Science vs Philosophy 2, touchy and feely:
Once upon a time, we argued the equation “m0 → 0” in PHF:
Piggy’s humble opinion is as below:
In math we can consider that “m0” is just a mathematical symbol. We can carry out such mathematical operations as “m0 → ∞ ” or “m0 → 0”.
But in physics, for a certain particle, (if no other miscellaneous factors meddle in), m0 is an invariable.
Sounds that “m0 → 0” can represent such meaning in math: a series of particles with the rest masses ranging from “…,1kg,…,0.1kg,…,0.01kg,…,0.001kg,…,0.0001kg,…”.
But in physics:
If you want to describe the property of a proton, you can use the symbol m01;
If you want to describe the property of a electron, you can use the symbol m02;
If you want to describe the property of a newly discovered particle which has even smaller rest mass, you can use the symbol m03;
And so on.
But seems that using “m0 → 0” to represent a series of particles with different rest masses is inappropriate.
Perhaps in philosophy, we can understand it more explicitly: m0 is the SELF associated with the PRESENCE.
In order to help research what “m0 → 0” means exactly, hereby we need a model: well come a rabbit – shade balloon :
The rabbit – shade balloon is very large with two valves on two sides. Then what’s “m0 → 0” for him in physics? Guys can imagine the valves open and the air inside “peeeeee…”…until he disappears in cosmos.
PRESENCE disappears and then SELF disappears too.
Of course, even nothing PRESENCE in this cosmos, people still can play math game.
Have a lovely day, guys. haha