Mass explained...

[Boerseun]

(another angle on the thread "Explain Mass - but I didn't want to side-track the discussion...)

 

...so, if this is bullcrap, I apologize. It's 4 in the morning, I haven't slept since dog knows when, but here's my explanation for mass:

 

Mass is the friction experienced by energy when transiting between two frames of reference.

Think about it...

[A23]

I could obtain the formula [math]m=\frac{c^3kT}{\hbar\omega^2G}[/math]

 

where [math]m[/math] is the mass, [math]c[/math] speed of light, [math]k[/math] Boltzmann cst, [math]T[/math] temperature (due to friction), [math]\hbar[/math] quant. Cst, [math]G[/math] gravit. Cst.

[lawcat]

That is an interesting interpretation, but I don't understand the reason for chosing such interpretation. Why would we interpret mass as energy in transition? There are so many ways to interpret properties like mass. The decision to interpret mass depends on application.

 

Bottom line is, mass is just a useful measurable, much like energy. In the end, everything including mass can be traced to length and time. The way we measure mass most comonly is by displacement in some force field, usually gravity. We measure length. Similarly, energy can be measured as heat, and heat is radiation, and radiation is some wave interms of length and time.

 

Everything is basically some spatial configuration of length and time. To define mass is simply an attempt to describe a useful way of representing the measurable, and whether something is useful depends on application.

[A23]

I think this comes from : trying to interprete several formulas, made out of nature constant and free parameter that, via dimensional analysis, gives a certain unit ?

[Boerseun]

That is an interesting interpretation, but I don't understand the reason for chosing such interpretation. Why would we interpret mass as energy in transition?

Well, simply put, there is no way to be aware of an object's mass without changing it's frame of reference. You don't know what a ball lying on the floor weighs until you pick it up and accelerate it, i.e. change its frame of reference.

Of course, the above doesn't explain gravity from mass...

 

Okay - you got me. It's a work in progress! But an interesting angle, I think...

[A23]

If your work is in progress, maybe a general physics formula generator could help. We could in this way gain information about the nature of physical concept : [math]m=\frac{c^3\hbar^2\omega}{Gk^2T^2}[/math]

 

which is another general relation, but where the supposedly friction induced temperature sensitivity is higher but here should diminishes the mass.

 

What about if quantum vibration could induce such temperature ?

[Ben]

If your work is in progress, maybe a general physics formula generator could help. We could in this way gain information about the nature of physical concept : [math]m=\frac{c^3\hbar^2\omega}{Gk^2T^2}[/math]

Unlike you, I am not a qualified physicist. Could you please explain to we laymen how you derive this equality and what the variables are (or are they constants - you don't say).

 

Or maybe you are not a qualified physicist........

[sanctus]

Borseun how do you define a frame of reference? I mean I can pick up a ball without changing frame of reference, if it started on x=y=z=0 and I lift it up at 1 meter per second after 1 second it will be in the same frame of reference but at (if z is the direction of the velocity I pick it up) x=y=0 and z=1...after 2 seconds z=2 etc...

[A23]

Unlike you, I am not a qualified physicist. Could you please explain to we laymen how you derive this equality and what the variables are (or are they constants - you don't say).

 

Or maybe you are not a qualified physicist........

 

im a basic schoolperson : dimensional analysis giving a linear system of equations, and 'constants' [math] \hbar, G, k, c [/math] Planck's constant, Newton's gravitational constant, Boltzman cst., speed of light in vacuum, [math]\omega, T[/math] a pulsation and temperature, can be variable up to now.

 

The product of all these gives as unit a mass, but the physicist has to determine what context.

[A23]

I did like : [math]c^\alpha\hbar^\beta G^\gamma k^\delta\omega^p T^q\underbrace{\rightarrow}_{units} (m/s)^\alpha (Js)^\beta (Nm^2/kg^2)^\gamma (J/K)^\delta (1/s)^p K^q[/math]

then using [math]J->N m->kg \cdot m^2/s^2[/math]

and collecting the exponent of every unit m,kg,s,K give 4 equations linear in the unknown [math]\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,p,q[/math].

 

We get :

 

[math]m^{\alpha+2\beta+3\gamma+2\delta}=m^{n1}[/math]

[math]s^{-p-\alpha-\beta-2\gamma-2\delta}=s^{n2}[/math]

[math]kg^{\beta-\gamma+\delta}=kg^{n3}[/math]

[math]K^{q-\delta}=K^{n4}[/math]

 

We then could build an infinity of formulas like the 2 preceding, by imposing n1=n2=n4=0, this gives a mass if n3=1.

 

There are a lot of possibilities for [math]\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,p,q[/math]

 

and for example the hypothesis : to each of those mathematically built formula should correspond a particle with different mass corresponding to a certain temperature and linked to the oscillation of a certain wave.

 

This is how a math stuff could try to impress the physicists.

[modest]

If your work is in progress, maybe a general physics formula generator could help. We could in this way gain information about the nature of physical concept : [math]m=\frac{c^3\hbar^2\omega}{Gk^2T^2}[/math]

 

If an equation has the proper dimensional analysis it is no guarantee that it will have physical meaning. Your equation is dimensionally correct, but appears physically meaningless. Most of the terms are proportionality constants that belong in specific formula.

 

~modest

[Boerseun]

If an equation has the proper dimensional analysis it is no guarantee that it will have physical meaning. Your equation is dimensionally correct, but appears physically meaningless. Most of the terms are conversion constants that belong in specific formula.

 

~modest

So what's your take on seeing mass as a sort of a friction, then?

[Rade]

So what's your take on seeing mass as a sort of a friction, then?

Is it possible that this would mean that "mass" is a partial function of viscosity differences between two interacting but asymmetrical states of existence, perhaps one matter the other antimatter--that is, that the superposed state oscillates between the two modes of existence and what we measure we call "mass" ? Then, is it possible that this occurs along the tau dimension as described by Doctor Dick in his presentation of his Fundamental Equation ? OK, I have no idea--but if someone could explain why this is a crazy idea.

[modest]

So what's your take on seeing mass as a sort of a friction, then?

 

I think inertial mass is like friction. If you push something, it is harder to accelerate if it has more mass (m=f/a). Likewise, if you push something subject to friction then it is harder to accelerate if it has more friction.

 

The problem, I think, is that friction resists relative velocity (that is, two objects subject to friction will tend toward a state of zero relative velocity) while inertial mass resists acceleration (an object with inertial mass will tend toward a state of zero acceleration relative to any inertial reference frame).

 

Since velocity isn't exactly acceleration there would seem to be a problem with the analogy. The property of friction resists velocity while the property of momentum (i.e. inertial mass) resists change in velocity.

 

~modest

[Natural]

Also mass is only a potential measurement until contact is made by another object. This would infer that mass is only existent with the transfer of energy from one object to another. And that an object in motion without resistance has no actual mass... only the potential for energy transfer. (which we call mass)

Right?

[ronthepon]

Of course, the above doesn't explain gravity from mass...

That's because gravitational and inertial mass are distinct concepts. Their magnitudes are same because (1) of the value of 'G' we select, and (2) gravitational and inertial mass have always been found to be directly in proportion.

 

And further, even gravitational mass can only be measured with respect to naother gravitational attractor.

 

However, the energy to mass equivalence would provide an absolute measure of mass. Provided you could measure the energy derived from the mass.

[ronthepon]

Ooh! ooh! Also the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton wavelength. While both are not measurable so easily as inertial of gravitational mass, they both are indeed quantities that can be acquired from the mass, by virtue of it's behavior.