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?
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?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff