Bec matter & energy R interchangeable in certain conditions,R they versions, forms or phases ofthe same stuff?

Question

like the phases of water, as vapor, liquid or solid, are versions (with different properties) of the same stuff under certain conditions? I would have used the more formal philosophical term *substance in lieu of the term *stuff if it could have fitted in the Q-box. As it is, I had to use texting tricks.

I ask the Q bec I am wondering how we should think of the mixtures of matter and energy that compose the diversity of things we perceive and believe to exist in the universe we tenuously inhabit.

This Q touches on one of the major concerns of metaphysics and modern science.

*indicates an internet-searchable term

I compared the dictionary meaning of the nouns "type" and "version, and I think version is the better choice. It connotes the nuance I wanted to bring out. See the entries in the online version of the American Heritage Dictionary."

I agree you can't see them in the same manner bec obviously we perceive and therefore think about them in different ways. But the eye of reason tells us that they are connected. Einstein made the mathematical equivalence precise but this is a Q in philosophy specifically in metaphysics. Terms like "same stuff" or *substance are inadequate to the task of unifying our understanding of that connection.

Answer 1

E=MC squared. Basic truth. All matter is composed of minute particles of energy. One doesn't have to talk in abstracts or phases. Just plug Relativity or quantum physics into your Q box.

And it doesn't take an equation to turn on a light bulb.

[edit: try matter, it's already one of your terms, but be sure to include energy, because a lot of things matter and that could make matters difficult]

Answer 2

You can, if you choose, think of them as the same thing. It would probably be more accurate to say matter and energy are both TYPES of some other thing - matterenergy.

In a sense, it's VERY like the liquid-gas boundary. Chemists discovered some time ago that under certain conditions there is no way to tell if a material is a liquid or a gas... the distinction between the two blurs into nonexistance (this is called the 'critical point', link 1). But because in other conditions there is a distinct difference between the two, those terms are still important, and they haven't abolished on or the other.

Or, to draw another parallel, you and I are both types of human beings. To refer to us only by the collective is to ignore the differences between us, and to refer to us only by specifics is to ignore our commonalities.

This is why scientists generally do both... there will always be matter and energy just as there will always be liquid and gas (and hundreds of other things which convert from one to another in certain conditions). These terms are just acknowledged by those in the know as states which are not completely independant. So it goes.