The Concept Of Mass

[Dubbelosix]

A concept of mass must in some way be a measure of inertia - and this has been accepted since Eisntein brought like of it through his intelligent paper in which a mass is actually a concentrated form of energy. What he realized immediately is that an increase of energy actually proportionally increased the mass of the system.

 

This is a local explanation, local explanations tend to be the most logical ones. Mach has his own version, but in many ways it seemed illogical - Not only does all the matter determine the man standing on the moon, He was never able to explain why this should be but what Einstein showed was that this ''contribution'' would be akin to an energy-momentum tensor which too, takes into respect all the systems contributing to the stress energy. But Einstein's theory of inertia being loosely the same thing as inertia, is one of the most best tested fact of physics we know of. It's been tested without fail, in field, and in orbit.

 

Ocean's explanation was ... borderline vapid, the interpretation of the OP topic was something like reading from a 1960 textbook. With Einstein's insight, then further experimental confirmation (which he thought would never happen), dropping the first atom bomb over Hiroshima, it was universally accepted in a much better definition, which stayed with me because of its intrinsic accuracy.

 

''Energy is diffused form of matter, matter is a concentrated form of light;''

 

And there has been no truer sense of the physics than this. Mass does diffuse back to photon energy, antiparticles and particles could be taken evidence that bound energy giving rise to a quantum zoo of particles, may not be so wild.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Moronium]

A concept of mass must in some way be a measure of inertia

 

Formalistically, this may be true, Dubbo.  But, as a conceptual matter, what's your response to this assertion?:

 

 

Same idea with the moon orbiting the earth, where an equilibrium between opposing forces has been reached. As I have noted before, at least two forces must be in play for that to happen:

 

1. The force of earth's gravity, which is "tugging at" the moon, and

 

2.  The opposing force of inertia, which resists, and offsets, this tug. The force of Inertia "tries" (and keeps trying, to all eternity) to keep the moon moving in a straight line, but it is not completely successful in doing so.  All the same, without it, the moon would just drop straight into the earth.

 

[Dubbelosix]

Formalistically, this may be true, Dubbo.  But, as a conceptual matter, what's your response to this assertion?:

 

 

Can you rephrase this? Conceptual threw me off a bit, are you meaning it in the context of the mind?

[Moronium]

I'm not conversant in the details of GR, but from what I read, Einstein wanted to eliminate the concept of inertia, which he saw as a "defect," from physics.  These days most physicists agree that his attempt to do so failed.

 

In his appraisals of the theory of relativity Einstein often claimed that the general theory remedied an inherent defect in both Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, namely, the reliance on the principle of inertia, and the corresponding “inertial coordinate systems” for rendering intelligible the laws of physics....

 

[but] general relativity assumes each small region of space and time asymptotically approaches “flatness”, and in these infinitesimal regions the metrical properties are those of special relativity, which we’ve already seen are based epistemologically on the principle of inertia...

 

So, despite Einstein’s hopes, general relativity does not in any way explain or obviate the principle of inertia....No one disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely well-founded in observation.  It is an extremely well-justified postulate – but it is still a postulate. General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal theories on the topology and morphology implicit in the principle of inertia and the associated distinguished coordinate systems.

 

 

https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath588/kmath588.htm

 

I'm just throwing this in before Dubbo starts trying to analyze things with a geometrical interpretation of GR.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Can you rephrase this? Conceptual threw me off a bit, are you meaning it in the context of the mind?

 

Well, yeah, I guess I mean something like that. The orbiting moon "explanation" which I offered does not rely on mathematical symbolism, but instead uses "concepts" like "force," inertia, and gravity.  Those are not tangible things which we can ever directly see--they are mental abstractions from what we see (and then think about), i. e., "concepts."

 

But, more generally speaking, I was trying to distinguish between formal mathematical tautologies and everyday "common sense," I suppose.

 

Having said that, I realize that few, if any, people in this forum recognize the distinction.  Most here seem to presume that mathematics IS the concept, and think that math IS physics.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Moronium

[hazelm]

Quote Ocean Breeze:

 

The amount of matter that an object contains is its mass

 

Incidentally, this does not equate matter to mass,

 

My reaction:  Do I see a contradiction?  Or am I just plain dizzy?  hazelm

Edited April 15, 2019 by hazelm

[OceanBreeze]

Quote Ocean Breeze:

 

The amount of matter that an object contains is its mass

 

Incidentally, this does not equate matter to mass,

 

My reaction:  Do I see a contradiction?  Or am I just plain dizzy?  hazelm

 

No contradiction, and you are not dizzy either. The distinction can be confusing.

 

Matter is defined as any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.

 

Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter, measured in kilograms. Mass itself may be classified according to the phenomena used to determine it, such as gravitational mass and inertial mass, but nobody has ever found a difference among the results regardless of the phenomena observed.

 

In you delve into particle physics you will find other definitions for mass involving the Higgs boson and the churning sub-atomic particles within protons and neutrons. It depends on how deeply you want to get into the subject.

[ralfcis]

If science can't even agree on mass, how is it supposed to agree on time or space or even how much is 5?

[OceanBreeze]

If science can't even agree on mass, how is it supposed to agree on time or space or even how much is 5?

 

I'm sure you will figure it all out, Ralf. (the part about the five, I mean)

[Moronium]

Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter, measured in kilograms. Mass itself may be classified according to the phenomena used to determine it, such as gravitational mass and inertial mass, but nobody has ever found a difference among the results regardless of the phenomena observed.

 

 

But the first sentence of your link says this, Popeye:

 

Mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied.

 

 

It doesn't say anything about matter, or even measuring matter,  there.  But the introduction says this:

 

This article is about the scientific concept. For the substance of which all physical objects consist, see Matter

 

.

Mass "measures" resistance to accelation, not matter, according to these guys (and just about everyone else), scientifically speaking, anyway.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I've already asked this question:  What doesn't it even mean to say that mass is a "property" of matter? 

 

Locke made a distinction between primary qualities (properties, really) and secondary qualities.

 

For Locke, primary qualities are those properties of an object that are not related by definition to perceivers. The primary qualities are size, shape, motion, number, and solidity. We might say that the object has these properties ‘in and of itself’. Primary qualities, Locke says, are ‘inseparable’ from a physical object, whatever changes it goes through. For example, physical objects always have some shape and size. These properties don’t depend, either conceptually or for their existence, on whether and how the object is perceived.

 

By contrast, secondary qualities are related to perceivers by definition. As we saw, colour, by definition, is something that is experienced in vision. So it is a property that an object can have only in relation to its being seen by someone. The other secondary qualities are smell, taste, and sound. Secondary qualities aren’t possessed by all physical objects, e.g. plain glass doesn’t have a colour or a smell.

 

 

http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/AS/knowledgeoftheexternalworld/Secondaryqualities.pdf

 

In Locke's term, "mass" would be a primary quality.  But then what?  What is it?

[OceanBreeze]

.

Mass "measures" resistance to accelation, not matter, according to these guys (and just about everyone else), scientifically speaking, anyway.

 

Just about everyone else?

 

Have you actually tried searching for the terms "mass" and "amount of matter"?

 

Try searching this: What Is a Measure of the Quantity of Matter?

 

I think you will get a Lot of hits!

 

The one above says:

 

"A measure of the quantity of matter is called mass. The International System (SI), commonly known as the metric system, uses the kilogram as the base unit of mass, while the British imperial unit for the mass is the pound. In the United States, the pound is also used as the customary unit of mass.

In chemistry, matter is defined as anything that has mass and occupies space. Mass, which is one of the basic properties of matter, measures the amount of inertia an object contains. It is typically represented as the letter "m" in mathematical formulas. A derived unit for the mass is the gram. One kilogram is equivalent to 1000 grams."

 

You could have found that on your own, and many more like it.

 

 

 

 

[Moronium]

Popeye, your own quote is saying the same thing, isn't it?  To wit:

 

"Mass, which is one of the basic properties of matter, measures the amount of inertia an object contains."

 

 

Mass is a "property of" matter (not matter itself) and mass MEASURES inertia, not matter per se.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

I guess you are just looking for an argument, not a discussion.

 

My own quote says:

 

A measure of the quantity of matter is called mass.

 

Did you somehow miss seeing that?

 

I'm too busy to engage in this kind of silly back-and-forth

 

 

[Moronium]

I guess you are just looking for an argument, not a discussion.

 

My own quote says:

 

A measure of the quantity of matter is called mass.

 

Did you somehow miss seeing that?

 

I'm too busy to engage in this kind of silly back-and-forth

 

Yeah, I saw that Popeye.   Did you see the part I quoted?  IT CAME FROM THE SAME EXCERPT OF YOURS.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Just more to add to the confusion, eh?

 

A clock "measures" time, but it is not time.

 

What is mass measuring?  Is it matter, or inertia?

 

Scientifically speaking, it is inertia, not matter, the way I'm reading it.  The M in F=MA, stands for mass, not matter.

 

Now, they may go hand in glove, of course.  The more matter you have, the more mass you have.  But what is mass actually measuring?

 

I guess you are just looking for an argument, not a discussion....I'm too busy to engage in this kind of silly back-and-forth

 

I'm not sure why you think this is a "silly argument," not a discussion.  If anyone is "arguing" with you, it appears to be your own source (actually, both sources when wiki is included), not me.  At the time I mentioned it, I was just pointing out what your own sources said.  I happen to agree with those sources, but I wasn't quoting myself.

 

Google "resistance to acceleration" and see what you get.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The first part of your excerpt is talking about "derived units."  The last sentence says:

 

A derived unit for the mass is the gram. One kilogram is equivalent to 1000 grams. 

 

 

Generally speaking, a "gram" (or kilogram) is a unit of weight.  But I think that everyone agrees that mass is not weight.

 

I guess you could say something like "matter measures mass, which is a measure of inertia."  So matter becomes a "measure of a measure."

 

But this is exactly the type of conceptual confusion I've been talking about.

 

They also say that mass is a property of matter, but it's unclear to me what that is supposed to mean, exactly.  That makes it sound like a "subpart" of matter, not matter itself.  That's one reason I quoted Locke, who said that matter has many properties, not just one.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Moronium