Mass is often treated as the most concrete property in physics — the very essence of materiality. It resists motion (inertia), responds to force (F = ma), and warps spacetime (in general relativity). In quantum field theory, it emerges from symmetry-breaking via the Higgs mechanism. Despite these differing frameworks, mass is consistently treated as an intrinsic feature of particles — a property that persists across transformations.
But this view relies on an ontology of self-contained entities. What happens when we reject that ontology, and treat physical systems as relational fields of constraint and potential? In such a framework, mass cannot be a thing a particle has. It must instead be a systemic effect — an emergent aspect of how potential resists or accommodates transformation.
1. Inertia Without Objects
-
In classical mechanics, mass quantifies inertia: resistance to acceleration,
-
But acceleration presumes a body moving through space — an assumption we reject in a relational view,
-
Instead, motion becomes a changing configuration in a field of relational potential.
So what is inertia here?
Inertia is the system’s reluctance to reorganise — a measure of its internal coherence under tension.
Mass, then, is relational resistance to reconfiguration, not a substance but a pattern of constraint.
2. Mass as Embodied Constraint
-
Mass can be seen as the depth of a configuration's embedding in a relational field,
-
The more tightly a pattern is bound within a larger coherence — spatially, temporally, functionally — the more resistant it is to shift,
-
This resistance is what appears, externally, as mass.
Mass is thus a measure of configurational entanglement — the inertia of a relation woven into a web of dependencies.
3. The Quantum View: Mass as Transition Threshold
-
In quantum mechanics, mass enters through dispersion relations and energy thresholds,
-
For instance, particles with greater mass require more energy to be brought into existence or shifted between states,
-
This reflects not a substance being pushed, but a threshold in the space of permissible transitions.
Mass here signals how strongly a configuration is constrained against transformation — it marks the cost of reorganisation.
4. The Relativistic View: Mass as Curvature Response
-
In relativity, mass causes curvature in spacetime, and follows geodesics in return,
-
But this entire picture is framed in terms of objects in a manifold — a construct not compatible with a relational ontology,
-
In a relational view, what we interpret as curvature is really a redistribution of coherence under constraint.
Mass, then, isn’t bending spacetime — it is a differential pattern in the global topology of relational potential, marking how one region of the field constrains others.
5. The Higgs Field Reimagined
-
The Higgs mechanism explains mass via interaction with a scalar field — particles acquire mass by coupling to this field,
-
But this again treats particles as pre-existing entities that then acquire a “drag”,
-
In a relational ontology, we reinterpret this coupling as a stable attractor in the system’s field of constraints.
The “mass” is not conferred — it is constituted by the system’s internal tension — a persistence of configuration under variation.
Relational Definition
We might say:
Mass is the resistance of a relational configuration to transformation — the inertial expression of coherence under constraint.
It is not an object’s property but a structural feature of a field that maintains itself under systemic tension.
Closing
Mass appears to mark how much “stuff” something has. But in a relational world, there is no “stuff” — only degrees of stability in a transforming field. What we call mass is the anchoring of configuration: the density of relational commitments.
In the next post, we’ll consider momentum, and explore how motion and conservation can be rethought as relational synchrony across a transforming field.
No comments:
Post a Comment