2 Answers

  1. Well yes.

    In fact, this is just a language error (I don't know if it was teachers or textbooks – I was also told this at school, but I don't remember who or why). And these two terms are not opposites. Matter is some substance, something that has, for example, mass. And energy is the ability of this substance to perform work, the characteristic of its movement.

    And atoms, and electrons, and quarks, and so on-this is all matter that has some energy.

  2. To define “what is matter”, the concept of atomism is quite sufficient. It has served for a couple of millennia, and it will continue to do so. Within the framework of atomism, the smallest part of matter is precisely the atom. They were looking for him, and they found him. In the definition base, an atom is a part that can be obtained by the most trivial division of any material (tangible) body. For example, with a knife. As long as he can cut. But, this is already a purely visual simplification. However, in fact, we can now easily divide a material body into atoms. For example, getting hydrogen and oxygen from water. But splitting an atom is much more difficult.

    Now it remains to pass this chain back. Namely, if we call any particle material, it means that if we take many such particles, we can get a TANGIBLE MATERIAL BODY. For example, if you take a lot of carbon atoms, you can get graphite. Just like that. The smallest particle of matter (atom) should make it possible to “mold” a tangible material body out of it. With atoms, this criterion is met.

    And it DOESN'T hold with ELEMENTARY particles. For example, it is impossible to obtain a tangible material body from any set of electrons. The same goes for protons OR neutrons.

    Thus, there is simply no basis for the discussion of “what is inside the atom” in relation to the understanding of tangible matter. As the smallest particle of matter, the atom is perceived only “from the outside”. As an object that smears can be used to create tangible matter. The rest is dealt with by quantum mechanics.

    The term “energy sense”is already used in the language of quantum mechanics. But, again , not because matter is energy. … Or vice versa.

    No, in fact, the terminology inherent in tangible matter is no longer typical of ELEMENTARY particles. In particular, it is impossible to collect a liter of electrons to weigh them. The same goes for protons, neutrons, and even quarks. Not to mention neutrinos.

    So it makes no sense to be particularly clever. People in their field work, and they do. If surgeons say about guts that it's guts – so what? They have the right.

Leave a Reply