Explain Mass.

[arkain101]

In reality the problem is so revered that if someone could actually answer the question of what mass is exactly, they would probably be received as the most ingenious physicist of all time

 

You hit the nail on the head in that post so many times its imbedded into the pixles.

 

Exactly right, and this is the reason I created the post. I wanted to put this question out there for a few reasons. It makes a point to everyone that you can stand behind your theory, talk the talk and feel about it all how you want, but in the big picture, we still dont get it. Another reason was to hear peoples off the wall, in the back room ideas that normally have no other place.

 

I also think that explaining what gives mass its mass, and what gives, charges its charges, and etc.... will also lead to the grand unifying theory. For we only have names for phenomina we've percieved but do not have a grasp on the butter that is between the bread.

 

It all leads to one thing, and ties in purpose.

 

I have been working on something that feels so close. I've found that a grand unifying theory, explains things down the chain, and tree... it ties in everything because it has a grasp on the origin of everything.

[Qfwfq]

In reality the problem is so revered that if someone could actually answer the question of what mass is exactly, they would probably be received as the most ingenious physicist of all time.

Actually, if the Higgs boson is observed, then the standard model would be an answer. Work is well under way at CERN in Geneva...

[arkain101]

Peter Higgs has a model in which particle masses arise in a beautiful, but complex, progression. He starts with a particle that has only mass, and no other characteristics, such as charge, that distinguish particles from empty space. We can call his particle H. H interacts with other particles; for example if H is near an electron, there is a force between the two. H is of a class of particles called "bosons". We first attempt a more precise, but non-mathematical statement of the point of the model; then we give explanatory pictures.

 

In the mathematics of quantum mechanics describing creation and annihilation of elementary particles, as observed at accelerators, particles at particular points arise from "fields" spread over space and time. Higgs found that parameters in the equations for the field associated with the particle H can be chosen in such a way that the lowest energy state of that field (empty space) is one with the field not zero. It is surprising that the field is not zero in empty space, but the result, not an obvious one, is: all particles that can interact with H gain mass from the interaction.

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs1.htm

 

I comprehend the concept. I do however find problems with it, for what thats worth. lol.

[GOLDEN]

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs1.htm

I do however find problems with [Higgs Theory], for what thats worth.

 

I agree with you, but I am very curious to hear you specify exactly what kind of problems you think Higg's theory suffers from.

[Doctordick]

"He starts with a particle that has only mass, ..."

And, if the Higgs boson is the only entity with mass, where did the mass of the Higgs boson come from? :D :D :D

 

I say "mass" is what we have chosen to call momentum in the tau direction! And momentum in any direction is what we call the Fourier transform of the probability of finding the entity under discussion in that direction. In my analysis, there is but one entity so I guess it must be the "Higgs boson"! :)

 

If you want to understand my analysis, you need first to understand "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself". :hihi:

 

Hey man, I can explain it all! :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Erasmus00]

I say "mass" is what we have chosen to call momentum in the tau direction!

 

This is nothing more then the energy/time uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Energy (mass) is canonically conjugate to time.

-Will

[IDMclean]

I thought I told you people already, I found the Unified Theory! XD

 

It's simple. Really it is. You have 2-3 true forces, Electro-field, Magno-field. and Gravity it fits into this somehow, so the theory is just that a theory. Then you have secondary Forces, conventionally known as Strong, and Weak. These result due to a interaction of the true forces.

 

In this model we do not veiw the universe in terms of Mass and Energy we instead veiw it in terms of +Charge and -Charge. (like I said unfinished so if you have ideas i would like to hear them).

 

A photon has Charge. It has purportional parts E and B, that is Electro-field and Magno-field. It has a net charge of zero, that is it has a balanced charge. It's absolute charge however is a non-zero number and is a integer, that is a whole number I mean.

 

Anyone versed in QT will recognize this as a quanta that I am talking about. I haven't formulated the equation for the E = qc^2 yet, but I'm working on it with my less than spectacular mathematics skills.

 

Charge is the only thing I know of in Physics and Quantum Physics that is common to all matter. There is no matter or energy that is without some charge, this is the first law of Quantum Charge.

 

As for what mass is? I would venture to guess from logical progression that it would be the result of imbalance of a given true force within a waveicle.

 

Oh and by the way if someone can tell me what the rest energy of a Up quark and a down quark are I would be very happy. The books I have say that they are equivilant I do not think this is so. As that would indicate that the Neutron and the Proton should have the exact same rest mass but this is not so.

 

In case your wondering the Quanta, the packet of Charge, in my model would then be the Neutrino, for Electo-field I think, and the Anti-Neutrino, for magno-field I think.

 

 

Please, tear into this. However before you do so, please brush up on your Classical and Quantum Particle Physics. Force theory. GR and SR. Also if it wouldn't be to much maybe someone can explain the Einstein field tensor to me in more detail, maybe even walk through it a bit. show how to solve it and all that It would be great.

[Little Bang]

What happens when you get down to the smallest particle before there is No Mass??

What bridges the Gap between No-Mass and Mass??

 

:naughty:

That's one of the most intelligent questions you could ask.

[Little Bang]

I am desperately seeking the answer to the question you ask. When I can explain how the photon appears to us as mass, then I can give you an answer. I personally think it has something to do with lights infinite velocity from it's on point of view.

[InfiniteNow]

Two words:

 

Max

Planck

 

 

Boy would I have enjoyed having a beer or seven with that fella. :naughty:

[TheFaithfulStone]

That thing.

 

Ok, not a quantum physicist by any stretch of the imagination, but aren't electromagnetic (that is electric & magnetic) fields conveyed by electrons? And not neutrinos (which, I believe, are neutral.)

 

TFS

[IDMclean]

Electrons themselves are made up of some smaller particles.

they are strongly electric, that is to say they are an imbalanced particle hence their attraction to Protons.

 

The photon is the particle that "conveys" EM force. When you combine together a Positron and an Electron you get two Photons of the Gamma Ray type, with energy equal to the energy of the Electron and Positron.

 

This would seem, to me at least, to indicate a Field equalibrium. A positron is strongly magnetic, by the by. The electron is however a Fermion and as such is thought, conventionally, to be a fundemental.

 

Under my theory however Electrons would actually be composed of neutrinos and Anti-neutrinos. I imagine that they would be composed of more Neutrinos than anti-neutrinos as that would be indicated by the Charge-Field imbalance.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/waves/emwavecon.html#c1 is my basis for all of this, combined with the properties as of yet observed to be characteristic of a Neutrino.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/neutrino.html#c1

 

I encourage people to shoot holes in my theory, that's the point of science after all.

 

(I apologize for my muddle brainedness, I have alot of information going through my head at any given moment. So bare with me, please.)

 

(EDIT: Leptop to fermion, sorry if that confused anyone, I've had to grab my books off the shelf cause I haven't discussed in so long.)

[IDMclean]

What I'm saying mainly is that Mass is a function of Charge. Not everything has Mass, however everything does have charge, wheather Neutral, positive, or negative. even Photons and undoubtably Neutrinos.

 

My opinion of Neutrinos is that the reason we can't figure what to make of them is due to the fact that we just don't know how to measure them.

 

We assume they are like everything else and then wonder why it is that they don't behave like most everything else. i believe this is because they only have half of the normal fields.

 

I ask, What happens when you pull a photon into two parts? What happens if you isolate it's E from it's M?

 

I am not asking wheather it's possible or how to do it, only what happens when it occurs. What do you get from that division?

[arkain101]

from http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

 

Tis interesting and well explained.

 

 

The idea that space and time can be curved, or warped, is fairly recent. For more than two thousand years, the axioms of Euclidean geometry, were considered to be self evident. As those of you that were forced to learn Euclidean geometry at school may remember, one of the consequences of these axioms is, that the angles of a triangle, add up to a hundred and 80 degrees.

 

However, in the last century, people began to realize that other forms of geometry were possible, in which the angles of a triangle, need not add up to a hundred and 80 degrees. Consider, for example, the surface of the Earth. The nearest thing to a straight line on the surface of the Earth, is what is called, a great circle. These are the shortest paths between two points, so they are the roots that air lines use. Consider now the triangle on the surface of the Earth, made up of the equator, the line of 0 degrees longitude through London, and the line of 90 degrees longtitude east, through Bangladesh. The two lines of longitude, meet the equator at a right angle, 90 degrees. The two lines of longitude also meet each other at the north pole, at a right angle, or 90 degrees. Thus one has a triangle with three right angles. The angles of this triangle add up to two hundred and seventy degrees. This is greater than the hundred and eighty degrees, for a triangle on a flat surface. If one drew a triangle on a saddle shaped surface, one would find that the angles added up to less than a hundred and eighty degrees. The surface of the Earth, is what is called a two dimensional space. That is, you can move on the surface of the Earth, in two directions at right angles to each other: you can move north south, or east west. But of course, there is a third direction at right angles to these two, and that is up or down. That is to say, the surface of the Earth exists in three-dimensional space. The three dimensional space is flat. That is to say, it obeys Euclidean geometry. The angles of a triangle, add up to a hundred and eighty degrees. However, one could imagine a race of two dimensional creatures, who could move about on the surface of the Earth, but who couldn't experience the third direction, of up or down. They wouldn't know about the flat three-dimensional space, in which the surface of the Earth lives. For them, space would be curved, and geometry would be non-Euclidean.

[Qfwfq]

KickAssClown, are you able to support the claims you are making?

 

aren't electromagnetic (that is electric & magnetic) fields conveyed by electrons?

No, by photons, these convey the EM force between electrons and/or other charged particles.

[IDMclean]

Most of what I claim can be gleened from the Classical and Quantum Physics books. I admit to lacking the best mathematical capabilities, however the concepts should be right. I need a Mathematician to help me out.

 

My sources for my information are thus:

CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 86th Edition. - Mainly for Particle properties.

Standard Physics for Scientist and Engineers Third Edition, 2001. I don't remember the exact publisher but it's pretty good book.

Principles of Quantum Mechanics by R. Shankar - The math in this is kinda complex but I understand the concepts well.

 

I compiled the info and am currently stuck on what to do with it. With the proper math I think I could conclusively prove my theorm but I currently lack those capabilities.

 

With that in mind here's somethings that more or less support my claims.

 

Speed of Light

 

Experimental measurements of the speed of light have been refined in progressively more accurate experiments since the seventeenth century. Recent experiments give a speed of

c = 299,792,458 ± 1.2 m/s

 

but the uncertainties in this value are chiefly those of comparisons to previous standards for the length of the meter. Therefore the above speed of light has been adopted as a standard value and the length of the meter is redefined to be consistent with this value.

c ≡ 299,792,458 m/s

 

The speed of light in a medium is related to the electric and magnetic properties of the medium, and the speed of light in vacuum can be expressed as

This shows, to me at least, that we can treat Mass and energy the same, however further it shows, once again to me at least, that we can make an educated guess and say that mass being equivilant to energy is also considered a collection of Charge as Photons, energy is inherently defined as being a balance of Charge.

 

Perhaps Charge isn't the word I want to use, but it's the closes thing I can think of.

 

Pair Production

 

Every known particle has an antiparticle; if they encounter one another, they will annihilate with the production of two gamma-rays. The quantum energies of the gamma rays is equal to the sum of the mass energies of the two particles (including their kinetic energies). It is also possible for a photon to give up its quantum energy to the formation of a particle-antiparticle pair in its interaction with matter.

 

The rest mass energy of an electron is 0.511 MeV, so the threshold for electron-positron pair production is 1.02 MeV. For x-ray and gamma-ray energies well above 1 MeV, this pair production becomes one of the most important kinds of interactions with matter. At even higher energies, many types of particle-antiparticle pairs are produced.

This high lights the Principle of Monopol equivilancy, if two equal but oppisite bodies of charge collide then the fields will overlap and the cohesion of the packet will be lost, hence the field equalization and the production of two gamma rays, neutrally charged particles. In this interaction all Energy, Charge, Spin, and etc are consevered.

 

However it is quiet clear that a state change has occured, the analogy I would use for this is static equalibrium. Two vats. One full, the other empty. Each connected, but seperated by a gate, when the gate is released then the water from the full vat will rush into the empty vat to bring the density to equalibrium.

 

DeBroglie Hypothesis

Suggested by De Broglie in about 1923, the path to the wavelength expression for a particle is by analogy to the momentum of a photon. Starting with the Einstein formula:

Another way of expressing this is:

Therefore, for a particle of zero rest mass:

For a photon:

The momentum-wavelength relationship for a photon can then be derived and this DeBroglie wavelength relationship applies to other particles as well.

 

Lorentz Force Law

 

Both the electric field and magnetic field can be defined from the Lorentz force law:

The electric force is straightforward, being in the direction of the electric field if the charge q is positive, but the direction of the magnetic part of the force is given by the right hand rule.

 

From what I've heard and I can't seem to remember my source, when a Neutrino and an Anti-Neutrino Collide they would form a photon. Also the revese is true by that. A photon if it were to split would become a neutrino and an anti-neutrino.

 

My current theorm on the Weak interaction aspect of the Neutrino is that the Weak is actually the Electro-Magno Monopol interaction. Strong would be Electro-Electro or Magno-Magno "chains".

 

Electromagnetic force interaction of course would then be ruled out due to the Balanced Particle Transparency Princible. Strong interaction would be few and far between as the chances of a Neutrino colliding in the Right way with another Neutrino would be very improbable. That isn't to say impossible just not likely that we would observe it.

 

Also as I've said before, I don't yet know what to make of Gravity, it may very well be it's own thing.

 

Protons in my model have a half-life. Under my model any Non-zero Mass particle would have to be slightly out of Force balance. As such any Non-zero Mass particle would most likely have a half-life.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic#Electric_and_magnetic_fields

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

[IDMclean]

Hey Arkain101, Sorry I think I hijacked your thread... If you want I could move all my junk into another thread.