Discussion
Ok this might be a bit abstract for some but here goes....
We know that mass is energy in the equation E=MC^2, or better written as M=E/C^2
Mass is something we usually think of as a property that 'things' have that make them require forced to move.
ie. a brick has mass and as such to move it I would need to push on it with enough force to overcome inertia and also friction.
But where does mass come from, what is it that causes mass?
Well, from what I've been reading recently it can be described as a 'particle', a field interaction or just as energy, and this is where I may need your help.
I've read that the mass of an atom is primarily within its nucleus. The nucleus is made from protons and neutrons.
Now, what gives a neutron or proton its mass?
Well one piece says it is the movement of the quarks within. These quarks are moving around near the speed of light (C). And its this 'kinetic energy' that is the mass (M=E/C^2 - from above).
But then in other particle terms I read that mass is derived from the exchange of 'gluons'.
And then in another piece I read that mass is derived by the interaction of elementary particles with the Higgs field. In that some elementary particles (those that make up the neutron and proton) will 'generate' Higgs Bosons when they interact with the Higgs field, and as such their 'hindrance' through this field causes 'mass'.
The above is from my quick readings of a number of wiki pages and various websites regarding particle physics, so I will be the first to admit that I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick with some (or all) of the above. Please feel free to correct if necessary.
But the question is.....how do all the above descriptions of 'mass' result in one definitive answer?
We know that mass is energy in the equation E=MC^2, or better written as M=E/C^2
Mass is something we usually think of as a property that 'things' have that make them require forced to move.
ie. a brick has mass and as such to move it I would need to push on it with enough force to overcome inertia and also friction.
But where does mass come from, what is it that causes mass?
Well, from what I've been reading recently it can be described as a 'particle', a field interaction or just as energy, and this is where I may need your help.
I've read that the mass of an atom is primarily within its nucleus. The nucleus is made from protons and neutrons.
Now, what gives a neutron or proton its mass?
Well one piece says it is the movement of the quarks within. These quarks are moving around near the speed of light (C). And its this 'kinetic energy' that is the mass (M=E/C^2 - from above).
But then in other particle terms I read that mass is derived from the exchange of 'gluons'.
And then in another piece I read that mass is derived by the interaction of elementary particles with the Higgs field. In that some elementary particles (those that make up the neutron and proton) will 'generate' Higgs Bosons when they interact with the Higgs field, and as such their 'hindrance' through this field causes 'mass'.
The above is from my quick readings of a number of wiki pages and various websites regarding particle physics, so I will be the first to admit that I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick with some (or all) of the above. Please feel free to correct if necessary.
But the question is.....how do all the above descriptions of 'mass' result in one definitive answer?
AA999 said:
Ok this might be a bit abstract for some but here goes....
We know that mass is energy in the equation E=MC^2, or better written as M=E/C^2
Mass is something we usually think of as a property that 'things' have that make them require forced to move.
ie. a brick has mass and as such to move it I would need to push on it with enough force to overcome inertia and also friction.
But where does mass come from, what is it that causes mass?
Well, from what I've been reading recently it can be described as a 'particle', a field interaction or just as energy, and this is where I may need your help.
I've read that the mass of an atom is primarily within its nucleus. The nucleus is made from protons and neutrons.
Now, what gives a neutron or proton its mass?
Well one piece says it is the movement of the quarks within. These quarks are moving around near the speed of light (C). And its this 'kinetic energy' that is the mass (M=E/C^2 - from above).
But then in other particle terms I read that mass is derived from the exchange of 'gluons'.
And then in another piece I read that mass is derived by the interaction of elementary particles with the Higgs field. In that some elementary particles (those that make up the neutron and proton) will 'generate' Higgs Bosons when they interact with the Higgs field, and as such their 'hindrance' through this field causes 'mass'.
The above is from my quick readings of a number of wiki pages and various websites regarding particle physics, so I will be the first to admit that I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick with some (or all) of the above. Please feel free to correct if necessary.
But the question is.....how do all the above descriptions of 'mass' result in one definitive answer?
The first thing to know is that there isn't a definitive answer. "what is mass?" is still a question at the very edge of what we know. We know that mass is energy in the equation E=MC^2, or better written as M=E/C^2
Mass is something we usually think of as a property that 'things' have that make them require forced to move.
ie. a brick has mass and as such to move it I would need to push on it with enough force to overcome inertia and also friction.
But where does mass come from, what is it that causes mass?
Well, from what I've been reading recently it can be described as a 'particle', a field interaction or just as energy, and this is where I may need your help.
I've read that the mass of an atom is primarily within its nucleus. The nucleus is made from protons and neutrons.
Now, what gives a neutron or proton its mass?
Well one piece says it is the movement of the quarks within. These quarks are moving around near the speed of light (C). And its this 'kinetic energy' that is the mass (M=E/C^2 - from above).
But then in other particle terms I read that mass is derived from the exchange of 'gluons'.
And then in another piece I read that mass is derived by the interaction of elementary particles with the Higgs field. In that some elementary particles (those that make up the neutron and proton) will 'generate' Higgs Bosons when they interact with the Higgs field, and as such their 'hindrance' through this field causes 'mass'.
The above is from my quick readings of a number of wiki pages and various websites regarding particle physics, so I will be the first to admit that I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick with some (or all) of the above. Please feel free to correct if necessary.
But the question is.....how do all the above descriptions of 'mass' result in one definitive answer?
Several of your statements allow you to have a good idea of what mass is. Simply speaking, most of the mass of neutrons/protons is due to the fact that the quarks are moving about about fast (99% of the mass or so). The rest is due to the interaction of those quarks with the Higgs field. It's both not one or the other.
Gluons are an exchange particle. When two things are exerting a force on each other, in reality they're exchanging virtual particles. For electromagnetism it's photons, for the strong force which holds atoms together it's gluons. They stop the quarks which provide mass flying off.
I'm sure a proper particle physicist will screw their face up at that explanation, so apologies in advance!
Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 28th August 16:22
The Higgs field (not the particle) is responsible for giving mass to our elementary particles: electrons, quarks etc.
In the human body this would count for less than 1% of our total mass. The vast majority of our mass comes from the energy contained within the gluon field (see QCD) which holds these particles together via that mass-energy equivalence principle.
A proton is commonly described as having two up-quarks and one down-quark. Alone these quarks have a very small mass thanks to the Higgs field, but together due to m=e/c², by product of the gluon interactions their mass is greatly increased on a huge scale.
It's probably worth mentioning that the simple description of a proton being made from two up-quarks and one down-quark is slightly misleading. What it really means is that is has two more up-quarks than antiquarks and one more down-quark than anti quarks in addition to an inordinate number gluons and quark-antiquark pairs.
In the human body this would count for less than 1% of our total mass. The vast majority of our mass comes from the energy contained within the gluon field (see QCD) which holds these particles together via that mass-energy equivalence principle.
A proton is commonly described as having two up-quarks and one down-quark. Alone these quarks have a very small mass thanks to the Higgs field, but together due to m=e/c², by product of the gluon interactions their mass is greatly increased on a huge scale.
It's probably worth mentioning that the simple description of a proton being made from two up-quarks and one down-quark is slightly misleading. What it really means is that is has two more up-quarks than antiquarks and one more down-quark than anti quarks in addition to an inordinate number gluons and quark-antiquark pairs.
Another good reply, thanks.
Attempting to have some sort of visualization in my head; the problem with 'particles' in things such as continuous forces seems to result in the idea of newtons 3rd law giving results of 'pulses'. In that it would required an infinite release of particles to create a continuous force.
I find it all fascinating but currently way over the top of my head. I'll still try to read up on the subject as it has grasped my interest.
As a second question, do you think that once CERN is operating at full energy levels that they will discover the range of missing particles that are required for Supersymmetry?
Attempting to have some sort of visualization in my head; the problem with 'particles' in things such as continuous forces seems to result in the idea of newtons 3rd law giving results of 'pulses'. In that it would required an infinite release of particles to create a continuous force.
I find it all fascinating but currently way over the top of my head. I'll still try to read up on the subject as it has grasped my interest.
As a second question, do you think that once CERN is operating at full energy levels that they will discover the range of missing particles that are required for Supersymmetry?
AA999 said:
Another good reply, thanks.
Attempting to have some sort of visualization in my head; the problem with 'particles' in things such as continuous forces seems to result in the idea of newtons 3rd law giving results of 'pulses'. In that it would required an infinite release of particles to create a continuous force.
I find it all fascinating but currently way over the top of my head. I'll still try to read up on the subject as it has grasped my interest.
As a second question, do you think that once CERN is operating at full energy levels that they will discover the range of missing particles that are required for Supersymmetry?
Newton's laws don't really hold up in the quantum realm so it would be wise to avoid thinking the quantum world behaves anything like the classical world.Attempting to have some sort of visualization in my head; the problem with 'particles' in things such as continuous forces seems to result in the idea of newtons 3rd law giving results of 'pulses'. In that it would required an infinite release of particles to create a continuous force.
I find it all fascinating but currently way over the top of my head. I'll still try to read up on the subject as it has grasped my interest.
As a second question, do you think that once CERN is operating at full energy levels that they will discover the range of missing particles that are required for Supersymmetry?
Further reading of QCD or QFT in general would probably go a long way towards answering your questions.
I'm not sure what lies ahead with CERN, I think they are firing it back up next year so it's probably going to be a while before we hear anything. From what I remember it wasn't looking great for supersymmetry but there is still a way to go yet. It's a broad enough hypothesis that it may still be hiding somewhere, hopefully they can come up with a few surprises.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff