3 ms·
Seems like you're doing the same thing to me. What do you mean when you say "mass"? Mass, matter, etc, at least to me, seem to be what you call certain process
by _formless_ 10y ago
Seems like you're doing the same thing to me.
What do you mean when you say "mass"? Mass, matter, etc, at least to me, seem to be what you call certain processes when you look at them from an extremely "zoomed out" perspective. The further you zoom in, the less the concept of matter makes sense. Even concepts like fields, waves, etc may be just as much abstraction as the idea of "particles" is.
In regards to spacetime, is the 4d manifold we are situated in according to special relativity all that there is? Or if we zoom out, would we see a 4d manifold "wedged" inside higher dimensional spaces?
- noobermin 10y agoI can define mass, the problem is it eventually becomes something that is subject to the problem of induction. A good definition for mass the result of placing it into a mass spectrometer, assuming you know the particle's charge, which you can also measure. So, that is an experiment which has been done a number of times on a class of particles. By being an observation of a class of things, you have the issue of the problem of induction but that is insurmountable anyway. So, I'm not sure what you mean. Energy can be defined similarly, as can spacetime. Not that science is completely axiomatic, but issue of "definition" isn't in the terms of science, the issue is with the author counts "something" as the observed "laws of physics". Physics makes no claims for why the Electromagnetic Lagrangian is correct. Physics just says "it agrees with experiment."