The phrase "a chunk of matter" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in scientific contexts, particularly in physics or chemistry, to refer to a distinct piece or portion of physical substance.
Example: "The scientist examined a chunk of matter collected from the asteroid to analyze its composition."
Alternatives: "a piece of material" or "a fragment of substance".
No engineer from Eveready or Duracell could ever squeeze more juice from a chunk of matter.
In principle this is very simple: just look for otherwise unexplained tremors in a chunk of matter.
But if a chunk of matter is dense and massive enough, relativity predicts it can "drag" reference frames right along with it, as if space, like black coffee, were a substance that could be stirred and swirled.
Last month, the ATHENA team at CERN announced that it had cooled antiprotons and antielectrons in a magnetic bottle and detected gamma rays that stream from the annihilation of the antihydrogen when it collides with a chunk of matter (ScienceNOW, 18 September).
There was a starting point and before that there was a chunk of matter?
Ideally, a chunk of strange matter would contain equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks, giving it a neutral charge.
By placing a chunk of exotic matter in the throat of the wormhole, a spacetime traveler could banish the event horizon and make the wormhole passable.
Put differently, Leibniz's argument is that nothing that is divisible is a substance; a Cartesian chunk of matter is divisible; therefore, a Cartesian chunk of matter is not a substance.
Because the square of the speed of light is a very large figure: around 448,900,000,000,000,000 in units of mph; even a small chunk of matter can produce a large amount of energy.
That raises a question: Just how much computation can be squeezed out of a given chunk of matter?
A sufficiently dense chunk of matter distorts space enough that even light, the ultimate yardstick, can't emerge without being stretched to invisibility.
