Notices
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: What is Matter?

  1. #1 What is Matter? 
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    52
    What is matter defined as within the current physics community?

    According to Wikipedia:

    "In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. This includes atoms and anything made up of these, but not other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound.[1][2] More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having no volume individually."

    In classical physics it must be a three-dimensional enclosed surface (volume) and have mass resulting in a grativational attraction to other bodies and be resistant to change in motion when force is applied.

    In modern physics there is no definition and as some aspects may have no volume and simply be a "point".

    My further questions from the above is: Do these definitions have to contradict? Or better yet do they?

    If matter is equivalent to volumeless points, under certain circumstances, do these points maintain a three dimensional structure as extensions of space or are they one dimensional?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by eodnhoj7 View Post
    What is matter defined as within the current physics community?

    According to Wikipedia:

    "In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. This includes atoms and anything made up of these, but not other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound.[1][2] More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having no volume individually."

    In classical physics it must be a three-dimensional enclosed surface (volume) and have mass resulting in a grativational attraction to other bodies and be resistant to change in motion when force is applied.

    In modern physics there is no definition and as some aspects may have no volume and simply be a "point".

    My further questions from the above is: Do these definitions have to contradict? Or better yet do they?

    If matter is equivalent to volumeless points, under certain circumstances, do these points maintain a three dimensional structure as extensions of space or are they one dimensional?

    Thank you for a short and largely comprehensible post, that sticks to asking questions.

    Do these definitions have to contradict? Or better yet do they?

    As you have only given one definition, and agreed that a more general definition is not feasible, then there are not two definitions that can contradict.

    If matter is equivalent to volumeless points, under certain circumstances, do these points maintain a three dimensional structure as extensions of space or are they one dimensional?

    These examples, such as electrons, would be zero dimensional. (A one dimensional entity would be a line, not a point.)

    Personally, I wouldn't call electrons "matter" but it is a grey area. Opinions may differ. (And it is a matter of of opinion, not science, as "matter" is not a concept that is really used in science.)
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    52
    Yeah, I am beginning to figure out your language. Okay, to start out "new".

    Your logic is correct in that degree. In a seperate degree, classical mechanics claimed matter had definition (according to the aforementioned points), modern physics does not. Is the definition of matter to be considering both in a classical model and modern model at the same time in different respects or is the modern model strictly the standard definition and classical is thrown out completely? Take for example the concept of infinity as a "numberless number". We observe a dual paradoxical definition. Is matter to be observed in a similiar light as "definitionless, definition"?

    I bring this up because, it appears (and I want to emphasize that point) that both models can be held as matter is "moving towards the point (or zero)" in both of them:

    The center point of matter appears to a be the cause of the gravitional pull in the classical model. In the modern model, through Relativity (assuming I understand this correctly), gravitional pull is not a force but rather a source of flux between the particles. Considering that the modern model is strictly all matter being "a point not strictly bound by dimension", it appears all matter is a center of gravity and gravity itself is strictly movement as their are potentially infinite center points.

    These center points, as a division of the one dimensional line, result in the three dimensional space we observe. The question I further have considering the point fundamentally is what forms reality, is whether it not it proves in theory a potential "etherial" unified space as the point is strictly a reflection of the one dimensional circle which the most symmetrical space there is?

    Answer/Opinion?

    In a seperate respect, I heard the opinion that what the quantum physicists are really observing in matter is the "apeiron" or the "primordial chaos". Considering a center point is a deficiency in structure, and matter is defined only as "points" in the modern conception of physics, would matter be viewed strictly as perpertual movement as a deficiency in stability?

    I ask this question because perpetual movement implies some form of instability and this appears to be the only traits that corresponds to what we understand of as matter: movement. If a particle ceases to relate, through movement, to another particle it ceases to exist as the particle is a "part" or fractal.

    Answer/Opinion?

    By the way, thanks for your patience. I think, or rather hope, my physics "language" improved a little?
    Last edited by eodnhoj7; 10-26-2017 at 12:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by eodnhoj7 View Post
    Your logic is correct in that degree. In a seperate degree, classical mechanics claimed matter had definition (according to the aforementioned points), modern physics does not. Is the definition of matter to be considering both in a classical model and modern model at the same time in different respects or is the modern model strictly the standard definition and classical is thrown out completely?
    You would just use whichever definition is most suitable for your purposes. (Although, I can't think of anywhere in classical or modern physics where you would actually need to define what matter was.)


    Take for example the concept of infinity as a "numberless number". We observe a dual paradoxical definition.
    That is because you have invented a meaningless definition. It is like saying "take the concept of a banana as a colourless yellow".

    We have a good definition of infinity. Why make up a meaningless one?

    The center point of matter appears to a be the cause of the gravitional pull in the classical model.
    Nope. Mass is the cause of gravity in the classical view.

    In the modern model, through Relativity (assuming I understand this correctly), gravitional pull is not a force but rather a source of flux between the particles.
    Not really. In GR, gravity is how we perceive the curvature of space-time. Not "flux between particles".

    Considering that the modern model is strictly all matter being "a point not strictly bound by dimension"
    I don't think that is a useful definition of matter. I don't think there is anything that would be called "matter" by most people that has zero size. I would say the smallest unit of matter is the atom. And that has a 3-dimensional size.

    , it appears all matter is a center of gravity and gravity itself is strictly movement as their are potentially infinite center points.
    I have no idea what that means. Ditto the rest of your post. You are back to reflecting asymmetrical bananas. It would be so much better if you stopped just making stuff up to fill the gaps in your knowledge.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •