Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: A thought on 'mass'

  1. #1 A thought on 'mass' 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8
    If I say there is nothing called matter exist in universe, I gues you will roll your eyes. Everything we see, touch and feel are not substances, they are just waves! or just vibrations!
    Means, even with a basic school knowledge, we know that all substances are made of molecules, in turn made of atoms..etc.
    but end of this hierarchy, evrything is just a collection of electrons only right? absence of electrons described as protons..n other sub atomic things ,whatever it be..
    But this thought leads me to say that even the pen I am holding now is just a mix of some energy or waves.. I realize the feeling that there is nothing called object exist around us..evrything is just energy capsules..settled OR packed OR balanced without electric charge dissipation !!
    May be a childish thought..but I feel the super scientist (Creator) would've worked a lot to place sub atomic items together to make touchable, feelable substances!
    Your comments are invited on this topic..
    Note: If am right, Science doesnt believe in that super scientist ! but I do


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    [quote="eldhosepg"]If I say there is nothing called matter exist in universe, I gues you will roll your eyes. Everything we see, touch and feel are not substances, they are just waves! or just vibrations!
    Means, even with a basic school knowledge, we know that all substances are made of molecules, in turn made of atoms..etc.
    but end of this hierarchy, evrything is just a collection of electrons only right? absence of electrons described as protons..n other sub atomic things ,whatever it be..
    Bold added.

    This is not correct. There is a lot more going on at the subatomic level than just electrons and absence of electrons

    Quote Originally Posted by eldhosepg
    But this thought leads me to say that even the pen I am holding now is just a mix of some energy or waves..
    This is more or less the model that comes with quantum field theories, which are the best available theories at this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by eldhosepg
    I realize the feeling that there is nothing called object exist around us..evrything is just energy capsules..settled OR packed OR balanced without electric charge dissipation !!
    ???????????


    Quote Originally Posted by eldhosepg
    May be a childish thought..but I feel the super scientist (Creator) would've worked a lot to place sub atomic items together to make touchable, feelable substances!
    Your comments are invited on this topic..
    Note: If am right, Science doesnt believe in that super scientist ! but I do
    There is an order to nature that is difficult to explain and is outside the purview of science, just as science is outside the purview of religion. Belief or non-belief has nothing to do with science, so long as you avoid superstition.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    92
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by eldhosepg
    If I say there is nothing called matter exist in universe, I gues you will roll your eyes. Everything we see, touch and feel are not substances, they are just waves! or just vibrations!
    Means, even with a basic school knowledge, we know that all substances are made of molecules, in turn made of atoms..etc.
    but end of this hierarchy, evrything is just a collection of electrons only right? absence of electrons described as protons..n other sub atomic things ,whatever it be..
    But this thought leads me to say that even the pen I am holding now is just a mix of some energy or waves.. I realize the feeling that there is nothing called object exist around us..evrything is just energy capsules..settled OR packed OR balanced without electric charge dissipation !!
    May be a childish thought..but I feel the super scientist (Creator) would've worked a lot to place sub atomic items together to make touchable, feelable substances!
    Your comments are invited on this topic..
    Note: If am right, Science doesnt believe in that super scientist ! but I do
    True, modern physics seems to suggest that matter on the subatomic level is made up of waves and hence of energy. Can we then conclude that everything is made up of energy?

    My opinion is no; it is not proper to describe matter as simply energy. We normally experience and think of energy as light, heat, and motion. If we wish to say that matter is energy, then we might think of energy as matter, which is clearly false. Matter and energy have distinct properties. They are not the same.

    But wait! Didn't Einstein discover the equivalence between matter and energy, e = mc^2? Not really. This famous equation only tells us that we can convert matter into energy, not that they are the same. To say matter and energy are the same is like saying that a caterpillar is a butterfly or that plutonium is a nuclear explosion!

    As modern physics continues to probe the subatomic realm, I'm sure that surprises are in store, but I won't be surprised if we continue to learn just how much apparently distinct parts of nature seem to be the same on nature's most fundamental levels. After all, 13.6 billion years ago this entire cosmos was one singularity. If it was one then, then we should find its one-ness today if we look closely enough.

    Jagella
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Jagella, you should be careful making statements with such certainty. Have you ever noticed how often scientists say "it might" or "it's possible" or "maybe" or "we don't know"? That's because science doesn't take these absolute views and all scientists know that better theories will come along. Though that's ignoring the errors in your statements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagella
    But wait! Didn't Einstein discover the equivalence between matter and energy, e = mc^2? Not really. This famous equation only tells us that we can convert matter into energy, not that they are the same. To say matter and energy are the same is like saying that a caterpillar is a butterfly or that plutonium is a nuclear explosion!

    Jagella
    Wrong, as usual.

    You might want to try reading some physics.

    You might also want to lay in a supply of ketchup -- to apply to your foot.

    At least your record is intact. You haven't been right yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagella
    But wait! Didn't Einstein discover the equivalence between matter and energy, e = mc^2? Not really. This famous equation only tells us that we can convert matter into energy, not that they are the same. To say matter and energy are the same is like saying that a caterpillar is a butterfly or that plutonium is a nuclear explosion!

    Jagella
    Wrong, as usual.

    You might want to try reading some physics.

    You might also want to lay in a supply of ketchup -- to apply to your foot.

    At least your record is intact. You haven't been right yet.
    I wonder, though - is the invariant mass of sub-atomic particles (specifically the invariant mass of quarks) conserved? By this I mean that in particle accelerator collisions are the quarks subject to conversion into energy (photons or kinetic energy) or do they just produce other particles containing an equal number of quarks?

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    There is an order to nature that is difficult to explain and is outside the purview of science, just as science is outside the purview of religion.
    Excellent. My Genetics prof (Steve Jones) puts it like this:

    The lion and the shark are each supreme predators in their own environment. Place one in the others environment, and there can be only one outcome. So it is with religion and science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    92
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Jagella, you should be careful making statements with such certainty. Have you ever noticed how often scientists say "it might" or "it's possible" or "maybe" or "we don't know"? That's because science doesn't take these absolute views and all scientists know that better theories will come along. Though that's ignoring the errors in your statements.
    If you'd like to discuss something I actually posted, then please get back to me.

    Jagella
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by CSMYTH3025
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagella
    But wait! Didn't Einstein discover the equivalence between matter and energy, e = mc^2? Not really. This famous equation only tells us that we can convert matter into energy, not that they are the same. To say matter and energy are the same is like saying that a caterpillar is a butterfly or that plutonium is a nuclear explosion!

    Jagella
    Wrong, as usual.

    You might want to try reading some physics.

    You might also want to lay in a supply of ketchup -- to apply to your foot.

    At least your record is intact. You haven't been right yet.
    I wonder, though - is the invariant mass of sub-atomic particles (specifically the invariant mass of quarks) conserved? By this I mean that in particle accelerator collisions are the quarks subject to conversion into energy (photons or kinetic energy) or do they just produce other particles containing an equal number of quarks?

    Chris
    mass/energy is conserved, along with some quantum numbers. The number of particles is not a conserved quantity. Lepton number is conserved, but since anti-leptons cancel anti-leptons even that does not conserve the number of leptons.

    Not all quarks even have the same mass, and quarks can transform ,emitting particles in the process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    92
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You might want to try reading some physics.

    You might also want to lay in a supply of ketchup -- to apply to your foot.

    At least your record is intact. You haven't been right yet.
    Here's what one resource has to say about relativistic mass and energy:

    If we say that mass can be converted to energy and energy to mass, we must recognize that mass and energy are the same thing expressed in different units. Einstein found the conversion factor to be equal to the square of the velocity of light. E0 = m0 c^2. (1)
    Notice that what is being said is that mass and energy are the same thing, not that matter and energy are the same thing. In addition, if the two are the "same thing," does that mean they are identical?

    Mass is a measure of a body's inertia, its tendency to stay in motion if it's in motion and it's tendency to stay at rest while at rest--but what is energy? "The energy of a body is its ability to do work." (2)

    How can we explain this paradox? Are mass and energy the exact same natural phenomena or not? Obviously, we can sense the difference between the two easily enough, and even in the laboratory the two are treated differently. The similarity between mass and energy is only apparent in extreme circumstances--like that of a nuclear explosion.

    Therein lies the answer to this riddle. Matter and its mass is quite distinct from energy on the every-day macro level. We interact with matter differently from energy, and scientists usually study the two as being different. It is only when we convert one to the other or probe the subatomic realm that we see that on those levels they are much the same. As the old saying goes, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Energy in a strange sort of way makes up matter, but the way that energy is arranged compared to energy like heat, light, or motion, makes a huge difference. Hydrogen can be used to float a child's balloon or fuel a star--the difference lies in the way that hydrogen is made up.

    Jagella

    (1) Tippens, Paul E.; Physics, Fourth Edition; 1991; p 746
    (2) Bueche, Frederick J.; College Physics, 7/ed; 1979; p 46
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagella
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You might want to try reading some physics.

    You might also want to lay in a supply of ketchup -- to apply to your foot.

    At least your record is intact. You haven't been right yet.
    Here's what one resource has to say about relativistic mass and energy:

    If we say that mass can be converted to energy and energy to mass, we must recognize that mass and energy are the same thing expressed in different units. Einstein found the conversion factor to be equal to the square of the velocity of light. E0 = m0 c^2. (1)
    Notice that what is being said is that mass and energy are the same thing, not that matter and energy are the same thing. In addition, if the two are the "same thing," does that mean they are identical?

    Mass is a measure of a body's inertia, its tendency to stay in motion if it's in motion and it's tendency to stay at rest while at rest--but what is energy? "The energy of a body is its ability to do work." (2)

    How can we explain this paradox? Are mass and energy the exact same natural phenomena or not? Obviously, we can sense the difference between the two easily enough, and even in the laboratory the two are treated differently. The similarity between mass and energy is only apparent in extreme circumstances--like that of a nuclear explosion.

    Therein lies the answer to this riddle. Matter and its mass is quite distinct from energy on the every-day macro level. We interact with matter differently from energy, and scientists usually study the two as being different. It is only when we convert one to the other or probe the subatomic realm that we see that on those levels they are much the same. As the old saying goes, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Energy in a strange sort of way makes up matter, but the way that energy is arranged compared to energy like heat, light, or motion, makes a huge difference. Hydrogen can be used to float a child's balloon or fuel a star--the difference lies in the way that hydrogen is made up.

    Jagella

    (1) Tippens, Paul E.; Physics, Fourth Edition; 1991; p 746
    (2) Bueche, Frederick J.; College Physics, 7/ed; 1979; p 46

    And your point is ?

    I should have added that you should both read and undertand some physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by "Guitarist
    My Genetics prof (Steve Jones) puts it like this:

    The lion and the shark are each supreme predators in their own environment. Place one in the others environment, and there can be only one outcome. So it is with religion and science.
    perfect
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by "Guitarist
    My Genetics prof (Steve Jones) puts it like this:

    The lion and the shark are each supreme predators in their own environment. Place one in the others environment, and there can be only one outcome. So it is with religion and science.
    perfect
    I don't see the difference.

    In the flat earth theory of physics, all of a sudden of out nowhere there appears some "thing", there are many interpretations under various flat earth theories, and this thing emerges into the universe without having its pre-existing properties.

    Otherwise, all of a sudden of of nowhere, this thing emerges with all the properties of the universe.

    Exactly where do you flat earth theorists get your "thing" from?

    You have to start with something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    92
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    And your point is ?
    You've committed the fallacy of composition. You erroneously conclude that since some aspects of the subatomic level of matter resemble energy, then matter must be energy! That is incorrect, of course. You tacitly admitted your error when you refused to provide an example of energy causing a gravitational pull knowing like I do that there are no such examples. Only matter warping the fabric of space causes gravity.

    And while I'm at it, you have also committed the fallacy of hasty generalization by claiming that since I have made some alleged mistakes in this forum, then I am wrong about everything I've posted! This fallacy is blatant not to mention demonstrably false.

    You do indeed have a broad depth of knowledge about physics. Nevertheless, I see a lack of depth in your knowledge. You also need to work on better objectivity not to mention treating people with courtesy.

    I hope this helps.

    Jagella
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    92
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Otherwise, all of a sudden of of nowhere, this thing emerges with all the properties of the universe.

    Exactly where do you flat earth theorists get your "thing" from?

    You have to start with something.
    You seem to assume that if the modern-day study of the cosmos doesn't make sense to you, then modern science must be wrong. If you've ever studied quantum mechanics, then you must know that the universe is a really weird place. Would you not assume that a thing cannot be in two different places at the same time? Defies basic logic, doesn't it? Sorry, but it happens! An electron has been seen to pass through two slits simultaneously.

    Long ago a man claimed using a logical deduction that heavy objects fall faster than relatively light objects. Since it made sense to him, it had to be right. He never bothered to check his conclusion to see if it jibes with reality. Of course, his conclusion was wrong. Objects of different weights, neglecting air resistance, fall at the same speed.

    The man was Aristotle.

    Jagella
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagella
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    And your point is ?
    You've committed the fallacy of composition. You erroneously conclude that since some aspects of the subatomic level of matter resemble energy, then matter must be energy! That is incorrect, of course. You tacitly admitted your error when you refused to provide an example of energy causing a gravitational pull knowing like I do that there are no such examples. Only matter warping the fabric of space causes gravity.

    And while I'm at it, you have also committed the fallacy of hasty generalization by claiming that since I have made some alleged mistakes in this forum, then I am wrong about everything I've posted! This fallacy is blatant not to mention demonstrably false.

    You do indeed have a broad depth of knowledge about physics. Nevertheless, I see a lack of depth in your knowledge. You also need to work on better objectivity not to mention treating people with courtesy.

    I hope this helps.

    Jagella
    Wrong

    There is no point in rebutting you in detail. You either have not read the material that answered your questions or you are unable to understand it.

    Your next correct post will be the first one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagella
    You've committed the fallacy of composition. You erroneously conclude that since some aspects of the subatomic level of matter resemble energy, then matter must be energy! That is incorrect, of course. You tacitly admitted your error when you refused to provide an example of energy causing a gravitational pull knowing like I do that there are no such examples. Only matter warping the fabric of space causes gravity.
    Energy is considered in GR calculations of gravity, and GR provides prediction's that possess a greater degree of accuracy than Newtonian mechanics.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Jagella
    An electron has been seen to pass through two slits simultaneously.
    Actually, if a measurement is taken at a slit then the interference pattern goes away, but it returns when no measurement is taken at either slit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

    @chinglu; Perhaps you should just post in your native language and leave it for us to translate. Your post above is highly incoherent.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    @chinglu; Perhaps you should just post in your native language and leave it for us to translate. Your post above is highly incoherent.
    oh my God

    The problem is not one of translation.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Einst...ent-31064t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    @chinglu; Perhaps you should just post in your native language and leave it for us to translate. Your post above is highly incoherent.
    oh my God

    The problem is not one of translation.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Einst...ent-31064t.php
    I was hoping...Willful ignorance is disheartening
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    @chinglu; Perhaps you should just post in your native language and leave it for us to translate. Your post above is highly incoherent.
    oh my God

    The problem is not one of translation.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Einst...ent-31064t.php
    I was hoping...Willful ignorance is disheartening
    I don't think it is willful ignorance. Chinglu is way more than a bubble off of plumb.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I don't think it is willful ignorance. Chinglu is way more than a bubble off of plumb.
    Oh, well, that's a little sad to. Can we give him something shiny, but not sharp?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: A thought on 'mass' 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagella
    Long ago a man claimed using a logical deduction that heavy objects fall faster than relatively light objects. Since it made sense to him, it had to be right. He never bothered to check his conclusion to see if it jibes with reality. Of course, his conclusion was wrong. Objects of different weights, neglecting air resistance, fall at the same speed.
    Just because modern claims require a particle accelerator to test doesn't mean you can ignore them either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •