Is Light Matter?

[ynot]

No. He said atoms were indivisible. I quoted his exact words. "The smallest indivisible unit of matter". As I said, whether you claim atoms are the smallest unit of matter or not is irrelevant, atoms are not indivisble, end of story. Using the word "indivisible" in the same sentence as the word "atom" without also including the words "are not" is simply wrong. The fact that this is also inconsistent with his claim of what matter actually is just adds to the wrongness.

You have wrongly misinterpreted and misquoted me. I never said or implied that “atoms were indivisible”.

Even if the sentence - “An atom is the smallest indivisible unit of matter” was poorly worded, it’s clear from the sentence immediately following - “Anything subatomic is not matter” that I’m not saying that atoms are indivisible. I don’t think it was that poorly worded however, just poorly interpreted by yourself. I would be surprised if anyone else interpreted my words the way you did (perhaps I should start a poll .

I think it‘s obvious that I was saying that an atom is the smallest size of matter, and (by this definition) if it‘s divided it’s no longer matter. Whether I’m right or wrong about this is irrelevant to you misinterpretation. If I said - “The number 1 is the smallest indivisible integer”, your interpretation would claim that I was saying that the number 1 was indivisible. The sentence (an atom is the smallest indivisible unit of matter) wasn’t even mine. I copied it from one of many pages on the internet that use it. If you want to keep misinterpreting and misquoting me that’s your choice. As far as I’m concerned the “matter” is closed.

What I would really appreciate is an answer to my post #98 . . .

Your previous claims:
(#13) “What makes you think light isn't matter?”
(#26) “light is matter”
(#34) “Yes, light is matter. You are wrong”

You then entered this thread with (#34) “It depends on your definition, but in general, yes, light is matter.” I wonder what happened “light is matter. You are wrong”. If “It depends on your definition” why am I “wrong“?

 

[Dancing David]

Have you looked at Bose-Einstien Condesate yet Ynot? All matter acts like energy, all energy acts like matter. The labels are applied to a group of traits that we associate with the labels, it is a label thing that does not reflect the way that reality behaves.

I am not trying to diss you or anything like that:

take a look here
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_it_looks_like.html
it is way cool stuff. If you get it cold enough suddenly matter starts to act like energy and sudenly certain properties disappear. It doesn't fly around but the stuff suddenly occupies the same space. And the ones in the data are cesium atoms.

here is some more discussion:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/tn6240.htm

 

[ponderingturtle]

Resisting posting the wiki link in full:

When the double-slit experiment is performed one photon* at a time with sensitive apparatus the same interference pattern emerges that would be seen if multiple electrons were fired simultaneously.....

(or electron, proton, or something else existing on what is considered a "quantum" scale)



This threads' particle wave duality 'consensus' aside, I tend to lean towards this being evidence that these types of particles are energy and not matter; waves can easily be in two places at once, matter cannot. I'm also leaning towards - matter takes up space; energy travels through space in waves. I think that just because energy can compose matter, doesn't mean matter can compose energy (compose implying assembly not conversion). I also don't see why being able to fire one unit of energy at a time implies in any way that it is matter.

Um that is the whole point of particle wave duality everything acts like particles and waves. I am not at all sure what you mean then by calling an electron energy, electrons have mass. It is not the quantized nature of electrons that cause them to be classed as particles, but that they are have mass. If you stop a photon you get nothing, if you stop an electron you get an electron.

To me it is unfortunate but quite telling that quantum physics doesn't allow us to see the position of these waves over time, nothing magical about it. Something along the lines of since we use 'energy' to precisely detect 'matter', we can't use 'energy' to precisely detect 'energy'. If blindfolded in a dark room it would be easy to detect the walls but nearly impossible to detect a young gnat or fruit fly in the air. Likewise if instead of using your arms/hands you tried to detect holding a gnat sized grain of sand between your fingers, you wouldn't have any more or less luck finding the gnat or not finding the wall. One shouldn't expect to be able to precisely detect that which is the method used in the detecting.

I have no idea what this is getting at.

 

[Cuddles]

I am questioning what indivisible means in context. You did not say if you consider a photon indivisible or not, and how that related to pair production.

Mainly because I don't see what that has to do with anything. Pair production has nothing to do with something being divisible. No, I don't consider photons to be divisible because you can't split them up into anything smaller.

The thing is that you can't ever break up something and get quarks. You get other things made of quarks.

Yes you can. That is why I mentioned quark-gluon plasma.

You can isolate the smaller things in all of those other stages. So it would be like breaking up a bunch of humans and getting a rat, a tree and a dog. They are made up of cells as well, but not being able to get the cells themselves.

Why do you have to be able to isolate something to know it is there? If something can be split into smaller things, it is divisible. That's what the word means. The properties of the smaller things are irrelevant.

I am not saying quarks don't exist, it is just that they can never exist by themselves and not as a part of some larger particle.

Again, yes they can.

I tend to lean towards this being evidence that these types of particles are energy and not matter; waves can easily be in two places at once, matter cannot.

Except atoms also follow exactly the same rules. Where do you draw the line between matter and non-matter?

You have wrongly misinterpreted and misquoted me. I never said or implied that “atoms were indivisible”.

Even if the sentence - “An atom is the smallest indivisible unit of matter” was poorly worded, it’s clear from the sentence immediately following - “Anything subatomic is not matter” that I’m not saying that atoms are indivisible. I don’t think it was that poorly worded however, just poorly interpreted by yourself. I would be surprised if anyone else interpreted my words the way you did (perhaps I should start a poll .

Atoms are not indivisible. Atoms are not the smallest unit of matter. Whatever you actually meant, that sentence was wrong.

I think it‘s obvious that I was saying that an atom is the smallest size of matter, and (by this definition) if it‘s divided it’s no longer matter. Whether I’m right or wrong about this is irrelevant to you misinterpretation. If I said - “The number 1 is the smallest indivisible integer”, your interpretation would claim that I was saying that the number 1 was indivisible. The sentence (an atom is the smallest indivisible unit of matter) wasn’t even mine. I copied it from one of many pages on the internet that use it.

Yes. If you say that the number one is indivisible I would claim that you were saying the number one is indivisible. In fact, that's a perfect analogy. Not only is the number one not indivisible, it is not the smallest integer.

In any case, the main point I was making wasn't that atoms are not indivisible. It is that according to your own definition atoms are not the smallest unit of matter. You have changed your position at least twice so far, without ever actually admitting to doing so. First you claimed that photons aren't matter because they don't have mass. Then you claimed that all point-like particles aren't matter because they don't have dimensions. Now you are claiming that anything smaller than an atom isn't matter for no apparent reason. The first two I can cope with. They are utterly pointless definitions, but at least they are self-consistent. You current position is just plain wrong. There are plenty of particles smaller than atoms which have all the same properties of atoms. Without even worrying about subatomic particles, your new definition excludes plasmas. I would have given up arguing this subject long ago, but every time everyone else reaches a consensus you take the nonsense to an even higher level.

If you want to keep misinterpreting and misquoting me that’s your choice. As far as I’m concerned the “matter” is closed.

Misinterpreted, maybe. Misquoted? Either provide some evidence or withdraw that lie.

What I would really appreciate is an answer to my post #98 . . .

Your previous claims:
(#13) “What makes you think light isn't matter?”
(#26) “light is matter”
(#34) “Yes, light is matter. You are wrong"

You then entered this thread with (#34) “It depends on your definition, but in general, yes, light is matter.” I wonder what happened “light is matter. You are wrong”. If “It depends on your definition” why am I “wrong“?

Someone changing their position based on debate with other people? My god, what is the world coming to? Rest assured, however, it was nothing to do with your posts, only those by people who actually show some understanding of what they are talking about.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Mainly because I don't see what that has to do with anything. Pair production has nothing to do with something being divisible. No, I don't consider photons to be divisible because you can't split them up into anything smaller.

What is has to do with is the question of destroying something and looking at the product and saying "Ha see it was divisible"

Yes you can. That is why I mentioned quark-gluon plasma.



Why do you have to be able to isolate something to know it is there? If something can be split into smaller things, it is divisible. That's what the word means. The properties of the smaller things are irrelevant.

Yes, and the issue is that if quarks can't exist on their own but only bonded to other colored objects so that the net color charge is 0, then I am not convinced that protons would count as being divisible.

Again, yes they can.

Where have these unbound quarks been observed?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, and the issue is that if quarks can't exist on their own but only bonded to other colored objects so that the net color charge is 0, then I am not convinced that protons would count as being divisible.
...
Where have these unbound quarks been observed?

In a sense, we haven't proven that protons are divisible. And unbounded quarks have not been directly observed. But if our theories are correct (and we have good reason to think they are, at least about this), they can be unbounded, and were unbounded during the early stages of the universe. It just requires far higher temperatures and energy densities than we can currently produce.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

In a sense, we haven't proven that protons are divisible. And unbounded quarks have not been directly observed. But if our theories are correct (and we have good reason to think they are, at least about this), they can be unbounded, and were unbounded during the early stages of the universe. It just requires far higher temperatures and energy densities than we can currently produce.

Hmmm. IIRC the density we're talking about at that time might raise a semantic issue: Were the protons of that time divided in to smaller objects or were they all fused together in to one supermassive object?

 

[ponderingturtle]

In a sense, we haven't proven that protons are divisible. And unbounded quarks have not been directly observed. But if our theories are correct (and we have good reason to think they are, at least about this), they can be unbounded, and were unbounded during the early stages of the universe. It just requires far higher temperatures and energy densities than we can currently produce.

And that was the thing that I thought was not true. That you can't have an unbounded quark, because when you pull an object with color far enough away from the other objects it was bonded to, the bond breaks but in doing so it creates more colored particles to be bonded to.

I can see how in a large number of colored objects in close proximity might make it so that a quark can not be bonded to a particular other colored object. If this is true then I will agree that protons are divisible.

 

[Ziggurat]

And that was the thing that I thought was not true. That you can't have an unbounded quark, because when you pull an object with color far enough away from the other objects it was bonded to, the bond breaks but in doing so it creates more colored particles to be bonded to.

That's what generally happens, because (unlike for 1/r² forces) the pontential energy as a function of separation distance is unbounded. This means that past a certain point, the potential energy of two separated quarks exceeds the rest mass of an additional pair of quarks. The system will therefore tend to decay into the lower-energy state, producing a new set of quarks to bind with the first set. But that doesn't mean you can't separate them, or that decay to the lower energy state is instantaneous or guaranteed. If the temperature is high enough, then the average decay time should be as long as you want. Of course, "high enough" isn't something we can actually produce, but that's a practical limit, as far as we can tell.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmmm. IIRC the density we're talking about at that time might raise a semantic issue: Were the protons of that time divided in to smaller objects or were they all fused together in to one supermassive object?

Does the plasma of the sun count as one object? Only in the sense that it's got a reasonably well-defined boundary - inside, everything's all mixing together. But the plasma state of the early universe had no boundary, and the components were not fixed in place, so I don't think the "one object" picture makes much sense.

 

[ynot]

Atoms are not indivisible.

I never said they were. Saying “indivisible unit of matter” is not saying “indivisible atom”.

Atoms are not the smallest unit of matter.

They are if that's the definition you choose to define matter.

Whatever you actually meant, that sentence was wrong.

Your interpretation was wrong.

es. If you say that the number one is indivisible I would claim that you were saying the number one is indivisible. In fact, that's a perfect analogy. Not only is the number one not indivisible, it is not the smallest integer.

Sorry, I meant to say - “The number 1 is the smallest indivisible positive integer”. This is not saying that the number 1 per se is indivisible, but defined as an integer it is.

Misinterpreted, maybe. Misquoted? Either provide some evidence or withdraw that lie.

In post #108 you said - “He said atoms were indivisible.” This is a lie. Show me exactly where I said this.

Someone changing their position based on debate with other people? My god, what is the world coming to? Rest assured, however, it was nothing to do with your posts, only those by people who actually show some understanding of what they are talking about.

Sorry, I didn’t know that you treat people differently depending on what you perceive to be there intellectual worthiness. This explains a lot. Thank you.

 

[Ziggurat]

They are if that's the definition you choose to define matter.

Even under that definition (which nobody uses), atoms in general would still not be the smallest unit of matter, only hydrogen would be.

 

[ynot]

Even under that definition (which nobody uses), atoms in general would still not be the smallest unit of matter, only hydrogen would be.

Perhaps you mean “nobody that counts” uses it? As I said, I got the term (“an atom is the smallest indivisible unit of matter“) from the internet, and it appears in many different sites. Don’t understand what you mean by the hydrogen thing. Doesn’t hydrogen exist as an atom?

 

[Hokulele]

Even under that definition (which nobody uses), atoms in general would still not be the smallest unit of matter, only hydrogen would be.

Perhaps you mean “nobody that counts” uses it? As I said, I got the term (“an atom is the smallest indivisible unit of matter“) from the internet, and it appears in many different sites. Don’t understand what you mean by the hydrogen thing. Doesn’t hydrogen exist as an atom?

I could be wrong (and Ziggurat will correct me if I am), but because of nuclear fission, only the hydrogen atom can be considered indivisible. The atoms of all other elements on the periodic table can be broken down until all you would have left is hydrogen atoms.

 

[ynot]

I could be wrong (and Ziggurat will correct me if I am), but because of nuclear fission, only the hydrogen atom can be considered indivisible. The atoms of all other elements on the periodic table can be broken down until all you would have left is hydrogen atoms.

I’m not saying that atoms define what matter is because they are indivisible. Nor am I saying that atoms are indivisible. I know and agree that atoms are divisible. I live not too far from the place where Rutherford did his early research (have even visited his room and birthplace). I am using atoms (as many seem to) as the smallest thing that defines what matter is. In other words, when an atom is divided, it is no longer matter by that definition.

 

[Hokulele]

I wasn't disagreeing with you (or agreeing for that matter), simply trying to clear up the "hydrogen" comment. By your last statement, "In other words, when an atom is divided, it is no longer matter by that definition", you are running into the difficulty Ziggurat mentioned. Basically, one atom can be split into two other atoms, hence divisible, but still resulting in matter. For example, when an atom of Uranium-235 is split by fission (such as in a bomb), two atoms of Thorium-231 result. You can keep going down the chain until all you have left is hydrogen. So in other words, hydrogen is the only atom that cannot be divided into two other atoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

 

[Slimething]

For example, when an atom of Uranium-235 is split by fission (such as in a bomb), two atoms of Thorium-231 result.

Fission creates matter?

 

[Hokulele]

Fission creates matter?

Oooh, good point.

(I wasn't trying to argue that ynot's case is correct, simply trying to explain in context why Ziggurat was saying, by ynot's definition, only hydrogen atoms can be considered the smallest unit of matter.)

 

[Ziggurat]

I’m not saying that atoms define what matter is because they are indivisible. Nor am I saying that atoms are indivisible. I know and agree that atoms are divisible. I live not too far from the place where Rutherford did his early research (have even visited his room and birthplace). I am using atoms (as many seem to) as the smallest thing that defines what matter is. In other words, when an atom is divided, it is no longer matter by that definition.

I understand that. But if you want to say that matter is anything made of atoms, well, you're still left with all atoms except hydrogen being divisible into into smaller atoms.

 

[ynot]

I wasn't disagreeing with you (or agreeing for that matter), simply trying to clear up the "hydrogen" comment. By your last statement, "In other words, when an atom is divided, it is no longer matter by that definition", you are running into the difficulty Ziggurat mentioned. Basically, one atom can be split into two other atoms, hence divisible, but still resulting in matter. For example, when an atom of Uranium-235 is split by fission (such as in a bomb), two atoms of Thorium-231 result. You can keep going down the chain until all you have left is hydrogen. So in other words, hydrogen is the only atom that cannot be divided into two other atoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Thanks. Are you saying that a hydrogen atom can’t be divided in to another atom, or that it can’t be divided in to anything?