• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

What causes mass? New insights

Spinward Flow

Spinward Flow

SOC-14 5K

Quick description ... 99% of the mass in the universe is caused by Gluons (strong nuclear force) holding quarks together in protons and neutrons, as determined by Jefferson Labs.

But actually, it's even weirder than that (watch the video) ... 🧠💥
 
Despite him using the word force rather a lot the mass is due to the energy of the quark and gluon interaction, the simplest way is to think of it as the potential energy and the kinetic energy of the quarks and gluon binding energy.

If you check out the other links he quotes you will find this:


Since mass in this case is an emergent property thanks to Einstein's famous equation the total mass of a nucleon is the mass of the quarks plus the kinetic and potential energy of the quarks and gluons expressed as mass.

This isn't exactly new theory the Jefferson Lab data just confirms this model and will hopefully lead to a better understanding of what goes on in a nucleon.

I would also recommend these videos if you want to understand this better than my limited attempt at explaining this:




After that the next is to go and study particle physics and find out the math behind all this.
 
And yet after sweeping them under the rug it all works or I wouldn't be typing this and you wouldn't be able to read it.
 
In point of fact, the math doesn’t work out for gravity, which is non-renormalizable, normalization being the trick to rid yourself of the infinities in the integrals for QCD and QED. That’s why we’re still looking for a theory of quantum gravity.

Getting the Higg’s from the Nambu-Goldstone from symmetry breaking is straightforward itself, and you can even write down the graviton term in the Lagrangian. What you still can’t do is solve said Lagrangian with the usual Feynman integrals.
 
The search for quantum gravity may actually have a fundamental flaw, that it is not quantum in nature. In much the same way the quantum theorists look the other way when you point out the flaws with the standard model.

General relativity works for big stuff but breaks down at the small (with a couple of issues)l, while the standard model does the reverse. I get the feeling that it is our maths that doesn't work, not the universe.
 
I work on quantum gravity, and no one I've learned from/worked/corresponded with actually thinks that. There are something like 30 research programs and the search for quantum gravity has been going on for more than a hundred years, which just means it's a hard problem, like proving P != NP.

In fact, the new hotness is ER=EPR, which would put spacetime curvature (ER) smack in the center of quantum field theory (EPR).

By the way, the Standard Model works fine. N.B. It doesn't encompass gravity, that would be a unified field theory.

We keep looking for strange particles like axions and such that would go outside the Standard Model, to explain the things the Standard Model cannot, which is the exact opposite of "looking the other way". Supersymmetry for example, which was such an elegant idea, has a steadily shrinking parameter space thanks to the LHC failing to find super-partners to the Standard Model of particles.

Finally, math doesn't just explain the universe, it explains all possible sets of principles (or their lack) for all possible universes. Our understanding of it is, naturally, limited.
 
Until you get to doctorate level you are bound by scientific dogma so you can pass exams, and post doctorate if you want a grant for research it better be in an approved topic. :)

Have you ever read Sir Roger Penrose's paper on gravitising quantum rather then quantising gravity?

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction

This paper argues that the case for "gravitizing" quantum theory is at least as strong as that for quantizing gravity. Accordingly, the principles of general relativity must influence, and actually change, the very formalism of quantum mechanics. Most particularly, an "Einsteinian", rather than...
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

The ER=EPR may be a way forward or it may go the way of the other quantum gravity theories.

Ok without the hyperbolae QM and the standard model have a few issues, off the top of my head I can think of the so called vacuum catastrophe, muon g-2 results hinting there may be another fundamental force, neutrinos (mass and flavour shifting behaviour)

And now for a question out of left field - is anyone doing realistic research into tachyonic fields and imaginary mass that you can point me towards?
 
Oh right, spending a decade or two learning and thinking about the field of course means I cannot possibly have an original thought and am hopelessly enmeshed in the hidebound scientific orthodoxy ... :p


There are endless vistas of beautiful mathematics, I tend to restrict myself to papers that are relevant to my line of inquiry. As I also have to branch into computer science (It from Bit), I have quite enough to look at. Though from a brief glance at the abstract Sir Penrose would be pleased with ER=EPR.

A quick search of arXiv.org yields some recent tachyonic fields papers, but they're toy models, so fail the "realistic" criterion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kafka47
Megatraveller Tidbits from HIWG CD Rom
Replies
19
Views
6K
Vargr Breath
V
Back
Top