No Zero in the Real World

[JamesANicholson]

My friends all use my middle name, Aaron to address me.
So . . . I hope that you all will, too.

I wanted to start out with a bang (tho' not a Big One) and a pet peeve of mind. I have a theory that I will post in the appropriate Thread for all to pick over. There is logic galore in it but may lack elegance and sightings. But there should be plenty to consider in any case. Look for TINY BITS.

----- NO ZERO IN THE REAL WORLD -----

And I mean by this that there is no justification for a zero mass particle.

Here is my argument. Conservation! + (E = mc^2).

If you hold both of these to be true, that's enough to prove it.

You can never subtract in the real world and end up with Zero.

You end up only changing the relative locations of the objects you are "removing" to some other place.

Eating an object does not even eliminate it; it just brakes down into its component parts or atoms.

And finally you cannot divide something until the parts equal zero as long as you save all the parts and gather them all together again. You should always end up with exactly what you started with.

So, if you have even the slightest detectable energy, you have the very slightest mass equivalent in that energy. Anything that is detectable. Ever.
Practically Zero? Yeah. Functionally (relatively) Zero? Sure. But impossibly really Zero.

So, where is the problem with this whole division by zero nonsense coming from? It can never exist in the real world. A particle model works just as well as a string model, then, if you assign a Plank minimum unit to your model, as in String/M theory.

This is a part of my theory--a Big part or it, so, argue me out of it right now, if you can, before I get started, and save me the embarrassment. Please! Or better yet, tell me, by golly, Aaron's onto something here.

That's weird. Referring to myself in the third person.
I promise never to do that again.

Good luck, Aaron

Shoot, I did it again. Ha.

[Profpat]

Hi Aaron;

Welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy yourself here.

You may well be right about all particles having mass. I believe the jury is still out regarding rest mass for the photon, though like you I think only logically it must. Additionally, I think that same jury is still out regarding the neutrino.

You do believe in zero charge though, don't you?

Looking forward to you starting your thread regarding this topic.

Best,

Pat

[Mohan.C]

I believe the rest mass of a photon is said to be zero because photon is not a particle but is an interaction.

[Profpat]

I believe the rest mass of a photon is said to be zero because photon is not a particle but is an interaction.

Hi Mohan.C;

The photon was created through an interaction, and is able to interact i.e. with an electron. A photon is a 2 dimensional transverse wave.

Best,

Pat

[dleviwing]

Welcome to ToeQuest Aaron.
It’s nice to see your version of the wheel. I do hope you don’t think this is at all new to the science community!

[Mohan.C]

Hi Mohan.C;

The photon was created through an interaction, and is able to interact i.e. with an electron. A photon is a 2 dimensional transverse wave.

Best,

Pat

Hello Pat,
I was just trying to make out wat u meant here. Isn't it the same thing that I said.

[Profpat]

Hello Pat,
I was just trying to make out wat u meant here. Isn't it the same thing that I said.

Hi MohanC;

Well maybe. Once created through an interaction, I'm not sure that it remains an interaction. The proton and neutron are created by interactions,and yet they are particles with mass. However, there is part of me that believes everything is but an interaction.

Best,

Pat

[Mohan.C]

Hi MohanC;

Well maybe. Once created through an interaction, I'm not sure that it remains an interaction. The proton and neutron are created by interactions,and yet they are particles with mass. However, there is part of me that believes everything is but an interaction.

Best,

Pat

Yeah every interaction has mass because it involves energy transfer. What I said was rest mass of a photon of is zero. So a photon as an interaction will have mass, I believe.

[JamesANicholson]

I believe the rest mass of a photon is said to be zero because photon is not a particle but is an interaction.

The point that I hope to make is that anything that can be shown to cause an effect in / on the physical world (e.g. light causing a current to flow in a Photo-voltaic cell) has to be the result of some form of either a force (Mass times Acceleration) or a momentum (Mass times velocity).

In Either case Mass is intrinsically involved, and if you try to take the mass consideration out of the reaction or the interaction then you no longer get the reaction or the interaction. I don't care if a photon is a particle or the force or momentum carried in a two or three or 11 dimensional wave. The bottom line is still the same. It will have to act as either a force or as a momentum in order to be detected or to even interact with or to effect the physical world. Anything that could be conceived as massless, simply could not do this.

[JamesANicholson]

. . .

You may well be right about all particles having mass. I believe the jury is still out regarding rest mass for the photon, though like you I think only logically it must. Additionally, I think that same jury is still out regarding the neutrino.

You do believe in zero charge though, don't you?


Best,

Pat

Pat,

RE: Zero Charge.

Interesting topic. Well, I can conceive of an area where there is no charge. Or an absence of any charge. And you could think of that as a zero charge, I guess, although, it seems kind of pointless. Then, I can think of all sorts of configurations where there are balanced positive and negative charges in small and gigantic balanced potential situations. But I would not think of these as necessarily being a condition of Zero charge, because of the very dynamic nature of the situation. And, so, a Zero "net" charge is not exactly a zero charge either, really. But what in particular do you mean be a zero charge?