Saturday, June 13, 2015
Mass, relativistic mass, and the synchronization of meaning
I have been quite taken up of late wondering about relativistic mass.
Mass and mass in motion. From a systems perspective it sure gets interesting.
On the one hand, you have to accept the idea that, though any object, or quanta, has a perceived unity of meaning, and therefore a consistent solidity of boundary properties, it is still an abstracted unit of process. One for which contained motion is prominent. The inner workings of other, lower scaled, abstractions, each with their own set of boundary properties, interacting with each other, present to us a new, self sustaining abstraction.
In our scale of things then, when we imagine, or actually initiate, various external forces to this already encapsulated bit of meaning, we imply to it motion relative to us that it did not heretofore have. In doing that we create a new set of meaning considerations. Though the intrinsic initial mass does not change, the overall meaning must because there is now the total kinetic energy of the object. Mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, of course, so, whatever the rest mass may have been, the object now has a mass that includes the imparted velocity; something that is, in one sense a potential, but in another a thing already realized as any attempt to increase its velocity takes even more energy; a process that steadily yields diminishing returns as this potential/real mass increases. Wherein lies the inherent limit of the speed of light.
It seems to me, then, that all mass is, in a sense, relative. Already encapsulated bits don't change relative to us because all of the bits of meaning around us, and of us, started from the same point of reference. And we now exist in a synchronized vector of meaning interaction. Which is nothing more than to say a system where the boundary resolutions at particular scales of consideration have been set so that fundamental process abstractions remain constant relative to our vector of association.
One can then consider the system as a three dimensional white board that must expand so as to allow for more meanings to begin to collect as the excitement of birth cools down and basic interactions create more abstractions to allow for even more complex interactions to follow. Just as more words must have more pages for which to allow them expression.
Through out all of this, I think, is a certain synchronicity that remains at various scales so that meaning can have consistency over space and duration. Complexity, however, has a habit of throwing ever more uncertainty into total system process. This would have to become especially vexing for a system where motion, and the differential of observed, and observer, as regards duration and the space therein, comes into play.
To my mind everything in this overall, more complexly expanded, system is relativistic mass to one degree or another; especially when one begins to consider the biggest of singular concentrations of encapsulated motion. They seemingly begin and they end without ever actually creating or destroying anything, even as they deny any outgoing information. One then has to wonder just how consistent synchronicity can remain.
We believe we see only so much ordinarily encapsulated meaning in the cosmos but it is not nearly enough to account for how overall expansion has proceeded with the structures thus revealed so far. And now we also detect that expansion is actually accelerating, though the mass/energy repression that would account for this is also not directly observable.
Those previously mentioned concentrations of meaning, representing a speed of process, or conversely, so much accumulated meaning, that it cannot communicate in any ordinary sense within our vector of association, still seem to evaporate in some fashion. But to where, and how? Conversely objects at a certain scale can become meaning entangled, and remain so, regardless of distance. But does that necessarily hold true for time as well?
What I am suggesting here is that causality, and thus the transfer of meaning, is a great deal more complex than we currently realize. And one of the important aspects of this is the fact that observations, and the meanings derived from them, need to be handled with a great deal more circumspection, as well as skepticism, when they cross large spans of scale. As such, taking a measurement at one scale and then using the results to deduce conclusions at another, may be problematic at best, and perhaps more invasive, or deterministic—either as a cause or an effect, than we realize as well.
I can only hope that those who have credibility in the sciences are already considering these aspects a great deal more deeply than I am able to.