In classical mechanics, mass is defined as a measure of inertia — the resistance of a body to acceleration. In relativity, it is tied to energy and momentum; in quantum theory, it arises via interaction with fields (such as the Higgs). But in every case, mass is typically treated as an intrinsic property: something a particle has, in itself.
This presumption of intrinsicness — of mass as “belonging” to an object — is precisely what a relational ontology puts into question. What if mass is not a property, not a quantity, not a thing-to-be-measured — but a symptom of constraint? What if it arises from how tightly a potential is bound within the topology of its relations?
From this perspective, mass is a way of describing the relational inertia of a configuration — the resistance of a structured potential to reconfiguration under a given system of constraints.
1. Mass Is Not Intrinsic
-
Particles are often said to “possess” mass — as though it were attached like a label or carried like a load,
-
But mass is not a substance, nor a trait handed out at birth. It is not inherent to the particle,
-
Instead, mass expresses the degree to which a construal resists transformation — how "stubborn" the relational configuration is in actualising change.
2. Inertia as Relational Coherence
-
Classical inertia is the tendency to maintain velocity unless acted upon. But from a relational view, this tendency reflects field-level coherence,
-
A configuration that persists does so because its constraints are self-reinforcing — not because it possesses a hidden store of resistance,
-
Mass, then, indexes the depth of embeddedness in a constraint topology — how tightly woven the configuration is within its systemic field.
3. Relativistic Mass as Perspective-Dependent
-
In special relativity, mass changes with velocity — or rather, the energy required to accelerate a system increases with speed,
-
From a relational standpoint, this is no surprise: the constraints shaping transformation are not static,
-
As velocity increases, the system's relational configuration becomes more rigid under the metric — and that rigidity is what appears as increasing mass.
4. Quantum Mass as Interactional Profile
-
In the Standard Model, particles gain mass through interaction with the Higgs field — a story that suggests mass is relational, yet still describes it in terms of coupling constants and field excitations,
-
A relational ontology takes this further: the entire phenomenon of mass is a byproduct of how potential gets actualised under constraint — not a product of interaction, but a profile of constraint itself,
-
What appears as mass is the inertia of a construal — the slowness with which a system’s configuration yields to alternative actualisations.
5. Mass Without Matter
-
We do not need “matter” to have “mass” — we need structured possibility to exhibit resistance to reconfiguration,
-
Hence mass is not an indicator of materiality, but of relational embeddedness: how deeply a construal is bound within a network of constraints,
-
This explains why energy, mass, and motion are all convertible: they are perspectival expressions of the same underlying field dynamics.
Closing
Mass, in this account, is not a measure of what something is. It is a symptom of how tightly potential is organised. Where classical thought sees inertia as an object's resistance to external force, a relational view sees a field resisting its own reorganisation — mass as self-tension in the fabric of constraint.
In the next post, we will extend this reframing to the notion of momentum — and show how movement itself emerges not from the displacement of objects, but from gradient dynamics within a structured potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment