RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
It varies by isotope. Neither hydrogen or helium are always bosons, only certain isotopes. He4 and Deuterium are bosons, other isotopes are fermions.
No. I was one of the early voters.
He (she?) didn't affect my vote.
Schneibster told me.
Who are you and why do you want to know?*
Linda
*Admittedly stolen from Bob Evans.
For those who are trying to force energy (light in particular) to be matter, you need to study more and deeper. Einstein certainly agrees with only the point that matter can be converted to energy and energy may be converted to matter (though the latter is unlikely to occur normally {in the wonderful world of thermodynamics, you always lose}). Be sure you are not misinterpreting some very esoteric but careful phrasing - which itself is at best an attempt to explain very advanced mathematics.
I suggest reading/watching The Elegant Universe (Brian Green author/Nova the show) and Universe: Beyond the Big Bang (just shown again onHistory Channel).
I suggest reading/watching The Elegant Universe (Brian Green author/Nova the show) and Universe: Beyond the Big Bang (just shown again onHistory Channel).
Last edited:
I don’t believe that matter or energy can be created or destroyed. But can each be transformed in to the other? When an atom is split in to it’s component parts, is it transformed from matter to energy? And when matter absorbs energy, is energy transformed in to matter? Or is it that matter and energy the same ting? Which seems to be what the “yes” voters are saying. (so many questions)
You answered my post immediately before I posted it. Therefore you are psychic.
You didn’t vote, but I will assume from your post that it would be a “no” if you did.
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
Matter and energy can be considered interchangable. Matter being congealed energy...semantics plays a big part in physics.
When uranium 235 is fissioned, there is conversion of matter into energy. The fission fragments and neutrons are slightly less massive than the original uranium atom. The energy released is in accordance with Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2...where m is the change in mass from the uranium to the fission fragments. With fusion, hydrogen combines to form helium as in the sun. Again, the helium is less massive than the original hydrogen atoms with the resulting release of energy. The energy released in a nuclear reaction is about one million times greater that any chemical reaction.
Now, converting energy into matter...that is a bit tougher. In general, we really can't convert energy into matter easily, so Scotty isn't going to be beaming anyone anywhere in the future. There are reactions that can convert energy to matter, e.g. If a high energy gamma ray smacks a heavy nucleas, it can form an electron and a positron. The energy of the gamma must be suffiecient in accordance with Enstein's formula again to convert the energy into two massed particles. If matter just absorbs the energy of photon, then, in general it will just heat up--the atoms will wiggle faster.
Energy=matter=energy.
glenn
Sorry to infer that you may have been of the “sheep” type. “He” I think as there is a photo of a man in “his” My Profile (but no other info). How come you don’t have a My profile link? What are you trying to hide? Are you really an attractive woman as your photo implies? There I go with those questions again.
But can he/she be trusted?
I am <trumpets>ynot</trumpets>, seeker and protector of truth and honesty (and apparently a denier of evidence). A person with more questions than answers who realises that most answers are probably wrong. Perhaps “fizzy cyst” covers it well.
"why" - ynot?
“Interchangeable” but at what state are they defined as being different (if they are and can be)?
Thanks for voting.
I hadn't voted because I think this is just a semantic question. Mass is well defined in physics and photons don't have it. If you want to say matter is everything that has mass, then photons aren't matter. If you want to say matter is everything that's made of elementary particles, then photons are matter.
Physics books sometimes use one definition and sometimes the other. The latter is convenient if you want to have a word that can stand for anything. For example, you can say that Einstein's equations for GR imply
MATTER = GEOMETRY
with 'matter' a catch all name for anything with energy-momentum. But sometimes you use a different concept. For example, in cosmology one commonly distinguishes the density of the universe due to matter to that due to radiation. Now the density due to radiation is negligible, but up to 380 000 years after the Big Bang, radiation dominated. So one talks of a 'radiation era' and of a 'matter era', implying the second concept does not include the first one.
In short, 'matter' is most usually employed as a wildcard whose precise meaning may change depending on context.
Trying this part again. Ultimately, the definition/description of matter is that that has mass and takes up space (i.e. has mass and volume, i.e. that which has density). Light does not have mass/take up space, sound does not have mass or take up space. We can see the effects of one, we can hear - and if strong enough, feel - the effects of the other (obviously only two - but basic - forms of energy). Ultimately, all energy is heat - just takes it time to get there.
I think that defining matter as “everything that's made of elementary particles” is like saying that the ingredients of a cake is a cake. Defining matter as “having mass and occupying space” makes far more sense. In any event, I don’t think I’m wrong to say that light is not matter as Cuddles has claimed, even if it is also possible to say that light is matter with a different definition of matter.
Last edited:
I agree, and with post #84.
But just to be absolutely sure I consulted the “good book” . . .
Genesis 1
(1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Matter)
(3) “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” (Light)
Two different things created at different times (no argument, God said so
But how did he/she/it “bake the cake” before creating the “ingredients”? Oh that’s right, God works in mysterious ways.
I can be a sheep. But there's no point in voting if your vote isn't independent. My reasoning was that the last time I used the word "matter", I used it in a way that would include light. I will admit that Cuddles' and Yllanes' subsequent confirmation that my reasoning was valid gives me the warm fuzzies.
It is better that you do not have the answers to your questions.
Linda
But now you’re just picking winners (confirmation bias?). I can understand claiming support from Cuddles, but not Yllanes. Hasn’t he said that you’re just as much wrong as right (if not perhaps more so)? What about what fuelair has to say? (posts #84 and #91)I can be a sheep. But there's no point in voting if your vote isn't independent. My reasoning was that the last time I used the word "matter", I used it in a way that would include light. I will admit that Cuddles' and Yllanes' subsequent confirmation that my reasoning was valid gives me the warm fuzzies.
Okay . . . sigh
Who said anything about winners?
Confirmation is correct, but can it really be called a "bias" if you are specifying that that is what you are looking for? (The answer is no.) I'm not saying that I win because because other answers are excluded from being correct (they're not and I don't). I'm saying that my answer is included among the various possible reasonable answers. Confirmation bias would be claiming that I win, that the other answers are excluded as correct, because I confirmed that my answer was among the various possible reasonable answers. That is a fallacy, and to accuse me of such....well dems fightin' words!
Both Cuddles and Yllanes stated that what is considered matter depends upon the context in which it is used. The voting seems to be about choosing context.
Again, within the context he has chosen, light is not matter. However, the context is not constrained - that is, his context is not any more "right" than mine.
Linda
Yllanes said pretty much the same as me. The question is just one of semantics. If you define matter as anything with mass, photons are not matter. If you define matter as elementary particles and anything made of them, photons are matter. There is no generally accepted definition and "matter" is no more a scientific term than "life".
As a physicist, I can see no sensible reason for defining matter as "everything except photons", so I don't use that definition. The definition I use basically divides the world into "matter" and "properties of matter", so all particles, including photons, are matter while things like energy, momentum and charge are properties of matter.
Some of your statements from the previous thread that started all this (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92302)
(#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“?
The only time you responded to me in this thread (other than above) was to misquote, and attempt to ridicule me.
(#79) “Atoms are indivisible? That will come as a bit of a surprise to, well, everybody.”
Seems you are playing the person rather than the ball
(#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“?
What you finally said, but not initially
I do, and so does every description of matter I’ve read on the internet. So are you saying I’m not “wrong” after all?
Don’t think I have challenged your right to adopt this definition.
The only time you responded to me in this thread (other than above) was to misquote, and attempt to ridicule me.
(#79) “Atoms are indivisible? That will come as a bit of a surprise to, well, everybody.”
Seems you are playing the person rather than the ball
Any more cheek from you and I will tell Mr Bin Laden about your signature.
Tell him! I'm still waiting for my own, personal fatwa!