this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
124 points (90.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43395 readers
1354 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's pretty hard though. Without mass, everything travels at the speed of light and doesn't experience the flow of time, which don't really mesh well with classical physics (or quantum mechanics, and definitely not relativity).
Define the speed of light to be 1 (gaussian units). Then Einstein's E=mc^2 becomes E=m. Mass is energy. In physics mass is not fundamental. Energy is.
In biology mitochondria are not essential, hydrocarbons are. Life sprung up without mitochondria, but it wouldn't be what it is without them. Chemistry is fundamental to biology, mitochondria aren't, but I think you'd agree physics wouldn't be what it is today without mass, nor would biology be without the mitochondria
Depends what you mean by "what it is today.". Mass isn't fundamental. It is a particle's coupling to the Higgs Boson which generates mass. The Lagrangian of the Standard Model is an energy equation. Not a mass one.
Do you watch a lot of v-sauce? There's a certain argumentative style that he instills in his audience that I'm picking up when reading your comments. There's a lot of nuance and acceptability outside of the strict definitions that goes into the scientific process (as much as strict adherents don't like it, science is done when we close those gaps, it isn't immediate nor absolute)
No