What do I not understand about mass?

Discussion in 'Physics' started by hp1729, Jul 2, 2016.

  1. hp1729

    Thread Starter Well-Known Member

    Nov 23, 2015
    1,954
    219
    The mass of an electron is about 0.511 MeV.
    The mass of a proton is about 938 MeV.
    The mass of a neutron is about 939 MeV.
    But the mass of a Higgs boson is about 125 GeV.
    How can what is a small part of an atom have more mass than the atom?
    What am I missing here?

    I found older links on similar subjects but they were out dated.
     
  2. bertus

    Administrator

    Apr 5, 2008
    15,648
    2,347
  3. hp1729

    Thread Starter Well-Known Member

    Nov 23, 2015
    1,954
    219
  4. crutschow

    Expert

    Mar 14, 2008
    13,019
    3,235
    The Higgs boson is not part of an atom. According to the Standard Model, it exists in subatomic space creating the Higgs field that permeates all space and gives objects mass.
     
  5. hp1729

    Thread Starter Well-Known Member

    Nov 23, 2015
    1,954
    219
    But it shows up in the LHC as part of the atom? "Exists in subatomic space"? But has a measurable size in space? I understand less about this than I thought I did. :)
    "Higgs Field"? Then there is more than the four basic energies we were told exist? Gravity, EM, strong force, weak force and Higgs Field??? Or are there more than these? What type of energy is dark energy?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2016
  6. crutschow

    Expert

    Mar 14, 2008
    13,019
    3,235
    Whoever answers that question, will likely be in the running for a Nobel Prise.
     
    killivolt and nsaspook like this.
  7. hp1729

    Thread Starter Well-Known Member

    Nov 23, 2015
    1,954
    219
    Then the "four basic forces" story is bogus? We reasonably suspect there are... many more?
     
  8. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,910
    2,171
  9. crutschow

    Expert

    Mar 14, 2008
    13,019
    3,235
    In the Quantum subatomic world the distinction between particles, fields, and waves becomes rather blurry. For example experiments with electrons going through two narrow slits, one electron at a time will still generate an interference pattern at a target on the other side, the same as if many electrons were going through both slots at the same time.
    So how to explain that except that each electron appears to go through both slots at the same time and interferes with itself? :eek:
    So is the electron a particle or a wave, or both?
     
    killivolt likes this.
  10. profbuxton

    Member

    Feb 21, 2014
    233
    68
    Sorry, guys, but I don't buy into the "dark energy" or "dark matter" theory. Just sounds like too much of a airy fairy construct to me. Like on the old ancient maps "here be monsters".
     
  11. profbuxton

    Member

    Feb 21, 2014
    233
    68
    So now electrons interfere with themselves. Naughty electrons.
     
    #12 likes this.
  12. socratus

    Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    but "how can the particle have more mass than the larger whole?"
    / hp1729,/
    ===…
    a)
    The mass depends on its speed
    The mass of “rest” atom is about 939 MeV.
    The mass of moving Higgs boson is about 125 GeV.
    b)
    Jaroslav Hasek
    “. . . inside the globe there was another globe much bigger than the outer one.”
    / Book: Good soldier Svejk, chapter 4 /
    ===…
    I don’t know what solution is correct.
    ===========…
     
  13. bertus

    Administrator

    Apr 5, 2008
    15,648
    2,347
  14. crutschow

    Expert

    Mar 14, 2008
    13,019
    3,235
    So you think there's nothing out there that we don't know about?
    Then what's your explanation for the movement of the stars and galaxies that can't be explained by their own gravitational forces, if not dark matter and dark energy?
     
    killivolt likes this.
  15. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    2,000
    389
    The movement we see, is only relative to us, because of our location at THIS PRESENT time.

    You can not observe the relative motion between the stars. If the stars are not at the same distance, then they are not of the same time. The motion between the stars is filtered with time. How are you going to relate that?

    The movement we observe is a sum of many different time movements. We can't even track anything with any distance, let alone tell what that distance is.

    I will remain skeptical of any explanations of the observations. Observing stars is unlike observing anything here on earth. Every event here happens at the same relative time. Not the stars.

    I guess some forget and carry that over, when they look up.

    Edit: The movement of the stars will remain mystery for a very long time. And we will hear all kinds of stuff to explain it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2016
  16. socratus

    Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    a) For example, in an accelerator protons can be sped up to such high speeds
    that their mass increases by a factor of more than 400.

    b) But because I think that accelerators are pyramids for XX – XXI centuries
    and study quantum particles using accelerators is “Sisyphus work"
    therefore to your question
    "how can the particle have more mass than the larger whole?"
    I brought quote
    “. . . inside the globe there was another globe much bigger than the outer one.”
    ================…
    About study particles using accelerators . . . .(as an anecdote)
    " . . . . . if you want to understand a complex phenomenon,
    the only tool of science to use is to break it into its component parts,
    study them individually in isolation, and then glue the itty-bitty pieces back together."
    / Book: This will make you smarter.Part: Anecdotalism, page 278.
    By Robert Sapolsky /
    =======================…
     
  17. crutschow

    Expert

    Mar 14, 2008
    13,019
    3,235
    So you are really serious in saying that the astronomer's calculations of star movements is not correct? :eek:
    That's preposterous.
    They certainly know how to take the speed of light into account in their calculations and have several valid methods to calculate the distance of stars.
    Do you also believe the earth is flat? :rolleyes:
     
  18. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    2,000
    389
    crutschow, let's take a snapshot of the radar screen of ohara national airport. Now let's go back 1 thru 12 years and superimpose 12 snapshots on top the most recent.

    How do you relate the #1 blip on the most recent to the #1 blip of 5 yrs. ago?
    Were the two blips moving at the same time? Were the two blips there at the same time? Can you use that composite image to calculate the total mass of aircraft in the sky?

    Are the two blips relative to each other? Did they ever effect one another? Do they ever run in to each other? Did they exist at the same time in that space?

    They tell us that they can see stars that are very old. How long does a star live?
    Let's say we are looking at a 10 billion old star. We detect the light it emitted 10 billion years ago.
    If the star is still alive, it's had 10 billion years to change position. Where is that star now?

    What about double exposures? Can we see the same 10 billion old distant star at 5 billion year distance at a different position also?

    NO ONE can relate the position, or the distance, or the brightness, or the temperature, or the movement, or the mass, or the age, of a star field.

    It's simply because what you see in a star field, it is not there now. All the parts of a star field were added there at different times in the past.

    It's a time collage.

    There is no place on earth where you can observe or interact with a time collage. You are not used to it. You have never seen one. You have never had to reason one and you have never had to explain one. You can not observe last week, with today or last month. This concept is foreign to our experiences. We live and experience one time line. The present. So, when people look up, they think the movement is the same kind of movement we see here. Even when you explain it to some people, why it is different, they can't realize what that implies.

    It's impossible to "SEE" a distant star. Light is too slow. We can only "SAW" where it was, long ago.

    Let's turn off all the light in the universe. We wait for 15 billion years for it to get dark. Now, before we turn the light back on, we are going to give light a new property. The light will now have instantaneous velocity. That means when we turn the light back on, we will see all the present stars true positions, instantly. No mater where they are or how far away.

    Turn the light on. What do you see?

    Would it be more or less?
     
  19. tom_s

    Member

    Jun 27, 2014
    285
    333
    i have no answer for the OP, though wondering how 'THIS PRESENT time' and 'ONLY relative to us at this time' is being confused.

    can someone check to see if someone put blinkers on crutschow? :D
     
Loading...