Volume

given

1. it has a good potacium in other words it can have more nutrients that can process for one last once for a day it can may have more vitamins it can have more water to drink to clean your body properly.
2. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I've left them be (I didn't take them out in the first place), but in the process of reverting, you ended up reverting some work in which I point out that the matter definition needs careful work to avoid confusing it with mass (which was completely the case in the relativity section of this article). We agree what whatever matter is, it must have mass. However, matter particles are a subset of massive things, as there are many kinds of mass that are NOT matter (at least not by the lepton definition). If I heat an object, I add mass to it without adding a single lepton. Thus, that extra mass is not matter, by the lepton definition. Confusing mass with matter in the definition, when they are not the same thing, leads to the nonsense where mass is said to be converted to energy, and so forth, which bedevils physics students (and some physics professors) to this day. For example, the mass that an atom bomb loses, is not matter, either. Leptons are conserved when an atom bomb goes off, but some of the mass of the bomb goes elsewhere. Whether "matter" is conserved when an atom bomb goes off is a question that is sort of meaningless. When you speak of matter as being "leptons", are you speaking of their NUMBER only? Or the sum of their weights and masses? What? Defining matter as leptons doesn't solve the qualitative problem. In a bomb, some non-matter energy in potential energy fields, is converted to non-matter energy that is kinetic energy. Matter, I suppose, is conserved in this case. But in an antimatter bomb, it would not be! Mass and energy, yes (as always). But matter, no. Antimatter and matter are converted to nonmatter, and that's it.

   - I have reverted your changes, as I found them to be confusing and somewhat inaccurate. Your phrase "matter-types are is only a subset of types of mass" is impossible to understand - what are "matter-types" ? When you say "mass is generally conservedin physics, just as energy is, and neither mass nor energy may be created or destroyed (or converted into one another)", this is wrong - mass is energy and energy is mass - there is no separate conservation of one or the other. And I think your rewrite of the "Relativity" section will need a reliable source - at the moment, it reads like your own POV interpretation.

   Matter-types are only a subset of types of mass was meant as a restatement of the idea that all matter has mass, but not all mass is matter. One is a subset of the other, in a way, although not all the mass in a lump of matter is represented by particles (some of it is kinetic energy, for example, if the object has a temperature). And some of it is virtual bosons.

   That said, you're completely wrong about there being no separate conservation of mass and matter. There is: they are separately conserved. If they are the same thing (which in a way they are) they MUST be separately conserved (that means conserved over time, for closed systems, and for a given inertial observer), since you're just switching labels (or dividing by c^2, if you like). In a closed system when a positron and electron anihilate into two gamma rays, mass is conserved thoughout the process (the two gamma rays as a system continue to have a mass of 1.022 MeV, which is the invariant mass of the system). But matter is not conserved. Two matter particles are now two particles (photons) that Headbomb refuses to consider matter. And all of this is not based on something as arcane as calculating the invariant mass of a 2-photon system. A positron can be wandering around in a large lump of lead metal. What happens when it finds an electron and annihilates, if the two gammas happen to be absorbed and turned into heat inside the metal lump? Answer: matter disappears (is not conserved), for two particles have now disappeared, that were present before. But MASS is conserved, since the 1.022 MeV of heat generated in the lump increases the MASS of the lump by just the amount of the (now missing) mass of the missing electron and positron, so it all stays the same (on a scale, it would weigh the same, before and after the annihilation). So MASS is separately conserved, AS ALWAYS, in a closed system.

   So you see, when talking about the difference between "matter" and "mass" we need to talk about conservation laws. They don't apply to matter, but they do apply to mass. And we cannot confuse matter and mass, which is what the relativity section I fixed, formerly did (it was talking about mass in an article about matter).

   As for my sources, all this is Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics, which I've been using as my textbook source for the relativity articles. I can move some of those over, if you like. But if you disagree with what I've said above, I'm afraid your problem is with understanding of basic physics, not lack of sources. You should be (at this point) just nodding your head in agreement with my examples, but wishing that I'd merely expressed myself better when explaining them. In which case, feel free to try it yourself. The LEAD/LEDE as it is now, doesn't differentiate matter from mass, which means if you don't rewrite it, you have no argument for not deleting this entire article, and redirecting "matter" to the article on "mass". So think about it. SBHarris 21:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) There is a simple distinction mass is a quantity. It is a property that objects, particles, systems, etc. can have. Matter, on the other hand is not a quantity it is an abstract concept, like "light", "wave" or "radiation". As such a statement like "matter is (not) conserved" is meaningless.

   I agree with Gandalf here, I couldn't make any sense of most of section. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, the original wording was much clearer, IMO.

   The problem with these sections is that they pretend that they are sourced, but nowhere do the cited sources support what is being said. The sources typically contain statements like matter is made up of X, Y, and Z made in a context of explaining the structure and properties of matter. Such a statement are not meant as a definition, and the sources provide no basis for turning the statements into definition. It is impossible to conclude from such a statement that anything that consists of X, Y, and Z is matter. (It is logically possible from the statement that there are things which consist of X, Y, and Z and are not matter.) Inferring that anything that does not consist of X, Y, and Z is not matter according to the source is synthesis and may not even be true; the author simply may not have been considering such cases as they were irrelevant to the context.

   A lot of what currently is being said in theses sections should just be said in the "structure of matter" section without artificially trying to turn it into a definition. The "Definitions" section should then only contain a short paragraph the in certain situations matter is defined as stuff with a certain structure. The only documented case of which I know is that distinction made of leptons and quarks being matter fields in contrast to gauge bosons being considered forces. (We still need to find a reliable source that actually says that, though.)

3. I don't really see what you mean. The article covers the progression of the "building blocks" picture of things, moving from "atoms" to "quark and leptons".Yes, and we're nowhere closer to resolution of the problem that matter is said to be made of quarks and leptons, even though they only constitute 2% of the mass of a lump of ordinary matter, like an apple or a human being. It's fine with me if the authors of this article insist on defining matter in this fashion, but the "paradox" that most of the mass in matter is not what they define as "matter," needs addressing in the lede. As also (as I said) the fact that mass by all standard definitions in physics is conserved, whereas matter is not. I have been stymied in trying to add this to this article by Headbomb, who has essentially said that his personal definition of "mass of a system" (the sum of rest masses of its parts) is NOT conserved. So now I'm having problems with not one, but TWO of Headbomb's personal definitions in physics, one for "mass" and the other for "matter."

   SBharris, you should really get a clue. None of what is found here are my "personal definitions". It's you who fail to speak the same language as everyone else, and the "paradoxes" you speak of are only your own because you equate matter with mass, something which is inappropriate at small scales. If you read what was written, you'd have seen this. Mass is not a conserved quantity, which is what E2 = pc2 + m2c4 is all about. If you have electron and positrons before (sum of masses = 1.022 MeV/c2), and two photons after (sum of masses = 0 MeV/c2), mass is obviously not conserved. No one cares about the invariant mass (Etot/c2) of the system, at least not directly. Because care about Energy and conservation of energy. Your argument is that since the "sum of masses" is not a conserved quantity and is thus "meaningless" is a tautology, because you defined "meaningful" as "a quantity that is conserved". There are several definitions of "matter", and in particle physics, matter is not equated with mass. In particle physics, matter is seen as building blocks, and these building blocks (elementary fermions) have associated properties and are surrounded by bosonic fields (gauge bosons). This is all discussed in the article, with both the explanation for this distinction between matter and fields, and the scope and limitation of this particular definition of matter. This is one of several definitions of matter, all of which are covered in the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, the definition of mass as "the sum of masses" is your personal definition of mass. Nobody else uses it. We both agree that "the sum of rest masses" is not conserved, and you give an example where it isn't. So what? And where did you define mass as the "the sum of rest masses"? You defined it that way, when you stated that mass is not conserved and gave this kind of example as to why it isn't. Unless you define mass as the sum of rest masses, it IS conserved.

   Yes, I defined "meaningful" as a quantity which is conserved. But that includes invariant mass. Although you claim "no one cares" about invariant mass, it is a widely used concept in physics, partly because it is Etot/c2 only occasionally. Etot/c2 is actually the definition of relativistic mass, not invariant mass. It's only invariant mass in the special case when the system momentum is zero and the two types of masses are the same. That is why the weight of systems (a bottle of hot gas or a hot object) is equal to their total energy: the reason is that the weight is connected to the system invariant mass, not that the weight is connected to the total energy. However, if you're weighing a system its momentum must be zero, so they (the total energy/c^2 and the invariant mass) happen to be the same number, so that causes confusion.

   You write "mass is not a conserved quantity, which is what E2 = pc2 + m2c4 is all about." Answer: What?? That equation shows that if energy and momentum are conserved, then mass must be also! It's simply the relationship between total energy, invariant mass, and momentum. A better look at it is: m2 = E2 -p. It simply says that the mass (rest mass or invariant mass for systems) is the Minkowski norm of the E,p 4-vector. All of these quantities happen to be conserved. E and p are not invariant (their values depend on the frame of the observer), but you can't tell from that fact whether or not they are conserved over time. As it turns out, each of them (E and total p) separately is conserved over time, for any given observer in any given frame. The mass given in this equation, in addition, is invariant (that is, changing frames makes no difference to the amount of it an observer sees), and since mass in this equation is the length of a vector defined by the difference of 2 conserved quantities, it also must be conserved. In addition (since it is a Lorentz-invariant 4-vector) it is independent of the observer frame, which neither momentum or energy are. So, not only is the mass as conserved a quantity as energy and momentum, but mass as defined in this equation has invariant properties which neither energy or momentum do. Which is not surprising, I suppose.

4. I should add, by the way, that the "sum of masses" IS conserved, if you define it in any fair way, which is the sum of masses as seen by any single observer, over time. The reason "sum of rest masses" is not conserved, is that each rest mass is measured by a different observer (one at rest with respect to that mass) so you're adding a bunch of quantities collected from different reference frames. You can't expect any quantity to be conserved if you're allowed to measure it in THAT fashion. Since such a proceedure doesn't "see" kinetic energy, even energy is not a conserved quantity if you look at it, in that way. If you can't apply that procedure even to energy, it's certainly not fair to apply it to mass, and then when it fails, claim that mass is not conserved. The problem is not with the mass, but implied idea of how to measure it. SBHarris 19:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

10 cl

cl means centiliter (1/100 of a liter), and dl means deciliter (1/10 of a liter). there are 10 centiliters in 1 deciliter.

US standard quarts

If you are asking about US quarts, they have 32 ounces and each ounce equals 28.35 milliliters, so one US quart must be 32 x 28.35 = 907.2 milliliters.

So 1 milliliter must be equal to 1/907.2 = 0.0011022 US quarts.

UK standard quarts

If you are asking about UK quarts, they have 40 ounces and each ounce equals 28.35 milliliters, so one UK quart must be 40 x 28.35 = 1134 milliliters.

So 1 milliliter must be equal to 1/1134 = 0.0008818 UK quarts.