The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
Split: what is Mass?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
Go Down
Split: what is Mass?
25 Replies
12685 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64694
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Split: what is Mass?
«
Reply #20 on:
08/07/2011 20:06:47 »
I enjoy the way you think Phractality, as far as I know I've never seen anyone except you trying to explain 'relativity' in a Euclidean space
It's highly original and quite refreshing reading. You seem to have a good grasp on what differs the geometries, and the way you describe them is intriguing to me. I can see your argument for mass, and if you by geometries define something possible to 'exist' on its own, then a Euclidean space should exist too.
I see space as a 3d expression myself, with gravity being the color that flows in three dimensions under the expression of our arrow. But differing from the Euclidean I see space as 'being the arrow' in some fundamental way. If we accept that mass changes 'time' relative some other ones observation (frame of reference) and if we also accept that relative motion has this ability, then it seems to me as if we have localized a 'arrow' both in mass and in 'motion'.
The problem I've had with that a long time is a uniform motion relative a acceleration. It would have been very nice if I could define a 'time dilation' only relative accelerations as that would have given us a simple definition of it as being 'gravity', but it's not that simple. Uniform motion will have a 'time dilation' intrinsic to it too, at least as I understands it for the moment. I've been wobbling there, trying to find some way to define it to only 'accelerations' aka gravity, but I haven't succeeded.
In what way do you think mass exist, as a result of a Higg field solely? It's reasonable as you define us as 'bosons', but where comes the dichotomy in play? Where does 'bosons' becomes defined 'particles', and where do the transition come from the probabilistic definition of a outcome, to what we see macroscopically with a football getting kicked between players, macroscopically?
«
Last Edit: 08/07/2011 20:22:57 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64694
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Split: what is Mass?
«
Reply #21 on:
08/07/2011 20:09:37 »
Good question Mr Data
As I understands it, he sees the 'mass' as a direct result of translating a Minkowski 4D representation geodesic to a Euclidean 3D.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Mr. Data
Sr. Member
275
Activity:
0%
Split: what is Mass?
«
Reply #22 on:
08/07/2011 22:26:15 »
As I said to bored chemist once, mass is a behaviour of the system. If a photon does not exhibit this behaviour, then what good is there in saying it has the essential ingredients to make the behaviour work? It seems paradoxical, and backward.
Logged
yor_on
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64694
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Split: what is Mass?
«
Reply #23 on:
09/07/2011 00:58:26 »
In this case it is a question of explaining the change of geometry, that is if I got the idea right. And as we define 'rest mass' from a concept of where it is 'at rest', as defined by a geodesic, not caring of how many time you changed 'speed', relative some arbitrarily fixed point, to get into those various geodesics, I can't help but finding it interesting. You might see it as a alternative way of trying to define a relative universe, in where you then must get a 'mass' as the photon 'bends' as defined from a Euclidean space. But this is how I understand the idea, I'm not sure if this is the way Phractality sees it?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Phractality
(OP)
Hero Member
523
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 1 times
Split: what is Mass?
«
Reply #24 on:
09/07/2011 06:29:14 »
I'm not ignoring you guys. Those are tough questions, and I don't want to give you flippant answers which I will later regret. Besides, my attention span is limited, these days. Please be patient with me, and feel free to talk behind my back.
Logged
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein
Phractality
(OP)
Hero Member
523
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 1 times
Split: what is Mass?
«
Reply #25 on:
09/07/2011 21:59:43 »
So many tough questions! I love it! At last someone is making me think. Let me answer one question at a time, though.
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 08/07/2011 12:05:36
But if there is no Higgs boson?
I haven't formally taken a course in particle physics since 1968. My profs back then were behind the times and didn't have a clear understanding of even special relativity. Most of what I know of the standard model of particle physics comes from a
series of videos
which I borrowed from my local library.
I said earlier that I'm not sure there is a Higgs boson. I might change my mind if I had a clearer idea what a boson is. Looking at a table of bosons, some of them don't appear to fit my concept of "particle". To coin an analogy from football, some of those bosons look more like plays than players.
Logged
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...