User:Boris Tsirelson/Sandbox1: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Boris Tsirelson (Removing all content from page) |
imported>Boris Tsirelson No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Well, this is an interesting... what? physics, not chemistry. | |||
Fortunately or unfortunately, I am not a chemist, nor a physicist; thus I am not entitled to draw the border between chemistry and physics. However, all this exchange about mass only convinces me that the problem, what is mass, and what has mass, is deeply physical, far not chemical. The same can be said about the problem, what is space and what does it mean, to occupy space. And therefore the definition that says "occupies space and has mass", be it apt or not, is anyway inappropriate for chemistry. For "matter (physics)" — maybe; for "matter (chemistry)" — not at all. | |||
Revision as of 12:51, 16 November 2010
Well, this is an interesting... what? physics, not chemistry.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I am not a chemist, nor a physicist; thus I am not entitled to draw the border between chemistry and physics. However, all this exchange about mass only convinces me that the problem, what is mass, and what has mass, is deeply physical, far not chemical. The same can be said about the problem, what is space and what does it mean, to occupy space. And therefore the definition that says "occupies space and has mass", be it apt or not, is anyway inappropriate for chemistry. For "matter (physics)" — maybe; for "matter (chemistry)" — not at all.