I'm grappling with the notion of something having mass but no volume. How can that be? I have thought that all matter have mass, and by definition (i.e., quantity of matter) have volume, too. What I had heard, instead, was that there were anti-particles in the universe (i.e., no mass, no volume), and when they passed through the Higgs field, they acquired mass and thus became matter. I believe that point was why some people in the media coined the Higgs boson as the "God particle," because it had potentially remarkable implications about the creation of the universe.
First, let me set the record straight: antiparticles have mass.
Second, let me affirm your tentative intuition: energy has volume. In all manifestations. Mass is a form of energy ... or one could look at inversely, energy is a form of mass.
But there is something more fundamental than energy, more fundamental than mass.
There is mass attraction -- and thanks to Einstein, we are certain (those of us who truly understand his point) that energy attracts energy according to the law of mass attraction also. As originally identified by Isaac Newton.
And mass attraction implies differential momentum.
Momentum is more fundamental than mass, more fundamental than energy. Momentum is the potential for change in relationship.
Force, the change in momentum, is also more fundamental than mass/energy. Force is the potential for change in momentum -- the potential for change in change in relationship.
Momentum spans volume ... has volume as an integral aspect. Force spans momentum.
Finally, there is no "God" except as a word -- certainly not if one is envisioning God-as-Creator-of-Universe.
Universe was not created. It did not begin. It has no boundary, neither in time nor space nor mass nor energy nor momentum nor force.
Because: If Universe was created (has a boundary -- it is logically equivalent), then what is outside Universe, and how could Universe have come to be out of nothing? No. If there is an outside to Universe, then by definition it is not Universe. Look further. Add the outside, and call that Universe. And if that is created, then look further out. And etc. Ad infinitum.
A created Universe is logically inconsistent with Universe. If Universe was created, did begin, then it contradicts itself, by definition.
Nothing can escape Universe. Not even "God".
Higgs is just overwrought. Universe is not so complex. Mass attraction is a great mystery, but beyond that, there really is no mystery.
I don't expect anyone but me to wholly understand what I have written here.
Mass is not a function of a deeper hidden variable reality, which Higgs purports.
The Standard Model is not wholly correct. In particular, the Standard Model notion of Universe is incomplete and will eventually be supplanted by a proper definition of Universe.
Has anyone every really tried to come to a cogent definition of Universe? In my experience, only one man: R. Buckminster Fuller. He had the right idea. His definition of Universe includes both physical and metaphysical experiences. And there is no room for "God", that inadequate sound-word that whiners and have used throughout history to justify their nefarious slitherings.
I will tell you what is "God": do you know that feeling in your throat when you are in the throws of passion with your lover, that feels/sounds something like "Gaaaa..."? That is the genesis of the word "God".
The sound of passion was stolen by thieves and made into a religious icon, thereby subverting the nature of passion at the root. The word "God" is a control structure, the most devious and dastardly bastardization of nature that ever was.
Universe has no room for such shenanigans, long term. Eventually, one must choose to embrace oneself, or die the dead death, the death of the soul (another concept stolen by the "God" fearers) 10,000 times -- alone.
But mass? That is just the attraction of one thing for another, the integrity of Universe, the simple fact that you cannot escape from Universe.
If escape is not an option, then we may as well enjoy life instead of trying to stop time with perverse ideas of "God".
if it have mass , then there is two mass on one particle , positive count . the particle undivided or parted , it still the same . m=2m is impossible m=m(+) the positive part is counted , the m(-) is pass away (the other side of coordinate and never converge because all masses are going to vanish in the end . its hard to understand but real counting .
There are two complementary intertwining and interdependent forms of energy: matter and radiation. Look closely at matter and you will see that it is glued together by radiation relating smaller parts; look at radiation furtherly and you will see it is a relationship between material parts.
Matter is energy that is localized and recycling, periodically re-forming more or less analogous patterns of motion; radiation is energy in transit, momentum transfer mechanism between material endpoints.
Mass only vanishes to become radiation, which re-emerges later as mass. That something is invisible does not mean it is nothing.
I have nothing more to say on the subject here because I doubt you have a clue what I am saying.
Corina Marinescu good work , thanks , keep like that ;)
ReplyDeleteismail bruce Danke ;)
ReplyDeleteMass is not fundamental.
ReplyDeleteI'm grappling with the notion of something having mass but no volume. How can that be? I have thought that all matter have mass, and by definition (i.e., quantity of matter) have volume, too. What I had heard, instead, was that there were anti-particles in the universe (i.e., no mass, no volume), and when they passed through the Higgs field, they acquired mass and thus became matter. I believe that point was why some people in the media coined the Higgs boson as the "God particle," because it had potentially remarkable implications about the creation of the universe.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me set the record straight: antiparticles have mass.
ReplyDeleteSecond, let me affirm your tentative intuition: energy has volume. In all manifestations. Mass is a form of energy ... or one could look at inversely, energy is a form of mass.
But there is something more fundamental than energy, more fundamental than mass.
There is mass attraction -- and thanks to Einstein, we are certain (those of us who truly understand his point) that energy attracts energy according to the law of mass attraction also. As originally identified by Isaac Newton.
And mass attraction implies differential momentum.
Momentum is more fundamental than mass, more fundamental than energy. Momentum is the potential for change in relationship.
Force, the change in momentum, is also more fundamental than mass/energy. Force is the potential for change in momentum -- the potential for change in change in relationship.
Momentum spans volume ... has volume as an integral aspect. Force spans momentum.
Finally, there is no "God" except as a word -- certainly not if one is envisioning God-as-Creator-of-Universe.
Universe was not created. It did not begin. It has no boundary, neither in time nor space nor mass nor energy nor momentum nor force.
Because: If Universe was created (has a boundary -- it is logically equivalent), then what is outside Universe, and how could Universe have come to be out of nothing? No. If there is an outside to Universe, then by definition it is not Universe. Look further. Add the outside, and call that Universe. And if that is created, then look further out. And etc. Ad infinitum.
A created Universe is logically inconsistent with Universe. If Universe was created, did begin, then it contradicts itself, by definition.
Nothing can escape Universe. Not even "God".
Higgs is just overwrought. Universe is not so complex. Mass attraction is a great mystery, but beyond that, there really is no mystery.
I don't expect anyone but me to wholly understand what I have written here.
Mass is not a function of a deeper hidden variable reality, which Higgs purports.
The Standard Model is not wholly correct. In particular, the Standard Model notion of Universe is incomplete and will eventually be supplanted by a proper definition of Universe.
Has anyone every really tried to come to a cogent definition of Universe? In my experience, only one man: R. Buckminster Fuller. He had the right idea. His definition of Universe includes both physical and metaphysical experiences. And there is no room for "God", that inadequate sound-word that whiners and have used throughout history to justify their nefarious slitherings.
I will tell you what is "God": do you know that feeling in your throat when you are in the throws of passion with your lover, that feels/sounds something like "Gaaaa..."? That is the genesis of the word "God".
The sound of passion was stolen by thieves and made into a religious icon, thereby subverting the nature of passion at the root. The word "God" is a control structure, the most devious and dastardly bastardization of nature that ever was.
Universe has no room for such shenanigans, long term. Eventually, one must choose to embrace oneself, or die the dead death, the death of the soul (another concept stolen by the "God" fearers) 10,000 times -- alone.
But mass? That is just the attraction of one thing for another, the integrity of Universe, the simple fact that you cannot escape from Universe.
If escape is not an option, then we may as well enjoy life instead of trying to stop time with perverse ideas of "God".
the antiparticle in negative part of mass , like convergent and divergent .
ReplyDeleteNo, antiparticles have mass.
ReplyDeleteif it have mass , then there is two mass on one particle , positive count .
ReplyDeletethe particle undivided or parted , it still the same .
m=2m is impossible
m=m(+) the positive part is counted , the m(-) is pass away (the other side of coordinate and never converge because all masses are going to vanish in the end .
its hard to understand but real counting .
There are two complementary intertwining and interdependent forms of energy: matter and radiation. Look closely at matter and you will see that it is glued together by radiation relating smaller parts; look at radiation furtherly and you will see it is a relationship between material parts.
ReplyDeleteMatter is energy that is localized and recycling, periodically re-forming more or less analogous patterns of motion; radiation is energy in transit, momentum transfer mechanism between material endpoints.
Mass only vanishes to become radiation, which re-emerges later as mass. That something is invisible does not mean it is nothing.
I have nothing more to say on the subject here because I doubt you have a clue what I am saying.