Taxonomies of Matter Map - help required to clarify

[simon202]

Hi there . . I know this might cause some consternation amongst specific scientific areas as to their inclusion or exclusion but I am trying to create a metaphysical map to help show laypersons how the sciences scales and elements fit together ... I am however a bit unsure if i have the taxonomies around matter atoms elements etc correct. Can anybody advise as to the correctness or help fill in any gaps i have missing

[DrP]

I don't like the heading 'Matter' for cells and organisms... they are living matter - what about all the non living stuff? Also - all of it is matter, from the sub atomic particles to the planets.

 

I would also list the elements in the order they appear on the periodic table rather than alphabetically. ... er - and I am not sure how any of it is meta physics at all anyway - you are listing the make up of matter in the universe from what I can see, how is that meta physics?

[Strange]

xkcd already did it:

https://xkcd.com/435/

[swansont]

Quarks are leptons

[Klaynos]

So simple as to be wrong and misleading to the lay person.

[DrP]

Yea - I tend to agree. It shows a misunderstanding of what 'matter' is imo.

 

Although I suppose it is nice idea to list things out from small to large... the fields of study do not match up - size doesn't really come into it.

Edited May 17, 2017 by DrP

[Strange]

I agree that matter is more than just living matter. Also the organisation implies that planets are made from living cells.

 

And galaxies are made of planets? What happened to all the stars?

 

And why does physics only apply to atoms (which is probably physical chemistry, anyway). What about the physics of materials, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

 

Where is dark matter?

 

Where is energy?

 

Where is dark energy?

 

Your listing of fundamental particles loses all the important structure around them.

 

What is the difference between "atoms" and "elements"?

 

The Planck scale label is far too close to the particles; it should be several feet off to the left.

 

But apart from that .... interesting idea and welcome to the forum!

[simon202]

Yeah sorry was more of a working title, probably a misleading post title ... maybe a physical map might be better .. open to suggestions.

 

So would "living matter" be a good title for "matter" or are you saying that living matter isnt a discrete area

So if not "matter" is there a better description for things made up of molecules or should I leave that out entirely ?

[DrKrettin]

 

So if not "matter" is there a better description for things made up of molecules or should I leave that out entirely ?

 

I think organic materials are too prominent. The inorganic ones are the important ones for the physical world.

[simon202]

 

I think organic materials are too prominent. The inorganic ones are the important ones for the physical world.

 

I have them listed under molecules, as in "organic and inorganic compounds are comprised of molecules ?" Would you say that is true or too simplistic ?

I agree that matter is more than just living matter. Also the organisation implies that planets are made from living cells.

 

And galaxies are made of planets? What happened to all the stars?

 

And why does physics only apply to atoms (which is probably physical chemistry, anyway). What about the physics of materials, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

 

Where is dark matter?

 

Where is energy?

 

Where is dark energy?

 

Your listing of fundamental particles loses all the important structure around them.

 

What is the difference between "atoms" and "elements"?

 

The Planck scale label is far too close to the particles; it should be several feet off to the left.

 

But apart from that .... interesting idea and welcome to the forum!

Happy to move it around .. im trying to get to something which is a little useful so happy to change it

 

I was imagining atoms as being like the single hydrogen atom with its constituent parts of nucleus electron and neutron and elements being the chains of atoms like h20 .. happy to change the labels of atom and elements or do you think I should I remove atoms entirely as a discrete taxonomy?

 

where do you think things like dark energy and dark matter should be included ?

So simple as to be wrong and misleading to the lay person.

Yes maybe but was hoping to show something to help my 7 year old nephew understand how the world fits together from the small to the large. Do you have any ideas or do you simply think the project is futile and the world is too complex ? reductionism ad absurdum ?

[Strange]

I think that trying to list things linearly is part of the problem. You probably need more of a tree structure. Or even a cyclic graph ...

where do you think things like dark energy and dark matter should be included ?

 

 

That's a problem. We don't know.

 

 

 

Yes maybe but was hoping to show something to help my 7 year old nephew understand how the world fits together from the small to the large. Do you have any ideas or do you simply think the project is futile and the world is too complex ? reductionism ad absurdum ?

 

I guess it could be useful as a starting point to discuss things. Rather than have a fixed diagram, maybe do the bits on separate pieces of paper and then move them around as you discuss how they relate to one another. He might come up with some great insights!

[DrP]

I think that's a good idea... Physics, for example takes both extremes on your scale.... while biology deals with the living matter, Chem with everything from the electrons up to the biology.

 

...and of course there are overlaps.

 

 

...and 'planets' are complex... geology is both chemistry and physics... and you can add biology on planets that hold life. Astronomy and Cosmology are areas of physics (and there is some chemistry involved).

 

 

 

PS - .... and I could be wrong... but I do not see any of this as 'meta'physics at all... and you labelled the lot under that heading. ;-)

Edited May 17, 2017 by DrP

[Klaynos]

Yes maybe but was hoping to show something to help my 7 year old nephew understand how the world fits together from the small to the large. Do you have any ideas or do you simply think the project is futile and the world is too complex ? reductionism ad absurdum ?

I see, a 7 year old is very different from a lay adult.

 

I don't think trying to explain it to a 7 year old is futile but I don't think this is a good way. Keep it simple. Stick to the 3 main sciences...

 

Physics, chemistry and biology.

 

Explain that there is loads of cross overs.

 

Physics is the fundementals of how stuff in the universe works out includes things like planets, stars, electricity, what makes up atoms.

 

Chemistry is how those fundemental building blocks interact and mix together to give you all the different materials. You can do some mixing of vinegar and baking soda here to show show the chemicals react to create other ones.

 

Biology is how chemistry and physics come together to create living things and biology is trying to understand how that happens.

 

Pictures and actually​ do some experiments.

[simon202]

Basically I was trying to provide a simple diagram of how the smallest and largest things known to humanity fit together, the best way I could imagine was a reductionist approach to try and describe the constituent parts of each system starting form the largest to the smallest or vice versa

 

So in essence some format of this sort of thinking, starting with the cosmos as the largest known thing to the smallest as a planck length

 

So the cosmos is made of - the observable and non observable universe

The universe is made of - stars galaxies gases dark matter dark energy

 

this is where get confused please help clarify this

----------------------------------

 

stars galaxies are made of - "Matter - living and non living things" ( rocks, doughnuts, trees, animals humans)

living and non living things are made of - organic and inorganic compounds and substances

 

where do molecules fit into this picture ?

 

organic and inorganic compounds are made of - elements (h20, silver gold etc)

elements are made of - atoms (protons neutrons electrons)

atoms are made of - sub atomic particles (quarks leptons bosons etc)

[DrKrettin]

I think you need various different maps, of varying complexity, each one aimed at a different age group or education level. For example, you mention the 7-year-old. I don't think that at that age he/she would appreciate the difference between organic and inorganic material, and if the thrust is the differences in scale, that does not matter. Equally, a child of that age would not appreciate the difference between galaxy - visible universe - cosmos, which would (I think) be a distraction.

 

I think that the aim of your diagram is very laudable, but rather unrealistic simply as one diagram. Start with the top layer, dead simple, for a 7-year old, then other layers of increasing complexity and detail. Without giving it much thought, I guess that 3 or 4 layers would be sufficient.

[simon202]

To explain .... I am trying to create a map of matter for my nephew as learn as you grow quick reference guide to help him understand the known universe and the general areas of science that might interest him. Id like it to be complex to keep it interesting and not condescending but also I realise that a lot of these concepts are not as simple as they seem and not easily described in a diagram of this sort. I was just hoping to omit as many glaring errors as possible.

I have made some amends here to the original one I posted earlier