>>16454715
Any massless particle like a photon

>>16454715
No.
>>16454724
Not all particles are matter.

Fags

>>16454715
No, but this is because "mass" and "matter" are circularly referencing definitions. "Mass" is the quantification of "matter," and "matter" describes any object with "mass."

These kinds of circular definitions work well enough for experimental science where a lot of things become a "you know it when you see it" kind of problem. Don't go looking for logical coherence in experimental/empirical disciplines.

>>16454763
Now we’re entering semantics territory. Is all matter a matter of mass, or a matter of particles? Or a matter of something being there? Or a matter of mattering?

This is the sort of shit ruining science btw. People can’t even agree on words before they can even begin to talk about a thing.

“Evolution is totally separate, totally different, from adaptation”
“How?”
“If just is”
“But even the universe evolves, it adapts”
“Shut up”
“How is entropy not just causality being a bitch?”
“Stop it. It’s not a bitch”
“How? How is it not causality being a bitch?”

Semantics buttfucks scientific discussion.

>>16454793
Energy is matter you retards.

>>16454804
So energy does not matter? Space is not matter. Is energy like space?

>>16454810
Fuck. You people are such doofuses, go back to bragging about your shitty nerdship

>>16454763
>Not all particles are matter.
Wrong or stupid. Either way isn't worth addressing

>>16454827
> In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.[1] All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, matter generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena or waves such as light or heat.[1]:21[2]

>>16454867
Is Wikipedia behind? Energy and matter are interchangeable, and everything is energy/moving/working.

"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared."

Light is energy. It doesn’t matter if it has mass or not. It’s still fucking energy. Real particle phenomenon. That’s Matter.

You can convert matter(mass) back into pure energy, and you can make matter out of energy. It’s all matter/energy.

>>16454874
>Energy and matter are interchangeable
Unless they are waves. e=mc^2 is only half of the equation and for some reason people don't know this.

>>16454874
>>16454878
Reminder that Einstein thought of space as a thing.

His 1920 Leyden Address:

— “According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that 'empty space' in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty”.

He ended by saying this:

— "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether".

Robert B Laughlin:

— "It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed".

Laughlin sees spaces as more so a piece of window glass, than ideal Newtonian emptiness.

— "the modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo".

Einstein “did away” with the aether in 1905, but in the end he thought of space as a something rather than a nothing.

In his 1929 essay on field theory, he described a field as a state of space. He was talking about gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields, and said this:

— "it can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds".

The point to appreciate is that according to Einstein a field isn’t something that exists in space, it’s a state of space.

So yes, space is a “matter”.

>>16454793
/thread