Mass is often described as the most “concrete” quantity in physics. It resists change (inertia), bends space (gravity), and sets the scale for how particles interact. In Newtonian physics, it is the essence of a body. In relativity, it’s bound up with energy and spacetime curvature. In quantum field theory, it arises from symmetry breaking and interaction with the Higgs field.
Yet across these frameworks, mass is typically treated as an intrinsic property of a particle — something it has. But what if we drop the notion of particle-as-entity altogether?
A relational ontology invites us to ask: What is mass when there are no things, only fields in transformation?
1. Mass as Relational Resistance
-
In classical mechanics, mass measures resistance to acceleration,
-
But acceleration presupposes an entity moving through space,
-
In relational terms, there are no objects to accelerate — only fields undergoing transformation.
So we reinterpret:
Mass is the degree to which a configuration resists transformation — the relational inertia of coherence under constraint.
Not an intrinsic property, but an expression of systemic entrenchment.
2. No “Amount of Stuff”
-
Popularly, mass is thought of as “how much matter” something contains,
-
But this rests on a substance-based model of reality,
-
In a relational field, there is no matter-stuff to be counted — only patterns of interdependence.
Thus, mass is not how much is there, but how strongly it resists reconfiguration within the field.
3. Mass and Energy Reunited
-
Relativity gives us E = mc² — a mathematical equivalence,
-
But the conceptual unity is deeper: both mass and energy are expressions of constraint,
-
Energy is the tension in the system,
-
Mass is the reluctance of that tension to reconfigure.
-
So:
Energy is systemic pressure; mass is systemic inertia.
Two faces of the same relational structure.
4. Quantum Mass as Modal Confinement
-
In quantum field theory, mass arises from how fields interact with background structures (e.g. the Higgs field),
-
But even this “mechanism” is metaphorical — it presupposes fields as quasi-entities being acted upon,
-
A relational view suggests:
Mass is a measure of how tightly a configuration is confined by the relational topology — how ‘bound in place’ its phase structure is.
A massive field is one with high resistance to deformation.
5. Gravitational Mass Without Gravitation
-
In general relativity, mass tells spacetime how to curve — it is the source of gravitational effects,
-
But spacetime, too, must be rethought relationally: not as a container, but as a coherence field,
-
So gravitational “pull” is not the action of one thing on another, but:
A topological tension within the overall field — massful configurations alter the field’s coherence and constrain transformation.
There is no force — only relational distortion.
Relational Definition
We might say:
Mass is the intensity of a system’s entrenchment within a field of constraint — the degree to which a given configuration resists reorganisation.
It is not a thing a particle has, but a systemic property of stability within relational potential.
Closing
In a relational ontology, there is no “massive object” to be weighed. There is only a structured field — more or less reluctant to change. Mass is not a property, not a thing, not a quantity of matter. It is resistance to becoming.
To reimagine mass in this way is to peel back one more layer of substance-thinking — and glimpse a world made not of things, but of differential persistence within transforming coherence.
In the next post, we’ll turn to the concept of fields themselves — long taken as a foundational idea in modern physics — and ask what remains when they are no longer defined as properties of space or carriers of force, but as relational configurations of systemic potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment