Explain Mass.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I think if you get it going fast enough, you will actually see an increase in mass.

Mass is mediated by the Higgs Boson, which is made of Unicorn Gas and Rainbows.

TFS

[sanctus]

I don't think you can easily measure the increase in mass, but if you can measure the speed of rotation of the wheel and then look what acceleration you get if the wheel is spinning or not applying the same force you might see a super-tiny differency (or if you are very strong a huge one).

[arkain101]

Kind of a hail mary thought.

But what if we consider "anti-matter" to be gravity, gravity to be matter - the anti.
nearly everywhere attracted to matter, apearing as a frozen such entity in the dimension of time, on the other side of the time intersection but tied in the dimension and rate of the time flow. See time has a 'freezing' point, a reverse point, and a forward point in a linear system. Matter existing on either side of these points are 'opposite' but as reasonably in purpose be they are reversing or forwarding in time. Must time be contimplated as a one way street?
And so the force gravity creates would be mathamtically shown as differences in curves of the bend of time flow in space-time if you catch my drift.
I am a little boozed up here at the moment but as i do, I like to write out ideas, and might aswell share them while Im at it.

[KickAssClown]

I have a simple but confusing answer...

Mass is charge. Inertia is the resistance to leaving the influence of one set of fields and the inverse being the "willingness" to enter another due to mutual attraction/repulsion due to Like and unlike forces...

All things that have mass (even some that don't) have Charge. So perhaps a better refinement is this: Mass is Energy, Energy is defined as Equal Electric Field at a 90*angle to Equal Magnetic field in Harmonic Ocsillation. Therefore by proxy Energy is dual-charge (Electric Charge & Magnetic Charge).

http://www.angelfire.com/droid/kickassclown/index.html

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

All things that have mass (even some that don't) have Charge.

Hmmm.... So, how would a neutron fall into such a description?

[arkain101]

But that still leads us no where further. Then we have to wonder what is a charge, why is it charged, what causes the difference between opposite charges.. "forces" "charges" "magnitism" "gravity" names for things that are observable. But they are more just words than they are explanations.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I am curious to hear some people's best description of what exactly seems to give 'mass' its mass.

My personal belief is that mass is non-negative scalar property of the known fundamental particles (electrons, quarks, etc) that determines their interaction with each other. As such, I consider it to be similar to charge, except that it can’t have a negative value, and it’s subject to the statistics of Special Relativity

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?

I believe that particles are fully described by their quantum wave functions. Therefore, when, for example, 2 electrons interact via the exchange of quanta of magnetic force (photons), the functions describing these photons are complimentary – of all the potential photons that could emitted and absorbed by each electron, only a range determined by their interaction with particles outside of their 2-particle system (AKA “measurement”) according to the Uncertainty Principle have a non-zero probability of existing, and the photons exchanged must be identical in energy and opposite in direction.

Here are more of my beliefs about mass, beyond the original questions

• I believe that particles with non-zero mass interact via an as yet undiscovered boson, commonly termed the graviton.
• I fail to see a role for the proposed Higgs boson in creating inertia – I don’t understand and affirm, nor understand and reject its roll as proposed by current theory, but rather don’t understand the theory - leading me to suspect that my understanding of mass and inertial are inadequately informed.

I’m not currently able to work competently within the formalism of the terms I’ve used above, a personal – though, I hope, not insurmountable - technical failing.

Despite my lack of formal analytic ability and theoretical understanding, I’m suspect with near certainty that mass is a real, fundamental property, that will find expression in any successful “Theory of Everything” or “Grand Unified Theory”.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by arkain101

But that still leads us no where further. Then we have to wonder what is a charge, why is it charged,

I personally believe that charge is the result of the angular momentum of the orbital energy flux. Depending on the geomety of spin, one observes either a positive or negative charge. In the case of a neutron where no charge is apparent, the two opposing energy spins cancel each other out. This is only a vague opinion for I am not currently qualified to make absolute assertions based on proven facts.....................Infy

[arkain101]

awesome responses all the way through.. I thank you all for your thoughts.

[KickAssClown]

I will note that the Neutron does not infact have NO charge, it has No NET charge. It is composed of Quarks which have charge it's just that the net Charge (That is the product charge of the component Subatomic particles) is Zero.

Up Quarks have a +2/3e charge down have -1/3e when you add them up then you get the Net charge. For a neutron which is made up of UP, DOWN, DOWN; this is Σq = 2/3-1/3-1/3 = +-0q however the charge has not disappeared it's still there.