[Pmb (OP)]

Many of you may not be aware of this but the electric field (or magnetic field) is a form of matter.

There are some physicist who refer to the electric field as the fifth state of matter.

[Pincho]

I never really use the term matter. I would probably never use the term. I don't like it. I think that it confuses the physics that are happening to the particles. You must be careful with Quantum Physics not to confuse yourself.

[Pmb (OP)]

I never really use the term matter. I would probably never use the term. I don't like it. I think that it confuses the physics that are happening to the particles. You must be careful with Quantum Physics not to confuse yourself.

Not to me. It's a term I use to refer to all of natures particles, fields, etc. since each of these have mass and we like to think of matter as being related to mass.

Einstein defined matter as the components of the stress-energy-momentum tensor (he might have phrased it differently though).

For more info on this learn about Bell's inequality and it's acceptance within the world of quantum physics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#EPR_Paradox

[Pincho]

I never really use the term matter. I would probably never use the term. I don't like it. I think that it confuses the physics that are happening to the particles. You must be careful with Quantum Physics not to confuse yourself.

Not to me. It's a term I use to refer to all of natures particles, fields, etc. since each of these have mass and we like to think of matter as being related to mass.

Einstein defined matter as the components of the stress-energy-momentum tensor (he might have phrased it differently though).

For more info on this learn about Bell's inequality and it's acceptance within the world of quantum physics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#EPR_Paradox

I've already worked out momentum, and position, and direction as part of a particle. And it's time frame as well.

[yor_on]

A field then Pete? Would you consider that too as a form of matter? And what would you say make that field 'co-move' with the matter we see. To me it goes back to motion, and what it means, because its becoming a mystery to me. A co moving field must then exist if it should fit SR as I gather it. And as uniform motion is defined as relative that should cover it as it seems, but it doesn't to me. Because if I can define several uniform moving object, that relative me are in different uniform motions, then uniform motion isn't relative from my frame of reference, or any 'inertial frame' defined. It has degrees of? Freedom?? Motion? However one should define it. It is relative in a lot of meanings, but with degrees comes a statement that motion exist.

And that co-moving Higgs field would then be able to co-move with all material objects, simultaneously? How many degrees of freedom would that need? And as what we see is observer defined, and as I see it, also 'measurably real' locally. How many local points exist in a universe for one to measure from? And if each definition is measurably real?

And as I get it a Higgs field is expected to co-move, or how else can it 'know' when a acceleration is taking place?

[yor_on]

But yes, I think of it in form of densities myself But it's a mysterious 'substance' if so, and how it knit together into a universe I'm getting more and more interested of. A lot of it goes back to our human archetypes as it seems to me. The way we define what we see, as length time width and height, and from there expect the universe to comply to those descriptions. We have another way with symmetries, and those matrix's used to describe it, which to me are more understandable, in a way In others, not at all, as it in the end must be translatable to the whole universe we measure on, if this now makes sense. Meaning that we should be able to see a picture, not 'parts' that we first have to limit to make them 'fit', then puzzle together into a universe ignoring the limitations we made.

[JP]

There's a bunch of definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter#Definition

But yes, in relativity, the EM field is a form of matter.

[yor_on]

One interesting description I've seen consider the Higgs field in form of a lattice. The lattice have equal 'forces' acting on any uniformly moving object, therefore taking themselves out, leaving the object free to 'move' at some geodesic uniform velocity. But, how would this lattice be constructed from observer dependencies? Would it then be generated by what 'motional degree' (kinetic energy) the object have too? And how does it know/differ the motion from the mass? As I expect different uniform motions to exist.  If it can differ uniform motions from mass, what does that state?
==

The point I'm trying for is subtle, it's about what energy you expect a moving object to have, and if uniform motion add to it. As far as i know one  can not, by measuring locally, define any added energy to a uniformly moving object. And whatever energy you find to define in a collision is a expression of two objects mass and motion added, relative each other. So from, for example, measuring vibrations or heat in matter there will be no added energy coming to be due to a faster (uniform motion without resistance) velocity/speed, as I know?

And motion is indeed a relative thing that way, only expressing itself between frames of reference. But it still exists, and the universe seems to 'know' it, at least when frames meet. It's not a local expression though, and thinking that way it makes a co moving very weird. Thinking of it as a lattice it may become different though. I'm not sure, but it seems, if a lattice can 'count' on 'relative motion' as well as mass, that this lattice should become another 'frame of reference', if so? And how do you define a co-moving frame of reference?

At least it gives me a headache.