Are physical quantites, such as mass, invented?

[Steve3007]

I believe we can logically debate whether mind, soul, or breath have mass.

There's no need to "logically debate" it (as you might "logically debate" how many angels could dance on the head of a pin). You can simply describe a repeatable observation or experiment that would measure the mass of a mind, a soul or a breath.

[Steve3007]

And mass itself is now defined by field interactions, eg. the mass of electron can be calculated from how the Higgs field interacts with the electron field. And 99% of proton's mass consists of binding energy, and so on. So what is mass?

It's the quantity represented by the letter 'm' in various equations. Ultimately, I think that's all we can unambiguously say.

One of those equations (probably the most famous equation in physics) allows us to convert from the units of that binding energy to the units of mass.

[Sy Borg]

Popper is careful to point out that mass is a relational property.

I won't pretend that I understood Steve's OP but, as regards the titular questioon, my first thought was that mass is real in that it is relative. You need some way of desribing the difference between a boulder and a pea falling on one's head from the same height. Preferably the calculations can be performed before the fact so that preventative measures can be put in place ...

Then again, a pea shot at the speed of an asteroid could roughly emulate the effect of a boulder upon one's head (provided it didn't burn up first) so mass is contextualised by speed.

I think of space as like a fabric filled with different sizes and formations of energy ripples shifting around, aggregating and disassembling. That would make mass our measure of how aggregated the ripples are at a relative point of time and space.

[Steve3007]

You need some way of desribing the difference between a boulder and a pea falling on one's head from the same height. Preferably the calculations can be performed before the fact so that preventative measures can be put in place ...

Then again, a pea shot at the speed of an asteroid could roughly emulate the effect of a boulder upon one's head (provided it didn't burn up first) so mass is contextualised by speed

Yes, I agree that is a very useful application of the concept of mass! Qualitatively, we can obviously tell the difference in that case, so we don't need to write down any equations. But if we wanted to make a quantitative assessment - put some numbers on it - then we could make use of some simple discoveries that have been made in the past by other people considering related situations and making measurements of them.

One of those would be the discovery that led to the creation of the concept of gravitational potential energy, and the notion that it is a quantity that is given by the equation:

potential energy = mass X height X a constant.

That equation has height in it, and height is a length, and we can measure length relatively directly using a ruler.

Another would be the discovery that led to the creation of the concept of kinetic energy, and the notion that it is a quantity that is given by the equation:

kinetic energy = ¹/₂ X mass X speed X speed.

That equation has speed in it, and since speed is composed of distance and time (measurable by rulers and clocks), again we can measure it relatively directly. From all of that, we can calculate other things about concepts like mass and energy, even though they're not the things that we measured directly. You could say that all we measure directly is distances and times, with rulers and clocks.

We can use this concept of energy to more precisely quantify the relative destructive powers of boulders and peas travelling at various speeds or dropped from different heights. We can calculate just how fast that pea would have to be travelling to have the same energy that the suspended boulder has. We can say useful things in all kinds of contexts. For example, we can say that the safe stopping distance of a car is (roughly) proportional to the square of its speed, as a direct result of that second equation.

And so it goes on.

[Pantagruel]

Then again, a pea shot at the speed of an asteroid could roughly emulate the effect of a boulder upon one's head (provided it didn't burn up first) so mass is contextualised by speed.

Yes according to special relativity gravity and acceleration are essentially the same.

[Steve3007]

Yes according to special relativity gravity and acceleration are essentially the same.

I don't want to seem pedantic, but that's general relativity and I don't think it's directly relevant to the situation described by Greta. That situation considers potential versus kinetic energy - energy due to position and energy due to velocity. I don't see any obvious way that it relates to the Equivalence Principle of GR.

[Pantagruel]

Yes according to special relativity gravity and acceleration are essentially the same.

I don't want to seem pedantic, but that's general relativity and I don't think it's directly relevant to the situation described by Greta. That situation considers potential versus kinetic energy - energy due to position and energy due to velocity. I don't see any obvious way that it relates to the Equivalence Principle of GR.

Aren't Kinetic and Potential energies conserved with respect to the Lagrangian function? From what I've been reading of quantum theory it seems like there are multiple possible mathematical models that work for some scenarios. And of course you're right, I the general theory was what I should have said.

[Steve3007]

Aren't Kinetic and Potential energies conserved with respect to the Lagrangian function?

I'm very rusty on this so could be wrong, but I think the Lagrangian (and Hamiltonian) formulations are different mathematical ways of expressing the same laws of classical mechanics (of which those equations for P.E. and K.E. are examples). As I recall, after learning these formulations you then go on to learn why you've learnt them - they're a useful way of extrapolating from classical to quantum mechanical systems using essentially the same maths.

From what I've been reading of quantum theory it seems like there are multiple possible mathematical models that work for some scenarios.

Yes, there are multiple possible mathematical models for pretty much any scenario. Or, to use the popular "map and territory" analogy, there are multiple ways of drawing a map to describe the same territory.

[h_k_s]

I believe we can logically debate whether mind, soul, or breath have mass.

There's no need to "logically debate" it (as you might "logically debate" how many angels could dance on the head of a pin). You can simply describe a repeatable observation or experiment that would measure the mass of a mind, a soul or a breath.

You're talking about Physics.

I'm talking about Philosophy.

Is this a Physics forum or a Philosophy forum?

(Loaded question huh? Did you stop beating your wife?)

[h_k_s]

Angels dancing on the head of a pin is a metaphor that was invented by a Protestant named James Franklin in 1637 which he meant to be sarcastic. His actual statement was, "... whether a million of Angels may not fit upon a needle's point?"

The original issue was raised quite differently by San Tomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica" where he wonders if Angels are tangible beings in the same sense as we know the term, or whether they are merely ghostly and therefore could occupy the same space?

This same question can be asked about God Himself however.

We simply do not know if God and His Angels are tangible in the sense that we know the term to mean, or if they are intangible and ghostly.

Angel is an English word that comes from the Greek word in the Greek New Testament and the Greek Septiugint and means simply "messengers."

Thus, Elijah could be a messenger, and he would likely be tangible, since he was "taken up" tangibly. This is why modern Jews set a place for him at their tables for the Passover Seder yearly.

Whereas the Holy Ghost who is a God and who could also be a messenger is most likely intangible, from the Greek name he is given in the Greek New Testament, "Pneuma Agios" which means Holy Spirit.

These are all great questions in Christianity (defined as Roman Catholic, Eastern/Greek/Russian Orthodox, and Protestant).

Not necessarily related to Philosophy however.

Within Philosophy is the concept of the Prime Mover (Aristotle), the First Cause (Aquinas), the Greatest Good (Descartes), etc. But nothing about Angels.

[Steve3007]

Well, it's the science section of a philosophy forum.

But does the nature of this forum affect the reality of how one should go about ascertaining whether the soul has mass? If (for the sake of argument) I'm right to point out that the best way to find that out is by setting up an experiment, does thar rightness change depending on the forum in which it's expressed?

Incidentally, a while ago I had quite a long and pleasantly fruitless conversation on just that topic, on here, with a guy who called himself Groktruth. An experiment has actually been done. 21 grams apparently. I think they made a movie of that name too.

[Sy Borg]

Thing is, with the approximate equivalence between the slow boulder and fast pea, if we question mass as an artificial construct, wouldn't we also question speed?

[Pantagruel]

I've been reading a lot of physics lately. 98% of all 'regular matter' gets its mass from quantum chromodynamic binding energy holding quarks together. In other words, 98% of all mass is really energy and very tiny particles moving in confinement. So yes, I'd say the questions apply to all fundamental properties....

[Sy Borg]

A very freaky aspect of reality! Quarks are extraordinary. Nothing outside of a black hole or perhaps the centre of a neutron star is more dense. I think of them as particulated remnants of the universe's primal state. But threes! Why do they only ever collect as trios?

My knowledge of physics is tiny but my understanding was that mass is the result of interactions with the Higgs field.

[Steve3007]

Thing is, with the approximate equivalence between the slow boulder and fast pea, if we question mass as an artificial construct, wouldn't we also question speed?

Yes, arguably speed is a derived concept like mass, albeit closer to the lengths and times that we measure more directly. i.e. it is a length divided by a time. So the equation from which it is derived is pretty simple! But the principle is the same as for mass, energy, entropy ....