High School Are Subatomic particles a form of matter?

Click For Summary
Subatomic particles, including electrons, protons, and neutrons, possess mass and occupy space, leading to the argument that they should be classified as matter. However, Wikipedia states that matter is not a fundamental concept, as the elementary constituents of atoms are quantum entities lacking inherent size or volume. This distinction is based on the exclusion principle and other interactions that create the observable properties of matter. While some participants suggest referring to these particles as "particles of matter," the classification remains debated and is deemed unimportant in fundamental physics. Ultimately, the classification of subatomic particles does not significantly impact physical theories or principles.
SHASHWAT PRATAP SING
Messages
119
Reaction score
13
As we know that matter is Anything which has mass and occupies space then are the Subatomic particles like electron,proton and neutron a matter.
Is electron a matter ?
Is proton a matter ?
Is neutron a matter ?
As these particles have mass and they occupy space so they are matter,
But the wikipedia says-
"matter is not a fundamental concept because the elementary constituents of atoms are quantum entities which do not have an inherent "size" or "volume" in any everyday sense of the word. Due to the exclusion principle and other fundamental interactions, some "point particles" known as fermions (quarks, leptons), and many composites and atoms, are effectively forced to keep a distance from other particles under everyday conditions; this creates the property of matter which appears to us as matter taking up space."
Please Help Me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SHASHWAT PRATAP SING said:
Please Help Me.
What is the problem?
 
A.T. said:
What is the problem?
My problem is that-
Is electron a matter ?
Is proton a matter ?
Is neutron a matter ?
Since these particles have mass and they occupy space so they are a matter,
But then why wikipedia says-
"matter is not a fundamental concept because the elementary constituents of atoms are quantum entities which do not have an inherent "size" or "volume" in any everyday sense of the word. Due to the exclusion principle and other fundamental interactions, some "point particles" known as fermions (quarks, leptons), and many composites and atoms, are effectively forced to keep a distance from other particles under everyday conditions; this creates the property of matter which appears to us as matter taking up space."

why wikipedia says the subatomic particles are not matter ?
Is electron not a matter ?
Is proton not a matter ?
Is neutron not a matter ?
electron, proton and neutron have mass and occupy space so they are matter but then why wikipedia says the subatomic particles are not matter ?
 
SHASHWAT PRATAP SING said:
why wikipedia says the subatomic particles are not matter ?
It says that matter is not a fundamental concept. It doesn't really matter what you call "matter".
 
  • Like
Likes nasu, Vanadium 50, Dale and 1 other person
SHASHWAT PRATAP SING said:
electron, proton and neutron have mass and occupy space so they are matter but then why wikipedia says the subatomic particles are not matter ?

How about to call them particles of matter, or matter particles. Quarks and leptons, including electron, are being called like that in standard model. I don't see a reason why other subatomic particles, ie. proton and neutron couldn't be called like that.
https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model
 
SHASHWAT PRATAP SING said:
But then why wikipedia says-
"matter is not a fundamental concept
Wikipedia says that because the definition of matter is not important. There is nothing in fundamental physics that depends on the distinction between matter and not matter. So who cares where electrons get classified.

Personally, I would classify all fermions as matter, but it is unimportant and it doesn’t make a difference to the physics of someone else disagrees.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, jbriggs444 and anorlunda
Thread 'Unexpected irregular reflection signal from a high-finesse cavity'
I am observing an irregular, aperiodic noise pattern in the reflection signal of a high-finesse optical cavity (finesse ≈ 20,000). The cavity is normally operated using a standard Pound–Drever–Hall (PDH) locking configuration, where an EOM provides phase modulation. The signals shown in the attached figures were recorded with the modulation turned off. Under these conditions, when scanning the laser frequency across a cavity resonance, I expected to observe a simple reflection dip. Instead...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K