# Mass is an interaction

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by arfa brane, Oct 20, 2019.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,135
Mass is not a 'property' of objects, but rather arises because of initially, field quanta (or particles) gaining rest mass by interacting with the Higgs field.

The mass of protons and neutrons is largely due to quarks interacting by exchanging gluons. Nuclear mass is an interaction between field quanta.
--https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...id=1-s2.0-S2405601415009529-main.pdf&_valck=1

3. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
And? This is a discussion forum arfa. What do want to actually discuss? I remind you that all here have, essentially by definition, access to the internet and could quite easily (if interested) find as much as you have gleaned thereby, and quite possibly more

5. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,135
And SR says mass and energy are equivalent. Which implies energy is an interaction.

On the other hand, some argue that $E = mc^2$ does not say energy and mass are equivalent. So it says some other thing--what is this thing? I'm open to discussing whatever it's supposed to mean, ok?

7. ### Confused2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
607
I have been told that if a hydrogen bomb were placed in a sealed container and exploded (assuming everything remains sealed in the box) then the effective mass of the box and contents would be the same before and after.
Further to that I'm fairly sure I've seen an a analysis (by David Waite?) of a photon in a cavity (box) where the effect of accelerating the box produces 'mass' from the momentum of the photon as it bounces between the (accelerating ) walls. I don't have time to search for confirmation of either claim - they may be well known and well supported or simply false.

8. ### Confused2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
607
My previous post suggests drawing a box round a bomb before explosion and (the same box) after explosion. Since the mass remains constant we have to look at the 'mass' of the (say) em radiation in the box. We say (we can find) the effective mass of the em field. Is the 'mass' of the Higgs field found in a markedly different way? Is the energy of the explosion the result of loss in the Higgs field and gain in the em field? Not so much mass conversion as field conversion?

9. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,135
Ok. Is the Higgs field inside this box the same, before and after?

10. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,135
The mass "of" the Higgs field needs some context, perhaps. The Higgs mechanism explains massive bosons, right?
. The EM energy is all photons, which are massless = not interacting with Higgs potential. So no.

But what you might mean is, what happens to the mass which is converted into energy by the nuclear reactions? Obviously less matter is around to interact with the Higgs, but energy has to be conserved if the box isolates the system. However, this doesn't preclude other fields such as the Higgs or a (field with) dark energy, permeating the box (how could we tell?).

Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
11. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,135
Why does the Higgs boson have mass? we have to note that it doesn't for very long, it decays almost instantaneously into other particles, which in turn may decay etc.

The mass of the Higgs emerges when it interacts with itself--see the link in post #1, from which
So the mass of the scalar field is a self-interaction term in some field equation (!)

12. ### Confused2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
607
Hi arfa brane,
I'm not sure what my definition of 'mass' is and whether or not it is the same as yours.
Let us imagine a box that weighs 1 kg and contains (say) 1kg of hydrogen.
Mass of box + contents = 2kg.
That is to say that 2 Newtons will accelerate the box by 1m/s^2
Now (somehow) convert the hydrogen into em radiation that remains (somehow) confined within the box.
Will 2 Newtons still accelerate the box by 1m/s^2 (unchanged total mass) or 'something else'?
If we go with unchanged total mass then there must be a mechanism for the (massless) radiation to impart the property of mass to the box. I'm suggesting this is (might or might not be) a simpler mechanism to impart mass when compared to a Higgs particle which may (or may not) have mass 'because it has mass'. Whether simpler or more complicated it is another stab at "Mass is an interaction".
In my example I am suggesting it is the field within the box that imparts the property of mass. I admit I'm guessing that the Higgs mechanism might be the other way tound - a box within a field - and it is (again) the field that gives the property of mass to the box. I could (of course) be totally wrong. Your thoughts?

13. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,135
Ok, and let's not forget that, in GR acceleration and gravity are equivalent. Maybe that's important or something.
Ok, so now the Higgs potential is, as they say, redundant.
According to Einstein, it's the total energy density in the box that's important, in which case we might consider that either the photons trapped in it are material after all, or equivalently their interactions with the boundary (that is the material box) are the 'material', in a relativistic sense.

I know he looked at the problem, of whether energy has inertia . . . that of course runs into the problem: photons are or aren't energy or a form of energy, whatever anyone thinks that means. Apparently nobody, including Einstein, really knows.

14. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,135
So we have the potential energy of an object (or Newtonian particle) "in" a gravitational field as being $m \mathcal G$; for a particle with charge q in an electric field it's $q \mathcal E$, etc.

So $\mathcal G$ and $\mathcal E$ have units of Joules per kg, and Joules per Coulomb respectively. For a current I which is constant we have $I \mathcal B$, so $\mathcal B$ has units Joule-seconds per Coulomb.

Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
15. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
Err... I thought that you said that mass and energy are equivalent. What are you saying now?
Moreover I thought you said earlier that the Higgs field in some sense "gives" elements of another field mass. Now you say that an elementary particle needs mass to interact with the Higgs field. This doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense.

Again, you are cart-before-the-horsing. I repeat, you said the Higgs field "gives" mass - now you're saying that only particles with mass can interact with the Higgs field.
I cannot make much sense of this

16. ### Confused2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
607
A pure guess on my part is that with the right password you could play about with the Higgs field to increase or decrease the inertia of an object - at the same time making it lighter of heavier in a gravitational field.
The new kilogram (kg+) would give a new Joule (J+). Would the new kilogram+ and the new Joule+ still satisfy both Higgs and Einstein and give e=mc^2?

17. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,135
Not in some sense, in an exact physical sense.
But that isn't what I'm saying at all. Certain particles in the Standard Model get mass by interacting with the Higgs field. Photons don't have a rest mass, photons don't interact with the Higgs field. What are you trying to say?
Again, what I said was the photon doesn't interact with the Higgs field--no interaction, no rest mass. Particles with rest mass can be brought to . . . rest.

18. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,135
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism

So, how do the fermions interact, what's the role of U(1), or electric charge? Why is the photon a massless boson in the SM?
Can energy exist in some volume if there are no interactions in it? What constitutes an interaction?

19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
35,064
Well, in a sense. That word "equivalent" is flexible. If two things are "equivalent", it doesn't mean they are "the same".

What you need to ask, therefore, is: for what purpose(s) are mass and energy "equivalent"?

No. Essentially, energy is an accounting system, as you and I have previously discussed at some length.

I assume for whatever purposes they are thinking of, energy and mass do not share the required "equivalence".

Like I said, you really need to say what kind of equivalence you're interested in.

Who's "they", and where do "they" say that?

Important for what?

If you're talking about the box's inertia, then it seems likely that it doesn't matter too much whether the box contains bricks or photons, at least for some purposes.

That's a bizarre idea. How could a number have something normally associated with "stuff" like bricks?

I know that photons aren't a form of energy.

I recall explaining why to you, at some length, in another thread.

Have you forgotten our conversation already? It was only a few weeks ago, was it not?

20. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,080
I’m afraid this whole thread smells to me like a roundabout way of resurrecting that dismal argument.

21. ### JJMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
355
• Please do not post pseudoscience to our Science subforums.
Since compressed compression pressure density IS gravity density, then the Higgs is also compression mass.

22. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
Well if you don't know, you should not be running this "tutorial"

For your information, U(1) is the group of continuous symmetries in 1 dimension. Specifically, in applications, it is taken as a phase rotation so that, for the state vector $\psi$ at spacetime position $x$, then the transformation $\psi(x) \to e^{i \theta(x)} \psi(x)$ is an invariant, where $\theta$ is some angle of rotation.

23. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,131
You really should not be posting in the science section; reported.

exchemist likes this.