Jump to content

What makes mass?


5YNtifik
 Share

Recommended Posts

I read this question as equivalent to:

 

What gives an atom it's mass? Or any subatomic particle...

 

So I'm going to answer with higgs bosons, and the higgs field which I don't really understand, it's probably best you have a look through the wp articles on them and come back with questions for people like Severian to answer ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes mass? This could also be a philosophical question. In this case, the chemical tie to mass is the mole, that is, g/mol. I only included it for this purpose.

 

Mass is, in fact, only a description of some observed object which has arbitrarily been assigned a value based on some reference standard. That might be a foot, platinum mass, a wavelength of light, number of nuclei, or number of nuclear vibrations per unit of arbitrary time, etc.

 

Mass is what we define it to be. The point is to pick a system and stick with it.

 

For our purposes, E=mc2, and that's pretty much it. 1 proton = 1.672E-27 kg = 938 MeV.

 

Now, mass can also be conceptualized as the amount of deformation of time-space which exists around some object. The greater the mass, the greater this deformation, and the larger the force required to escape from within the range of the effect.

 

I suppose we are getting somewhere now.

 

Cheers,

 

O3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mass is a fundamental property of matter. What makes matter? Fundamental mechanims and properties of the universe. What makes fundamental mechanisms and properties of the universe?

 

It's turtles all the way down...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm going to answer with higgs bosons, and the higgs field which I don't really understand, it's probably best you have a look through the wp articles on them and come back with questions for people like Severian to answer ;)

 

The "god" particle... As far as I know, its existence is predicted by the standard model, but there's no actual proof of its existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, its [higgs boson] existence is predicted by the standard model, but there's no actual proof of its existence.

 

LHC should be turning on in 2 months... You need to add a "yet" to the end of your sentence. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LHC should be turning on in 2 months... You need to add a "yet" to the end of your sentence. :)
Man I can't wait for that to start. I've filled all my room with all the photos of it I could find in web and my real player library is full LHC CERN videos.

 

I think I'll take a little trip to Switzerland in May and stay there all the month just to feel the excitement!:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ruling authority has to put laws in place, before it can expect that which it rules over to obey those laws. The laws that the universe obeys were in place, before mankind realised those laws.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ruling authority has to put laws in place, before it can expect that which it rules over to obey those laws.

 

I seriously question the validity of this starting premise, and hence any conclusions rooted in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if mass cannot be created or destroyed, then does that mean that there has always been mass in the 'verse? even before the big bang? also, when does mass become energy by accelerating the subatomic particles? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if mass cannot be created or destroyed, then does that mean that there has always been mass in the 'verse? even before the big bang? also, when does mass become energy by accelerating the subatomic particles? :confused:

 

Mass can be converted to energy, and vice versa, so mass is not conserved, mass-energy is.

 

The big bang does not have to keep to the current conservation laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello iNow, nice to meet you

 

with the signiture...

 

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."

 

... I can see how my statement would cause friction, maybe you could share the - seriously question - with me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I can see how my statement would cause friction, maybe you could share the - seriously question - with me.

Hi smooth,

 

When I read your statement, it seemed to suggest that there must be some "puppet master" behind the scenes putting everything in place.

 

I concede that I may be misinterpreting you, but my primary point is that these "laws" we've been discussing are a fundamental and inherent part of the universe itself. I do not personally ascribe to the idea that there must be a "ruling authority," nor that this assumed "authority" would ever expect anything.

 

Does this help to clarify my position? Anyway, it's nice to meet you, too. Be well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may just follow on with the natural progression of my first post, before I answer you iNow.

 

Even if mankind realised all the laws governing the physical universe, his reach has been limited, hence he would be unable to manipulate and change those laws on a large scale. Indeed, if he were to create a new universe with differing laws, he would be required to be outside of that universe, and the self-created universe itself would be inside this universe.

 

 

iNow

 

You seem to be hinting by saying - would ever expect anything – that there are no laws governing mankind’s behaviour. Allow me to offer you a brief example where mankind indeed has to answer for his actions…

 

Take two people - The first believes that when he dies he will be judged for his actions by an authority that sees through all crookedness, and hence will reward and punish him according to the finest and truest of principles.

 

The second believes this world is all there is, and hence his actions are governed by his desire to experience as much of this world as he can before he passes away. Crookedness in this context, is merely a consequence of the fact that - every other person wants to experience as much as the world as they can also - but not everyone can have that opportunity, hence manipulation occurs in order to ensure it is you who gets to experience the world.

 

OK, if I did a good deed for you - hoping for nothing other than a reward (in the after-life) from that which Judges with the finest of clarities - because you do not believe in what I do, nor have you ever done (in order that you might understand me), you would be unable to view my actions as anything other than my trying to manipulate you in order that I might experience as much of the world as I can, and at your cost!

 

So in other words, in this scenario the price (or punishment) you have paid is to mistrust everyone, even when that mistrust is not due (I am all too aware how lonely this place is). The reward I have been given is that my trust is not in you, and hence I am able to help you (and feel good for doing so), even though you may mistrust me, for I know that I will never be lonely.

 

I choose to trust, how you live your life is your prerogative.

 

 

I truly wish you all the best

 

Antony

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, it looks like we're back to disagreeing again. You seem to believe that there is a god judging each of us, and controlling the universe. I do not, but I'm strangely not limited in the manner you suggest when viewing the actions of others... I'm somewhat more complex and intelligent than "unable to view my actions as anything other than my trying to manipulate you in order that I might experience as much of the world as I can, and at your cost". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat more complex and intelligent than...

 

However you continue to make these statements without presenting a structure of thought that remidies...

 

"anything other than my trying to manipulate you in order that I might experience as much of the world as I can, and at your cost"

 

I have offered what is as far as I am concerned a brief but precise explanation, if you can present a structure of thought that - when I have studied it - is better than what I have presented, I will gladly embrace it...

 

And you can utterly destroy the fable that is religion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow off topic or what?

 

But we've evoled a society which controls and limits our actions and thought processes it makes up feel good to make others feel good, therefore helping others is increasing our experience of this one life, so no need to be judged.

 

Having said that discussion of what I said can be done in a scientific manor, discussion of a judge or whatever cannot be and therefore imo should not be discussed on a science forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we've evoled a society which controls and limits our actions and thought processes it makes up feel good to make others feel good, therefore helping others is increasing our experience of this one life, so no need to be judged.

 

Don't know what world your living in!

 

Lets see, I saw a scientific report that said if alcohol were introduced into society now, it would be labelled a class A drug (British system), more harmful than LSD, MDMA, Cannabis, etc...

 

Having said that discussion of what I said can be done in a scientific manor, discussion of a judge or whatever cannot be and therefore imo should not be discussed on a science forum.

Maybe you better get a moderator to tell me off then!

 

Its your perogitave to take your judgement from the society in which you live, but you still accept a judgement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.