Matter Understanding

[pljames]

My question is, how does matter (unformed as atoms and protons) become formed like the earth and all that's in it? To me unformed matter cannot be seen by the naked eye but formed matter can be seen (earth and all in it). I would think there are two dimensions there one material one para material. Thoughts please. pljames

[CraigD]

My question is, how does matter (unformed as atoms and protons) become formed like the earth and all that's in it?

Simply put, per chemistry, which explains the forces that can bind atoms and their constituent particles to one another, and gravity, which can attract these individual and ensembles of particles to one another.

 

Take space, add hydrogen (the simplest atomic matter, consisting of a single proton and a single electron), wait a few billion years, and you’ll get stuff like the Sun and the Earth.

 

To me unformed matter cannot be seen by the naked eye but formed matter can be seen (earth and all in it).

You appear to be saying, essentially, that matter in its gas state, where atoms are not bound to one another, or plasma state, where electrons are not bound to atomic nuclei, cannot be seen by the naked eye, while in its liquid or solid states, it can be.

 

Though not too bad of a rule of thumb, it’s not true in all circumstances. Seeing with the naked eye is merely perceiving the presence of things via the light they emit or absorb. While we humans are better at visually perceiving large liquid and solids objects, we can also, in the right circumstances, perceive gases and plasmas.

[Pmb]

Simply put, per chemistry, ...

That is an inappropriate way to respond to the question. The term chemistry is defined as follows

Chemistry, study of the composition, structure, properties, and interactions of matter.

So chemistry, about all else, is the study of something.

 

So saying chemistry is how matter becomes formed is like saying Physics is how an particle accelerator is built.

 

I would respond as follows: Gravitational forces cause denser regions of matter in interstellar gases to collapsse into a denser state and in the process the potential energy of the matter is changed into kinetic energy of motion and that kinetic energy allows compounds to have the energy to collide and thus bind into more complex molecules.

 

If there never were denser regions of matter then matter never would have formed. Such inhomogeneities are also the source of structure formation in the universe. Without such non-uniformities galaxies couldn't form.

[Guest MacPhee]

Suppose we accept the quoted definition of Chemistry as:

 

"The study of the composition, structure, properties and interactions of matter".

 

That sounds like an equally good definition of Physics.

 

So I wonder, do we need to make a sharp distinction between "Chemistry" and "Physics" - like in the present-day Nobel Prize system, which awards two separate prizes. Thus implying, that we're dealing with two quite separate, distinct studies. Whereas they're really both attempts to study, and understand, Matter.

 

Couldn't we merge Chemistry and Physics into a single, unified study, which we might call "Matterology"?

Edited December 20, 2012 by MacPhee

[Pmb]

That is an inappropriate way to respond to the question. The term chemistry is defined as follows

 

So chemistry, about all else, is the study of something.

 

So saying chemistry is how matter becomes formed is like saying Physics is how an particle accelerator is built.

 

I would respond as follows: Gravitational forces cause denser regions of matter in interstellar gases to collapsse into a denser state and in the process the potential energy of the matter is changed into kinetic energy of motion and that kinetic energy allows compounds to have the energy to collide and thus bind into more complex molecules.

 

If there never were denser regions of matter then matter never would have formed. Such inhomogeneities are also the source of structure formation in the universe. Without such non-uniformities galaxies couldn't form.

I had to say that these are some very excellant points here. I'd like to add that atoms other than hydrogen didn't just come from nowhere. They were formed in stars and during the phase of supernova that some stars go through. In that case the formation of atoms isn't through chemical processes but through nuclear processes.

[Eclogite]

My question is, how does matter (unformed as atoms and protons) become formed like the earth and all that's in it?

Let me expand on what CraigD has said and try to avoid the semantic deviation of pmb.

 

There are present in this and other galaxies huge clouds of gas and dust. These are known as Giant Molecular Clouds (GMCs). They are massive, hundreds or thousands of times more massive than the sun, and they stretch across light years of space. They are also very old - only a few degrees above absolute zero. There composition is dominated by hydrogen, then helium, but there also a whole range of other simple compounds containing all the elements, including some simple organic moecules.

 

Gravitational instabilities in these clouds, possibley triggered by supernovae explosions cause part or all of the cloud to begin to collapse. This leads to the formation of proto-stars, which are surrounded by a disc of material that gradually coalesces to form planets. The process happens quite rapidly in astronomical terms - only a few tens of millions of years, though it may take a few hundred million for the system to settle down to relative stability.

 

I'll be happy to expand on any part of this very simple explanation.

[Lancewen]

Suppose we accept the quoted definition of Chemistry as:

 

"The study of the composition, structure, properties and interactions of matter".

 

That sounds like an equally good definition of Physics.

 

So I wonder, do we need to make a sharp distinction between "Chemistry" and "Physics" - like in the present-day Nobel Prize system, which awards two separate prizes. Thus implying, that we're dealing with two quite separate, distinct studies. Whereas they're really both attempts to study, and understand, Matter.

 

Couldn't we merge Chemistry and Physics into a single, unified study, which we might call "Matterology"?

 

I've always thought of chemistry as a sub category of physics that deals with the interactions of atoms. In other words you don't have any chemistry without atoms. When you deal with subatomic particles that make up atoms, that is always thought of as in the realm of physics.

[Aethelwulf]

PMB wasn't being semantic in his approach, but if you are going to talk about chemistry you really need to tell the reader about Pauli statistics, how chemistry arises from the Pauli Exclusion Principle. If the question is why the earth seems so compact, no one has mentioned electrostatic repulsion, how the electrostatic force pushes our body relative to Earth, because without this repulsion the Earth would not feel so compact at all. In fact most of the Earth is made of space, without the electrostatic repulsion, everything would drastically shrink in size and become just a dense soup of fundamental particles.

 

As Eclogite above has said however, planetoids like the Earth are formed from steller gas clouds which become so heavy under their weight that they collapse in more denser forms of matter. Some of the matter turns into stars and some of these stars will go supernova ejecting a by-product of energy and matter into the surrounding disk which further creates new-born planets.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Aethelwulf