Yang–Mills and Mass Gap

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Thales, Nov 29, 2017.

  1. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,237
    Consider pair production from light. Say, E=mc^2=hf. or dm/df=h/c^2. So mass generation will follow this curve.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    That is incorrect. The proper formula for light (and other massless particles) is: E=pc=hf.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,237
    Why? Are you aware of pair production from light.

    How will you correlate this energy with the mass(m) of a massive particle.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    Yes, I am aware of that, and I'm also aware that that completely irrelevant here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–...rict_mass–energy_equivalence_formula,_E_=_mc2

    So the full formula is: \(E^2=(pc)^2+m^2 c^4\)
    Set \(m=0\) for massless particles, set \(p=0\) for non-moving particles (in other words, to use the rest mass).

    This is very basic physics stuff.
     
  8. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,237
    Do you know, what exactly is the mass-gap problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_gap . So the problem is to find the mass of the lightest particle. If this lightest particle is converted into energy, the frequency we get will be the smallest interval of frequency. So, by knowing the smallest interval of frequency, the corresponding mass can be found out.


    Irrelevant.
     
  9. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    That is not relevant to whether \(E=mc^2\) is the correct formula for massless particles or not.

    So whether \(E=mc^2\) is the right formula for massless particles or not is irrelevant to the question of whether \(E=mc^2\) is the right formula for massless particles? Can you explain?
     
  10. Thales Registered Member

    Messages:
    34
  11. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,237
    Thanks for reading my paper titled "Structure of a Particle" uploaded at academia.

    Consider the equation\( E=mc^2=hf=\frac{hc}{\lambda}\) Or \(m=\frac{h}{c} \times \frac{1}{\lambda}\).

    Now \(\frac{dm}{d\lambda}=-\frac{h}{c}\times \frac{1}{\lambda^2} \). From this equation we can see that, wavelength has to be negative to generate a positive mass.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018 at 1:27 PM
  12. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    That conclusion is nonsense. You have shown how the wavelength associated to a particle (at rest) changes as the rest mass of a particle is changed. This doesn't demonstrate that negative wavelengths (which is a nonsensical concept anyway) is needed to have a positive mass.

    Please only post these things in the appropriate subforums next time.
     
  13. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,237
    Did you observe anything wrong with the math?

    Correct. So what is your problem?

    So what is your conclusion? I just made a logical conclusion based on the math.

    Please clarify this statement with appropriate logic/arguments. Just making a statement like this, does not mean anything.
     
  14. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    I don't think I said that?

    My problem is with the conclusion you are drawing from said math.

    You have a derivative of the mass of a particle at rest with respect to its wavelength. Please demonstrate how that last equation leads to your conclusion based on logic.

    I think it will become clear what I meant by this over time...
     
  15. Forceman May the force be with you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    First thing about matter is that it can't be stretched without an appropriate spring force: a vector wouldn't be a v)9 without a proper Fnet. In net force there is always a stretch from gradient to bottom rest mass; a quotient in mass force such as antienergy not dark energy doesn't unequate matter from waves. A v(0) is the first wave in a cautious space such as TNT or bottom rest energy such as a sound wave.
     
  16. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    (I assume "v)9" contains a typo; what did you mean to write?)

    Why can't matter be stretched without a spring force?

    How does one stretch something from a gradient to a bottom rest mass? What is a bottom rest mass?

    What quotient in mass force? What is mass force? What is antienergy? Can you please rewrite your sentence as to not use a double negative (doesn't unequate)? How does one equate mass from waves?

    How is v(0) a wave? What is cautious space? What does TNT (explosives) have to do with this? What is bottom rest energy? How is bottom rest energy a sound wave?

    This all appears to be word salad?
     

Share This Page