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:50
1
1
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon then you should ask your own question.
$endgroup$
– user207455
May 6 at 11:04
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon then you should ask your own question.
$endgroup$
– user207455
May 6 at 11:04
2
2
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon not to disregard your curiosity, but that is what 10000 scientists at CERN are figuring out
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:35
$begingroup$
@JoeIddon not to disregard your curiosity, but that is what 10000 scientists at CERN are figuring out
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:35
2
2
$begingroup$
@aaaaaa Not really. Just because something gives mass to electrons doesn't mean it also gives mass to protons (and we're pretty sure they're completely unrelated, beyond the general "mass is just the energy of a system").
$endgroup$
– Luaan
May 6 at 19:59
$begingroup$
@aaaaaa Not really. Just because something gives mass to electrons doesn't mean it also gives mass to protons (and we're pretty sure they're completely unrelated, beyond the general "mass is just the energy of a system").
$endgroup$
– Luaan
May 6 at 19:59
10
10
$begingroup$
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato into fruit salad."
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
May 7 at 0:51
$begingroup$
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato into fruit salad."
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
May 7 at 0:51
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Please give a meaning of "matter" in Physics that circumvents this
circularity.
In modern physics, mass is definitely not defined in terms of matter, and there is no circularity.
What we classically called mass was really a definition of its effects on and by other objects. We saw this as an intrinsic quality of an object, and definitional in that statement is that different types of matter had different masses - a 1m sphere of steel is more massive than a 1m sphere of water. We saw that as "obvious", different types of matter have different amounts of mass and that just makes sense.
Critically, the mass of an object defined its gravitational effect. That is, gravity was something caused by mass. This made mass "a thing", and objects with mass were "matter". Compare this to, for instance, a water wave. This clearly exists but is not of itself material, it's simply the water that was already there moving up and down. A body of water would cause a certain amount of gravity, and adding waves, which are "non-material", would not change that.
With the introduction of General Relativity in the early 20th century, this definition was seen to be incorrect. Earlier, Einstein concluded that E=mc^2, which means that mass is (although this terminology is very misleading) "another form of energy". Pondering this, a number of contemporary physicists helped develop GR, in which any and all energy causes gravity (though a mathematically complex system). So in GR, adding waves to water does increase its gravity, because the system has more energy. A shotput will have a certain gravity, and that will change if you heat it. Etc.
At this point, the link between mass and matter was broken. Mass was previously "that thing that causes gravity", but in GR, that was gone. Matter was previously "those things with mass", and while one could change that to be "rest mass" and still have a reasonable definition, we no longer needed it, there is no real need to have a definition of matter.
This is not a theoretical issue - it one "weights" an electron it will have higher "mass" if it's moving faster. Nothing in the electron changed, the change was what we thought we were actually measuring, not some intrinsic property of the object, but its total energy.
In QM, these definitions are further blurred. Particles, energy, fields, mass, all of it is "flexible" and not trivial to pin down. One can have a "mass-like concept" in QM which would be "the total internal energy of an object", but such a definition no longer serves a purpose. Another definition might be that matter is the class of particles called fermions, as opposed to bosons, but both cause gravity and have "mass like effects", because, under them, there's no real "mass".
This may sound confusing, but this true of most modern physics. Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today.
answered May 6 at 12:04
Maury MarkowitzMaury Markowitz
5,6931 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today." I presume you mean the 'spin' measurement of a particle. I'm not sure it makes sense to say 'spinning' is something different that we typically think given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening. It's kind of like asserting that the general understanding of 'charm' or 'strange' is wrong because it doesn't consider how the properties of the types of quarks that bear those names.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 18:11
$begingroup$
"given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening" - exactly.
$endgroup$
– Maury Markowitz
May 6 at 20:15
1
$begingroup$
I don't want to give you too hard a time here because it's good answer overall, it's just that picking the wrong word for a phenomena doesn't mean the word means something else. A good example is 'lead': there's the metal and there's the kind in your pencil (graphite). That doesn't mean we are confused about what lead really is. It's just a misnomer applied to pencils. What mass is or isn't is a far more substantial question. It's not just semantics.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 21:42
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Please give a meaning of "matter" in Physics that circumvents this
circularity.
In modern physics, mass is definitely not defined in terms of matter, and there is no circularity.
What we classically called mass was really a definition of its effects on and by other objects. We saw this as an intrinsic quality of an object, and definitional in that statement is that different types of matter had different masses - a 1m sphere of steel is more massive than a 1m sphere of water. We saw that as "obvious", different types of matter have different amounts of mass and that just makes sense.
Critically, the mass of an object defined its gravitational effect. That is, gravity was something caused by mass. This made mass "a thing", and objects with mass were "matter". Compare this to, for instance, a water wave. This clearly exists but is not of itself material, it's simply the water that was already there moving up and down. A body of water would cause a certain amount of gravity, and adding waves, which are "non-material", would not change that.
With the introduction of General Relativity in the early 20th century, this definition was seen to be incorrect. Earlier, Einstein concluded that E=mc^2, which means that mass is (although this terminology is very misleading) "another form of energy". Pondering this, a number of contemporary physicists helped develop GR, in which any and all energy causes gravity (though a mathematically complex system). So in GR, adding waves to water does increase its gravity, because the system has more energy. A shotput will have a certain gravity, and that will change if you heat it. Etc.
At this point, the link between mass and matter was broken. Mass was previously "that thing that causes gravity", but in GR, that was gone. Matter was previously "those things with mass", and while one could change that to be "rest mass" and still have a reasonable definition, we no longer needed it, there is no real need to have a definition of matter.
This is not a theoretical issue - it one "weights" an electron it will have higher "mass" if it's moving faster. Nothing in the electron changed, the change was what we thought we were actually measuring, not some intrinsic property of the object, but its total energy.
In QM, these definitions are further blurred. Particles, energy, fields, mass, all of it is "flexible" and not trivial to pin down. One can have a "mass-like concept" in QM which would be "the total internal energy of an object", but such a definition no longer serves a purpose. Another definition might be that matter is the class of particles called fermions, as opposed to bosons, but both cause gravity and have "mass like effects", because, under them, there's no real "mass".
This may sound confusing, but this true of most modern physics. Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today.
answered May 6 at 12:04
Maury MarkowitzMaury Markowitz
5,6931 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today." I presume you mean the 'spin' measurement of a particle. I'm not sure it makes sense to say 'spinning' is something different that we typically think given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening. It's kind of like asserting that the general understanding of 'charm' or 'strange' is wrong because it doesn't consider how the properties of the types of quarks that bear those names.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 18:11
$begingroup$
"given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening" - exactly.
$endgroup$
– Maury Markowitz
May 6 at 20:15
1
$begingroup$
I don't want to give you too hard a time here because it's good answer overall, it's just that picking the wrong word for a phenomena doesn't mean the word means something else. A good example is 'lead': there's the metal and there's the kind in your pencil (graphite). That doesn't mean we are confused about what lead really is. It's just a misnomer applied to pencils. What mass is or isn't is a far more substantial question. It's not just semantics.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 21:42
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Please give a meaning of "matter" in Physics that circumvents this
circularity.
In modern physics, mass is definitely not defined in terms of matter, and there is no circularity.
What we classically called mass was really a definition of its effects on and by other objects. We saw this as an intrinsic quality of an object, and definitional in that statement is that different types of matter had different masses - a 1m sphere of steel is more massive than a 1m sphere of water. We saw that as "obvious", different types of matter have different amounts of mass and that just makes sense.
Critically, the mass of an object defined its gravitational effect. That is, gravity was something caused by mass. This made mass "a thing", and objects with mass were "matter". Compare this to, for instance, a water wave. This clearly exists but is not of itself material, it's simply the water that was already there moving up and down. A body of water would cause a certain amount of gravity, and adding waves, which are "non-material", would not change that.
With the introduction of General Relativity in the early 20th century, this definition was seen to be incorrect. Earlier, Einstein concluded that E=mc^2, which means that mass is (although this terminology is very misleading) "another form of energy". Pondering this, a number of contemporary physicists helped develop GR, in which any and all energy causes gravity (though a mathematically complex system). So in GR, adding waves to water does increase its gravity, because the system has more energy. A shotput will have a certain gravity, and that will change if you heat it. Etc.
At this point, the link between mass and matter was broken. Mass was previously "that thing that causes gravity", but in GR, that was gone. Matter was previously "those things with mass", and while one could change that to be "rest mass" and still have a reasonable definition, we no longer needed it, there is no real need to have a definition of matter.
This is not a theoretical issue - it one "weights" an electron it will have higher "mass" if it's moving faster. Nothing in the electron changed, the change was what we thought we were actually measuring, not some intrinsic property of the object, but its total energy.
In QM, these definitions are further blurred. Particles, energy, fields, mass, all of it is "flexible" and not trivial to pin down. One can have a "mass-like concept" in QM which would be "the total internal energy of an object", but such a definition no longer serves a purpose. Another definition might be that matter is the class of particles called fermions, as opposed to bosons, but both cause gravity and have "mass like effects", because, under them, there's no real "mass".
This may sound confusing, but this true of most modern physics. Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today.
answered May 6 at 12:04
Maury MarkowitzMaury Markowitz
5,6931 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Please give a meaning of "matter" in Physics that circumvents this
circularity.
In modern physics, mass is definitely not defined in terms of matter, and there is no circularity.
What we classically called mass was really a definition of its effects on and by other objects. We saw this as an intrinsic quality of an object, and definitional in that statement is that different types of matter had different masses - a 1m sphere of steel is more massive than a 1m sphere of water. We saw that as "obvious", different types of matter have different amounts of mass and that just makes sense.
Critically, the mass of an object defined its gravitational effect. That is, gravity was something caused by mass. This made mass "a thing", and objects with mass were "matter". Compare this to, for instance, a water wave. This clearly exists but is not of itself material, it's simply the water that was already there moving up and down. A body of water would cause a certain amount of gravity, and adding waves, which are "non-material", would not change that.
With the introduction of General Relativity in the early 20th century, this definition was seen to be incorrect. Earlier, Einstein concluded that E=mc^2, which means that mass is (although this terminology is very misleading) "another form of energy". Pondering this, a number of contemporary physicists helped develop GR, in which any and all energy causes gravity (though a mathematically complex system). So in GR, adding waves to water does increase its gravity, because the system has more energy. A shotput will have a certain gravity, and that will change if you heat it. Etc.
At this point, the link between mass and matter was broken. Mass was previously "that thing that causes gravity", but in GR, that was gone. Matter was previously "those things with mass", and while one could change that to be "rest mass" and still have a reasonable definition, we no longer needed it, there is no real need to have a definition of matter.
This is not a theoretical issue - it one "weights" an electron it will have higher "mass" if it's moving faster. Nothing in the electron changed, the change was what we thought we were actually measuring, not some intrinsic property of the object, but its total energy.
In QM, these definitions are further blurred. Particles, energy, fields, mass, all of it is "flexible" and not trivial to pin down. One can have a "mass-like concept" in QM which would be "the total internal energy of an object", but such a definition no longer serves a purpose. Another definition might be that matter is the class of particles called fermions, as opposed to bosons, but both cause gravity and have "mass like effects", because, under them, there's no real "mass".
This may sound confusing, but this true of most modern physics. Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today.
answered May 6 at 12:04
Maury MarkowitzMaury Markowitz
5,6931 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
edited May 6 at 12:10
answered May 6 at 12:04
Maury MarkowitzMaury Markowitz
5,6931 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
answered May 6 at 12:04
Maury MarkowitzMaury Markowitz
5,6931 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
answered May 6 at 12:04
Maury MarkowitzMaury Markowitz
5,6931 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
5,6931 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
"Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today." I presume you mean the 'spin' measurement of a particle. I'm not sure it makes sense to say 'spinning' is something different that we typically think given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening. It's kind of like asserting that the general understanding of 'charm' or 'strange' is wrong because it doesn't consider how the properties of the types of quarks that bear those names.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 18:11
$begingroup$
"given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening" - exactly.
$endgroup$
– Maury Markowitz
May 6 at 20:15
1
$begingroup$
I don't want to give you too hard a time here because it's good answer overall, it's just that picking the wrong word for a phenomena doesn't mean the word means something else. A good example is 'lead': there's the metal and there's the kind in your pencil (graphite). That doesn't mean we are confused about what lead really is. It's just a misnomer applied to pencils. What mass is or isn't is a far more substantial question. It's not just semantics.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 21:42
add a comment
|
1
$begingroup$
"Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today." I presume you mean the 'spin' measurement of a particle. I'm not sure it makes sense to say 'spinning' is something different that we typically think given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening. It's kind of like asserting that the general understanding of 'charm' or 'strange' is wrong because it doesn't consider how the properties of the types of quarks that bear those names.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 18:11
$begingroup$
"given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening" - exactly.
$endgroup$
– Maury Markowitz
May 6 at 20:15
1
$begingroup$
I don't want to give you too hard a time here because it's good answer overall, it's just that picking the wrong word for a phenomena doesn't mean the word means something else. A good example is 'lead': there's the metal and there's the kind in your pencil (graphite). That doesn't mean we are confused about what lead really is. It's just a misnomer applied to pencils. What mass is or isn't is a far more substantial question. It's not just semantics.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 21:42
1
1
$begingroup$
"Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today." I presume you mean the 'spin' measurement of a particle. I'm not sure it makes sense to say 'spinning' is something different that we typically think given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening. It's kind of like asserting that the general understanding of 'charm' or 'strange' is wrong because it doesn't consider how the properties of the types of quarks that bear those names.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 18:11
$begingroup$
"Even simple things you think you understand, like "spinning", look very different today." I presume you mean the 'spin' measurement of a particle. I'm not sure it makes sense to say 'spinning' is something different that we typically think given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening. It's kind of like asserting that the general understanding of 'charm' or 'strange' is wrong because it doesn't consider how the properties of the types of quarks that bear those names.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 18:11
$begingroup$
"given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening" - exactly.
$endgroup$
– Maury Markowitz
May 6 at 20:15
$begingroup$
"given that the term 'spin' was based on an incorrect model of what was really happening" - exactly.
$endgroup$
– Maury Markowitz
May 6 at 20:15
1
1
$begingroup$
I don't want to give you too hard a time here because it's good answer overall, it's just that picking the wrong word for a phenomena doesn't mean the word means something else. A good example is 'lead': there's the metal and there's the kind in your pencil (graphite). That doesn't mean we are confused about what lead really is. It's just a misnomer applied to pencils. What mass is or isn't is a far more substantial question. It's not just semantics.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 21:42
$begingroup$
I don't want to give you too hard a time here because it's good answer overall, it's just that picking the wrong word for a phenomena doesn't mean the word means something else. A good example is 'lead': there's the metal and there's the kind in your pencil (graphite). That doesn't mean we are confused about what lead really is. It's just a misnomer applied to pencils. What mass is or isn't is a far more substantial question. It's not just semantics.
$endgroup$
– JimmyJames
May 6 at 21:42
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
One way matter is sometimes defined is that it has mass and takes up space. I'm not sure if this really makes sense in quantum mechanics, but it is related to one particle physics definition: Fermions follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle which says that no two identical fermions can have all the same quantum numbers while they occupy the same quantum system(which corresponds roughly to our notion of "place"). This is why only two electrons can occupy the same orbital in an electron. Sometimes, matter is defined as fermions.
On larger scales most of what we think of as matter is made of atoms. Atoms tend to repel other atoms if they get too close. (According to Andrew Lenard and Freeman Dyson, this is also because of the Pauli Exclusion Principal. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1705389) This property of ordinary matter leads to the "normal force" in classical physics, and is why particles in gases bounce off each other.
One good definition for mass is that it is a property of matter which determines it's motion according to certain equations. In classical mechanics, these are:
- Newton's Second Law: $F=ma$
- Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation $F_g=Gfracm_1m_2r^2$
(You can find explanations for these easily.)
Sometimes m in the first equation is called "inertial mass", and m in the second equation is called "gravitational mass", but the two are always proportional (ie. equal with the right choice of the constant G)
Einsteins Theories of Special and General Relativity caused some reinterpretation of the concept of mass and introduced some new (more accurate) equations relating mass to motion. Νotably it is necessary for inertial and gravitational mass to be equal for the general theory of relativity to be true.
For some definitions of mass, it might interest you to start looking at the Wikipedia page if you haven't already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Definitions
answered May 7 at 1:49
H. H.H. H.
211 bronze badge
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't know if it's wise to propagate the "matter = fermions" definition, since even at the subatomic scale it's violated by lots of things that we normally call matter. In particular, according to your definition, all mesons are not matter, because they are all bosons with integral spin.
$endgroup$
– probably_someone
May 7 at 8:39
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
One way matter is sometimes defined is that it has mass and takes up space. I'm not sure if this really makes sense in quantum mechanics, but it is related to one particle physics definition: Fermions follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle which says that no two identical fermions can have all the same quantum numbers while they occupy the same quantum system(which corresponds roughly to our notion of "place"). This is why only two electrons can occupy the same orbital in an electron. Sometimes, matter is defined as fermions.
On larger scales most of what we think of as matter is made of atoms. Atoms tend to repel other atoms if they get too close. (According to Andrew Lenard and Freeman Dyson, this is also because of the Pauli Exclusion Principal. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1705389) This property of ordinary matter leads to the "normal force" in classical physics, and is why particles in gases bounce off each other.
One good definition for mass is that it is a property of matter which determines it's motion according to certain equations. In classical mechanics, these are:
- Newton's Second Law: $F=ma$
- Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation $F_g=Gfracm_1m_2r^2$
(You can find explanations for these easily.)
Sometimes m in the first equation is called "inertial mass", and m in the second equation is called "gravitational mass", but the two are always proportional (ie. equal with the right choice of the constant G)
Einsteins Theories of Special and General Relativity caused some reinterpretation of the concept of mass and introduced some new (more accurate) equations relating mass to motion. Νotably it is necessary for inertial and gravitational mass to be equal for the general theory of relativity to be true.
For some definitions of mass, it might interest you to start looking at the Wikipedia page if you haven't already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Definitions
answered May 7 at 1:49
H. H.H. H.
211 bronze badge
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't know if it's wise to propagate the "matter = fermions" definition, since even at the subatomic scale it's violated by lots of things that we normally call matter. In particular, according to your definition, all mesons are not matter, because they are all bosons with integral spin.
$endgroup$
– probably_someone
May 7 at 8:39
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
One way matter is sometimes defined is that it has mass and takes up space. I'm not sure if this really makes sense in quantum mechanics, but it is related to one particle physics definition: Fermions follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle which says that no two identical fermions can have all the same quantum numbers while they occupy the same quantum system(which corresponds roughly to our notion of "place"). This is why only two electrons can occupy the same orbital in an electron. Sometimes, matter is defined as fermions.
On larger scales most of what we think of as matter is made of atoms. Atoms tend to repel other atoms if they get too close. (According to Andrew Lenard and Freeman Dyson, this is also because of the Pauli Exclusion Principal. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1705389) This property of ordinary matter leads to the "normal force" in classical physics, and is why particles in gases bounce off each other.
One good definition for mass is that it is a property of matter which determines it's motion according to certain equations. In classical mechanics, these are:
- Newton's Second Law: $F=ma$
- Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation $F_g=Gfracm_1m_2r^2$
(You can find explanations for these easily.)
Sometimes m in the first equation is called "inertial mass", and m in the second equation is called "gravitational mass", but the two are always proportional (ie. equal with the right choice of the constant G)
Einsteins Theories of Special and General Relativity caused some reinterpretation of the concept of mass and introduced some new (more accurate) equations relating mass to motion. Νotably it is necessary for inertial and gravitational mass to be equal for the general theory of relativity to be true.
For some definitions of mass, it might interest you to start looking at the Wikipedia page if you haven't already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Definitions
answered May 7 at 1:49
H. H.H. H.
211 bronze badge
$endgroup$
One way matter is sometimes defined is that it has mass and takes up space. I'm not sure if this really makes sense in quantum mechanics, but it is related to one particle physics definition: Fermions follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle which says that no two identical fermions can have all the same quantum numbers while they occupy the same quantum system(which corresponds roughly to our notion of "place"). This is why only two electrons can occupy the same orbital in an electron. Sometimes, matter is defined as fermions.
On larger scales most of what we think of as matter is made of atoms. Atoms tend to repel other atoms if they get too close. (According to Andrew Lenard and Freeman Dyson, this is also because of the Pauli Exclusion Principal. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1705389) This property of ordinary matter leads to the "normal force" in classical physics, and is why particles in gases bounce off each other.
One good definition for mass is that it is a property of matter which determines it's motion according to certain equations. In classical mechanics, these are:
- Newton's Second Law: $F=ma$
- Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation $F_g=Gfracm_1m_2r^2$
(You can find explanations for these easily.)
Sometimes m in the first equation is called "inertial mass", and m in the second equation is called "gravitational mass", but the two are always proportional (ie. equal with the right choice of the constant G)
Einsteins Theories of Special and General Relativity caused some reinterpretation of the concept of mass and introduced some new (more accurate) equations relating mass to motion. Νotably it is necessary for inertial and gravitational mass to be equal for the general theory of relativity to be true.
For some definitions of mass, it might interest you to start looking at the Wikipedia page if you haven't already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Definitions
answered May 7 at 1:49
H. H.H. H.
211 bronze badge
answered May 7 at 1:49
H. H.H. H.
211 bronze badge
answered May 7 at 1:49
H. H.H. H.
211 bronze badge
answered May 7 at 1:49
H. H.H. H.
211 bronze badge
211 bronze badge
$begingroup$
I don't know if it's wise to propagate the "matter = fermions" definition, since even at the subatomic scale it's violated by lots of things that we normally call matter. In particular, according to your definition, all mesons are not matter, because they are all bosons with integral spin.
$endgroup$
– probably_someone
May 7 at 8:39
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I don't know if it's wise to propagate the "matter = fermions" definition, since even at the subatomic scale it's violated by lots of things that we normally call matter. In particular, according to your definition, all mesons are not matter, because they are all bosons with integral spin.
$endgroup$
– probably_someone
May 7 at 8:39
$begingroup$
I don't know if it's wise to propagate the "matter = fermions" definition, since even at the subatomic scale it's violated by lots of things that we normally call matter. In particular, according to your definition, all mesons are not matter, because they are all bosons with integral spin.
$endgroup$
– probably_someone
May 7 at 8:39
$begingroup$
I don't know if it's wise to propagate the "matter = fermions" definition, since even at the subatomic scale it's violated by lots of things that we normally call matter. In particular, according to your definition, all mesons are not matter, because they are all bosons with integral spin.
$endgroup$
– probably_someone
May 7 at 8:39
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478273%2fwhat-is-the-meaning-of-matter-in-physics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Could these be of interest? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Particle_mass_acquisition
$endgroup$
– Joe Iddon
May 6 at 10:42
6
$begingroup$
what is the context? For what particular experiment are you asking this?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
May 6 at 16:36
1
$begingroup$
This is very google-able. For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
$endgroup$
– aquirdturtle
May 6 at 22:53
$begingroup$
Mass is not defined in terms of matter in physics (it is defined, roughly, as the energy remaining when something is not moving), so no need to worry about circularity.
$endgroup$
– Rococo
May 7 at 4:32
$begingroup$
Mass can be defined gravitationally or inertially, and while no measurement has yet demonstrated a difference between the two, I'm not aware that current theories require them to be equal.
$endgroup$
– chepner
May 7 at 14:01