Hello All!

I wish to understand what matter is. From E=MC² we find matter is interchangeable with energy, and doing research matter is energy that isn't moving (that much, temperature).

Electrons kind of work through a wave function, and they are both matter and energy?

Protons and Neutrons aren't silly ball magnets, but are also waves?

Is everything waves or energy??

Am I stupid??

Most likely not, as you're asking sensible questions.

13 minutes ago, Modafinil said:

Hello All!

Hello.

13 minutes ago, Modafinil said:

I wish to understand what matter is.

OK. But be careful. The battlefield of physics is littered with the corpses of ontologists.

21 minutes ago, Modafinil said:

From E=MC² we find matter is interchangeable with energy,

Well. It does say that you can always trade mass for energy if you can find a viable way to do it. Example: Annihilate electrons with positrons and you have converted all of their mass into massless energy.

25 minutes ago, Modafinil said:

Electrons kind of work through a wave function, and they are both matter and energy?

Protons and Neutrons aren't silly ball magnets, but are also waves?

Yes, all matter particles are examples of quantum fields, which are a special kind of waves.

26 minutes ago, Modafinil said:

Is everything waves or energy??

Energy is an attribute of waves, rather than the waves themselves.

If matter were made out of point particles, they would also have energy.

I hope that helped.

28 minutes ago, Modafinil said:

I wish to understand what matter is. From E=MC² we find matter is interchangeable with energy, and doing research matter is energy that isn't moving (that much, temperature).

What E=mc² tells us is that mass is a form of energy. The m is mass. It can be converted to other forms of energy, under some circumstances

31 minutes ago, Modafinil said:

Hello All!

I wish to understand what matter is. From E=MC² we find matter is interchangeable with energy, and doing research matter is energy that isn't moving (that much, temperature).

Electrons kind of work through a wave function, and they are both matter and energy?

Protons and Neutrons aren't silly ball magnets, but are also waves?

Is everything waves or energy??

Welcome Modafinil.

We have an introduce yourself thread

https://scienceforums.net/topic/75313-the-official-introduce-yourself-thread/

It would be most helpful in answering your quesry if you visited this thread and gave us a pointer as to where you are coming from with this.

Have you studied or are you studying Mechanics, where the difference between Matter and Energy is spelled out ?

They are not exactly interchangeable, though one often leads to the other.

But framing an answer is difficult wthout some idea of what you already know, especially since you equation (do you know about equations ?) is only part of the story, and you have an incomplete version of the equation.

Finally what was the point of the picture ?

Edited September 22Sep 22 by studiot

5 hours ago, Modafinil said:

Hello All!

I wish to understand what matter is. From E=MC² we find matter is interchangeable with energy, and doing research matter is energy that isn't moving (that much, temperature).

Electrons kind of work through a wave function, and they are both matter and energy?

Protons and Neutrons aren't silly ball magnets, but are also waves?

Is everything waves or energy??

No you are not stupid, but this about Einstein’s formula is something of a popular misconception. It does not say energy and matter are interchangeable.

What it says is energy and mass, (not matter, please note) go hand in hand. m stands for mass, not matter. Mass is a property, as energy is. Neither mass nor energy is “stuff”. Both are just properties of certain physical systems. A system that gains energy also gains mass. For example, a charged battery has slightly more mass than a discharged one, though the difference is so small you would struggle to measure it in practice.

Anything with rest mass does indeed possess energy by virtue of its mass. But some entities, such as photons (of visible light, gamma rays etc) also possess energy in spite of having no rest mass. There is in fact a longer version of Einstein’s famous formula, though much less well known, that provides for this.

Edited September 22Sep 22 by exchemist

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Welcome Modafinil.

We have an introduce yourself thread

https://scienceforums.net/topic/75313-the-official-introduce-yourself-thread/

It would be most helpful in answering your quesry if you visited this thread and gave us a pointer as to where you are coming from with this.

Have you studied or are you studying Mechanics, where the difference between Matter and Energy is spelled out ?

They are not exactly interchangeable, though one often leads to the other.

But framing an answer is difficult wthout some idea of what you already know, especially since you equation (do you know about equations ?) is only part of the story, and you have an incomplete version of the equation.

Finally what was the point of the picture ?

Hi, thanks for your fast reply!

I'm not very proficient in physics. I understand the basic parts of newtonian mechanics, e&m, etc.

I have these questions from an ensemble of youtube videos, questions (like why don't electrons go to the nucleus, how is information transmitted, what are waves, how is matter energy)

The picture looks really pretty, don't you think?

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

No you are not stupid, but this about Einstein’s formula is something of a popular misconception. It does not say energy and matter are interchangeable.

What it says is energy and mass, (not matter, please note) go hand in hand. m stands for mass, not matter. Mass is a property, as energy is. Neither mass nor energy is “stuff”. Both are just properties of certain physical systems. A system that gains energy also gains mass. For example, a charged battery has slightly more mass than a discharged one, though the difference is so small you would struggle to measure it in practice.

Anything with rest mass does indeed possess energy by virtue of its mass. But some entities, such as photons (of visible light, gamma rays etc) also possess energy in spite of having no rest mass. There is in fact a longer version of Einstein’s famous formula, though much less well known, that provides for this.

Thanks for your quick reply!

I have a lot to learn. Where/What should I study?

If it's possible, can you answer some other of my questions?

-What is the difference between mass and energy

-What are waves?

-What is mass? The amount of particles? If so, how is that interchangeable? Something to do with the amount of particles in an area?

-Why aren't quantum particles in a place without measurement?

13 hours ago, joigus said:

Most likely not, as you're asking sensible questions.

Hello.

OK. But be careful. The battlefield of physics is littered with the corpses of ontologists.

Well. It does say that you can always trade mass for energy if you can find a viable way to do it. Example: Annihilate electrons with positrons and you have converted all of their mass into massless energy.

Yes, all matter particles are examples of quantum fields, which are a special kind of waves.

Energy is an attribute of waves, rather than the waves themselves.

If matter were made out of point particles, they would also have energy.

I hope that helped.

Thanks for your quick reply!

What are waves? I used to think it is some mass traveling in a wave shape? Now I think it might be something to do with moving energy?

13 hours ago, swansont said:

What E=mc² tells us is that mass is a form of energy. The m is mass. It can be converted to other forms of energy, under some circumstances

Isn't mass substance? How can that be converted to energy? They seem like very different things?

1 hour ago, Modafinil said:

Hi, thanks for your fast reply!

I'm not very proficient in physics. I understand the basic parts of newtonian mechanics, e&m, etc.

I have these questions from an ensemble of youtube videos, questions (like why don't electrons go to the nucleus, how is information transmitted, what are waves, how is matter energy)

The picture looks really pretty, don't you think?

Thanks for your quick reply!

I have a lot to learn. Where/What should I study?

If it's possible, can you answer some other of my questions?

-What is the difference between mass and energy

-What are waves?

-What is mass? The amount of particles? If so, how is that interchangeable? Something to do with the amount of particles in an area?

-Why aren't quantum particles in a place without measurement?

Thanks for your quick reply!

What are waves? I used to think it is some mass traveling in a wave shape? Now I think it might be something to do with moving energy?

Isn't mass substance? How can that be converted to energy? They seem like very different things?

Many of these questions can be answered by reading. Videos are in general a lousy resource in my opinion. You need to be able to go at your own pace and go back and re-read bits you did not grasp first time round. There is a huge amount available on the internet.

Wikipedia is generally reliable, though can get too rigorous for beginners at times - you have to be selective and sometimes just read the opening few paras, before it goes off the deep end with walls of maths.

Another good one I find is the hyperphysics site run by Georgia State University. http://www.hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/index.html

Also the Libretext series is good: https://phys.libretexts.org.

One approach might be to pick a topic, say mass or waves, read what these sources have to say and then come a place like this with specific queries on aspects you are having trouble with. That’s just because it is more efficient than asking people on forums like this to explain concepts from scratch. (You are welcome to try that too of course but we are not all professional educators.)

19 hours ago, joigus said:

Well. It does say that you can always trade mass for energy if you can find a viable way to do it. Example: Annihilate electrons with positrons and you have converted all of their mass into massless energy.

Does this by any chance mean if all mass were converted to energy, there would be no gravity in the universe? Does this point towards gravity is emergent once conditions are met?

6 hours ago, Modafinil said:

Isn't mass substance? How can that be converted to energy? They seem like very different things?

They do seem different, which is why it was such a revolutionary concept. But we now have the capability to measure it. It’s why e.g. the mass of protons + neutrons + electrons is greater than the mass of an atom made from them. It takes energy to break up an atom, and if you add energy, you add mass.

Whoops posted in the wrong thread.

Edited September 23Sep 23 by studiot

8 hours ago, Modafinil said:

Hi, thanks for your fast reply!

I'm not very proficient in physics. I understand the basic parts of newtonian mechanics, e&m, etc.

I have these questions from an ensemble of youtube videos, questions (like why don't electrons go to the nucleus, how is information transmitted, what are waves, how is matter energy)

The picture looks really pretty, don't you think?

Maybe not very proficient in Physics but asking the right questions, which shows you are thinking about it.
For instance wondering why the electron does not fall into the nucleus shows you have taken in some mechanics and electric theory.

OK a small aside, whuich I think will be helpful.
Your written English is good but considering your posting times I don't know if it is your first language or you are using a translator.
I tend to write long complicated sentences, but I will try to keep them shorter if you need this.

English is a very good language for Science.
But Science sometimes needs more tightly controlled definitions so it often takes an English word, but uses it in a very specific way.

English distinguishes between things or objects (nouns) and words of doing or activity (verbs) and words which qualitfy or modify basic objects or actions (adjectives and adverbs).

English further recognises that nouns may be 'abstract' or 'concrete'.
In Science this distinction becomes material (eg a pile of sand) or non material (eg a shadow or a force).
Such nouns may be real on non real whcih is more difficult to tie down. But broadly speaking something is real if it can affect or interact with something abstract or concrete that is real.
So you might be colder or drier or both if you stand in a shadow.
So 'real' is an adjectivit;, the noun reality is often misused.

In Science verbs become processes or actions but 'action' also has a restriced scientific meaning all of its own.

Enough blather.

I will deal with one more basic piece of nomenclature this time.

Matter is the name given to material objects.
Most scientific treatments of matter work by considering matter as made of 'particles'.
Chemists, by and large, work with particles that are the size of atoms or larger.
Physicists work with sub atomic particles (smaller than atoms).
The science of mechanics works with particles of indeterminate size, but provides the definition, of sufficiently small size that all the properties under consideration may be considered as concentrated at one point.
These are called 'point particles'
But there is also much Science that draws from several branches of Science.

You mentioned substances.
Chemists identify lots of different substances and in particular pure substances where all particles are identical.
Each different chemical substance corresponds to a different chemical particle called a molecule.
If those particles are individual atoms then the substance is called an element. We know of getting on for 150 differements elements.
Some elements also combine atoms of the same element to make molecules.

Hopefully this preamb;le will become useful in your studies.

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

Maybe not very proficient in Physics but asking the right questions, which shows you are thinking about it.
For instance wondering why the electron does not fall into the nucleus shows you have taken in some mechanics and electric theory.

OK a small aside, whuich I think will be helpful.
Your written English is good but considering your posting times I don't know if it is your first language or you are using a translator.
I tend to write long complicated sentences, but I will try to keep them shorter if you need this.

English is a very good language for Science.
But Science sometimes needs more tightly controlled definitions so it often takes an English word, but uses it in a very specific way.

English distinguishes between things or objects (nouns) and words of doing or activity (verbs) and words which qualitfy or modify basic objects or actions (adjectives and adverbs).

English further recognises that nouns may be 'abstract' or 'concrete'.
In Science this distinction becomes material (eg a pile of sand) or non material (eg a shadow or a force).
Such nouns may be real on non real whcih is more difficult to tie down. But broadly speaking something is real if it can affect or interact with something abstract or concrete that is real.
So you might be colder or drier or both if you stand in a shadow.
So 'real' is an adjectivit;, the noun reality is often misused.

In Science verbs become processes or actions but 'action' also has a restriced scientific meaning all of its own.

Enough blather.

I will deal with one more basic piece of nomenclature this time.

Matter is the name given to material objects.
Most scientific treatments of matter work by considering matter as made of 'particles'.
Chemists, by and large, work with particles that are the size of atoms or larger.
Physicists work with sub atomic particles (smaller than atoms).
The science of mechanics works with particles of indeterminate size, but provides the definition, of sufficiently small size that all the properties under consideration may be considered as concentrated at one point.
These are called 'point particles'
But there is also much Science that draws from several branches of Science.

You mentioned substances.
Chemists identify lots of different substances and in particular pure substances where all particles are identical.
Each different chemical substance corresponds to a different chemical particle called a molecule.
If those particles are individual atoms then the substance is called an element. We know of getting on for 150 differements elements.
Some elements also combine atoms of the same element to make molecules.

Hopefully this preamb;le will become useful in your studies.

My first language is English l, I just thought it would take awhile to get answers 😅.

Thanks again!

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

Many of these questions can be answered by reading. Videos are in general a lousy resource in my opinion. You need to be able to go at your own pace and go back and re-read bits you did not grasp first time round. There is a huge amount available on the internet.

Wikipedia is generally reliable, though can get too rigorous for beginners at times - you have to be selective and sometimes just read the opening few paras, before it goes off the deep end with walls of maths.

Another good one I find is the hyperphysics site run by Georgia State University. http://www.hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/index.html

Also the Libretext series is good: https://phys.libretexts.org.

One approach might be to pick a topic, say mass or waves, read what these sources have to say and then come a place like this with specific queries on aspects you are having trouble with. That’s just because it is more efficient than asking people on forums like this to explain concepts from scratch. (You are welcome to try that too of course but we are not all professional educators.)

Thanks again!

I think I'll read some more.

Are llms good for understanding those concepts?

11 minutes ago, Modafinil said:

My first language is English l, I just thought it would take awhile to get answers 😅.

Thanks again!

Thanks again!

I think I'll read some more.

Are llms good for understanding those concepts?

LLMs tell you what you want to hear and make stuff up if they can’t find the answer. Also they seem to have a tendency to write in verbose and pompous language that tries to sound impressive. That is the opposite of what you need.

I really don’t think there is any effective substitute for reading and then discussing or asking questions about what you have read. But others here may have a different view.

3 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Does this by any chance mean if all mass were converted to energy, there would be no gravity in the universe? Does this point towards gravity is emergent once conditions are met?

No, because it's energy that sources gravity, not mass. This is a common misunderstanding.

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

Wikipedia is generally reliable, though can get too rigorous for beginners at times - you have to be selective and sometimes just read the opening few paras, before it goes off the deep end with walls of maths.

Another option is Simple Wikipedia, which is exactly what it sounds like. Here's a sample page.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

10 hours ago, Modafinil said:

What are waves? I used to think it is some mass traveling in a wave shape? Now I think it might be something to do with moving energy?

Waves are oscillations that propagate, either in a medium or in a vacuum.

You would be well advised to follow up on suggestions from wise members to pursue basic treatments and then perhaps use the community to answer questions on particular points you find difficult.

OK so to move forward waves, or more properly wave motion.

Which brings up the subject of motion, something you will have met in Newton's Laws (of motion - he discovered many othe Laws) .

Motion is a process.

There are several forms of motion.

Rectilinear motion (motion in a straight line) , curvylinear motion (motion in a curve) , wave motion ( we will come to that)

And we usually describe processes by equations so it is a good idea to become familiar with equations.

The equations that describe motion connect space and time.

The simplest such equation is distance = speed x time or distance = velocity x time.

Do you understand the concept of 'rate of change' ?

Processes are about change of something

Again the more you tell us about what you already know the better the answer will be.

Since waves are also a process they obey an equation connecting space and time.

Knowledge of these basic process equations of motion lead to knowledge about properties such as energy, momentum, power, mass transfer and others.

As others already told you that both mass and energy gravitate ( as a matter of fact mass isn't even mentioned in the equations describing gravity in GR ), I can only add that neither you, nor we, are stupid here; we are just at different levels of learning.
Keep asking questions.

If you have access to the BBC, this is a very good learning resource

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/subjects/z7nygk7