Everything is my hobby

Where does one begin if everything is ones hobby? Well one would logically have to begin with subatomic physics of course. Now how would one begin to ponder such a very small and such a very large thing? For it becomes impossible to talk about the small without talking about the large.

If one looks even causally at the state of the current theory of the very very small one is quickly lead into a very complex multidimensional morass - where inadequacies in theory are inevitably met by adding another dimension and the cocomitant order of magnitude increasse in the difficulty of the mathematics involved. One might even insist that the extra dimensions consist of nothing but the ponderings of those who are very very bright mathematicians.

Perhaps it is to much anthropomorhization of the cosmos but such complexities lack the elegance which one seems to innately sense an explanation of everything should demonstrate. In fact regarding the current state of the itty bitty universe it is strongly expected that theory has passed beyond the pint where true experimental verification is even possible.

It is perhaps a problem of language. Not that wee cannot assign words for the subatomic realm that have meaning but that we must of necessity assign words to the physical world before we have a real understanding of the meaning of that which we are describing.

When descriptions of reality start to lack that elegance that science has so earnestly sought in its description of the cosmos perhaps it is time to return to some of the most basic assumptions and to see if they continue to make sense in light of what is now known.

The first Icon to be clast is mass.

Considered a basic tenant of physics the concept of mass is far more illusive than might be thought. Of course the concept is very very useful and no one trying to engineer physical constructs would give up the concept of mass. But engineering is an empirical art not a scientific endeavor and deals with what works not what is.

So what then is mass? Ah there then is the rub as it turns out we do not directly define mass we observe it as an objects resistance to having its motion changed by a force. Define I should have said measure mass as we concieve it is a second order property that is measured by three other parameters - force distance and time. We do not measure mass per say but we measure an objects momentum.

In fact it is suggested here that one can abandon the concept of mass and use momentum in its stead.