The modern conception of matter has been refined many times in history, in light of the improvement in knowledge of just
what the basic building blocks are, and in how they interact. The term "matter" is used throughout physics in a wide variety of contexts: for example, one refers to "
condensed matter physics", "elementary matter", "
partonic" matter, "
dark" matter, "
anti"-matter, "
strange" matter, and "
nuclear" matter. In discussions of matter and
antimatter, the former has been referred to by
Alfvén as
koinomatter (Gk.
common matter). In
physics, there is no broad consensus as to a general definition of matter, and the term "matter" usually is used in conjunction with a specifying modifier. The history of the concept of matter is a history of the fundamental
length scales used to define matter. Different building blocks apply depending upon whether one defines matter on an atomic or elementary particle level. One may use a definition that matter is atoms, or that matter is
hadrons, or that matter is leptons and quarks depending upon the scale at which one wishes to define matter.
Classical antiquity In
ancient India, the
Buddhist,
Hindu, and
Jain philosophical traditions each posited that
matter was made of atoms (
paramanu,
pudgala) that were "eternal, indestructible, without parts, and innumerable" and which associated or dissociated to form more complex matter according to the
laws of nature. They extended the ideas found in early literature of the Hindus and Buddhists by adding that atoms are either humid or dry, and this quality cements matter. They also proposed the possibility that atoms combine because of the attraction of opposites, and the soul attaches to these atoms, transforms with
karma residue, and
transmigrates with each rebirth. Meanwhile,
Parmenides argued that change does not exist, and
Democritus argued that everything is composed of minuscule, inert bodies of all shapes called atoms, a philosophy called
atomism. All of these notions had deep philosophical problems.
Aristotle (384 BCE–322 BCE) was the first to put the conception on a sound philosophical basis, which he did in his natural philosophy, especially in
Physics book I. He adopted as reasonable suppositions the four
Empedoclean elements, but added a fifth,
aether. Nevertheless, these elements are not basic in Aristotle's mind. Rather they, like everything else in the visible world, are composed of the basic
principles matter and form. The word Aristotle uses for matter,
ὕλη (hyle or hule), can be literally translated as wood or timber, that is, "raw material" for building. this is the
mechanical philosophy. Descartes makes an absolute distinction between mind, which he defines as unextended, thinking substance, and matter, which he defines as unthinking, extended substance. They are independent things. In contrast, Aristotle defines matter and the formal/forming principle as complementary
principles that together compose one independent thing (
substance). In short, Aristotle defines matter (roughly speaking) as what things are actually made of (with a
potential independent existence), but Descartes elevates matter to an actual independent thing in itself. The continuity and difference between Descartes's and Aristotle's conceptions is noteworthy. In both conceptions, matter is passive or inert. In the respective conceptions matter has different relationships to intelligence. For Aristotle, matter and intelligence (form) exist together in an interdependent relationship, whereas for Descartes, matter and intelligence (mind) are definitionally opposed, independent
substances. Descartes's justification for restricting the inherent qualities of matter to extension is its permanence, but his real criterion is not permanence (which equally applied to color and resistance), but his desire to use geometry to explain all material properties. Like Descartes, Hobbes, Boyle, and Locke argued that the inherent properties of bodies were limited to extension, and that so-called secondary qualities, like color, were only products of human perception. English philosopher
Isaac Newton (1643–1727) inherited Descartes's mechanical conception of matter. In the third of his "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy", Newton lists the universal qualities of matter as "extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and inertia". Similarly in
Optics he conjectures that God created matter as "solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles", which were "...even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces". The "primary" properties of matter were amenable to mathematical description, unlike "secondary" qualities such as color or taste. Like Descartes, Newton rejected the essential nature of secondary qualities. Newton developed Descartes's notion of matter by restoring to matter intrinsic properties in addition to extension (at least on a limited basis), such as mass. Newton's use of gravitational force, which worked "at a distance", effectively repudiated Descartes's mechanics, in which interactions happened exclusively by contact. Though Newton's gravity would seem to be a
power of bodies, Newton himself did not admit it to be an
essential property of matter. Carrying the logic forward more consistently,
Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) argued that corporeal properties transcend contact mechanics: chemical properties require the
capacity for attraction.
19th and 20th centuries Since Priestley's time, there has been a massive expansion in knowledge of the constituents of the material world (viz., molecules, atoms, subatomic particles). In the 19th century, following the development of the
periodic table, and of
atomic theory,
atoms were seen as being the fundamental constituents of matter; atoms formed
molecules and
compounds. The common definition in terms of occupying space and having mass is in contrast with most physical and chemical definitions of matter, which rely instead upon its structure and upon attributes not necessarily related to volume and mass. At the turn of the nineteenth century, the knowledge of matter began a rapid evolution. Aspects of the Newtonian view still held sway.
James Clerk Maxwell discussed matter in his work
Matter and Motion. He carefully separates "matter" from space and time, and defines it in terms of the object referred to in
Newton's first law of motion. However, the Newtonian picture was not the whole story. In the 19th century, the term "matter" was actively discussed by a host of scientists and philosophers, and a brief outline can be found in Levere. One
textbook discussion from 1870 suggests that matter is what is made up of atoms:Three divisions of matter are recognized in science: masses, molecules and atoms.A Mass of matter is any portion of matter appreciable by the senses.A Molecule is the smallest particle of matter into which a body can be divided without losing its identity.An Atom is a still smaller particle produced by division of a molecule. Rather than simply having the attributes of mass and occupying space, matter was held to have chemical and electrical properties. In 1909 the famous physicist
J. J. Thomson (1856–1940) wrote about the "constitution of matter" and was concerned with the possible connection between matter and electrical charge. In the late 19th century with the
discovery of the
electron, and in the early 20th century, with the
Geiger–Marsden experiment discovery of the
atomic nucleus, and the birth of
particle physics, matter was seen as made up of electrons,
protons and
neutrons interacting to form atoms. There then developed an entire literature concerning the "structure of matter", ranging from the "electrical structure" in the early 20th century, to the more recent "quark structure of matter", introduced as early as 1992 by Jacob with the remark: "Understanding the quark structure of matter has been one of the most important advances in contemporary physics." In this connection, physicists speak of
matter fields, and speak of particles as "quantum excitations of a mode of the matter field". Protons and neutrons however are not indivisible: they can be divided into
quarks. And electrons are part of a particle family called
leptons. Both
quarks and leptons are
elementary particles, and were in 2004 seen by authors of an undergraduate text as being the fundamental constituents of matter. These quarks and leptons interact through four
fundamental forces:
gravity,
electromagnetism,
weak interactions, and
strong interactions. The
Standard Model of particle physics is currently the best explanation for all of physics, but despite decades of efforts, gravity cannot yet be accounted for at the quantum level; it is only described by
classical physics (see
Quantum gravity and
Graviton) to the frustration of theoreticians like
Stephen Hawking. Interactions between quarks and leptons are the result of an exchange of
force-carrying particles such as
photons between quarks and leptons. The force-carrying particles are not themselves building blocks. As one consequence, mass and energy (which to our present knowledge cannot be created or destroyed) cannot always be related to matter (which can be created out of non-matter particles such as photons, or even out of pure energy, such as kinetic energy). Force mediators are usually not considered matter: the mediators of the electric force (photons) possess energy (see
Planck relation) and the mediators of the weak force (
W and Z bosons) have mass, but neither are considered matter either. However, while these quanta are not considered matter, they do contribute to the total mass of atoms,
subatomic particles, and all systems that contain them. == See also ==