Talk:Matter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Shoddy lead summary paragraph[edit]

Photons are, in fact, matter waves. They are both particles and waves, that like electrons, you can collide with (bump into). Thus the whole second paragraph should be either revamped or go imho. --Modocc (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't completely clear to me whether all matter waves (such as photons) must themselves be considered to be matter (or a type of matter)... But I do think the beginning of the lead should emphasize that matter *still* includes ordinary matter (not just pre-20th century) and that "ordinary matter" is a better-defined term than "matter" DavRosen (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
If you two are going to start modifying the lead, I suggest you first look at Matter#Definition. There is plenty of well-sourced discussion of various notions of what constitutes matter. Not including photons is consistent with the idea of antimatter - an electron has an antielectron, but there is no antiphoton. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course, an antimatter matter collision can result in a photon cloud. The cloud of photons still fits the common definition given of mass occupying space. So its not clear why they should be excluded. --Modocc (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec)Ofcourse there is an antiphoton it is called... a photon. (Note this could also be the for neutrinos, which could be Majorana fermions and therefore their own anti-particle.)TR 20:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that the Oxford dictionary (which is reliable enough I suppose) stipulates matter has rest mass which each photon, in isolation, does not have, so I'll let this matter rest. To further my point however, one can arbitrarily remove any portion of a cloud's photons and those subcloud rest masses, just like with other composite objects that have mass-energy. The cloud's matter can be stripped one photon at at time from all its subclouds so nothing is left. This illustrates why the definition of matter should be that of objects with mass-energy that occupy space, but then many physicists that want to rid themselves of relativistic mass might balk, especially since there are different equations involved (yes I'm aware of them too, i.e. Maxwell's and the Schrödinger equation) regarding propagation. On the whole however, the exclusion of the multitude of fundamental force carriers that light our day and that one day may propel starships from the definition of matter just doesn't cut it for me, but it apparently does for those that should know better. --Modocc (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that `matter' is not a fundamental concept in any modern theory of physics. Consequently, there really there is no real proper definition, and the word just gets thrown around with different meanings depending on context. To a relativist, `matter' would simply be anything that contributes to the right hand side of the Einstein equation. To a cosmologist, the `matter' component of the universe is stuff that moves non-relativistically (i.e. whose temperature is small compared to its rest mass). Then again, to a standard model field theorist, `matter' fields are simply the non-gauge fermionic fields. I think this page is currently too focused on definitions of matter. It probably would be a lot better if it simply focussed on the history of the subject, explaining the ambiguities that arise in modern physics.TR 08:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

the first sentence should link to the article on substance theory, as the word "substance" is used to define/explain the concept of matter[edit]

The word "substance" is not a word that can be left on its own as almost no one, let alone the layman, has an idea as to what it may mean and it's ambiguous anyway.

Since it is a key word in defining or explaining the concept of matter, it should be joined with a link to the article on substance theory.

Notice that when searching Wikipedia for "substance" you are referred, apart from the article on substance theory, to two others- one about chemical substances (a concept clearly less basic than matter), and the other to the article on matter itself. This strengthens my claim for the need of linking to substance theory, as people might think "substance" is just a synonym of matter, and thus the first sentence can be interpreted as using the concept of matter to define or explain matter. 132.72.130.205 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I added a link in Matter#See also. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance[edit]

I'm a little concerned that the article is being pulled in two directions to accommodate two separate ideas of "matter", at least as far as I understand it. In particular, I think there's an unnecessary contention between the idea of matter in general and the notion of ordinary matter. I would like to see these two concepts separated into two separate articles, referencing each other, of course.

Of particular concern to me is the misleading statements about volume. My understanding is that volume is a property of ordinary matter, but not matter in general. In particular, volume loses meaning within the context of degenerate matter.

I would think that with some careful hatnotes and such, a reasonable balance could be found between these two ideas, eliminating some of the confusing dissonance that this article fosters by mixing the two notions. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"volume" different from "space taken up" to the exclusion of other matter?[edit]

E.g. a gas "takes up" far less space than its volume because most of the volume is empty (we could put other atoms there). Only the fermions themselves take up space exclusively due to pauli?