What exactly is mass? I've realized it gets defined in a circular way, like how some people can't define woman
>>16260718We can play a slight weasel game and say it is the property of an object that make it resist accelerating when a force is applied.Of course then someone could ask us what force is.At some level, you always have to take a few foundational terms as "self apparent."
>>16260718Why are some so obsessed with defining things? Are they really so stupid as to think everything can be reduced to language despite the blatant failure of their language itself to be definable?
>>16260718how massive it is, duhfor example, your mom is massive - she has a lot of mass
It's an intrinsic property of an object. There are multiple ways to define it but in the end they are all equivalent (or proportional).
>>1626071899% of it isn't by Higgshttps://youtu.be/JqNg819PiZY?t=40m
>>16260718Some form of energy that isn't dependent on physical motion (not saying temporal) but is intrinsic to the object.
>>16260728It can matter a lot in certain fields which really care about metrology and measurement science. Heat/power issues in my field are all about measurement science for example.
It's a mass-like quality.
>>16260718mass is something you take as is cause nobody know what the fuck it is but you can observe it effect. just like inertia, you can see it exist but nobody know why the fuck, it's just a fundamental thing nobody can crack apart.
>>16260728Science is about not taking things for granted. Going to the core of the question is a natural things to do if you are a real scientist.And yes, there is at present many things where we just have to make assumptions, but that is no excuse to stop researching the limits of our knowledge.
Easiest way to define mass is a gyroscope.As the gyroscope spins, rotating it in space creates inertia. Scale it down to atoms and the inertial resistance is smaller, but the number of inertia points are increased.Mass is the number of inertia points combined with resistance to displacement.Go back to the gyroscope example again. If you have a physical gyroscope, experiment with rotation, moving the gyroscope up and down, side to side. Now hold that knowledge in your head and think of a chunk of uniform matter made of millions of tiny atomic gyroscopes, if there's little resistance of movement along the spin plane, that should apply to all atoms aligned to the spin plane (in crystals this should also apply as bulk spin alignments tend to be mutually aligned). Rotations are more difficult, so there should be higher inertia when an object composed of atomic gyroscopes are rotated. Now, what are obvious predictions of inertia? If every atom isn't spin aligned, rotation must stop unless the spin alignments are all uniform. Especially in space. The bulk spin will also be perpendicular to the primary axis of straight line movement or orbital movement.
>qft says protons made of quarks and gluons>only 1% of proton mass is quarks>99% of mass is gluons>but gluons don't couple to gravity Asspull of I've ever seen it lmfao
>>16260737That's volume
F = m*a which means that m = F/aMass is equal to force divided by acceleration so the slower an object accelerates with a given force, the more mass it has. Or conversely, the quicker it accelerates with given force, the less mass it has.
>>16260718>what is mass>I don’t want circular argumentsCan someone please link anon to a high school textbook I swear to god people here are idiots
>>16260780Based Susskind enjoyer!
