Force vs. Mass: Investigating Fundamentality

[sganesh88]

We are going round and round in circles here.

Once again: NO! One can perfectly well define a quantity without reference to any measurements. For example, we can define pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter. But that doesn't mean we have to measure the diameter or circumference of a circle to deduce the value of pi!.

But pi is a universal constant. Mass varies with the objects. If suppose mass of every object in the universe is the same, then you can give this explanation. Ok let's 'play' history. I'm given a bunch of stones of different sizes; instruments to measure distance and time accurately; and i know the second law in the less general form F=ma. I know nothing about pre-existing conventions on mass or the International Prototype kept at Paris. Now If i assign the mass of a particular stone as 1 mass unit, how can i assign the masses for others with the help of the second law. can you explain?

 

[Hootenanny]

But pi is a universal constant. Mass varies with the objects. If suppose mass of every object in the universe is the same, then you can give this explanation.

So is the kilogram! 1.5kg means 1.5 times 1 kilogram! Just like 1.5 pi means 1.5 times pi!

Ok let's 'play' history. I'm given a bunch of stones of different sizes; instruments to measure distance and time accurately; and i know the second law in the less general form F=ma. I know nothing about pre-existing conventions on mass or the International Prototype kept at Paris. Now If i assign the mass of a particular stone as 1 mass unit, how can i assign the masses for others with the help of the second law. can you explain?

Again, there is a difference between a definition and a measurement, we are discussing the definition of mass, not how to measure it!

Since you refuse to acknowledge this, I'm withdrawing from this discussion.

 

[Dale]

I wonder, is this a consequence of gravity not being observable on the quantum level (I may be confusing quantum for standard model)? If it were, could we probably reduce the unit of mass to ratios of their motion (space/time) like the argument goes classically if we could describe gravity with the standard model?

Or perhaps if you want to get theoretical, to the wavelength and frequency of gravity's photon equivalent (giving you information about the "mass" of the source)?

Well, the answer to this question requires quite a bit of guessing, but I would say "yes".

People look at the standard model and on the one hand it is great because it has made so many accurate predictions, but on the other hand it has something like http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html" (22 are masses) and it doesn't work well with GR nor otherwise explain gravity. There is considerable hope that a Theory of Everything will have fewer fundamental parameters.

If masses turn out to not be parameters of the Theory of Everything then mass would no longer be fundamental and would instead be derivable from other fundamental properties.

 

[nuby]

I would say they are both equally fundamental.

But as far as quantities go, I would say mass is more fundamental.

mass = volume * density

force = volume * density * acceleration*edit*

Actually, what else exists in the world besides (+/-) mass , time, and distance , and combinations of these units?

 

[Pythagorean]

Actually, what else exists in the world besides (+/-) mass , time, and distance , and combinations of these units?

well, if you include mass, shouldn't you include charge?

 

[Chrisc]

Space (Length) is fundamental.
Time is a process of space.
Mass is the limit of that process, were at c (a relative, extreme measure) Space/Time = Mass
Space can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Time via the constancy of the speed of light.
Time can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Motion (Length/Time) via the constancy of the speed of light.
Mass can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Acceleration (Length/Time/Time) via the constancy of the speed of light.
EM is a propagating cessation (ripple) in the process that is Time.
Charge is the direction (toward or away from mass ) of EM.
All of the above are relative measures.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Space (Length) is fundamental.
Time is a process of space.
Mass is the limit of that process, were at c (a relative, extreme measure) Space/Time = Mass
Space can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Time via the constancy of the speed of light.
Time can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Motion (Length/Time) via the constancy of the speed of light.
Mass can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Acceleration (Length/Time/Time) via the constancy of the speed of light.
EM is a propagating cessation (ripple) in the process that is Time.
Charge is the direction (toward or away from mass ) of EM.
All of the above are relative measures.

And this is all true because you say it is?

 

[nuby]

well, if you include mass, shouldn't you include charge?

I probably should have said "matter" instead of mass. Then charge and mass (and all forces) might just be properties of "matter", that exist at the same fundamental level.

 

[Chrisc]

And this is all true because you say it is?

It's not truth, it's a model that does not contradict existing evidence and solves a number of long standing problems in physics.
This is not the place to post the details. I posted as much as pertains to the question of the OP regarding fundamental ontologies.

 

[sganesh88]

ok.. I think this makes more sense. You can't measure mass without applying a known force (or even if you use a third law pair and side step the force measurement, you still have to apply the concept of force) but force can be measured without even the existence of a quantity called mass. In that sense force is older than mass. But that doesn't make mass less fundamental. Mass is something inherent to a particular body. Just because you get the help of force to measure it doesn't deprive off its divine status.

 

[D H]

It's not truth, it's a model that does not contradict existing evidence and solves a number of long standing problems in physics.

No, what you wrote is word salad.

This is not the place to post the details.

This forum is not the place to post speculative, personal theories, let alone word salad that poses as a speculative, personal theory.

 

[baywax]

Does a mass or relative mass create space? I only ask this because of the theory that space was created by the big bang.

during the Big Bang space was first created and then stretched.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/origins/bigbang/index.shtml

 

[Dale]

You can't measure mass without applying a known force

That is not true. Hootenanny told you in post 14 how the mass of an electron can be measured without applying a force at all.

force can be measured without even the existence of a quantity called mass. In that sense force is older than mass.

I don't think this is correct either, forces can only be applied to massive particles, AFAIK you cannot exert a force on a massless particle. In that sense, a force describes a relationship between two particles, at least one of which must be massive.

Your spring idea as a standard force is fine, but a spring is massive, so that is not force without a mass. If you want a quantity that is independent of mass then I would go with momentum since even massless particles can have momentum.

 

[Pythagorean]

I probably should have said "matter" instead of mass. Then charge and mass (and all forces) might just be properties of "matter", that exist at the same fundamental level.

yeah, that's more what I was thinking; that what we have is matter and it has properties (like mass, density, charge, position, velocity).

I don't necessarily agree that they exist at the same fundamental level though; I'm not sure what that means.

 

[nuby]

properties (like mass, density, charge, position, velocity).

Density is a weird property. How is it a property of matter?

 

[Pythagorean]

Density is a weird property. How is it a property of matter?

The way I was thinking about it, you can say mass and volume, or mass and density, or density and volume. All three (mass, density, and volume) are part of the same description, but only two are necessary to describe all three.

The point is that mass alone doesn't tell you the size of a particle, you need mass and volume or mass and density. Volume alone doesn't tell you the mass of the particle. I'm not sure which would be more fundamental though. I think it's a matter of personal taste.

 

[sganesh88]

That is not true. Hootenanny told you in post 14 how the mass of an electron can be measured without applying a force at all.

I don't think this is correct either, forces can only be applied to massive particles, AFAIK you cannot exert a force on a massless particle. In that sense, a force describes a relationship between two particles, at least one of which must be massive.

Your spring idea as a standard force is fine, but a spring is massive, so that is not force without a mass. If you want a quantity that is independent of mass then I would go with momentum since even massless particles can have momentum.

ok. thanks for the clarification. :-)