Can mass be called mass without the “object”

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Short timer said:

Are you saying the elementary particles that have mass don’t take up space? 

Correct. Elementary particles are dimensionless.

[Short timer]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

So being a particle does not necessarily mean it’s an object?

Correct. Energy is not mass.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

You appear to have a circular definition: To be an object it must have mass, and to have mass it must be an object.

It’s not circular if you start at the beginning of time. 

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

one issue here is that we have come up with definitions based on physics we observe, and you are inquiring about the first moments of the universe, as if looking for some loophole in the definitions. Why does this matter? 

I’m not looking for any loopholes at all, I’m looking for clarification if I’m forcing the science to fit my thoughts. A simple “your thoughts are wrong” directed at me will be a good start if that’s how you feel.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Correct. Elementary particles are dimensionless.

I have questions on this too because of statements like this.......

 

In quantum mechanics, the concept of a point particle is complicated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because even an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Short timer said:

It’s not circular if you start at the beginning of time.

At the earliest time, there were no 'objects" (with or without mass). Particles gained their mass as inflation ended, the symmetries unifying the fundamental forces broke and the Higgs field took on a non-zero value. So, by your definition, massless particles becomes "objects" at that point.

So your definition of "object" is circular: it is something that has mass, but only things that have mass are called "objects".

4 minutes ago, Short timer said:

I’m not looking for any loopholes at all, I’m looking for clarification if I’m forcing the science to fit my thoughts. A simple “your thoughts are wrong” directed at me will be a good start if that’s how you feel.

I don't think your thoughts are wrong, necessarily, but I think you are trying to find a way to make the science fit with your thoughts. (Which is what your definition of object seems to be designed to do.) 

8 minutes ago, Short timer said:

I have questions on this too because of statements like this.......

 

In quantum mechanics, the concept of a point particle is complicated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because even an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume.

There are various ways the "size" of a fundamental particle can be defined. The probability of finding it in a particular location (which is what that sentences seems to be referring to, and how electron orbitals are defined) or the interaction cross area or the various other ways (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius)

(By the way, when you quote something it would be useful if you provide a link to the source.)

[studiot]

42 minutes ago, Short timer said:

46 minutes ago, studiot said:

And what about the two different definitions of mass as defined in Physics, which one are you using ?

Invariant.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Do you know the two different meanings of the word mass in Physics?

[Short timer]

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

At the earliest time, there were no 'objects" (with or without mass). Particles gained their mass as inflation ended, the symmetries unifying the fundamental forces broke and the Higgs field took on a non-zero value. So, by your definition, massless particles becomes "objects" at that point.

So your definition of "object" is circular: it is something that has mass, but only things that have mass are called "objects".

My confusion may be from my understanding of how the “objects” came into existence. I was under the impression that they appeared from energy particles smashing into each other, that collision converting energy into “objects” aka matter, like they are trying to recreate with this experiment. I was under the impression there were no “objects” until inflation ended, just energy particles associated with fields because it was too hot still. I don’t see how this is circular at all.

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-underway.html

 

Professor Rose said: "This would be a pure demonstration of Einstein's famous equation that relates energy and mass: E=mc², which tells us how much energy is produced when matter is turned to energy.  What we are doing is the same but backwards: turning photon energy into mass, i.e. m=E/c²."

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Do you know the two different meanings of the word mass in Physics?

No, can you please tell me?

Edited November 30, 2019 by Short timer

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Short timer said:

My confusion may be from my understanding of how the “objects” came into existence. I was under the impression that they appeared from energy particles smashing into each other, that collision converting energy into “objects aka matter, like they are trying to recreate with this experiment. I was under the impression there were no “objects” until inflation ended, just energy particles associated with fields because it was too hot still.

This is not an area I know much about, but my understanding is that most of the particles we know of did not exist in the earliest time because all the forces are unified into a single force. I don't think we have any physics that can tells us what existed then, but it would have been particles very different then we know now (because current particles all interact differently with each of the forces). Maybe this means there would have been only one type of particle. I don't know.

But there is no such thing as "energy particles". Energy, like mass, is just a property of particles.

Quote

I don’t see how this is circular at all.

It is your definition of "object" that is circular:

• What is mass? Mass is a property of objects.
• What is an object? Something that has the property of mass.

In other words, mass is a property of things that have mass as a property. Or, objects are things that have the properties of objects.

So: can you have mass without an "object"? According to this definition, no.

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Short timer said:

No, can you please tell me?

Yes, of course.

It goes back to the days of Newton and the study of mechanics.

1.
Firstly a property called mass is identified for what I think we can all call objects without confusion.
This property identifies the attractive force between any two objects as being proportional to the value of this property possessed by each body individually.
Note 1. Reasoning by proportionality played a bigger part in Newton's day than now.
Note 2 It is interesting to see that the use of proportionality leads to some of the types of property I referred to earlier, most notably the transitive property.

 

2.
A different property is defined by Newton's 3 laws of dynamics which we call 'mass'.
and in particular it is the constant of proportionality in Newton's Second Law.

We identify this property as the resistance of a body to impressed forces even in the total absence of the gravitational force as already noted.
It is called the inertial mass.

We do not know why when we take the numerical value of the inertial mass that value works correctly in equations for the gravitational effects.

[Short timer]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is your definition of "object" that is circular:

• What is mass? Mass is a property of objects.
• What is an object? Something that has the property of mass.

In other words, mass is a property of things that have mass as a property. Or, objects are things that have the properties of objects.

So: can you have mass without an "object"? According to this definition, no.

Yeah I’m not good with putting my thoughts into words. Your statement is not really what I’m trying to say. To put it simply, before objects came into existence, saying they have mass is nonsensical. MigL put it a lot clearer than I tried to explain, I feel he is in the same train of thought as I am. I’m not talking about now, I’m talking about the beginning.

 

Any comment on elementary particles taking up space with the statement I quoted? Am I misunderstanding what is being said about elementary particles volume being nonzero?

19 hours ago, MigL said:

If I may clarify my statements...

In the earliest moments of the universe, the universe consisted of fields.
Fields which have an energy density ( at the time, very high ), and the concept of 'mass'was non-existant at this time..
Any particles 'bubbling' up from these fields, which exceeded the threshold energy to become real ( as opposed to virtual ) would have been massless.
It is only after the separation of the electroweak force into EM and Weak, and subsequent inflation ( brought about by the false vacuum state ) that some of the particles, now called fermions, were able to interact with the scalar Higgs field, and gain the property we now call mass.
We NOW recognize that these two properties, mass and energy, are like two sides of the same coin, and intimately related

This explains what I’m trying to say for the most part.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Short timer said:

Yeah I’m not good with putting my thoughts into words. Your statement is not really what I’m trying to say. To put it simply, before objects came into existence, saying they have mass is nonsensical. MigL put it a lot clearer than I tried to explain, I feel he is in the same train of thought as I am. I’m not talking about now, I’m talking about the beginning.

As I understand it, the Higgs field emerged in the same symmetry breaking at the end of inflation that caused the various force to emerge. So neither mass nor the particle we know would have existed before then. 

But I'm still not quite sure what the point is. Both mass and energy are properties of "things". So without "things" there can be no property called mass. So you can't have mass without things (and things with mass are what you call objects).

But by referring to when these things came into existence, you are talking about a time before we have any detailed theories. It is thought that the strong force was unified with the electroweak, and maybe gravity. But I'm not sure how well understood this is.

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, Short timer said:

Yeah I’m not good with putting my thoughts into words. Your statement is not really what I’m trying to say. To put it simply, before objects came into existence, saying they have mass is nonsensical. MigL put it a lot clearer than I tried to explain, I feel he is in the same train of thought as I am. I’m not talking about now, I’m talking about the beginning.

 

Any comment on elementary particles taking up space with the statement I quoted? Am I misunderstanding what is being said about elementary particles volume being nonzero?

I would respectfully suggest you deal with one issue at a time and defer the question of volume until you have settled  that which (to my mind) is more fundamental.

 

What makes you so sure there was a beginning?

Why could not reaching back in time be similar to reaching for absolute zero of temperature - you can never get there either the 'curve' is asymptotic (how is your maths do you understand asymptotic?). The closer you go the harder the next tiny increment becomes and each increment is smaller than the last.

 

[Short timer]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

But I'm still not quite sure what the point is. Both mass and energy are properties of "things". So without "things" there can be no property called mass. So you can't have mass without things (and things with mass are what you call objects).

And you just answered the title of this thread with this statement of yours. That’s the “point” I wanted to make sure I was comprehending correctly. Like I said, my words don’t match my thoughts correctly. The bolded part is what I wanted reassurance of. 

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

What makes you so sure there was a beginning?

You’re getting deep, brother! I’m just making sure I comprehend the most acceptable theory correctly.

[MigL]

Since I keep getting 'dragged' back into this discussion on semantics...

Mass ( both inertial and gravitational Studiot ) has a very specific definition in Physics.
The definition of 'things' or 'objects', not so much.

Unless you have a very clear definition of 'things' or 'objects', no one can reasonably comment on your OP, Short Timer.
And as others have pointed out, saying "Can mass be  called mass without the object with mass ?" is highly redundant.

Edited November 30, 2019 by MigL

[Xeno]

if you take E=MC2 and change it to M=E/C2  then Einsteins equation suggest that energy itself has mass.  use an order of magnitude calculation. I take a piece of metal and put energy into it via heat. 100kg of iron x 4000 (specific heat) x temperature increase of 100. = 4x10^7th Joules of energy. M= 4x10^7th / 10^17= 10^-10 kg. Its literally a fraction of a nanogram? so slight that you would never be able to perceive it, but its still there.  ^ rough example 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Xeno said:

if you take E=MC2 and change it to M=E/C2  then Einsteins equation suggest that energy itself has mass.  use an order of magnitude calculation. I take a piece of metal and put energy into it via heat. 100kg of iron x 4000 (specific heat) x temperature increase of 100. = 4x10^7th Joules of energy. M= 4x10^7th / 10^17= 10^-10 kg. Its literally a fraction of a nanogram? so slight that you would never be able to perceive it, but its still there.  ^ rough example 

Yes, a higher energy content means more mass. And it has been experimentally confirmed; an excited nuclear state of an iron isotope was measured to have a greater mass than the ground state.

[Xeno]

On 11/26/2019 at 12:44 PM, Short timer said:

I need to clear up some confusion. In the beginning of the universe, before inflation ended, there were no “objects” just energy. Is it proper to refer to that energy as “mass” before it cooled enough to be converted to matter? I was under the assumption the definition of mass was: Mass of an object or body is a measure of it’s energy content. 

I always thought that until the conversion to matter took place, it was just energy with the potential to be X amount of mass.

 

so then this question is answered. energy has mass, it has been confirmed, so it is proper to refer to that energy as mass. 

[Mordred]

No it isn't energy and mass have two distinct definitions

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Xeno said:

so then this question is answered. energy has mass, it has been confirmed, so it is proper to refer to that energy as mass. 

The trouble with trying to simplify the statement like this is that without the context, it's just not correct. Mordred is quite correct in saying that they are two distinct definitions, as they are separate properties. When you say 'energy has mass' it suggests that energy is a 'thing' and not a property. You are implying something that is not true, and that usually leads to invalid conclusions.

[Sensei]

Mass has different unit (dimension) than energy.

In SI it is obviously kg and Joule.

In quantum physics it is eV/c^2. Energy has unit eV.