What has mass, but is not considered matter?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter david findley
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of mass and its relationship to matter, specifically questioning what entities possess mass but do not qualify as matter. Participants explore various particles, including W and Z bosons, neutrinos, photons, and gluons, and their classifications based on definitions of matter.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether W and Z bosons should be classified as matter, citing their lack of space occupation due to not following the Pauli exclusion principle.
  • Neutrinos are discussed as fermions that have mass and occupy space, thus qualifying as matter.
  • There is a proposal that photons and gluons have mass but no rest mass, raising questions about their classification as matter.
  • The Higgs boson is mentioned as having rest mass but is also debated regarding its classification as matter.
  • Some participants argue that mesons, being composite bosons, may not qualify as matter under certain definitions due to their internal structure and interactions.
  • One participant suggests a broader definition of matter that includes fields and light, which others note is non-standard and may complicate communication.
  • Philosophical perspectives on materialism and definitions of matter are introduced, highlighting the complexity and variability in understanding what constitutes matter.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of mass-energy equivalence on the definition of matter and whether neutrinos, despite their small mass, interact significantly with regular matter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions of matter, with no consensus reached on a singular definition. Some agree on traditional definitions, while others propose alternative interpretations that include non-standard entities.

Contextual Notes

Definitions of matter vary among participants, with some relying on traditional criteria (mass and space occupation) while others suggest broader interpretations. The discussion highlights the philosophical implications and the challenges of establishing a universally accepted definition.

david findley
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am wondering, besides the W and Z bosons of the weak force, if there is anything else in the universe that has mass, but does not qualify as matter.

neutrino's? hmm... maybe... anything else?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By what definition of matter do W and Z bosons not qualify?
 
The usual definition of matter is something that has mass and takes up space. Since W and Z bosons don't follow the Pauli exclusion principle they don't take up space and therefore are not matter. At least, that is my understanding of the justification.

Neutrinos are fermions so they take up space and have some small mass.
 
So neutrino's are actually instances of matter,...
so, besides the W and Z boson's of the weak force , there is no exception ? -there is no instance of mass exclusive of matter? so I can say, 'excepting the W and Z boson's of the weak force, there is no instance of massive phenomena outside the context of a material body' ?

><
 
Photons and Gluons have mass, they just have no rest mass. I think mesons will also qualify, being bosons(?)
 
The Higgs boson has (rest) mass, and is a boson, so it won't qualify as matter in your classification scheme.
 
Whovian said:
Photons and Gluons have mass, they just have no rest mass. I think mesons will also qualify, being bosons(?)

They are composite bosons, however. If you try to squeeze them into a tiny volume, then they would start feeling their internal structure, containing 2 fermions, so the Pauli exclusion principle will kick in. Some are charged, so they repel via the electrostatic force.
 
ah, yes, rest mass, this is what I meant.

So, please, is this a correct statement:

"everything with REST mass is also matter"
 
david findley said:
ah, yes, rest mass, this is what I meant.

So, please, is this a correct statement:

"everything with REST mass is also matter"

I would say yes, but, as far as I am concerned, that would not mean that something without rest mass is not matter.
 
  • #10
david findley said:
So, please, is this a correct statement:

"everything with REST mass is also matter"
Not according to the usual definition of matter. The W and Z bosons have rest mass, but are not considered matter since they do not take up space. Similarly with the Higgs boson, should it be discovered.
 
  • #11
DaleSpam said:
The usual definition of matter is something that has mass and takes up space. Since W and Z bosons don't follow the Pauli exclusion principle they don't take up space and therefore are not matter. At least, that is my understanding of the justification.

Neutrinos are fermions so they take up space and have some small mass.

All types of mesons (particles made of one quark and one anti-quark), of which there are many kinds, and all of which all have mass, have integer spin and therefore don't follow the Pauli exclusion principles.
 
  • #12
You don't even need to go to something as exotic as mesons. You can consider 4He nucleii which are also bosons, but much more stable than mesons. Their bosonic properties are important in superfluidity.

However, even though they do not follow the Pauli exclusion principle at large scales they still occupy space. If you try to compress a composite bosonic fluid to densities smaller than the internal structure of the underlying fermions then the Pauli exclusion principle does come in. Thus bosons composed of fermions do occupy space.
 
  • #13
But you still cannot put a bunch of mesons of same kind at the same place, since at close distance, the quarks will Pauli exclude themselves.
 
  • #14
I would say matter is everything that is described by an action. In this respect, it has internal degrees of freedom, and it evolves under deterministic principles, and it is coupled to other matter via interaction actions.
 
  • #15
I have answered above using the standard definition. The one you proposed is not the standard definition, but I have no objection in principle. Or rather, I don't like semantic debates.

I would point out that your definition classifies light and even gravity as matter. I don't know if that was your intention, but I think that most people would reject such a classification.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
DaleSpam said:
I have answered above using the standard definition. The one you proposed is not the standard definition, but I have no objection in principle. Or rather, I don't like semantic debates.

I would point out that your definition classifies light and even gravity as matter. I don't know if that was your intention, but I think that most people would reject such a classification.

Yes, this was exactly my intetntion! To clasify light and gravitation as a form of matter. English is not my native language, but, I think one needs to distinguish between matter and substance. I think what you defined as matter is actually substance. Fields are also a form of matter in a broader sense of the word.
 
  • #17
Dickfore said:
Yes, this was exactly my intetntion! To clasify light and gravitation as a form of matter.
As long as you realize that is very non standard and not what is usually meant by the word "matter". The deliberate use of such a non-standard definition will cause difficulties in communication, but isn't wrong per se.
 
  • #18
><
basically I am looking for a bottom-line definition of matter, (something that 'takes up space',) as exlcusive from anything else that exhibits only the property of mass.

I think that the mass-energy equivalance principle really roughs up this delimitation.

but... I suppose it is the case that, fundamentally, what is essential for the formation of matter is an atomic structure? (but we said that neutrino's are 'matter'... if they take up space, even so little, are still so dominant and pervasive in the universe, then surely this would mean they would interact with regular matter on a regular basis?
 
  • #19
--ps, do you assume that neutrino's are considered matter as stemming form the assumption of the mass-energy equivalance principle??
 
  • #20
I guess my definition of matter is due to the following philosophical theory:
Materialism
noun
2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

The definition of matter that you are alluding to is:
matter
noun
1. the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the Earth is made.
2. physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3. something that occupies space.
4. a particular kind of substance: coloring matter.
5. a situation, state, affair, or business: a trivial matter.
 
  • #21
david findley said:
basically I am looking for a bottom-line definition of matter,
I am not sure that there is a such thing as a bottom line definition. There are definitions of varying levels of acceptance. The most common one is: "matter is anything which occupies space and has rest mass".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Why is the Weak Force Considered Weak Despite the High Mass of the W Boson?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
Undergrad Where are these neutrino masses coming from?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Undergrad How Does Beta Decay Relate to the Role of W Bosons in Weak Nuclear Force?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
High School Are real theories undiscoverable from effective field theories?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad How do the collider experiments measure the mass of the W boson?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Undergrad What is the electric charge of a neutrino?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Why is the Higgs not considered 'a 5th force'?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad What happens to the rest of the mass in Beta+ decay involving a W+ boson?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Are neutrinos definitely ruled out as Dark Matter?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
Undergrad New Constraints On The Higgs Boson Width
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K