1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is Mass, Really?

  1. Jan 5, 2004 #1
    What is mass, really?

    We all know that mass is the cause of the force of gravity. If there is no mass, then there will be no gravity force. One cannot exist without the other.

    According to Newton, gravity is an attractive force. For Einstein, gravity is the curvature of spacetime continuum. But gravity by any other names is still just gravity. In almost every case, changing name of a concept does not completely clarify the true nature of the concept.

    Newton defined mass as the product of density and volume. But he initially defined density as the ratio of mass over volume. This is a good example of definition by milder circumlocution, which amount to no definition at all but a postulated assumption for the benefit of validating a physical concept.

    Einstein made the formulation that mass is equivalent to energy in his theory of special relativity. What he really meant is that rest mass is equivalent to energy. But which energy is he talking about? There are two known energy concepts accepted before 1905.
    These are the kinetic and the potential. Kinetic energy is energy of motion. For it to exist, there must be motion. What is in motion? Answer is motion of mass. We are back to mass. What is mass? Why does it move? Why does it have to stay motionless for it to be equivalent to energy? But when mass moves, its magnitude increases. But does its rest-mass energy decrease? No, the kinetic energy increases. But kinetic energy is not the rest-mass energy mentioned above. The rest-mass energy must be the potential energy, which is energy of position in an abstract field of force. In this case, it is the force field of gravity. All force fields in nature are conservative. They have a center. The force increases in motion toward the center and decreases in motion away from the center.

    There are two known physical fields. These are the scalar field and the vector fields. Concepts like temperature, density and energy are all scalar fields. Examples of vector fields are the electric field, the magnetic field, the gravitational field, the weak nuclear field and the strong nuclear field. But what is the field for mass? This is agreed to be the Higgs field, which is a scalar field. It has positional magnitude but spherically symmetrical and hence gives no preferred direction in any abstract space. But how can something of no-force origin gives force to all other forces? The answer is perfect symmetry (not the book by Heinz R. Pagels). This perfect symmetry belongs to the pure vacuum of zero-dimension.

    Pure or perfect vacuum of zero-dimension has an infinite of points with no detectable motion (absolute or relative). This is an assumption. It cannot be proved nor disproved by performing any kind of physical experiment. But we can also made one more assumption for this pure vacuum. But once one, of these infinite 0-dim points, moves in a chosen direction, this chosen direction is kept for all eternity. This is the principle of a directional invariance.

    This principle, at the least, gives a new definition of quantized space and hence gives two definitions for mass: the potential and the kinetic. The fermions are the potential mass. The bosons are the kinetic mass.

    The mathematics for the principle of directional invariance is the use of Hadamard’s matrices when they are taken as perfectly symmetrical by not containing any zero. The elements of these matrices are either 1 or –1. These can be arranged in an infinite ways.
    The matrix addition operation gives charges from space charges to color charges to electric charges. The matrix multiplication operation gives the diverse experimental masses of the elementary particles. This operation also shows that photon has zero potential mass but non-zero kinetic mass. The neutrino does have potential mass but very small to the point of being undetectable. That the antiparticles of nature are all moving in the other direction of time, while particles of matter are moving in the same direction of time as the entropy of thermodynamics.

    Contrary to accepted notions, stars are made out of a thermodynamic equilibrium between potential mass and kinetic mass. Their longevities can be attributed to the effect of this equilibrium. The formations of Cooper pairs in superconductivity are just the effects of potential mass trying to reach the energy state of kinetic mass. If this equilibrium can be fully understood, then all these promising technologies of thermonuclear fusion and high temperature superconductivity can all be realized.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 5, 2004 #2
    I have for very long believed that mass is a certain quantity of matter per volume unit is a good definition. What are your thoughts on this?
  4. Jan 5, 2004 #3
    density is defined as mass/unit volume

    Isaac Newton defined density as mass per unit volume. But it can be shown that the volume of a unit 1-sphere is equal to the volume of a 1-cube. As the dimension n increases, the ratio between the volume for an n-sphere and an n-cube becomes worse and worse. My interpretation is that the geometry of space is affected by the dimension of space. Distances also become smaller and smaller as the number of dimension increase.
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2004
  5. Jan 5, 2004 #4
    Interesting question.
    I read somewhere that only charged particles have mass. Is this true?
  6. Jan 5, 2004 #5
    neutral particles can have mass

    Neutrons are particles with no electric charge but they have mass. But a neutron is also a composite particle. It is made of quarks. quarks have fractional electric charges. Quarks also have mass. Quarks cannot be isolated. There are color charges that hold the quarks together. The glue forces are the gluons, which have no mass.
    Neutrinos also have no charge and their mass is almost zero.
  7. Jan 6, 2004 #6
    You only touch upon a small number of facinating aspects to nature's mysteries,nevertheless a number of simple thought provoking insights are needed to advance further.

    MASS and ENERGY: mass and energy are essentially the same thing? so we can make assumptions that for REST-MASS this equals REST-ENERGY or if we conclude by introducing some relativity concepts, ENERGY at REST, within a space-time(enough dimensions to relay information. Now we can take a number of steps in certain directions for further inquirys,the collection of Energies in and around an atomic nucleus are differing aspects of STATIC energies. The photon is the fundimental 'marker' used to gauge all of energies, infact the Photon is a Unit of precise energy for calibrating energy and mass.

    In Relativity the probability of observing an event is based on the Horizons of visual confirmation provided by the Photon in 3+ dimensions, with the increase in photon numbers reaching the observer, increasing the chance of observation of such an event, this does not mean that if there is no photons recieved by an observer an event does not take place, it means that because of a diminished amount of Photons observation is nil, or DARKNESS, infra-red slow photons GET SWAMPED!

    Take this E=MC2, energy content can be transfered from a MASS-POINT by the velocity of light :If we muliply the mass of a body by square of the velocity of light, we get its energy content?

    Now for this we can say that the 'bits' of matter/mass are made up from 'bits' of light, when 'bits' of matter collect into 'static' orbital energies such as around the nucleus, visible 'bits' are static, and therefore not visible light 'bits', if enough static orbits are available, then the RELATIVITY HORIZONS allow us to see static light as specks of dust..etc..etc..the more molocules, the more you can 'see' REAL-TIME matter.

    Now the interesting thing is for Quantum Mechanics, all the energies are transitional in less than 3-DIMENSIONS, therefore there is an information loss. The E=MC2 is really a three dimensional equation, it has three dimensional boundery containing observers, themselves made from 3-D matter,so we are RELATIVE. The aspects of HIDDEN VARIABLES are really just the same equation E=MC2 but contained with one dimension 'less', example Electromagnetic fields.

    We being Relative to Three Dimensions, are looking at Quantum Mechanics from this fixed dimension, we cannot recieve THREE DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION FROM A TWO-DIMENSIONAL FIELD. This is where the hidden variables come into effect. The HUP is a consequence of this dimensional paradox, so is the invisable Dark Matter/Energy, for when we observe out into the cosmic sky, we are transcending across the Electromagnetic Vacuum, which is a TWO-DIMENSIONAL FIELD!

    More insights to come:wink: A definate experiment to show how deccelerated photons convert to Mass, albeit invisible Mass, thats what a Blackhole actually is,(think about the static light at our Galactic core)
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2004
  8. Jan 6, 2004 #7
    Mass is Light, when it's Standing still?


    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that mass is light at rest. Light that is not moving at the speed of about 186,000 miles per second.

    And this "stop" light is dark matter?

    I recalled from January 19, 2001 in the associated press that scientists at Harvard, the Rowland Institute of Science and the Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics have actually bring light to a complete stop.

    In my independent research, what I am trying to do is to formulate a quantized space.

    To do this, I have to invent a concept of continuous space. And to make the statement without any physical proof that the total linear momentum of the universe is the ratio of quantized space over continuous space.

    In the limit that quantized space approaches zero, the total linear momentum of the universe is zero. This is what an observer outside the universe will say. He or she sees the universe as static. We, observers inside the universe, see the universe expanding. And this expansion approaches the speed of light at the limit of visibility.

    Antonio Lao
  9. Jan 6, 2004 #8
    Re: Mass is Light, when it's Standing still?

    This would have to mean that they created a Blackhole, the only thing that can physically 'stop' light in its tracks?

    I do believe that the experiment above was just an overlaying 'phase/out-of' creation.

    With regard to the quantizisation of space, this has allready been done(not to be confused with the quantizisation of space-time), I can only repeat from my previous thread, The unification of QM and Relativity cannot be made, for the dimensional reasons I have stated.

    This is not say that QM cannot be understood from a Relative perspective, The mixing of a 2Dimensional field with a 3Dimensional will cause all kinds of paradoxical perspective demons!

    General Relativity is 3D, Quantum Mechanics have a depleted dimension, if one mixes 3D and 2D one gets the Fifth Dimension of 3+2, ask any mathematician of a Ed Witten standing?..this cannot exist. One has to encompass the other..visa..versa. As MY PROFILE CLEARLY STATES, 2Dimensions always surrounds Three Dimensions.

    Show me a TWO-DIMENSIONAL PARTICLE in visible terms, then I'll SHOW YOU THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS from another dimension?
  10. Jan 6, 2004 #9
    Quantized Space is One-dimensional

    For me not to repeat what I have already posted in this physics forum, I am suggesting for you to search other posts of mine in other topic in this site.

    What I am quantizing is the one-dimension of space. The 2-dimension of space, I calling it as continuous space. And the 3-dim of space is really the same as energy. The 4-dim is that of matter, where the 4th dim is time.

    The QM that I know about is based on the action principle. Last night I was reading A. Zee's "Fearful Symmetry" and he says that General Relativity is also based on action principle. I am still trying to figure out how this is so.

    My quantization of one-dim space is based on a double actions principle. At 1st glance at the formulation, it doesn't look like a double-action. But when I do some math manipulations, I can transform it into conjugate variables of momentum-distance or energy-time doubly multiplied.
  11. Jan 6, 2004 #10
    Re: Quantized Space is One-dimensional

    A.Zee's a great author, I have a number of his papers myself.

    Lets confine space as a three dimensional realm (Perhaps I should give a clarification of where I stand on the space-time issue) Spacetime has to have observers contained for the introduction of Time. Time is the effect of an observer measuring distance in relation to two or more locations within a given space. This is why Time only exists for observers, and not for the matter that makes up observers.

    The only space-time in existence (from our perspective) is our Galaxy (this is the only Space that contain's observers, gauranteed!) our conception of TIME can be translated to a 2-dimensional space, but its correlation is to distance only(observers cannot mark one point from another,because they cannot exist as 2D entities) from this perspective there is an infinity of distance, because there is an infinite amount of 2D field that extends in certain directions.

    Without giving to much away, the importance of EM radiative energy is paramount, and the Photons identity for interactions can be shown to be the communication between a 4-dimensional Galaxy(spacetime) emmbedded into a 2Dimensional space, inter-galactic-Vacuum.

    I understand completely the reduction of dimensionality to the point wherby I can construct Mono-Space's from the 4x4 DIRECTIONAL signals within a certain paramiter of an Expanding or Contracting Universe.

    I therfore Understand your proposed theory, maybe more than yourself?
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2004
  12. Jan 6, 2004 #11
    Re: Mass is Light, when it's Standing still?


    What do you mean by quantized space and continous space?
  13. Jan 6, 2004 #12
    A quick response

    Thanks for your replies.
    I am in the process of looking for new employment here in Dallas, TX so please forgive me if I have to defer further discussions , which is what I really like to do. But I have to keep food on the table for me to continue.
  14. Jan 7, 2004 #13
    Reply for Thallium


    I did not notice your posted question until this morning. Forgive me for the late reply.

    I am here giving you very short definitions for quantized space and continuous space as they appear in TQS (Theory of Quantized Space).

    Quantized space is the discretetization of one-dimensional space.
    This is analogous to a closed string in superstring theories. This discreteness can be formulated by a double action principle similar in form to that found in quantum mechanics where the conjugate variables are of momentum-distance or energy-time.

    Continuous space is actually a two-dimensional surface proportional to the total energy of the universe.

    Continuous Space = cE

    E is the total energy of the universe. And c is the speed of light in vacuum. This formulation can be expanded into an inner product of two vectors that of force and rate of change of area with respect to time.


    dA/dt is another way of looking at the expansion of the universe as noted by Hubble. The force is actually the strong nuclear force of particle physics. the formulation of continuous space is saying that the universe expands in order to keep the strong force weak at the infinitesimal domain. In the limit that the expansion approaches infinity, the strong force (color forces of quarks) becomes zero. This is asymptotic freedom (particle physics jargon).

    Antonio Lao
  15. Jan 7, 2004 #14
    3D Feynman Diagram

    As a follow-up on the two definitions of mass namely: Potential and kinetic, These can be visualized as a three-dimensional Feynman diagram.

    In this 3D diagram,the two spatial axes can be twisted and closed on itself forming two closed loops.

    These two loops can never intersect with each other. They always exist like two parallel lines on an Euclidean space of 2-dimension.

    When this Euclidean space is transformed into a hyperbolic space, the forms become doubly (360 degrees) twisted Moebius strips. By splitting the strips at the middle, a link of two spatial directions is created.

    This link cannot be broken. Meaning that these two spatial directions exist side by side forever giving two reality of existence that will never meet no matter how closely spaced they are.

    These link can form two distinct geometries that are not transformable. In other words, a transformation or a mapping does not exist between the geometries. Hence they are unique. We will call these as H+ and H-. H+ is the unit of kinetic mass. H- is the unit of potential mass. Each can be raised to higher level of existence by inserting more elements into the Hadamard matrices that represent them.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2004
  16. Jan 8, 2004 #15
    Thank you Antonio. No problem with the delay.

    However, there is one more thing. I cannot find the word in my dictionary. Spatial - what means that?
  17. Jan 8, 2004 #16
    Spatial means relating to space, or having the property of space. You may also come across temporal, which means the same, but for time rather than space.
  18. Jan 9, 2004 #17
    Isospin by Ways of H+ and H-

    Isospin by H+ and H-

    Proton is made of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark.
    Neutron is made of 2 down quarks and 1 up quark.

    Using H+ and H-:
    The up quark is composed of 5H+ and 1H-
    The down quark is composed of 1H+ and 3H-.

    Using H+ and H-:
    The proton is composed of 11H+ and 5H-.
    The neutron is composed of 7H+ and 7H-.

    When neutron is transformed into proton, it gains 4H+ and loses 2H-.
    When proton is transformed into neutron, it loses 4H+ and gains 2H-.

    The loss and gain of H+ and H- is an alternative way of describing the isospin (isotopic spin) symmetry of the nucleons.
  19. Jan 10, 2004 #18



    When neutron is transformed into proton, it gains 4H+ and loses 2H-.
    When proton is transformed into neutron, it loses 4H+ and gains 2H-.


    Wouldn't the value of the photon be 4,2 instead of 4,4 ?

    also - is there zero ?

  20. Jan 10, 2004 #19
    Only if They Interacted


    Isotopic spin can be described by the loss or gain of either H+ or H-.
    These processes does not mean that they interacted. But Photon as 4H+4H- implied internal interaction and this interaction must be already completed otherwise the photon is not there to be detected. The vacuum is a busy place, and I am saying there are infinite number of H+ and H-. When they interact in odd multiples, we get the fermions. When they interact in even multiples, we get the bosons. And then, the levels come in, make the interactions more complicated.
    Some interactions are allowed, some are not.

  21. Jan 17, 2004 #20
    The total Mass of the universe is the Unified field force divided by 2 times the diameter of the universe. Ifthe units don't check out it's because physicists don't understand time right now.
  22. Jan 17, 2004 #21


    Thanks for the insight. I am not an experimentalist, so I can't check your claim. Maybe just like you, I work only with pencil and paper and even that I only work on physics during my spare time. Just two weeks ago, I used to have to go to a fulltime job making maps on the computer. Now I am unemployed doing posting in this physics forum.

  23. Jan 26, 2004 #22

    Was the primal singularity that gave rise to the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang mass or energy? Or both?

    Would there (of course) be the same quantity of mass and/or energy in what is actually the ONLY "closed system" in existence?

    If it was mass, what provided the energy for the Big Bang?

    If energy, what allowed particles to eventually "condense"?

    Was it the cooling of the expanding neonatal Universe that allowed inherent forces to bring "matter" together?

    And, if so, might not our current observations that cause cosmologists to think that the Universe will expand forever be basically a snap shot that does not include an eventual COOLING that will cause another "phase transition" that transforms more energy to matter (perhaps Dark Energy into Dark Matter?) thereby "generating" sufficient gravity to pull the Universe back into a primal singularity?

    And, if this is so, how might it be "proven" mathematically?
  24. Jan 27, 2004 #23
    M. Gaspar,

    I noticed your post was addressed to Ranyart, since I started this thread, I going to give you some answers to your questions while you waiting for Ranyart to give his versions.

    The big bang theory as I understood it says that the singularity should contain infinite energy. Volume is zero. But I think there is still a debate going on between Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose whether this singularity existed at all. The debate is still not settled as far as I know. They are the authorities on cosmology. They spend their whole life working on the subject. They can be reached thru the web but the waiting line is very long. I am also on the waiting list to talk to Hawking.

    Black holes are also considered as singularities and from indirect evidences they should exist. There are no direct proofs that black holes exist. All proofs are circumstantials.

    A theory can only be validated if it agrees with physical proofs. The more proofs, the more theory can progress to becoming a physical law.
    So all the laws of nature that we know about have gone thru this process of validation. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation. These were believed to be correct until Einstein proved them otherwise in general relativity. What Einstein did were refinements to the laws in order to acount for anomalies such as the perihelion shift of Mercury's orbit and the bending of starlight, and the Doppler shifts (red and blue), the limited speed of gravity waves.
    But GR could not explain what happens at the singularity.

    Hawking asserts that at the singularity all physical laws are meaningless. Time is meaningless and so on. But these are only the assertions of a few experts. So anybody can have a shot at making a theory and suggest for proofs and vindicate the assertions. Until then anybody can say anything but no consensus agreements will ever come out of it.

    Last edited: Jan 27, 2004
  25. Jan 27, 2004 #24
    Antonio Lao:

    I very much appreciate your response.

    Please note that the central thrust of my query was whether the eventual cooling of the Universe -- and not the even dispersal of energy which would be entropy -- caused by the accellerating expansion would, at some point, cause/allow more matter to condense out of the energy -- as in a phase transition -- causing sufficient gravity to reverse the expansion and eventually cause the Big Crunch.

    As you may have guessed, I am a renegade from the philosophy threads -- which is why the "tone" of your response is so appreciated -- and simply do not "like" the idea that the Universe will "expand forever".

    Moreover, I don't think it makes sense from a practical standpoint that if the Universe is indeed "eternal" then it had better be DOING SOMETHING with -- and during -- that eternity, which would be giving rise to sentient systems (us ...and everything else, but that's another matter) which it would only be able to to if it expanded AND contracted ...as eternal expansion would eventually put a halt to the formation of ANY systems.

    I guess I am teetering upon the brink of starting a thread under Theory Development having to do with the eventual phase transition and was wondering if I would be lambasted from all sides by better minds than mine.

    You response has given me encouragement that these are friendly waters, so I may just dive in ...pending (or without) Ranyart's reply.
  26. Jan 27, 2004 #25
    About phase transitions

    Well,from my point of view,
    Entropy should be responsable for phase transitions and broke of simetry.Now question is,where are "roots" of the entropy.I think that,spacetime has own entropy,and if we quantizie it there should be included entropy that look likes on entropy of black holes.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook