Our reference of Mass has Changed.....! Is this a sign of bigger things ?

On the way home this evening I was listening to BBC Radio 5 Live and heard a story concerning the measurment of weight..

More specifically, How do you weigh a Kilogram ?

www.guardian.co.uk...

In a laboratory vault outside Paris is a small cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy that serves as the standard for all mass measurements worldwide. By an 1889 international accord, the mass of this metal cylinder defines the kilogram.

www.scientificamerican.com...

The reference cylinder's mass has drifted slightly through the years—not enough to throw off your bathroom scale, but enough to bother measurement scientists.

This got me thinking that maybe ? there are bigger things afoot....

The wiki definition of mass says this.....

A body's mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field. If a first body of mass m1 is placed at a distance r from a second body of mass m2, each body experiences an attractive force F whose magnitude is.........

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm NO scientist, although i did get an A-level in Physics back in 1986....


Is is possible that changes to the Earths magnetic properties have caused this change in our scientific reference points ??

Is it part of a bigger change ??

I'm just thinking OUT LOUD...

Cheers

PDUK

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


Interesting thought... We need a physicist.

its interesting that radio active decay has also shown to be changing
this too was once thought to be "constant" in decay rate
if mass can "change even by small amounts the the "effect" that we describe as gravity would also "change" with time.
interesting
star and flag

xploder

reply to post by redhorse


Which way is the mass drifting....did i over look that part....to me that is pretty important. Does it go 1 way slowly....fluctuate....? Sounds like neutrino interactions to me....i wonder if its accelerated alot lately...like we all are feeling....and the same thing effecting radioactive decay....they are likely correalated IMO. And if i could explain it you wouldn't believe me till i get my paper(phd or whatever is 3d flashy enough lol)

Our reference of Mass has Changed.....! Is this a sign of bigger things

my girlfriend gona be sooooooooooooooooooooo happy to hear this

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


Very interesting! I wonder if the gravitational constant has changed, or if the mass of the Earth or Moon or Sun has changed to upset the balance. Or, the dreaded N word......Nibiru could be countering some gravitational pull from the sun?

I will research this a little further.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


The measurement of mass is actually independent of gravity (even though the presence of mass is the cause of gravity), so a change even in Earth's gravitational properties would have no effect on measured mass. Weight (as opposed to mass) is the only thing influenced by a change in gravity. If the gravitational constant, G, were changing, there would be noticeable effects in orbits and in the way (especially large) objects hold themselves together, but the measurement of mass, itself, would not change.

To understand what might be causing the mass "drift", we have to understand what mass is. Mass isn't a physical property, like it would appear to be, but it is actually a result of a more intrinsic property called inertia. Inertia is an object's resistance to being accelerated, and no one knows where that inertia comes from. Unfortunately, since we don't know where inertia comes from, we don't understand what might happen to cause that inertia to change.

My best bet, as a 4th-year university Physics major with a focus on Quantum Mechanics, is that the fundamental cause of inertia, whatever that may be, is what's changing. As long as inertia changes evenly throughout space, and only by a very small amount, the change should be pretty much harmless (leading only to a measurable increase in mass). What might cause problems is if it's only a local change, or if inertia changes too much. There are certain things that allow the Universe to be as perfect as it is. Inertia is one of them. If the source of that inertia gets too out of hand, what we're left with is either a "soup" of dissociated, high-energy particles or a Universe full of black holes. If it's only changing is certain areas, then things that were once gravitationally bound either fall apart or have regional collapses (kinda like what Vulcan did in Star Trek).

But, then, mass has been the way it is for billions of years, and the recent "drift" in mass is almost boring, it's so small. I wouldn't worry about it.

reply to post by CLPrime


Would it be worth considering that an 'aether' exists which contributes to the existence of inertia, and that this 'aether' or its properties may be changing?

Originally posted by CLPrime
The measurement of mass is actually independent of gravity (even though the presence of mass is the cause of gravity), so a change even in Earth's gravitational properties would have no effect on measured mass.

Well, except that a common way of measuring mass on Earth is to measure the weight and derive the mass.

So it will affect the measurement of mass by scale, until a re-calibration is done.

reply to post by againuntodust


Aether is certainly a possibility. Mainstream physicists will tell you that the existence of aether has been disproven, but I think this site is the wrong place to stick with the mainstream, and I've never been one to take the popular opinion as fact, so I definitely allow for the existence of some form of aether. And, of course, that aether could be what's responsible for inertia.

Interestingly enough, mainstream physics is looking for what they don't realize is an aether in quantum form: the Higgs field.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


True enough. Mass is calculated by (Mass = Weight / Acceleration), or, less laymanish, by m = F/g, so any change in g would lead to a measured change in m, even if m weren't, in fact, changing, as long as we didn't know g was changing.
But, like I said, if g were changing, then that would indicate either that m is really changing or that G is changing. However, G is a bit of a manmade thing that doesn't really exist (it exists only to scale between the natural, planck units that nature uses and the larger units us humans have to use).
Mass (that is, inertia), on the other hand, is a fundamental quantity that can certainly change. If G appears to us to change, I can almost guarantee it's actually due to a change in what gives things inertia.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Well we know the magnetic field has shifted. The airport in Florida is proof of that. I am not well versed in this rea at all, so this is just a guess.

Could it be possible to accou nt for the changes if the Earth is indeed growing? Adding Mass could slow roation, affect magnetic fields, etc etc.

We also recently found out that our solar system may not be part of the milkyway, but a smaller galaxy the milkyway has eaten up. Could the subtle changes we are seeing be part of that absorption / setteling in so to speak?

Are there any enviornmental factors that could account for the changes in the standard?

I know.. I am most likely so far off its not even funny but thought I would throw it out there anyways.

If rate of decay is not constant, than I believe that means all the dating methods we use are pretty much useless. Pretty much what I have thought all along.

Originally posted by XPLodER
its interesting that radio active decay has also shown to be changing.

This popped into my mind too... ya beat me to it!
The article I read a few months back linked the fluctuation in radioactive decay to... what... Sun spots!
I wonder if mass is being affected by the same. I wonder also, if both of them are supposed to fluctuate?
A heretofore unknown variation, or something odd afoot?

I've been looking into a Science Frontiers article summary I found a few years ago about a "Phase Change", where photons suddenly aquire mass. The original article was in the American Journal of Physics. It's not too long, so I'll just paste the whole thing here:


"The world as we know it may not end in a nuclear holocaust or even in the greenhouse effect. Rather, suggest M. M. Grone and M. Sher, the universe-as-a-whole may undergo a phase change. Such an event has already happened once and it may again. Approximately 10-10 seconds after the Big Bang, the force laws changed discontinuously as the universe cooled. Some models of the cosmos predict that another such phase change may occur when photons suddenly acquire mass. Grone and Sher have sketched the effects on terrestrial civilization:

"The most dramatic effect would be the elimination of all static electric and magnetic fields over a range greater than 1 cm, and the elimination of all electromagnetic radiation with frequencies smaller than a few hundred gigahertz. We have shown that there would be relatively little impact on atomic structure and on solar radiation. The absence of electrostatic fields would force a redesign of current power plants (to use smaller solenoids); the absence of radio and television waves would force a much greater use of cables. The elimination of solar and geomagnetic fields would have a significant meteorological impact. The potential ly most devastating effect could be on the propagation of neural impulse along motor neurons; it appears that the effects might be small, but they do depend on the precise value of the photon mass."

Crone and Sher conclude that the effect would be devastating to humanity but probably not fatal."
Source

I haven't figured out how, but I'm sure this is related to the story on these "new particles from the sun". If it also affects biophotons, it could tie into the whole 2012 "consciousness-shift" crap some people are going on about.

Gravity is not the constant people generally see it as, there is a lot of variation in the force of gravity around the world from the standard 9.8 m/s*s. It is not a huge variation, but it is enough that maps of this variation are made for guided missiles to hit their target more accurately. There is also the liquid molten core of the Earth that is in constant motion and may have effects on the gravitational forces as it moves around. The inertia of the Earth is not a constant either as the Earth wobbles around in space. Massive projects like the big dam in China have shown to have a minor effect on the rotation of the planet.

Originally posted by Drala
reply to post by redhorse

 

Which way is the mass drifting....did i over look that part....to me that is pretty important.

The article didn't say unfortunately, I would agree though; it's pretty important to know the exact nature of the fluctuation before anyone can really guess.

Originally posted by DralaDoes it go 1 way slowly....fluctuate....?

I was getting the impression of a "drift" fluctuation... Instead of "heavier". Both ways maybe? I could be wrong though. The article kind of leaves you going.... "???? Need more data." Either way, I wonder about the evolution of the methods we have for measuring this. Perhaps more sensitive measuring tools are letting us pick this up, and now the scientific community is no longer satisfied with their standard for weight. Just playing devils advocate.

Originally posted by DralaSounds like neutrino interactions to me....i wonder if its accelerated alot lately...like we all are feeling....

Hmmm... Interesting thought. I wonder if a time of heightened solar activity could be a factor. I don't know though.

Originally posted by Drala and the same thing effecting radioactive decay....they are likely correalated IMO. And if i could explain it you wouldn't believe me till i get my paper(phd or whatever is 3d flashy enough lol)

Not a big credential person when it comes to ideas personally. Plenty of big brains get drummed out by standardized academia. Usually intuitive-thinkers. Shame really.

Originally posted by kwakakev
Gravity is not the constant people generally see it as, there is a lot of variation in the force of gravity around the world from the standard 9.8 m/s*s. It is not a huge variation, but it is enough that maps of this variation are made for guided missiles to hit their target more accurately.

Well...gravity, itself, is (observationally) a constant, it's the distance of the surface of the earth from the center that's not constant. Variation in the acceleration due to gravity is caused by some places being at slightly different distances from Earth's center of gravity than others, as well as by other negligible factors (like the centripetal force of Earth's rotation and Earth's non-uniform density), not by gravity, itself, being a non-constant. And, by the way, I'm sure you understand that, I just figured I'd clarify before someone decided to run with the "gravity isn't really constant" idea.

Also, this is nothing new. This was reported in 2007, and, to clarify, the "standard" has LOST mass (about 50 micrograms) compared to its duplicates. This either indicates that the cause of inertia is changing local to where they keep the "standard" or it's just a result of either more accurate measuring techniques or something happening specifically to the elements that comprise the "standard" (platinum and iridium).
Shrinking Kilogram Bewilders Physicists