Explain Mass.

[HappytheStripper]

Originally Posted by Popular

If you were made out of magnetic field, that magnetic repulsion would feel like something really there, something solid.

To boil it right down, I guess mass is made out of "pushing". People call it energy, but maybe it's just spacetime tension, maybe vibrating like a spring. Or a distortion, a bump, a crease, a knot. Whatever. The thing is, so are we.

An aura may not be solid .. it is however a magnetic field .. people call it energy ..

Spiritual healing allows the healer to feel the knots and the space/time tension .. I have been in this practice for 10 years ..

In order to heal the body .. one must first heal the mass of tension in the mind ..

Ashley

[arkain101]

Yah, I suppose we are made of matter, energy, light, magnetism, gravity, nuclear forces.. Its all there to make us one.

[arkain101]

-----

[maxc]

A knowledgeable person told me......"THERE IS NO EMPTINESS FILLED WITH CHARGE. RATHER THERE IS MASSLESS CHARGE FROM WHICH EMPTINESS IS CONSRUCTED AND FROM WHICH SPACETIME IS CONSTRUCTED, AND FROM WHICH MASS AND MOTION ARE CONSTRUCTED"

[KickAssClown]

Question, Does mass have an inherient density, or can mass be observed independent of density?

[Little Bang]

If I am out in space looking at an astroid that I am stationary with respect to it's position and I apply a force to the astroid it will start to move away from me. It will gain mass equivalent to the applied force. If I rerun the experiment but this time strap myself to the astroid I will find that the astroid's mass does not change at all. I guess what I am asking is how much does the observer have to do with mass? If we look at E = MC^2, C is an observer quantity, might M also be an observer quantity?

[Farsight]

That sounds like "pushing" again. If I can attmept to answer your question:

In a way yes. You can equate mass to energy, and energy is definitely something relative rather than something real and tangible.

It's a bit like money. By money I don't mean cash. I mean the intangible stuff that's "in your bank account". You can't feel it or touch it or smell it, and truth be told it doesn't really exist. It's a figment of our mutual imagination that we all agree upon. But it makes the world go round. Anyhow. If there were only two people in the world, and one guy had a million dollars while the other had two million dollars, only one million dollar "exists". Think about it.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Question, Does mass have an inherient density …

Some guesswork at the precise meaning of this question is necessary. Here goes...

I think there is a limit to the maximum density that can be observed in any region of space at any time.

According the theory most feel best describes it (The Standard model of particle physics), mass is a property of fundamental particles. Particles are divided into 2 main kinds – fermions and bosons. All fermions have non-zero mass. Some bosons have zero mass, some non-zero.

Fermions, such as electrons and the quarks in protons and neutrons, obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, which prohibit 2 identical fermions from occupying the same space at the same time. Bosons, such as photons and gluons, don’t, so any number of them may occupy the same space at the same time.

So, in principle, there’s no limit to the density that a composite particle made of bosons could have, while one with any sort of finite ratio of fermions to bosons has a maximum density. However, most matter is predominantly fermions, so most matter has a maximum density.

The only bosons of the 5 predicted by the Standard Model that have mass are the W and Z bosons, which have been observed, and the Higgs, which has been proposed but not yet observed. I believe that is possible, in principle, to create a region in space exceeding the maximum density of fermionic matter, using the W and Z boson, but such a engineering feat would require great energy (the W and Z bosons have half lives of about 3*10^-25 seconds, so would have be accelerated to very high fractions of the speed of light (to exploit time dilation) and precisely focused at region of space. What practical value this would have, I’ve no sensible guess.

Some have suggested that gravity-dominated matter, such as in a black hole, might involve a failure of quantum field theory, and thus the Standard Model, and have a density much higher than it allows, perhaps infinite. Such speculation doesn’t lend itself to experimental prediction, so is difficult to consider scientifically.

… or can mass be observed independent of density?

The observation of mass can be independent of density. For example, an observation of a satellite in a perfectly circular orbit a primary body reveals the primary’s effective mass, but little about its density. A body of uniform density is indistinguishable using this kind of observation from one with all of its mass concentrated in a dense shell, or a dense core.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by CraigD

The observation of mass can be independent of density. For example, an observation of a satellite in a perfectly circular orbit a primary body reveals the primary’s effective mass, but little about its density. A body of uniform density is indistinguishable using this kind of observation from one with all of its mass concentrated in a dense shell, or a dense core.

Does this still hold true if you know it's size? My question meaning, if you have a satellite in a perfectly circular orbit around a primary body, let's say the object (satellite) is of size X, couldn't you tell that this object is denser than an object occupying the same orbit, influencing the primary body in the same way, but let's say this other satellite is of size 10X?

Two objects, same influence, different size... wouldn't that reveal information about each object's density, if nothing else, at least relative to each other?

[Little Bang]

CraigD, would you suspect that Fermi- Dirac statistics break down in a black hole?