Primary and Secondary Matter

[utunumsint]

Happy new year,

I have been reading up on primary and secondary matter from a Thomistic perspective. In a nutshell, secondary matter is anything with a substantial form. As you drill down through hierarchies of smaller and smaller substantial forms, you get combinations of ever smaller pairings of:

Matter and Form

These pairings are all considered secondary matter until you get to some fundamental level of particles. Current physics states that these fundamental particles are:

• fermions: for example, includes quarks, leptons,
• bosons: for example photons, gluons

The way I understand the concept of prime matter is that it is matter without any form. Prime matter cannot exist on its own without form. But it is necessary to explain change and limitation.

**Looking at change: **
It is my understanding that all fermions and leptons can change. If they are really fundamental particles and they can change (e.g. from one kind of fundamental particle into another kind such as one quark into another quark), then there must be some combination of form and matter (say quark type A) which loses its form in exchange for some other form (say quark type B). If that underlying matter is not itself a more fundamental combination of form and matter, then it can only be prime matter that can explain the enduring substrate underlying the change in the leptons and fermions.

**Looking at limitation: **
Prime matter is needed to explain how a fundamental particle can be the way it is. If it is something, then it has form. And form always exists with matter in the Aristotelian sense of the word except for angels and God. The form explains what characteristics and properties the lepton or fermion has. Prime matter explains what has this form, for example, in terms of its location in time and space.

Thoughts.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Thoughts. . .

Whoosh.

bump

 

[God_I_Love]

Happy new year,

I have been reading up on primary and secondary matter from a Thomistic perspective. In a nutshell, secondary matter is anything with a substantial form. As you drill down through hierarchies of smaller and smaller substantial forms, you get combinations of ever smaller pairings of:

Matter and Form

These pairings are all considered secondary matter until you get to some fundamental level of particles. Current physics states that these fundamental particles are:

• fermions: for example, includes quarks, leptons,
• bosons: for example photons, gluons

The way I understand the concept of prime matter is that it is matter without any form. Prime matter cannot exist on its own without form. But it is necessary to explain change and limitation.

**Looking at change: **
It is my understanding that all fermions and leptons can change. If they are really fundamental particles and they can change (e.g. from one kind of fundamental particle into another kind such as one quark into another quark), then there must be some combination of form and matter (say quark type A) which loses its form in exchange for some other form (say quark type B). If that underlying matter is not itself a more fundamental combination of form and matter, then it can only be prime matter that can explain the enduring substrate underlying the change in the leptons and fermions.

**Looking at limitation: **
Prime matter is needed to explain how a fundamental particle can be the way it is. If it is something, then it has form. And form always exists with matter in the Aristotelian sense of the word except for angels and God. The form explains what characteristics and properties the lepton or fermion has. Prime matter explains what has this form, for example, in terms of its location in time and space.

Thoughts.

God bless,
Ut

Ok so i didn’t follow everything, forgive me, but essentially I get that you are trying to better grasp and understand primary vs secondary matter. Now perhaps this is too simplistic but if you view primary matter as just energy without form. Secondary matter is the form that energy takes; which can and does shift (mechanical to electrical)

 

[utunumsint]

Ok so i didn’t follow everything, forgive me, but essentially I get that you are trying to better grasp and understand primary vs secondary matter. Now perhaps this is too simplistic but if you view primary matter as just energy without form. Secondary matter is the form that energy takes; which can and does shift (mechanical to electrical)

As I understand it, energy, for example a photon, has form and matter, just as a quark has form and matter. If these are fundamental particles, then there is nothing more fundamental than they are and the matter which makes up the matter/form combination in a quark must be pure undifferentiated prime matter.

I don’t know if this is in any way correct by the way. Looking back on the tone of my first point, I realize I was far too declarative, when pretty much every sentence should be punctuated with a question mark. I’m hoping to generate conversation.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

God bless,
Ut

 

[God_I_Love]

As I understand it, energy, for example a photon, has form and matter, just as a quark has form and matter. If these are fundamental particles, then there is nothing more fundamental than they are and the matter which makes up the matter/form combination in a quark must be pure undifferentiated prime matter.

I don’t know if this is in any way correct by the way. Looking back on the tone of my first point, I realize I was far too declarative, when pretty much every sentence should be punctuated with a question mark. I’m hoping to generate conversation.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

God bless,
Ut

Well energy is everything. There is nothing without it. So is there energy that is formless? Possibly dark energy (over 70% of all energy and we have no clue about it. we can’t even speculate). So my understanding then, of primary matter, is that this is what Thomas was referring to. That which is everything (energy), but exists as secondary in so far as it takes form. (matter or anti matter etc)

 

[Aloysium]

. . . location and time might be understood today as part of it’s form

On the other hand, if here and now is what is meant, then “primary matter” has to do with its coming into existence. The particular time and place would be an aspect of its form as are other interactional properties.

 

[Aloysium]

my original post is gone!! . . . or i am in a time warp (quoting my post before it appears)

What I said there was that it seems to me that:

• you can only detect matter with form
• breaking down secondary matter into smaller and smaller bits will yield only smaller bits of secondary matter
• how does one go about breaking up secondary matter into primary matter and form
• maybe location and time might be understood today as part of it’s form

 

[Aloysium]

On the other hand, if here and now is what is meant, then “primary matter” has to do with its coming into existence. The particular time and place would be an aspect of its form as are other interactional properties.

Matter - one singularity manifesting itself in an infinite number of forms.

 

[Aloysium]

Matter - one singularity manifesting itself in an infinite number of forms.

And behind, above, below, within and beyond creation is . . .

 

[God_I_Love]

Matter - one singularity manifesting itself in an infinite number of forms.

Excellent thought!

 

[utunumsint]

Seems to me:

• you can only detect matter that has form

Agreed.

• breaking up secondary matter into smaller and smaller bits will give you only smaller secondary matter

Agreed. My question has to do with a possible fundamental particle, beyond which, if the science is right, matter cannot be divided beyond in any meaningful way.

• it may not be possible to break apart matter and form, so that only matter without form exists

This is what Aquinas and Aristotle believed, yes. Prime matter cannot exist without form. It can only be separated from form in the human intellect.

• maybe Aristotle has it wrong; can you say more about primary matter, since location and time might be understood today as part of it’s form

Hmmmm - maybe this works?

Matter is the principle of a substance’s potency while form is the principle of its actuality. It is the matter that limits the actuality of the form to this particular instance of that form in such and such a time and location rather than that particular instance of a form in such and such a time and location. For example, angels are pure forms, but each angel has its own form. No two angels share the same form because they are not individuated with matter.

Given the above, the prime matter inherent in fermion A or boson B would be undetectable to the instruments of science since the “matter” that underlies these particles is pure formless potentiality. We can only reason to its existence through metaphysical principles. It must be there if we are to explain change, for example from fermion to fermion, for example in a particle smasher. It must also be there to explain why boson A is limited to a particular time and location as opposed to boson B in another location. Both boson A and B share the same form, so it must be the underlying matter that differentiates them.

Does this make sense?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Happy new year,

I have been reading up on primary and secondary matter from a Thomistic perspective. In a nutshell, secondary matter is anything with a substantial form. As you drill down through hierarchies of smaller and smaller substantial forms, you get combinations of ever smaller pairings of:…]

Here is a nice discussion on Thomistic terms.

" Prime Matter and Substantial Form

Now that we understand the difference between a substance and an accident as well as the ten categories of being, we can attempt to further understand what exactly a substance really is. Aristotle believed that a substance is composed of prime matter and form. Prime matter is not the same thing as physical matter (the kind we usually think of as composed of atoms). Instead, prime matter should be thought of in terms of potency and actuality. Prime matter is nothing more than pure potency. It is the substantial underlying reality of all things, and as such, has the potential to become anything. Prime matter (since it is substantial) has no physical appearance, quality or quantity. Prime matter cannot even be thought of separate from form. Form is what allows prime matter to become substance. For instance, all of the elements on the Periodic Table (such as iron, gold, silver, mercury, etc.) can be thought of as comprised of prime matter. The thing that differentiates the elements from each other is their form. Silver and gold are composed of the same prime matter but have different form. Form and prime matter constitute the substance of any object, and the substance of that object is inhered with accidents that give the substance a physical character. "

saintaquinas.com/primer.html

Aquinas makes no mention of " secondary matter " that I know of. He does distinguisn between " prime matter " and " designate matter " and " non-designate matter. ’

See his Being and Essence here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm I’m sure you have read it before but one has to keep reading it.

Prime matter should be understood as the underlying " stuff " of all material substances. It is basically the capacity of matter to have a potency to any form ( except the angelic or the Divine ). It is often pictured as the residual " stuff " left over after a change of some kind. I think this is incorrect. I think this " potential capacity " is present in every example of a truly material substance. And when any matter ( Thomas would say primary matter ) receives a form of a definite genus, species, and difference it is or becomes " designate " matter. That is, it becomes quantified and has " parts outside of parts " joined to a definite form. It becomes an individual man, dog, a single photon, whatever. It is designate matter which individuates any particular thing, it makes a man a particualr man, a Utunumsint or a Linus.

P.S. Aristotle and Thomas both speak about First and Second Substance. First substance being what you see and sense or detect ( all the accidents except ), and second substance being the underlying essence, matter and form you do not see.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

A particle physicist said:“What is matter is not made of matter!”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A particle physicist said:“What is matter is not made of matter!”

What is it made of then?

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

What is it made of then?
Linus2nd

We don’t know. It might be infinitely divisible. A scientific theory is a theory which is falsifiable. I think this applies to philosophy as well.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We don’t know. It might be infinitely divisible. A scientific theory is a theory which is falsifiable. I think this applies to philosophy as well.

Even so it would still be constructed of some kind of matter.

No, philosophy depends almost on logical reasoning from first principles.

Have you quit Thomas Aquinas already?

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Matter is the principle of a substance’s potency while form is the principle of its actuality. It is the matter that limits the actuality of the form to this particular instance of that form in such and such a time and location rather than that particular instance of a form in such and such a time and location. For example, angels are pure forms, but each angel has its own form. No two angels share the same form because they are not individuated with matter.

Given the above, the prime matter inherent in fermion A or boson B would be undetectable to the instruments of science since the “matter” that underlies these particles is pure formless potentiality. We can only reason to its existence through metaphysical principles. It must be there if we are to explain change, for example from fermion to fermion, for example in a particle smasher. It must also be there to explain why boson A is limited to a particular time and location as opposed to boson B in another location. Both boson A and B share the same form, so it must be the underlying matter that differentiates them.

Does this make sense?

God bless,
Ut

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Linusthe2nd: . . . And when any matter ( Thomas would say primary matter ) receives a form of a definite genus, species, and difference it is or becomes " designate " matter. That is, it becomes quantified and has " parts outside of parts " joined to a definite form. It becomes an individual man, dog, a single photon, whatever. It is designate matter which individuates any particular thing, it makes a man a particualr man, a Utunumsint or a Linus.

We have an impression that breaking things down into their constituent parts informs us of their basic nature. I don’t agree with this, seeing it more along the lines of what Linus says, “It is designate matter which individuates any particular thing, it makes a man a particualr man . . .” Reality comes in wholes, that when taken apart become something else. Subatomic particles do not explain the actions of atoms and molecules, which do not fully explain the nature of biological beings, especially ourselves. So I would say that breaking matter down ever further would not give us primary matter. I would imagine “primary matter” as being at the foundation of God’s relationship with the material universe, expressing His being its loving Creator. We might experience it as compassion. We all would have at our most inner core that love whereby we come into existence. I think pantheists mistake this for God, who is the Transcendent Mystery and the eternal Cause of all that is - the Triune Godhead. God created us in time through a series of layered creative acts, beginning with the creation of heaven and earth. I don’t know, but that is how I can best put what I barely glimpse.

 

[Bahman]

Even so it would still be constructed of some kind of matter.

No, philosophy depends almost on logical reasoning from first principles.

Have you quit Thomas Aquinas already?

Linus2nd

But reasoning is based on axioms which could be matter of reality that we are facing with!

 

[lmelahn]

Happy new year,

…]

Matter and Form

These pairings are all considered secondary matter until you get to some fundamental level of particles. Current physics states that these fundamental particles are:

• fermions: for example, includes quarks, leptons,
• bosons: for example photons, gluons

The way I understand the concept of prime matter is that it is matter without any form. Prime matter cannot exist on its own without form. But it is necessary to explain change and limitation.

**Looking at change: **

…]

**Looking at limitation: **

…]

Thoughts.

God bless,
Ut

First some background that might be useful for this discussion:

According to Aristotle and Thomas (who essentially follows Aristotle), all material beings share two fundamental compositions. The easier one to grasp is the one between substance and accident; the more difficult one is that between (prime) matter and (substantial) form. (Thomas adds a third composition, between essence and being, common to all creatures, even pure spirits, but I won’t get into that here.)

In each of these compositions, one of the poles is “active,” and the other is “passive” or “receptive;” or, in Aristotelian parlance, one is “act” and the other is “potency.”

When Aristotle says “substance,” he is thinking of a concrete thing, such as a tree (or a dog, or man, or what have you). Notice how a tree, say, starts out as a seed, and continuously grows into a full-grown tree. It is one tree, with many phases of growth. So what is going on, here? It is one or many? Aristotle says, “both”: it is one substance (a tree) that undergoes constant change in its accidents (its size, color, weight, and so on).

Thus, for Aristotle, in this case, the “receptive” principle (the “potency”) is the substance; that substance is “actuated” by its accidents (which function as “act”). The substance, therefore, can be characterized as a kind of secondary matter: the substrate in which the accidents can inhere. So that is right, the secondary matter already possesses a substantial form.

There are some changes that are clearly not merely “accidental”: what happens, for example, if our tree gets struck by lightning? Or what happened when the seed was produced? Both of these are examples of what Aristotle calls corruption and generation, or “substantial change.” I think that corruption is easier to see: when the tree dies, it does not disappear, but it leaves its dead wood behind. That is evidence of a composition more profound than that of substance and accident: there is another, deeper, receptive principle (potency) that allows one substance to change into another (e.g., a tree into dead wood), without a visible change of size, weight, and so on. Hence, Aristotle deduces that there is a potential principle that he calls “prime matter,” which is necessary for there to be generation and corruption (and for there to be individuals of the same species, as well).

I consider this hylomorphism (from hylé, matter, and morphé, form) to be fundamentally correct, so let’s apply that to fundamental particles.

Just one clarification: physicists also use the term “matter,” but it means something different: it basically means material substances or their aggregate, the sum total of things that have mass, more or less. In philosophy, it means something rather different, as we saw above.

So, what is a fundamental particle, if we apply hylomorphism? According to Aristotle (and Thomas), a substance has only one substantial form. A tree is a tree; its leaves and branches are not substances, and so neither are its cells, its atoms, or its electrons. Rather, all of these things are parts of a unique substance, with a unique substantial form, that unifies all of these parts.

And yet these parts have a certain amount of independence. If I pluck off a leaf, clearly, it becomes a different substance from the tree. (I have just effected a “generation.”) Supposed I could I graft it back in again, it would get “corrupted” and become part of the tree. Similarly with the molecules, atoms, electrons, and so on that constitute the tree.

These things are what Thomas calls “incomplete substances.” Right now, they are part of a substance and are informed by the substantial form of that substance. If they were to be physically removed, or if the substantial form to which it belongs were to be corrupted (e.g., if the tree dies), then it is ready to form an independent substance. But it isn’t one here and now, however.

And I think that is how fundamental particles work. If they are part of a tree (or of you and me), then they are not strictly speaking substances. Rather, they are informed by the unique substantial form of that substance. But they are “incomplete substances” that could have an independent existence if the right conditions were met. Basically, there is only substance (and substantial form) where there is sufficient unity.

Thomas would say that an incomplete substance has a substantial form virtually: it doesn’t have one yet, but it has the power (virtus) to obtain one, as soon as the substance it belongs to disintegrates.

So, fundamental particles have at least a virtual substantial form; an actual one, if they are independent. In that regard, they behave like normal substances: they have accidents (mass, energy, etc.), and they have the ability to change. If they are transformed into a different kind of particle or are annihilated or created (in in the physical sense), they basically undergo a substantial change; if they change energy or what have you, they undergo an accidental change.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

First some background that might be useful for this discussion:

According to Aristotle and Thomas (who essentially follows Aristotle), all material beings share two fundamental compositions. The easier one to grasp is the one between substance and accident; the more difficult one is that between (prime) matter and (substantial) form. (Thomas adds a third composition, between essence and being, common to all creatures, even pure spirits, but I won’t get into that here.)

In each of these compositions, one of the poles is “active,” and the other is “passive” or “receptive;” or, in Aristotelian parlance, one is “act” and the other is “potency.”

When Aristotle says “substance,” he is thinking of a concrete thing, such as a tree (or a dog, or man, or what have you). Notice how a tree, say, starts out as a seed, and continuously grows into a full-grown tree. It is one tree, with many phases of growth. So what is going on, here? It is one or many? Aristotle says, “both”: it is one substance (a tree) that undergoes constant change in its accidents (its size, color, weight, and so on).

Thus, for Aristotle, in this case, the “receptive” principle (the “potency”) is the substance; that substance is “actuated” by its accidents (which function as “act”). The substance, therefore, can be characterized as a kind of secondary matter: the substrate in which the accidents can inhere. So that is right, the secondary matter already possesses a substantial form.

There are some changes that are clearly not merely “accidental”: what happens, for example, if our tree gets struck by lightning? Or what happened when the seed was produced? Both of these are examples of what Aristotle calls corruption and generation, or “substantial change.” I think that corruption is easier to see: when the tree dies, it does not disappear, but it leaves its dead wood behind. That is evidence of a composition more profound than that of substance and accident: there is another, deeper, receptive principle (potency) that allows one substance to change into another (e.g., a tree into dead wood), without a visible change of size, weight, and so on. Hence, Aristotle deduces that there is a potential principle that he calls “prime matter,” which is necessary for there to be generation and corruption (and for there to be individuals of the same species, as well).

I consider this hylomorphism (from hylé, matter, and morphé, form) to be fundamentally correct, so let’s apply that to fundamental particles.

Just one clarification: physicists also use the term “matter,” but it means something different: it basically means material substances or their aggregate, the sum total of things that have mass, more or less. In philosophy, it means something rather different, as we saw above.

So, what is a fundamental particle, if we apply hylomorphism? According to Aristotle (and Thomas), a substance has only one substantial form. A tree is a tree; its leaves and branches are not substances, and so neither are its cells, its atoms, or its electrons. Rather, all of these things are parts of a unique substance, with a unique substantial form, that unifies all of these parts.

And yet these parts have a certain amount of independence. If I pluck off a leaf, clearly, it becomes a different substance from the tree. (I have just effected a “generation.”) Supposed I could I graft it back in again, it would get “corrupted” and become part of the tree. Similarly with the molecules, atoms, electrons, and so on that constitute the tree.

These things are what Thomas calls “incomplete substances.” Right now, they are part of a substance and are informed by the substantial form of that substance. If they were to be physically removed, or if the substantial form to which it belongs were to be corrupted (e.g., if the tree dies), then it is ready to form an independent substance. But it isn’t one here and now, however.

And I think that is how fundamental particles work. If they are part of a tree (or of you and me), then they are not strictly speaking substances. Rather, they are informed by the unique substantial form of that substance. But they are “incomplete substances” that could have an independent existence if the right conditions were met. Basically, there is only substance (and substantial form) where there is sufficient unity.

Thomas would say that an incomplete substance has a substantial form virtually: it doesn’t have one yet, but it has the power (virtus) to obtain one, as soon as the substance it belongs to disintegrates.

So, fundamental particles have at least a virtual substantial form; an actual one, if they are independent. In that regard, they behave like normal substances: they have accidents (mass, energy, etc.), and they have the ability to change. If they are transformed into a different kind of particle or are annihilated or created (in in the physical sense), they basically undergo a substantial change; if they change energy or what have you, they undergo an accidental change.

Very interesting analysis. Sounds like the beginning of an absorbing book, or at least good paper . I have thought of a thread on " act and potency " but then realized that it would be impossible to do it in the space of a single post. Henri Renard S.J. has an excellent discussion in his Philosophy of Being, popular in the 50’s.

I’m not sure we can equate " second substance " and " secondary matter. " I think one would need to inquire about the source of the term " secondary matter " ( and " first matter " as well). Ut didn’t say whether this was his own term or whether he found it used somewhere else. If somewhere else, it would be interesting to know where.
Pax Christi
Linus2nd