Which yields more information about the Universe, mass or temperature?

If only given total volume of the Universe and totals and averages of mass and temperature, would mass or temperature yield the most scientific data? Which should yield the most data?

Temperature affects me immensely. If I were given two data of body where the mass of the body were 30,000,000 tons and the temperature of the body were 30,000,000 Fahrenheit, the temperaure datum would influence my behavior immensely more.

Can temperature exist without mass, and can mass exist without temperature? I side for the former.

Originally posted by GreatTechCan temperature exist without mass, and can mass exist without temperature? I side for the former.

a.) No. Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of a mass.
b.) No. All mass possesses some amount of kinetic energy.

Xenophobe, can't gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force exist without mass? Which came first, the forces or mass? If mass, where is this first particle? Is mass necessary to create a force? If so, mass is the most desirable entity in THIS Universe by far!!!

We already know that you aren't interested in science, right GreatTech?

www.belowtopsecret.com...'

and the questions you are asking are some of the most elementary physics questions there are:

(Newton's second law: Force = mass X acceleration)

So I am just curious, is this the new verse in your "abandon science" song and dance? You mention strong and weak forces so I know you've studied science, yet you act as if you don't understand force and then ask if mass is desirable? "Which came first, the forces or mass?" It doesn't make sense. What's really up?

If you have had some sort of change of heart and are suddenly genuinely curious about physics, then check this out -

id.mind.net...

I'll bet you're really after something else though. Why not just tell us what it is?

edit link

[edit on 6/3/06 by wellwhatnow]

Originally posted by GreatTech
Xenophobe, can't gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force exist without mass? Which came first, the forces or mass? If mass, where is this first particle? Is mass necessary to create a force?

I could answer those questions, or at least, point you in a direction where you could discover those answers for yourself, but first I must ask: Do you really want those questions answered? Or, are you searching for something a bit deeper?

If so, mass is the most desirable entity in THIS Universe by far!!!

You just try to convince my wife of that!

This is a chicken or the egg dispute. Normally we can easily say "the egg" with dawrinism, but the true question should be "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken's egg?" Then it's a conundrum - because ONLY a Chicken and lay a Chicken's Egg, but only a Chicken's Egg produce's a Chicken.

In the same way, since we don't know what happens at Time=0 in universal history, we can't fully say which came first, mass or force - although it seems to bend in the direction of force - since mass didn't appear in forms that we know until almost a full SECOND after the universe began in the Big Bang Model.

However, Neutrinos, or other unknown portions of Dark Matter, could still have had mass, and yet still existed, during the Big Bang.

So, in short, the answer is "we don't really know".

Now, Temperature can exist without mass, but since we need the mass to read the temperature, you could (under technicalities) argue that temperature didn't exist in the very early universe.

It's like gravity. Gravity exists... whether there's mass there or not. It's a force of nature. However, without mass, one would never know of gravity's existance or power. In fact, there could be a million unknown forces in the universe, but since there's no fundamental particle or wave or "thing" that interacts with it, even if it were to exist, we would never know, and it would - for all intents and purposes - NOT exist.

So, if you're looking for an answer to your immediate question (which doesn't make much sense anyways), I'd have to say I'd rather know the MASS of something than the temperature it was at. If I knew what that mass was made of, then I'd care more of the temperature, but since it's just mass, then it's possible for it to be any number of things.

Actually, temperature is best defined as T = (dU/dS), the change in energy with respect to entropy. Knowing that equation, you can sure as hell interpret a lot of information.

Ist his related to why they are trying to find the Higg's Boson? Why exactly would this discovery explain the properties of mass?