Upon my recent studies i have discovered various methods of defining mass in various situations. It has come to my attention that mass is somewhat undefined without the use of interacting parameters.
<<<GUILLE>>> said:Well, I think everybody agrees that mass is a property of matter.
Supposedly, in the standard model of particle physics, the mass of all particles in the universe is obtained by a kind of partcles not-yet-discovered called higgs which cause antigravity and the field that gives mass.
Royce said:Wouldn't it be better to say that mass is a property of energy and matter a product of mass? This doesn't really help as energy is also undefined as is mass.
Dragongod said:say basically in the standard model glouns make up the basic unit of all mass meaning nothing comprises glouns.?
Starship said:Do you think light could be the mediator of gravity?
Basically energy = power x time which i believe is a non-sequitur because according to general relativity time equals energy, length and mass.
selfAdjoint said:Say what? Where in general relativity do you get time equals energy, length, and mass? And if you accept general relativity why would you need light to mediate gravity?
Starship said:There is no correct definition of energy and work.
Though i believe time also to be energy because every second equals to 9,192,631,770 complete oscillations of the cesium-133 atom.
selfAdjoint said:According to whose definition of "correct"?
selfAdjoint said:You can believe what you like, but Einstein's GR has an enormous amount of observational and predictive evidence to its credit, and your opinion has none.
Mr. P said:the current hoax created by Newton using the word gravity some unknown alluded to but not identifiable force is useless for anybody that actually has to go out and make a living, a cause and affect reality, so naturally when a definition depends upon an unmeasurable ubiquitous variable that could easily be described by simpler provable means then we're going to end up with incomplete definitions like E=mc^2 unprovable.....just an observation
What's wrong with this? Mass is concentrated energy. You can convert mass to energy. But the BB created mass from energy. String (M) theory, which is an intangible mathematical construct, does not deal with mass at all.(?) Higgs particles, which have recently been found (for real), may have no mass or charge. So what are they? Where does that leave any definition of mass? LindaStarship said:Mass is an active area of research. I think it has something to do with color superconductivity.
Strange that 2300 yrs after aristotle, we still havn't figured out what mass is.
LindaGarrette said:What's wrong with this? Mass is concentrated energy. You can convert mass to energy. But the BB created mass from energy. String (M) theory, which is an intangible mathematical construct, does not deal with mass at all.(?) Higgs particles, which have recently been found (for real), may have no mass or charge. So what are they? Where does that leave any definition of mass? Linda