Definition of matter (split from could matter exist of energy)

[Kramer]

Swanson say:

 

Matter has the property of mass, and of energy.

Please,can you give a definition of matter, out of it's properties?
I think the property can't be identified with owner..

 

[Mordred]

matter has several properties, mass, spin, charge, momentum, and interactions. Mass is a particles resistance to change in position or momentum, f=ma. For everyday particles the strong force is the primary source of mass,

 

though for some key elementary particles Quarks, gluons, neutrinos the source of mass is the Higg's field interactions is the source of mass, this covers only roughly 1% of the mass in the universe. Every particle has unique characteristic. A particles mass and momentum defines its energy, E=mc² or [latex]e^2=p^2c^2+(mc^2)^2[/latex] the last being the energy momentum relation.

 

spin is a measure of a particles angular momentum,

charge of a particle, helps define the types of interactions. These include electromagnetic charge, color charge and flavor charge particles with electromagnetic charge these define a particles interactions with the 4 forces, mass is the interaction for gravity.

 

color charge is the strong force (mediated by the gluons)

flavor charge is the weak force (mediated by the w and z bosons)

electromagnetic charge is the electromagnetic force (with the photon being the mediator)

if the graviton is found it will be the mediator of gravity,

Edited July 5, 2014 by Mordred

[Kramer]

 

I think that the answer about definition of matter is obfuscated with the properties of matter.
When we say: electron (“me”) is a mass particle we identified it as matter, not as a property.
When we say: photon (ph) is an energy particle we identified it as matter not as a property.
Electron particles and the photon particles for somebody seem to be two different things.
I suppose that they are two kind of structure of the same matter.
Sensey in its post, gave the equation of “annihilation” of matter:

me+ + me- = γ + γ (sorry Sensey but I can’t identify “e” with “me”.)

I think here is not at all any annihilation of matter. Is only a restructure of component of so called “matter” and “antimatter”. When I say “components” I allege hypothetic sub-particles of matter – antimatter.

((e- / g-) + (e- / g.)) + ((e+/g+) +(e+/g+)) = me- + me+
equal ((e- / g-) + (e+/ g+)) + ((e- / g-) + (e+/ g+)) = γ + γ here (e+- / g +- ) = (e+- / +-(4*pi*G)^0.5)

[Mordred]

ah now I understand what your getting at, didn't quite follow it from your previous post. The term matter has no clear cut definition

 

"Before the 20th century, the term matter included ordinary matter composed of atoms, and excluded other energy phenomena such as light or sound. This concept of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ambiguous because an object's mass can arise from its (possibly-massless) constituents' motion and interaction energies. Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept, in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

 

this page goes into details on the ambiquities

 

commonly matter is

Definition: Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

 

photons as they have no rest mass is not considered a form of matter, a particle yes, matter no but this is also ambiguous, see the wiki page

[ydoaPs]

Swanson say:

 

Matter has the property of mass, and of energy.

 

Please,can you give a definition of matter, out of it's properties?

I think the property can't be identified with owner..

Generally, 'matter' is just anything made of fermions or that is a fermion.

[Mordred]

Generally, 'matter' is just anything made of fermions or that is a fermion.

never would have thought of that definition, makes sense though

[Sensei]

I think that the answer about definition of matter is obfuscated with the properties of matter.

When we say: electron (“me”) is a mass particle we identified it as matter, not as a property.

When we say: photon (ph) is an energy particle we identified it as matter not as a property.

Electron particles and the photon particles for somebody seem to be two different things.

I suppose that they are two kind of structure of the same matter.

Sensey in its post, gave the equation of “annihilation” of matter:

 

me+ + me- = γ + γ (sorry Sensey but I can’t identify “e” with “me”.)

e-

and

e+

are just standard mainstream identifiers to inform everybody that you are talking about electron and positron.

 

m_e is mass of electron or positron, ~9.11*10^-31 kg

 

1.23559*10^20 Hz (Compton frequency) * 6.62607*10^-34 J*s (Planck const) / 1.602*10^-19 (e) = 510998.9 eV = 0.5109989 MeV

1.23559*10^20 Hz (Compton frequency) * 6.62607*10^-34 J*s(Planck const) / 299792458^2 (c^2) = ~9.11*10^-31 kg

 

I think here is not at all any annihilation of matter. Is only a restructure of component of so called “matter” and “antimatter”. When I say “components” I allege hypothetic sub-particles of matter – antimatter.

 

((e- / g-) + (e- / g.)) + ((e+/g+) +(e+/g+)) = me- + me+

equal ((e- / g-) + (e+/ g+)) + ((e- / g-) + (e+/ g+)) = γ + γ here (e+- / g +- ) = (e+- / +-(4*pi*G)^0.5)

 

Gamma photons after annihilation can be absorbed (and then most likely emitted) by charged particles f.e. electrons and protons, and accelerate them, ionize atoms etc. Instead of 2 photons each with 0.510999 MeV we will have multiple, thousands or millions photons with smaller frequencies, smaller energies, that sum of their all energies is our initial 2*0.510999 MeV = 1.022 MeV energy.

 

When 2 photons have smaller frequency than Compton frequency they won't be able to change to electron and positron in pair production (reverse of annihilation).

y + y -> e- + e+

 

When 1 photons have smaller frequency than 2 * Compton frequency it won't be able to change to electron and positron in pair production.

y + nucleus -> e- + e+

 

Four sub-particles, like in above example, is too few I am afraid.

How to differentiate frequencies, energies?

Edited July 7, 2014 by Sensei

[Nicholas Kang]

My school syllabus:

 

Matter is anything that has mass and occupies space

 

Is light a matter? Is sound a matter? Is space a matter? Is the universe a matter?

[swansont]

 

I think here is not at all any annihilation of matter. Is only a restructure of component of so called “matter” and “antimatter”. When I say “components” I allege hypothetic sub-particles of matter – antimatter.

 

((e- / g-) + (e- / g.)) + ((e+/g+) +(e+/g+)) = me- + me+

equal ((e- / g-) + (e+/ g+)) + ((e- / g-) + (e+/ g+)) = γ + γ here (e+- / g +- ) = (e+- / +-(4*pi*G)^0.5)

 

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

In this thread we are answering the question posed in the title with mainstream physics. This is not the place for you to discuss your pet theory — you have a thread for that. Confine your discussion of what you allege to that thread.

 

Do not respond to this modnote.

[ajb]

From a modern perspective, as ydoaPs states, fundamental matter is any fundamental particle that is fermionic. Composite particles it may not be quite so clear cut was we have the forces of nature to take care of. For example nucleons consist of quarks that are fermions, but they are held together via gluons which are bosonic. The largest contribution to the mass is from the binding energy and not the mass of the individual gluons. In fact it is even more complicated than that as generally we also have virtual quarks to take care of, though in many calculations one uses the quenched approximation where these contributions are ignored.

 

Any fundamental particle that is bosonic is a "force carrier" like photons or gluons.

 

So there seems to be a distinct separation of the two generic kinds of fields that we can have in 4d space-time.

 

However, if supersymmetry is realised then every fermion has a boson partner and vice versa, which would mean this separation is blurred.

[Mordred]

Definition: the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space.

 

if you consider the definition above and fermions then the distinction is extremely appropriate, An arbitrary number of bosons can reside in the same quantum space, so they themselves do not take up space, regardless of whether or not the particle itself has mass, such as the Higg's boson.

 

However only one fermion can occupy the same quantum state/space, so fermions do take up space.

 

As long as you remember the standard definition of mass and occupies space, as being both requirements. I don't think the supersymmetry particles will alter that

[Sensei]

Neutrino is fermion in mainstream physics, but almost nobody would call it "matter"..

Edited July 8, 2014 by Sensei

[swansont]

Neutrino is fermion in mainstream physics, but almost nobody would call it "matter"..

 

I think that may be based on the old notion that they were massless.