Could density be defined as the measure of matter per unit volume instead of mass per unit volume because mass is a measurement of matter?


It depends, there are different kinds of densities: mass density, particle density, charge density, probability density ...

Depending on how your measure your matter, mass, number of particles, charge (e.g. for electrons), you could use the corresponding density.

"Matter per unit volume" would only work in a broader sense, since it does not specifically state what kind of measure you want to use. Most of the time one simply defaults on mass, but this depends on the specific field.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I'd be more heavy handed. I don't see how matter per unit volume could ever work. "Matter" is ambiguous as you point out. Does "matter" mean mass, number of particles, charge, ect? $\endgroup$ – MaxW Jul 8 '17 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ You could still state that you have more (or less) of something. And the different kinds of densities may correlate, e.g. more particles are usually more mass (unless you replace heavier particles by one lighter ones). But if you need to put numbers on it, then yes, you need to state what you are talking about. $\endgroup$ – Feodoran Jul 8 '17 at 15:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.