It's been answered. You just don't like or understand the answer.
As for the Higgs, we should find out sometime in the relatively near future.
What is mass? Force?
- Thread starter Human001
- Start date
It's been answered. You just don't like or understand the answer.
As for the Higgs, we should find out sometime in the relatively near future.
According to Leon Lederman with Dick Teresi in their book, the God Particle, page 370 "mass is not some sort of intrinsic property of particles but a property acquired by the interaction of particles in their environment." James Clerck Maxwell shows in his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (page 4) that mass has the dimensions of Length cubed/ Time squared. Which in my mind means mass can only be one of two possibilities, a VOLUME (Length cube) rotational accelerated (Time squared) OR a SURFACE AREA (of a sphere) Length squared with SA displacement by rotational acceleration (Length / TIme squared. BUT Compared to what? And there lies the rub, as the acceleration is compared to what?? and modern physics does not allow for a foundation environment, the aether.
James Putnam
Registered Senior Member
Mass is undefined.
aetherdew,
Your response was of genuine interest. My response is directed at the arguments which you have referenced and not to your own presentation.
I think it matters not for one to say "mass is not some sort of intrinsic property of particles but a property acquired by the interaction of particles in their environment." My response is that nothing is acquired. Everything is provided for from the beginning of the universe. Mass is resistance to force. What point is there in suggesting that resistance to force is acquired at the moment that force is applied. Perhaps force is acquired at the moment that resistance to force is applied. I do not mean this seriously. I mean only to point to the need, as I see it, for all properties to be given recognition for their own existence which is due only to the origin of the universe.
Maxwell was, in my opinion, in possession of the right idea, but took the wrong track. The units of mass should be deduced from those of length and time. The reason is that all empirical evidence comes to us in forms of patterns of changes of velocity. The units of velocity and change of velocity contain only units of length and time. They are the units of empirical evidence. For that reason, all properties deduced from the patterns portrayed in those units should be reducible to only those two units or to combinations of them.
The problem with Maxwell's treatment is that he thought in terms of a universal system of units. There is a tendency in that kind of effort to set constants of proportionality to unity and unitlessness. The proportionality constant that we identify as the universal gravitational constant might be set to unity, I personally would avoid doing that, but it either has units or it does not. Unitlessness transfers between systems of units. The gravitational constant is not unitless and should not be forcibly caused to become unitless. So, in my opinoin, Maxwell arrived at the wrong combination of units of length and time to replace the invented indefinable units of mass named kilograms.
Well I didn't expect to survive long enough to post another message. I will wait and see if this discussion is permitted to continue. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
James
aetherdew,
Your response was of genuine interest. My response is directed at the arguments which you have referenced and not to your own presentation.
I think it matters not for one to say "mass is not some sort of intrinsic property of particles but a property acquired by the interaction of particles in their environment." My response is that nothing is acquired. Everything is provided for from the beginning of the universe. Mass is resistance to force. What point is there in suggesting that resistance to force is acquired at the moment that force is applied. Perhaps force is acquired at the moment that resistance to force is applied. I do not mean this seriously. I mean only to point to the need, as I see it, for all properties to be given recognition for their own existence which is due only to the origin of the universe.
Maxwell was, in my opinion, in possession of the right idea, but took the wrong track. The units of mass should be deduced from those of length and time. The reason is that all empirical evidence comes to us in forms of patterns of changes of velocity. The units of velocity and change of velocity contain only units of length and time. They are the units of empirical evidence. For that reason, all properties deduced from the patterns portrayed in those units should be reducible to only those two units or to combinations of them.
The problem with Maxwell's treatment is that he thought in terms of a universal system of units. There is a tendency in that kind of effort to set constants of proportionality to unity and unitlessness. The proportionality constant that we identify as the universal gravitational constant might be set to unity, I personally would avoid doing that, but it either has units or it does not. Unitlessness transfers between systems of units. The gravitational constant is not unitless and should not be forcibly caused to become unitless. So, in my opinoin, Maxwell arrived at the wrong combination of units of length and time to replace the invented indefinable units of mass named kilograms.
Well I didn't expect to survive long enough to post another message. I will wait and see if this discussion is permitted to continue. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
James
James Putnam:
Do you have any ideas on how you'd do that? Got an equation for mass in terms of length and time?
It's important in these contexts to distinguish units from dimensions. For example, the dimension of length can be specified in many different units: metres, yards, feet, furlongs, hands, cubits etc.
The equations of physics (Maxwell's equations included) are independent of units, but not dimensions.
The problem you face in trying to derive mass from length and time is that it's not just a unit problem. Mass is a different dimension.
The correct statement is that the gravitational constant always has the same dimensions, but its numerical value changes depending on what system of units you choose. It's like saying that the speed of your car is constant, but it has a numerical value of 10 (metres per second) or 36 (kilometres per hour).
It is never unitless. It may, however, have a numerical value of 1 for some choices of units.
Do you have any ideas on how you'd do that? Got an equation for mass in terms of length and time?
It's important in these contexts to distinguish units from dimensions. For example, the dimension of length can be specified in many different units: metres, yards, feet, furlongs, hands, cubits etc.
The equations of physics (Maxwell's equations included) are independent of units, but not dimensions.
The problem you face in trying to derive mass from length and time is that it's not just a unit problem. Mass is a different dimension.
The correct statement is that the gravitational constant always has the same dimensions, but its numerical value changes depending on what system of units you choose. It's like saying that the speed of your car is constant, but it has a numerical value of 10 (metres per second) or 36 (kilometres per hour).
It is never unitless. It may, however, have a numerical value of 1 for some choices of units.
James Putnam
Registered Senior Member
Hi James R.,
Yes I do. I wouldn't raise the point if I didn't, although it should be possible to raise the point before learning an answer. I think the point is valid enough to be considered for discussion. My own answer, requires more to be said. It will probably engender immediate condemnation without preparing for it. I made my points about defining mass and any other deduced property in terms of length and time. Are they considered logical or not?
I am speaking about units only.
I assume you mean that units can be changed. Yes. However, changing units can be detrimental to the ability of an equation to reveal meaning. In any case, units are necessary. They are the means by which properties become parts of equations.
No it is just a unit problem. What is the basis for claiming that it is a different dimension? The empirical patterns from which mass is deduced do not include this new dimension. If it is introduced into equations as a new dimension, then that is a theoretical guess. I fall back upon the units of empirical evidence to suggest that this guess is wrong.
I am speaking about units. They are what enter into the equations first. Vectors or dimensions come next if necessary. Maxwell's units for mass must be wrong. He used a form of Newton's equation that did not even recognize units for the gravitational constant.
Maxwell used it as if it was unitless. For another example, if the speed of light squared is not unitless, then energy is not the same property as is mass. It is the units that make every property unique in equations.
James R., I know that you know what you are talking about. I am sincerely interested in your answers. Anything that I am mistaken about should be pointed out. I simply hope that I am given the chance to reply at least once or perhaps twice. When you speak of dimension what do you mean in the case of mass? If it is meant to communicate that mass is not expressible in terms of units of length and time, then how is this known? As I see it, it cannot be known from empirical evidence. Whatever the units really are, f/m=a makes clear that they should be able to participate along with the correct fundamental units of force to reduce to units of acceleration.
The units of force cannot be relevant because they are defined in terms of mass times acceleration. My point is that both force and mass must be reducible to units of length and time or multiples thereof. They are not length and time themselves. They are something else. They are both unique from one another. If this is the meaning of dimensions, then there is no problem with dimensions. However, the units are what enter the equation as the identity of the property and they must be made correct. Any clarification you can make would be appreciated.
James Putnam
Yes I do. I wouldn't raise the point if I didn't, although it should be possible to raise the point before learning an answer. I think the point is valid enough to be considered for discussion. My own answer, requires more to be said. It will probably engender immediate condemnation without preparing for it. I made my points about defining mass and any other deduced property in terms of length and time. Are they considered logical or not?
I am speaking about units only.
I assume you mean that units can be changed. Yes. However, changing units can be detrimental to the ability of an equation to reveal meaning. In any case, units are necessary. They are the means by which properties become parts of equations.
No it is just a unit problem. What is the basis for claiming that it is a different dimension? The empirical patterns from which mass is deduced do not include this new dimension. If it is introduced into equations as a new dimension, then that is a theoretical guess. I fall back upon the units of empirical evidence to suggest that this guess is wrong.
I am speaking about units. They are what enter into the equations first. Vectors or dimensions come next if necessary. Maxwell's units for mass must be wrong. He used a form of Newton's equation that did not even recognize units for the gravitational constant.
Maxwell used it as if it was unitless. For another example, if the speed of light squared is not unitless, then energy is not the same property as is mass. It is the units that make every property unique in equations.
James R., I know that you know what you are talking about. I am sincerely interested in your answers. Anything that I am mistaken about should be pointed out. I simply hope that I am given the chance to reply at least once or perhaps twice. When you speak of dimension what do you mean in the case of mass? If it is meant to communicate that mass is not expressible in terms of units of length and time, then how is this known? As I see it, it cannot be known from empirical evidence. Whatever the units really are, f/m=a makes clear that they should be able to participate along with the correct fundamental units of force to reduce to units of acceleration.
The units of force cannot be relevant because they are defined in terms of mass times acceleration. My point is that both force and mass must be reducible to units of length and time or multiples thereof. They are not length and time themselves. They are something else. They are both unique from one another. If this is the meaning of dimensions, then there is no problem with dimensions. However, the units are what enter the equation as the identity of the property and they must be made correct. Any clarification you can make would be appreciated.
James Putnam
to James Putman
reply to James Putman
Perhaps I need to clarify, when I referred to Maxwell's comments on definition of mass, I was not referring to MAXWELL's EQUATION's but a reference in his book on electromagnetism which ties together two displacement formulas to derive the units of mass. S = 1/2 ft(squared) and S =1/2 mt(squared)/radius(squared) where f is used by Maxwell as acceleration. Solving for mass = 2sr(squared)/time(squared)
Using Lederman's concept of mass being acquired from its environment, then using the concept of a sphere, mass can be represented by an rotationally accelerating (or decelerating) theta/time(squared) sphere (volume or length cubed) OR equally as well as the surface area (length cubed) of a sphere accelerating (or decelerating) as in linear rotational acceleration(distance/time(squared). BUT accelerating relative to what? in order to use this definition of mass requires an existence of a reference medium which I believe is clearly an aether or substance of space which serves as carrier of light
Modern physics does not allow for an aether, and therefore mass cannot be defined under the present system.
I don't know if this is allowed in forum but I have written a book on this topic and if you have an interest, email me and I will send you a reference where you can view it for free or go to www.webpages.charter.net/deww and look at aetherdew.htm
It will also show you how a mechanism for gravity can be defined with the presence of an aether, but if you are mainline physics you probably won't agree, but its there if you care to look,cheers dew
James R. before you cancel the link as pseudoscience, I would like to add the book is well referenced but the references are NOT easy to find in the free htm file. I would be happy to email the full pdf file to anyone on request. Modern physics has missed the aether big time. At least look at DW Sciama's comment on forces (with respect to aether) before you dismiss it. (the above noted htm file is searchable by search engines find commands. I hope you will have a chance to consider looking at it.
reply to James Putman
Perhaps I need to clarify, when I referred to Maxwell's comments on definition of mass, I was not referring to MAXWELL's EQUATION's but a reference in his book on electromagnetism which ties together two displacement formulas to derive the units of mass. S = 1/2 ft(squared) and S =1/2 mt(squared)/radius(squared) where f is used by Maxwell as acceleration. Solving for mass = 2sr(squared)/time(squared)
Using Lederman's concept of mass being acquired from its environment, then using the concept of a sphere, mass can be represented by an rotationally accelerating (or decelerating) theta/time(squared) sphere (volume or length cubed) OR equally as well as the surface area (length cubed) of a sphere accelerating (or decelerating) as in linear rotational acceleration(distance/time(squared). BUT accelerating relative to what? in order to use this definition of mass requires an existence of a reference medium which I believe is clearly an aether or substance of space which serves as carrier of light
Modern physics does not allow for an aether, and therefore mass cannot be defined under the present system.
I don't know if this is allowed in forum but I have written a book on this topic and if you have an interest, email me and I will send you a reference where you can view it for free or go to www.webpages.charter.net/deww and look at aetherdew.htm
It will also show you how a mechanism for gravity can be defined with the presence of an aether, but if you are mainline physics you probably won't agree, but its there if you care to look,cheers dew
James R. before you cancel the link as pseudoscience, I would like to add the book is well referenced but the references are NOT easy to find in the free htm file. I would be happy to email the full pdf file to anyone on request. Modern physics has missed the aether big time. At least look at DW Sciama's comment on forces (with respect to aether) before you dismiss it. (the above noted htm file is searchable by search engines find commands. I hope you will have a chance to consider looking at it.
Last edited:
James Putnam
Registered Senior Member
I think that this thread should stay on target. Its questions pertained to: What is mass? Force? My participation was not instigated by a desire to use it to push my viewpoint about the natures of mass and force. I do that elswhere. I would understand that my opinion may mostly likely be considered as deserving to be placed in the psuedo science forum and be required to work its way back out if possible. I am not promoting an answer. I am interested only in pointing out something that I think is obvious. Mass was accepted from its beginning as an indefinable property. It was assigned indefinable units to represent itself in equations.
I suggest that to this day, no one knows what mass or force is. I also suggest that a possible reason is that mass, force, and a couple of other indefinable properties need first to be understood in relation to their empirical evidence. That evidence comes to us only in units of distance and time. I think that it is reasonable to suggest that all properties that are deduced from that empirical evidence should be representable in terms and units of the empirical evidence. They can still be assigned individual units for convenience. However, those new units should be defined based upon units of distance and time or various combinations of them.
Anyway, whether one agrees with this or not, I do say that without reconsideration of their definitions, beginning all the way back at f=ma, no one can explain nature's reasons for the existence and uniquenesses of mass and force. Everything to be learned about them must come originally, before theoretical adjustments are added on, directly from the patterns in the properties that constitute their empirical evidence. I'll leave it at that.
James Putnam
I suggest that to this day, no one knows what mass or force is. I also suggest that a possible reason is that mass, force, and a couple of other indefinable properties need first to be understood in relation to their empirical evidence. That evidence comes to us only in units of distance and time. I think that it is reasonable to suggest that all properties that are deduced from that empirical evidence should be representable in terms and units of the empirical evidence. They can still be assigned individual units for convenience. However, those new units should be defined based upon units of distance and time or various combinations of them.
Anyway, whether one agrees with this or not, I do say that without reconsideration of their definitions, beginning all the way back at f=ma, no one can explain nature's reasons for the existence and uniquenesses of mass and force. Everything to be learned about them must come originally, before theoretical adjustments are added on, directly from the patterns in the properties that constitute their empirical evidence. I'll leave it at that.
James Putnam
Restated - assume numbers in parentheses are 3 cubed and 2 squared
I tried to cut and past with superscripts but didn't work??
If Mass units are Length cubed over Time squared ( L3/T2 ) as noted by Maxwell’s consideration, then empirically there are only 2 logical choices;
A rotating sphere is a volume ( L3 ) would be angular accelerating (Theta/ T2 ) = L3/T2
Or point on surface (linear accel (L/ T2 )) of a rotating SA sphere (L2 ) = L3/T2
But what are the spheres rotating (accelerating) relative to? Since there must be a basic “set” spin of the universe which I believe can be shown to be the speed of light as SET by its carrier medium. (aether)
Since modern physics has dismissed (I believe inappropriately) aether as a valid concept, then mass cannot be defined and your statements appear to support this view.
Until physics corrects its dismissal of aether, mass cannot be defined.
Yes I believe dark matter is MODIFIED aether (modified by galactic “mass”) so mass does have an action-reaction effect on local aether.
Yes I believe electrons are point particles (actually rotating spheres) whose rotational speed or axial rotation is out of sync with local aether spin velocity, ergo MASS.
I tried to cut and past with superscripts but didn't work??
If Mass units are Length cubed over Time squared ( L3/T2 ) as noted by Maxwell’s consideration, then empirically there are only 2 logical choices;
A rotating sphere is a volume ( L3 ) would be angular accelerating (Theta/ T2 ) = L3/T2
Or point on surface (linear accel (L/ T2 )) of a rotating SA sphere (L2 ) = L3/T2
But what are the spheres rotating (accelerating) relative to? Since there must be a basic “set” spin of the universe which I believe can be shown to be the speed of light as SET by its carrier medium. (aether)
Since modern physics has dismissed (I believe inappropriately) aether as a valid concept, then mass cannot be defined and your statements appear to support this view.
Until physics corrects its dismissal of aether, mass cannot be defined.
Yes I believe dark matter is MODIFIED aether (modified by galactic “mass”) so mass does have an action-reaction effect on local aether.
Yes I believe electrons are point particles (actually rotating spheres) whose rotational speed or axial rotation is out of sync with local aether spin velocity, ergo MASS.
$$ g r^2\;=\; GM $$ has units of $$ m^3s^{-2} $$.
So in that sense G just 'normalises' the units of gravitational mass, and g is simply a rearrangement of the terms.
So in that sense G just 'normalises' the units of gravitational mass, and g is simply a rearrangement of the terms.
Pretty sure this is wrong.
Here's a paper you might find useful. It's Light is Heavy by van der Mark and 't Hooft, and it describes how a massless photon trapped in a mirror box adds mass to that system. Open the box and the photon escapes, resulting in a reduction in mass. This is akin to Einstein's E=mc² paper Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?. The photon has momentum p=hf/c, but when you confine it, the momentum appears as mass. There is a difference in dimensionality betwen momentum and mass (or inertia), but nevertheless there is an inherent symmetry. And you might prefer to talk of E=hf rather than p=hf/c. But anyhow, you can catch the drift of this with bullets rattling around inside a steel box. Increase the speed of the bullets, and whilst you haven't increased their mass, the box is now more difficult to move.
James Putnam:
No. Fundamentally, the equations of physics are independent of a choice of units.
I think you're perhaps misunderstanding my use of the word "dimension". In the present context it has nothing to do with the "dimensions" of space and time (we live in 3 dimensional space etc.).
Actually, it is the dimensions that are most important in equations. Units determine constants of proportionality only.
Energy is never the "same property" as mass. Energy can have the same numerical value as mass if expressed in "natural units" where the speed of light has a numerical value of 1.
The point is that $$E=mc^2$$ is the physical equation. If you express energy in Joules and mass in kilograms, then c is 299792458 m/s. On the other hand, you could choose a system of units such that c has a numerical value of 1, in which case the equation "reduces" to E=m. But there's still a hidden "1" (squared) in that equation on the right hand side that has dimensions of (length/time) squared.
It's known because nobody has ever come up with any equation expressing mass in terms of length and time. You included, or you would have posted your equation by now.
Force has dimensions of mass.length/time^2. Since mass can't be expressed in terms of length and time, that's as simple as things get.
No. Fundamentally, the equations of physics are independent of a choice of units.
I think you're perhaps misunderstanding my use of the word "dimension". In the present context it has nothing to do with the "dimensions" of space and time (we live in 3 dimensional space etc.).
Actually, it is the dimensions that are most important in equations. Units determine constants of proportionality only.
Energy is never the "same property" as mass. Energy can have the same numerical value as mass if expressed in "natural units" where the speed of light has a numerical value of 1.
The point is that $$E=mc^2$$ is the physical equation. If you express energy in Joules and mass in kilograms, then c is 299792458 m/s. On the other hand, you could choose a system of units such that c has a numerical value of 1, in which case the equation "reduces" to E=m. But there's still a hidden "1" (squared) in that equation on the right hand side that has dimensions of (length/time) squared.
It's known because nobody has ever come up with any equation expressing mass in terms of length and time. You included, or you would have posted your equation by now.
Force has dimensions of mass.length/time^2. Since mass can't be expressed in terms of length and time, that's as simple as things get.
James Putnam
Registered Senior Member
James R.,
I disagree. The meaning of the equations lies in the properties it represents. The units represent those properties and are what identify them in the equations. The systems of units can be interchanged; however, different systems represent different levels of abilities to show meaning. For example, in the cgs system, the unit of electric charge is chosen of such magnitude that the proportionality constant in Coulomb's equation is equal to unity. However, in the mks system each term, excluding the proportionality constant, is determined independently from the others from empirical evidence. The result is that the new important information that Coulomb's law offers to us must be revealed in the proportionality constant. It is the only new value to be found in the equation. Therefore, if we wish to learn what Coulomb's law has to teach us, we must first decipher the new meaning behind the value of the proportionality constant. That constant has units because it represents something physical, something new and important.
I disagree. It is the units that give unique identities to individual properties and make those properties concrete parts of the equations. Without the units quantities are only numbers. This is a sincere question to distinguish between what you refer to as dimensions and units: How is a 'dimension' represented in the equation f=ma?
I agree with this. So long as '(length/time) squared' is acknowledged to have fundamental physical importance in understanding the relationship between energy and mass, then the two cannot be said to be the same thing.
Ok. It will do no good by itself; but, here it is: the units of mass in terms of distance and time are the inverse of acceleration.
The reason that force cannot be explained is that its units are defined based upon the invented indefinable units of mass. Replace the units of mass with the units, given above, of distance and time and the nature of mass is, I think, revealed. I don't expect any of this to fly by itself in this truncated presentation. However, since pressed, there it is in very short form.
James Putnam
I disagree. The meaning of the equations lies in the properties it represents. The units represent those properties and are what identify them in the equations. The systems of units can be interchanged; however, different systems represent different levels of abilities to show meaning. For example, in the cgs system, the unit of electric charge is chosen of such magnitude that the proportionality constant in Coulomb's equation is equal to unity. However, in the mks system each term, excluding the proportionality constant, is determined independently from the others from empirical evidence. The result is that the new important information that Coulomb's law offers to us must be revealed in the proportionality constant. It is the only new value to be found in the equation. Therefore, if we wish to learn what Coulomb's law has to teach us, we must first decipher the new meaning behind the value of the proportionality constant. That constant has units because it represents something physical, something new and important.
I disagree. It is the units that give unique identities to individual properties and make those properties concrete parts of the equations. Without the units quantities are only numbers. This is a sincere question to distinguish between what you refer to as dimensions and units: How is a 'dimension' represented in the equation f=ma?
I agree with this. So long as '(length/time) squared' is acknowledged to have fundamental physical importance in understanding the relationship between energy and mass, then the two cannot be said to be the same thing.
Ok. It will do no good by itself; but, here it is: the units of mass in terms of distance and time are the inverse of acceleration.
The reason that force cannot be explained is that its units are defined based upon the invented indefinable units of mass. Replace the units of mass with the units, given above, of distance and time and the nature of mass is, I think, revealed. I don't expect any of this to fly by itself in this truncated presentation. However, since pressed, there it is in very short form.
James Putnam
The magnitude of m, a, and f. For any given mass and acceleration, f will be a certain value. The proportions of mass, acceleration and force will always be the same, regardless of the units, i.e meters, km, grams, lbs, feet, yards, solar masses, astronomical units, whatever, just as long as the same unit system is used for all three terms.