Can matter be defined strictly in terms of mass and energy?

In summary, the conversation discusses the definition of matter and whether non-massive particles such as photons should be considered as matter. While some argue that matter should only include particles with mass, others suggest that energy should also be included in the definition. However, it is ultimately up to the physics community to determine the definition of matter, and the semantics of the term do not change the underlying physics involved.
  • #1
la6ki
53
0
I was reading some articles and discussions on the topic and got confused when I read that conventionally photons and all other massless particles aren't considered a form of matter. The Wiki article on matter begins with the statement that the term itself is poorly defined.

I was thinking that a good way to define the term could be to say that matter is something which has mass or energy. This would also capture our intuitive understanding of the concept of material substance, since when dualists speak of the "non-material world", they certainly don't have photons in mind.

If energy can be converted to matter and matter to energy, and only the sum is concerved, why aren't massless particles considered material?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Matter is all that has a position in space and has mass. Non massive particles like photons aren´t matter. There is no ambiguity. There is a definition present in innumerable sources, I don´t know the Wikipedia article where consider non massive particles matter but it is completely erroneous. The convenious is absolute.
 
  • #3
The Wikipedia article doesn't consider non-massive particles matter, on the contrary. I'm aware of the conventional definition but the reason I started this thread is to question it. Why not include particles which have energy in it? It seems much more natural to do so, as I gave an argument in the OP.
 
  • #4
la6ki said:
The Wikipedia article doesn't consider non-massive particles matter, on the contrary. I'm aware of the conventional definition but the reason I started this thread is to question it. Why not include particles which have energy in it? It seems much more natural to do so, as I gave an argument in the OP.

Well, it may seem more natural to you, but do you really think you are going to get the physics community to change terminology to suit you?
 
  • #5
la6ki said:
The Wikipedia article doesn't consider non-massive particles matter, on the contrary. I'm aware of the conventional definition but the reason I started this thread is to question it. Why not include particles which have energy in it? It seems much more natural to do so, as I gave an argument in the OP.

This is as meaningful as the argument on whether Pluto is a planet or not. If all you care about is the semantics, then this is no longer physics.

You can call it anything you like. The question that should matter is, what is the physics involved? Does calling massless particle "matter" change anything? Is this such an important question that it is published in Physical Review Letters? As far as I can tell, you haven't made any physics argument. Saying that matter can be converted into energy, etc. is not a justification. Would you say that your $1 bill is food, since it can be converted into a bag of potato chips?

Zz.
 
  • #6
?? People may define matter as they wish, it seems . Photons have Mass and Energy
. So do electrons and quarks for that matter- I've always considered this stuff matter.

Also ZapperZ; you don't turn $1 directly into food..
 
  • #7
Grombely said:
?? People may define matter as they wish, it seems . Photons have Mass and Energy
. So do electrons and quarks for that matter- I've always considered this stuff matter.

Also ZapperZ; you don't turn $1 directly into food..

You also do not turn photons into mass "directly". Pair production, for example, requires an exchange of momentum with a massive particle. That's why we often shot gamma photons into crystals with large atomic mass. So there are other external factors involved here.

BTW, photons do not has "mass". Read our Relativity FAQ and also the numerous threads we already have on this topic.

Zz.
 

1. What is the relationship between mass and energy?

The relationship between mass and energy is described by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2, which states that energy (E) and mass (m) are interchangeable and can be converted into one another. This means that matter can be described in terms of both mass and energy.

2. Can all forms of matter be converted into energy?

No, not all forms of matter can be converted into energy. Only small particles with a very high mass, such as atoms split in nuclear reactions, can be converted into energy. Everyday objects like chairs and tables have such a small mass that their conversion into energy would release a negligible amount of energy.

3. Is it possible to have mass without energy?

Yes, it is possible to have mass without energy. In fact, all objects with mass have a certain amount of potential energy stored in them, but this potential energy is not always easily converted into other forms of energy. However, it is not possible to have energy without mass, as energy is a property of matter.

4. How does the concept of "mass-energy equivalence" impact our understanding of matter?

The concept of mass-energy equivalence has greatly impacted our understanding of matter. It has allowed us to understand that matter and energy are not separate entities, but are actually different forms of the same thing. This has led to developments in nuclear energy, particle physics, and our understanding of the universe as a whole.

5. Can matter be defined strictly in terms of mass and energy?

No, matter cannot be defined strictly in terms of mass and energy. While they are closely related, matter also has other defining characteristics such as volume, density, and chemical properties. Additionally, matter can exist in different states (solid, liquid, gas) and can interact with other matter through various forces, which cannot be fully explained by mass and energy alone.

Similar threads

I What can we scientifically measure directly?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
27
Views
2K
I Distinctions among the concepts: mass, matter, energy
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Exploring the Relationship Between Mass and Matter in Particle Physics
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
15
Views
2K
B E = mc^2, Wikipedia Mass–energy equivalence Clarification
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
18
Views
3K
What is the purpose of the term 'Matter'?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
1K
I The new definition of kg and the mass-energy equivalence
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
4K
B Exploring Energy-Mass Equivalence: Converting Energy to Matter in Everyday Life?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
Same Charge, Same Mass? | Subatomic Particles
    • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
28
Views
806
I Is Matter Really made of Matter?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Energy is Matter is Energy? - confused layman here
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
14
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top