Explain Mass.

[UncleAl]

There is no fundamental meaning to either gravitational or inertial mass. Mass is the singular observable for which there is no instrumental standard. Mass is defined by the platinum-iridium kilogram, about the size of a 35 mm film cannister, held at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures at Sèvres near Paris.

The simple explanation is that mass is an artifact. Mass does not exist as such. The objective reality of being hit by a bullet, or an asteroid, is left as an exercise for the alert reader.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I am curious to hear some people's best description of what exactly seems to give 'mass' its mass. What or how is it that mass has inertia. What reason exactly does it want to be as it is and fire back an equal force of anything that forces upon it?
No simple obvious answers like, It has mass/inertia because its heavy. In my humble opinion it seems mysterious where mass comes from and how inertia exists.

My own personal definition of matter:

Condensed and localized orbital energy flux..................go figure.

Actually, mass and matter are two different things.

The mass of a system will change as the energy of the system changes. Therefore mass and energy are equivalent. E=Mc^2

When something at rest is set in motion, it's mass is increased. This is the result of an addition of energy to the system.

Because matter is really only localized orbital energy flux, matter at rest will have mass. Even though the matter appears to be standing still, the abundant energy stored within is in constant motion.

[kamil]

Originally Posted by arkain101

why does mass have mass. I was not looking for the definition of the word.

But you see, we have to give a word a definition in order for it us to be able to make any thoughts on it.
Its like if i say 'i like apples but not oranges'........now if i change the definitions of apples and oranges around then i would have to change the sentene in order for it to be true, and if I inform the people(that i am telling the new sentence) about the change in definition then they would get the same message as in the first situation.
Someone on these forums recently used a quote asying smoething along the lines of 'When i say a word, i mean only what i chose it to mean, neither more or less'
That's why we have to clearly define what is it that we are exactly discussing in order for us to make any valid logical deductions from it.

[arkain101]

I agree Kamil.. But I suppose I assumed most everyone knew what mass and matter was.
But now that we have mass defined.. Explaining it is another thing.

If a 'particle' of which makes up matter has what we refer to as mass. Then as we begin disecting that particle to the smallest part then the smallest part in that part we will wonder where it is we arrive at what is the 'source' of mass if it is we assume mass is a make up of fundemental particles. But if we do not expect a particle to be the cause of mass and instead, it is the space in which the detected particle exists within that causes the effect of mass then we wonder what is the 'space' that causes these forces and phenominas of nature.
If all was one at some astounding fundemental level it would be possible that anything interacting with-in this one would follow such a expected behavior of the mass in nature. Where anything that forces with-in this one will have the rest of itself being forced upon...

Then we have the assumption as time as a dimension and when objects/disturbances change or accelerate with-in this dimension it traverses through the 'scale' of the time flow and runs literaly into a dimensional resistence that all of which exists is tied into.

This of course is as good as anyones guess and I am more or less ranting on the go more than stating any kind of factual information in hopes to jazz up the imaginations and inspiration in others..

I will be posting my thoughts aswell, but I really enjoy reading other peoples ideas and respect them .. so more the better!

[infamous]

Originally Posted by arkain101

But now that we have mass defined.. Explaining it is another thing.

If a 'particle' of which makes up matter has what we refer to as mass. Then as we begin disecting that particle to the smallest part then the smallest part in that part we will wonder where it is we arrive at what is the 'source' of mass

Energy is the source of all mass. To break it down, we find different kinds of particles but this difference is really only the different geometric character of energy flux within a confined space. All matter, even the smallest particles are made of the same stuff; Energy. Moving on, we now need to identify, what is Energy.

My personal definition: Quantum changes thru the geometry of space.

The great question now is 'What is space', for this, I have no answer.

[arkain101]

intriguing thoughts

[Jay-qu]

This is what my lecturer had to say about the matter today:

Originally Posted by My lecturer

Einstiens equation of E=mc^2 doesnt just mean mass is convertable with energy - c^2 is just a scalar multiple, the equation literally equates mass to energy, they are one in the same.

I'm still coming to terms with it all..

[lindagarrette]

Mass is energy in motion. A particle at rest has no mass. But when it picks up speed it acquires mass. Mass is not matter. Matter is a concept. If you fall off the roof and hit the ground, your molecules are not bumping into each other. They are impacting force fields.

I've been struggling with this for years. It still isn't intuitive. How is it that when I look at something, I see something, rather than "empty space," which is what is all there is?

[Qfwfq]

In the modern terminology, the word 'mass' is just short for 'rest energy'.

[arkain101]

I've been playing around with some experiments. It is very strange how movment of matter creates a greater inertia, but doesnt appear to affect its mass. For example, a simple thing as spinning a bicycle wheel in your hands. Its weight or mass does not change, gravity pulls on it the same when you speed it up. But, with the cyntrifugal forces happening, the wheel feels that it has more inertia in all ways perpindicular to its main direction of motion. It becomes hard to move side to side, and rotational side to side. We all know this, its been explained, but it still intrigues me when you think about it at the quantum level. It all sounds so simple but are we not somehow in the vacuum of space creating a force, and is this force emminating from the wheel/system? or is it interacting with space-time..