This is a good question that points out the silliness of common use terms of scientific definitions. Particles seem to not fit because in everyday language we call all kinds of things particles that aren’t really particles and because through history as a people when we were learning about light and electric and magnetic things we didn’t know if they were waves or particles and so now everything is both. Even though now we know light waves are waves that ACT like a particle but light is not a particle, but it can act like a particle so we often call it a particle when making basic models to teach but it is not by definition a particle because it has no matter and anything without matter cannot be a particle.
By definition, matter is anything that has mass and volume and by definition a particle is a piece of matter. The science lessons break some serious science laws when making your basic model for introducing the topic of matter and that is ok because it is just a model but it causes misconceptions down the line when done certain ways. I see it all the time the readings say, “Matter is everything around you!” and it is not. There are all sorts of energies around you in the form of electric and magnetic fields and these fields do not have mass. We sometimes call light (electromagnetic energy) a particle because it often behaves like a particle BUT it really is not a particle. A particle is an even more basic science definition. We can almost ALWAYS be more specific then when using the word particle. Particle is generally a filler word for more other words like “molecule” or “atom” before a student has learned the words molecule or atom you can use particle to fill in. Either way, those molecules have mass because semantically the definition of a particle in science breaks down to molecule or atom, both which have mass OR by definition matter HAS to have mass and volume because that is the definition of matter and most “particles” refer to molecules and atoms which happen to have mass.
Latest Answers