Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Definition of Substance



Ah... Didn't get that distinction from your post. I can't recall if the terms "pure substance" and "substance" have been used interchangeably throughout the past, but just a quick referral to my (now) limited library of old chemistry textbooks finds the same definition back into the '80s. One states that a substance is a material that has the same properties throughout, which is a slight variation on the theme, but is consistent with:

element or compound = substance
everything else = mixture

Overall, I would have to say, then, that the definition you have there is in accordance with accepted chemistry terminology. My personal recollections go back to the early '60s, and it seems to me that it has always been defined this way.

----- Original Message ----- From: "John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>
To: "'Forum for Physics Educators'" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Definition of Substance


My question was not about "pure substance" but just the work "substance".
The book defined "substance" as either a pure element or compound. I would
agree with "pure substance" as being either an element or compound, but not
just the word substance without the adjective pure.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Definition of Substance

I can't speak to the origin of this terminology, but your text is in
agreement with the chemistry texts in New York over the last 30 years or
so. I wouldn't, therefore, ascribe this terminology to a specific
author. "Pure substance" refers to any entity which has the same
particles throughout, and cannot, therefore, be separated into
dissimilar portions by physical means. This limits pure substances to
elements and compounds (and ignores differences between isotopes, btw).
I think the original intent was to focus students on the particle nature
of matter by categorizing according to the particulate composition, and
those categories would obviously require different names. The choices
made for those names were necessarily subjective.

A pure substance is not "opposite" to anything, merely different based
on composition. The other class of matter is mixture, which contains
dissimilar particles that have been physically combined, and which can
be physically separated into dissimilar portions by physical means. A
solution IS a mixture which has the added characteristic of being
homogeneous - the mixing is completely uniform. This typically requires
the particles to be atomic/molecular in size. Other mixtures one might
come up with would tend to be heterogeneous and contain localized
"clumps" of one substance or another (even if those clumps consisted of
particles which are atomic/molecular in size). Suspensions, despite
being quite uniformly mixed, are still considered to be different than
solutions, presumably because of the larger particle size.

I think there is ample cause/purpose for the distinction between these
classes of matter.

On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 11:06 -0500, John Clement wrote:
> In the TX IPC book the word substance is defined essentially to mean a
> "pure" compound or element. I do not remember having encountered this
> definition, and the dictionary is no help here.
>
> I personally think this is one particular author's definition, or
possibly a
> definition pushed to be able to ask questions like "Is milk a
substance?".
> Since there are alternate words which do have traditional definitions,
this
> is a vey unnecessary complication.
>
> Would anyone agree with the book definition? This is in the > "chemistry"
> part of the text, so would a chemist agree with this? I would use > "pure
> substance" as the opposite to a mixture, solution...
>
> Language is messy, but we don't have to burden students with > unnecessary
> definitions. If the vast majority agrees with the book definition, > then
it
> is reasonable, but merely unnecessary.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l