arkain101 Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 I am curious to hear some people's best description of what exactly seems to give 'mass' its mass. What or how is it that mass has inertia. What reason exactly does it want to be as it is and fire back an equal force of anything that forces upon it?No simple obvious answers like, It has mass/inertia because its heavy. In my humble opinion it seems mysterious where mass comes from and how inertia exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Mass...??? Massive!- means BIG. bigger than individual atoms. There's something "substantial" - substance word associatingly,Racoon:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted March 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 No simple obvious answers like, It has mass/inertia because its heavy :xparty: Thanks for the reply Racoon, I guess you didnt quite catch the question though..:) ;) :hyper:: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOLDEN Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 It seems like mass is possibly the most tricky subject for physics to describe in any realistic or accurate way. After 81 years of theoretical development and technological advances Einstein still provides the most accurate explanation of what mass is in general relativity. Mass and Gravity are inextricably linked and an explanation of gravity as a curved space-time clarifies the rules by which so called "massive objects" are constrained. Thus modern physics answers this question by posing it again as "what is mass if not a measure of its affect on the local universe?" It is for precisely this reason that gravity and the forces of the quantum field have not yet been neatly tied up under the umbrella of a single theory. Mass remains a mystery because science has not yet successfully detected the mechanism of gravity. Gravitons provide a theoretical grappling point but still only exist in theory as their direct observation has thus far eluded scientists. The best physics can do at present is measure and calculate the force of gravity for an object in a specific state and region. Even general relativity does not offer a complete explanation as to what specific property of an object is actually responsible for the measure of its mass (with the exception of answers like size, density or energy content). So to answer your question mass is the measure of inertia for small objects and the gravity of large ones beyond that is purely theoretical speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Mass, as I have started to believe (courtsey some discussions in Hypography, is the quality of objects, that is due to their inertia, that is, the ability or resistance of objects to propagate/move. For physical objects it manifests itself through the gravitational force, for spiritual objects like thoughts and imaginations it is an imaginary quantity, that qualifies them towards movement. This is an extension of the views I expressed elsewhere on Hypography. I think it is a direction towards a new revolution in the natural philosophy, whether the leader of this revolution tomorrow will be myself of someone else does not matter:) ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Mass...???Massive!. bigger than individual atoms. Right Arkain. ;) Mass- (noun) 1) a body of matter. 2) a quantity of matter in a body 3) an assemblage of particles or things. The sense of "Mass" as in 'bulk' comes from the Greek *Maza"*which means *cake , lump* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamil Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 From what i heard physicists cant explain what is mass on a fundamental level. In high school it is simply taught as 'the measurement of matter', but more advanced textbooks explain this a meaningless definition since it cant be explained quantitevely. I mean i never could digest this explanation when i first heard it because in High School they also defined matter as bieng soemthing that has mass. So: 'Matter is something that has a mass' 'Mass is a measurement of matter' It is clearly evident how meaningless these two definitions are together. Physicists are now looking for a particle that is responsible for mass known as 'Higgs Boson' but it hasnt been found yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 What happens when you get down to the smallest particle before there is No Mass??What bridges the Gap between No-Mass and Mass?? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamil Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 What happens when you get down to the smallest particle before there is No Mass??What bridges the Gap between No-Mass and Mass?? :) I dunno lol, nature is vdery mysterious. I would guess Higgs Boson or no Higgs Boson ;) :hihi: The small details of nature are the most puzzling ones, i mean if you think deep enough you will find existence extremely confusing. "Don't think to deep or you'll drown" :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted March 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 What bridges the Gap between No-Mass and Mass?? This is the challenge of my question. Why does mass have mass. I was not looking for the definition of the word. What is it that makes a difference between a particle with 'no mass' and an aparent particle with mass. Is it all tied into the space-time field.. is it because everything is somehow connected or One field with many types of disturbances being all types of 'things' Great responses so far, looking forward to anyones best go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleAl Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 There is no fundamental meaning to either gravitational or inertial mass. Mass is the singular observable for which there is no instrumental standard. Mass is defined by the platinum-iridium kilogram, about the size of a 35 mm film cannister, held at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures at Sèvres near Paris. The simple explanation is that mass is an artifact. Mass does not exist as such. The objective reality of being hit by a bullet, or an asteroid, is left as an exercise for the alert reader. GAHD and TheBigDog 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 I am curious to hear some people's best description of what exactly seems to give 'mass' its mass. What or how is it that mass has inertia. What reason exactly does it want to be as it is and fire back an equal force of anything that forces upon it?No simple obvious answers like, It has mass/inertia because its heavy. In my humble opinion it seems mysterious where mass comes from and how inertia exists.My own personal definition of matter: Condensed and localized orbital energy flux..................go figure. Actually, mass and matter are two different things. The mass of a system will change as the energy of the system changes. Therefore mass and energy are equivalent. E=Mc^2 When something at rest is set in motion, it's mass is increased. This is the result of an addition of energy to the system. Because matter is really only localized orbital energy flux, matter at rest will have mass. Even though the matter appears to be standing still, the abundant energy stored within is in constant motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamil Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 why does mass have mass. I was not looking for the definition of the word. But you see, we have to give a word a definition in order for it us to be able to make any thoughts on it. Its like if i say 'i like apples but not oranges'........now if i change the definitions of apples and oranges around then i would have to change the sentene in order for it to be true, and if I inform the people(that i am telling the new sentence) about the change in definition then they would get the same message as in the first situation. Someone on these forums recently used a quote asying smoething along the lines of 'When i say a word, i mean only what i chose it to mean, neither more or less'That's why we have to clearly define what is it that we are exactly discussing in order for us to make any valid logical deductions from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted April 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 I agree Kamil.. But I suppose I assumed most everyone knew what mass and matter was.But now that we have mass defined.. Explaining it is another thing. If a 'particle' of which makes up matter has what we refer to as mass. Then as we begin disecting that particle to the smallest part then the smallest part in that part we will wonder where it is we arrive at what is the 'source' of mass if it is we assume mass is a make up of fundemental particles. But if we do not expect a particle to be the cause of mass and instead, it is the space in which the detected particle exists within that causes the effect of mass then we wonder what is the 'space' that causes these forces and phenominas of nature. If all was one at some astounding fundemental level it would be possible that anything interacting with-in this one would follow such a expected behavior of the mass in nature. Where anything that forces with-in this one will have the rest of itself being forced upon... Then we have the assumption as time as a dimension and when objects/disturbances change or accelerate with-in this dimension it traverses through the 'scale' of the time flow and runs literaly into a dimensional resistence that all of which exists is tied into. This of course is as good as anyones guess and I am more or less ranting on the go more than stating any kind of factual information in hopes to jazz up the imaginations and inspiration in others.. I will be posting my thoughts aswell, but I really enjoy reading other peoples ideas and respect them .. so more the better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 But now that we have mass defined.. Explaining it is another thing. If a 'particle' of which makes up matter has what we refer to as mass. Then as we begin disecting that particle to the smallest part then the smallest part in that part we will wonder where it is we arrive at what is the 'source' of mass Energy is the source of all mass. To break it down, we find different kinds of particles but this difference is really only the different geometric character of energy flux within a confined space. All matter, even the smallest particles are made of the same stuff; Energy. Moving on, we now need to identify, what is Energy. My personal definition: Quantum changes thru the geometry of space. The great question now is 'What is space', for this, I have no answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted April 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 intriguing thoughts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 This is what my lecturer had to say about the matter today: Einstiens equation of E=mc^2 doesnt just mean mass is convertable with energy - c^2 is just a scalar multiple, the equation literally equates mass to energy, they are one in the same. I'm still coming to terms with it all.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.