- #1

- 165

- 2

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Buckeye
- Start date

- #1

- 165

- 2

- #2

- 2,461

- 8

I am not sure I completely understand your question. We usually refer to gravitational mass as the one subject to gravitation (giving weight on Earth), and to inertial mass as the one a body "opposes to modifications of its movement". General relativity in particular postulates that those two are equal. Nobody has ever observed that gravitational mass is any different from inertial mass : all bodies "fall at the same rate". Gravitation can thus be described in geometrical terms.

Now, E=m is the total energy of a body in its own rest frame, which is just his mass according to this equation. This is valid anywhere (with or without a gravitational field, that is

Do you want yet another "equivalent" definition of mass, that is a "third" manifestation of mass, on top of inertial and gravitational ?

- #3

- 165

- 2

I am not sure I completely understand your question. We usually refer to gravitational mass as the one subject to gravitation (giving weight on Earth), and to inertial mass as the one a body "opposes to modifications of its movement". General relativity in particular postulates that those two are equal. Nobody has ever observed that gravitational mass is any different from inertial mass : all bodies "fall at the same rate". Gravitation can thus be described in geometrical terms.

Now, E=m is the total energy of a body in its own rest frame, which is just his mass according to this equation. This is valid anywhere (with or without a gravitational field, that isalsoin "empty vacuum" far away from any measurable source). In an arbitrary referential, the energy has a momentum "component" corresponding to kinetic energy/quantity of movement : [tex]E^{2}=\vec{p}\,^{2}+m^{2}[/tex] (in units such that c=1).

Do you want yet another "equivalent" definition of mass, that is a "third" manifestation of mass, on top of inertial and gravitational ?

No. I do not need another equation. I need a definition in words, not equations of equalities, that explain what mass is. For example: Mass is equal to the attractive-repulsive interactions of one or more atomic particles.

Or, perhaps: Mass is due to the harmonic interaction of one set of atomic particles to another set of atomic particles.

Does that help?

- #4

- 2,461

- 8

Then this discussion will end belonging to GD, not HENPPNo. I do not need another equation.

This is not a joke : words are useful scientifically to communicate only if they can be backed up by an equation. Mathematics is the only un-ambiguous way to communicate between us human beings.

- #5

malawi_glenn

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 4,795

- 22

Mathematics is the only un-ambiguous way to communicate between us human beings.

Well atleast when it comes to physics, the language of physics is math after all.

- #6

- 165

- 2

Well atleast when it comes to physics, the language of physics is math after all.

Does that mean that physicists are simply mathematicians pretending to be scientists?

- #7

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2021 Award

- 28,050

- 12,578

Remember, one can take any definition of anything whatsoever and follow up with "But what is it

- #8

- 2,461

- 8

Please pay attention to what you post. Your logic is completely wrong. Mathematicians create the language of mathematics. Physicists use the language of mathematics to communicate between them. The equations come of course together with text in order to make the communication easier. But essentially, if you can not put your claims into equations, those are completely useless.Does that mean that physicists are simply mathematicians pretending to be scientists?

- #9

castlegates

- #10

malawi_glenn

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 4,795

- 22

Remember, one can take any definition of anything whatsoever and follow up with "But what is it?" This path doesn't really go anywhere.really

yeah, what if we have encountered something fundamental and elementary?

What if I asked the string theorists: "But what is a string made up of? What is it really?" We can go on forever..

- #11

malawi_glenn

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 4,795

- 22

Does that mean that physicists are simply mathematicians pretending to be scientists?

What is your definition of science? Science is a quite broad term, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Physical science differs quite much from chemistry, and organic chemistry in perticular. Physical science differs from philosophy, and from archeology and so on.

Physics is an interplay between making theories, models, experiment and interprenting data. The theories are always constraint under some axioms, for instance the requirement of beeing invariant to Lorentz boosts, Gauge invariance etc. No axioms can be prooven, but they can be motivated. This sort of interplay is strongly related to philosophy, that you always must put up axioms that can't be proven in order to formulate a world view. In the old days, physics was called "Natural philosophy" and the foundators of the math we use today (calculus etc) was largely developed by people who where philosophers and experimental scientists.

- #12

- 165

- 2

- #13

George Jones

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,539

- 1,354

No. Who was it?

- #14

malawi_glenn

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 4,795

- 22

And it was R Feynman.

- #15

George Jones

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,539

- 1,354

And it was R Feynman.

Feynman was at Cal Tech, not Berkeley.

- #16

Evo

Mentor

- 23,551

- 3,241

Locked, this is pointless.

Share: