impossible values for energy

[AntonioLao]

Physics 101 simply and concisely defines energy as the measure of change. However, if there is no change then the corresponding value for energy would be zero. Zero energy seems to occur only at absolute zero of temperature where and when motions of any kind cease to exist. Nonetheless, absolute zero cannot be reached by any physical means. This was asserted by both Pauli and Nernst in the early years of the 20th century where and when quantum theories were becoming more and more respected as physical formulations for understanding the chemical elements of the Periodic Table. The success of quantum mechanics unquestionably propels the wheels of modern science and technology reaching the final destination of a digital edifice that includes ultra-dense integrated circuits, cell phones, and wireless technologies, utilizing ultrahigh electromagnetic radio frequencies combined with ultra-short electromagnetic radio wavelengths thus affecting the ultra compact design of electronic devises: cell phones, laptops, and wireless radio receivers and transmitters.

However, energy is directly proportional to frequency and inversely proportional to wavelength, the higher the frequency and conversely the shorter the wavelength produces the greater and greater values for energy. Therefore, if the wavelength reaches Planck length then the corresponding frequency goes beyond gamma frequency and the energy value approach infinity. Since lowest bound of zero energy cannot be reached, it is reasonable that highest bound of infinite energy also cannot be reached such that the two extremely impossible values for energy are zero and infinity. In other words, these impossible values imply energy quantization. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for mass values since both zero mass and infinite mass exist.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Imo, infinite mass possible...

Zero mass impossible...

Zero mass would imply an absolute void of fs...

FS voids are impossible, as FS-EM-Field is everywhere... So said Einstein...

[AntonioLao]

Lloyd, many physicists have experimentally agreed that the mass of the elementary particles called the photon as well as the theoretical gluon and graviton all have zero mass.The precise terminology is called zero rest mass in reference to the special theory of relativity.

[MJA]

What science truly fails to grasp is not the immeasurability of nature at its micro and macro extremities, but the immeasurability of nature at any scale, be it frequency, wave or particle, energy or mass.
One is One.
Someday they will and the quest for TOE for them and most others will be over including Al, even the energy of you.
I have faith in that!

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd, many physicists have experimentally agreed that the mass of the elementary particles called the photon as well as the theoretical gluon and graviton all have zero mass.The precise terminology is called zero rest mass in reference to the special theory of relativity.

Yeah, I fully realize that Antonio, but I do not agree with it. Just take a look at what we don't yet actually know about our measurements, just from Wiki's most recent studies about proton mass...

Quarks and the mass of the proton
In quantum chromodynamics, the modern theory of the nuclear force, most of the mass of the proton and the neutron is explained by special relativity. The mass of the proton is about eighty times greater than the sum of the rest masses of the quarks that make it up, while the gluons have zero rest mass. The extra energy of the quarks and gluons in a region within a proton, as compared to the energy of the quarks and gluons in the QCD vacuum, accounts for over 98% of the mass.

The internal dynamics of the proton are complicated, because they are determined by the quarks exchanging gluons, and interacting with various vacuum condensates. Lattice QCD provides a way of calculating the mass of the proton directly from the theory to any accuracy, in principle. The most recent calculations claim that the mass is determined to better than 4% accuracy, arguably accurate to 1% (see Figure S5 in Dürr et al.). These claims are still controversial, because the calculations cannot yet be done with quarks as light as they are in the real world. This means that the predictions are found by a process of extrapolation, which can introduce systematic errors. It is hard to tell whether these errors are controlled properly, because the quantities that are compared to experiment are the masses of the hadrons, which are known in advance.

These recent calculations are performed by massive supercomputers, and, as noted by Boffi and Pasquini: “a detailed description of the nucleon structure is still missing because ... long-distance behavior requires a nonperturbative and/or numerical treatment..." More conceptual approaches to the structure of the proton are: the topological soliton approach originally due to Tony Skyrme and the more accurate AdS/QCD approach which extends it to include a string theory of gluons, various QCD inspired models like the bag model and the constituent quark model, which were popular in the 1980s, and the SVZ sum rules which allow for rough approximate mass calculations. These methods don't have the same accuracy as the more brute force lattice QCD methods, at least not yet.

Charge Radius
The internationally-accepted value of the proton's charge radius is 0.8768 femtometers. This value is based on measurements involving a proton and an electron.

However since July 5, 2009 an international research team has been able to make measurements involving a proton and a negatively-charged muon. After a long and careful analysis of those measurements the team concluded that the root-mean-square charge radius of a proton is "0.84184(67) fm, which differs by 5.0 standard deviations from the CODATA value of 0.8768(69) fm."

The international research team that obtained this result at the Paul-Scherrer-Institut (PSI) in Villigen (Switzerland) They are now attempting to explain the discrepancy, and re-examining the results of both previous high-precision measurements and complicated calculations. If no errors are found in the measurements or calculations, it could be necessary to re-examine the world’s most precise and best-tested fundamental theory: quantum electrodynamics.[14]

The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Packages (ALSEP) determined that more than 95% of the particles in the solar wind are electrons and protons, in approximately equal numbers.

Because the Solar Wind Spectrometer made continuous measurements, it was possible to measure how the Earth's magnetic field affects arriving solar wind particles. For about two-thirds of each orbit, the Moon is outside of the Earth's magnetic field. At these times, a typical proton density was 10 to 20 per cubic centimeter, with most protons having velocities between 400 and 650 kilometers per second. For about five days of each month, the Moon is inside the Earth's geomagnetic tail, and typically no solar wind particles were detectable. For the remainder of each lunar orbit, the Moon is in a transitional region known as the magnetosheath, where the Earth's magnetic field affects the solar wind but does not completely exclude it. In this region, the particle flux is reduced, with typical proton velocities of 250 to 450 kilometers per second. During the lunar night, the spectrometer was shielded from the solar wind by the Moon and no solar wind particles were measured.

As you probably know Antonio, many of these models depend on probability maths, and asserted initial conditional axioms. We know we do not know the masses of even all the hydrogen proton's hyper-fine structures, yet, as is admitted even in this article, and many more on QCD, QED and the STD models.

My theorizing about absolute modal inductive logics, has discovered different values of measurement than these models are using. Just take this: "The absolute universal modal law of induction__The past is the absolute necessity, of all the absolute possibilities, of all the absolute probabilities..." Using this absolute universal induction law, mathematically requires a fundamental mass value to exist in all and any fundamental states of exist, as the lowest mass state of exist, can not produce a higher mass state of exist, unless it's already contained in the initial lowest mass state of exist. Therefore, I reject the existing mass model's interpretation of zero masses of any states, and simply state they are yet undiscovered, and do, by necessity of the above modal logic law, exist in the yet unknown hyper-fine structures of the inner masses of protons and em-fields... The absolute modal logics and maths work no other way, when total inductive modality of necessity is applied... This is with statistical facts applied to modal inductive methods and logics__This is necessarily true, due to the fact, no other total universal logics and maths are possible, about absolute fundamental mass__Fundamental mass must necessarily be contained, in the initial eternal em-field, or we wouldn't have a Universe__We do...!

[Bogie]

Is it just me or are there others who think that the evidence points to there being a missing form of energy and a process that maintains the presence of mass on a much smaller scale than that represented by the presence of observable particles?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

It's called the Higgs' Field and Higgs' Particle, or the Higgs' Mechanism, Bogie... That's what the new Hadron Collider is hunting for...

Invariant mass

(Redirected from Rest mass)
"Proper mass" redirects here. For the liturgical mass proper, see Proper (liturgy).
The invariant mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass or just mass is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. When the system as a whole is at rest, the invariant mass is equal to the total energy of the system divided by c2, which is equal to the mass of the system as measured on a scale. If the system is one particle, the invariant mass may also be called the rest mass.

Since the center of mass of an isolated system moves in a straight line with a steady velocity, an observer can always move along with it. In this frame, the center of momentum frame, the total momentum is zero, the system as a whole may be thought of as being "at rest" if it is a bound system (like a bottle of gas), and the invariant mass of the system is equal to the total system energy divided by c2. This total energy in the center of momentum frame, is the minimum energy which the system may be observed to have, when seen by various observers from various inertial frames.

If the system consists of more than one particle, the particles may be moving relative to each other in the center of momentum frame, and they will generally interact through one or more of the fundamental forces. The kinetic energy of the particles and the potential energy of the force fields increase the total energy above the sum of the particle rest masses, and contribute to the invariant mass of the system. The sum of the particle kinetic energies as calculated by an observer is smallest in the center of momentum frame (or rest frame if the system is bound).
Particle physics

In particle physics, the invariant mass is a mathematical combination of a particle's energy E and its momentum p which is equal to the mass in the rest frame. This invariant mass is the same in all frames of reference (see Special Relativity).
or in natural units where c = 1,
This equation says that the invariant mass is the relativistic length of the four-vector (E, p), calculated using the relativistic version of the pythagorean theorem which has a different sign for the space and time dimensions. This length is preserved under any Lorentz boost or rotation in four dimensions, just like the ordinary length of a vector is preserved under rotations.

Since the invariant mass is determined from quantities which are conserved during a decay, the invariant mass calculated using the energy and momentum of the decay products of a single particle is equal to the mass of the particle that decayed. The mass of a system of particles can be calculated from the general formula:
where
W is the invariant mass of the system of particles, equal to the mass of the decay particle. is the sum of the energies of the particles is the vector sum of the momentum of the particles (includes both magnitude and direction of the momenta)Example: two particle collision

In a two particle collision (or a two particle decay) the square of the invariant mass (in natural units) is
Rest energy

The rest energy E or rest energy of a particle is defined as:
,where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. In general, only differences in energy have physical significance.[2] Defining rest energy puts energy on an absolute scale.
The motivation for defining rest energy is in the Special Theory of Relativity. According to that theory, the mass of a body changes in proportion to its kinetic energy, via:
,This leads to Einstein's famous conclusion that energy and mass are manifestations of the same phenomenon. Defining rest energy as above makes the mathematical expression of mass-energy equivalence more elegant, but is still arbitrary in the way it places energy on an absolute scale. See background for mass-energy equivalence.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Mass in special relativity

Mass in special relativity incorporates the general understandings from the concept of mass energy equivalence (see also). Added to this concept is an additional complication resulting from the fact that "mass" is defined in two different ways in special relativity: one way defines mass ("rest mass" or "invariant mass") as a invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames; in the other definition, the measure of mass ("relativistic mass") is depedent on the velocity of the observer.


The term mass in special relativity usually refers to the rest mass of the object, which is the Newtonian mass as measured by an observer moving along with the object. The invariant mass is another name for the rest mass of single particles. The more general invariant mass (calculated with a more complicated formula) loosely corresponds to the "rest mass" of a "system." Thus, invariant mass is a natural unit of mass used for systems which are being viewed from their center of momentum frame, as when any closed system (for example a bottle of hot gas) is weighed, which requires that the measurement be taken in the center of momentum frame where the system has no net momentum. Under such circumstances the invariant mass is equal to the relativistic mass (discussed below), which is the total energy of the system divided by c (the speed of light) squared.

The concept of invariant mass does not require bound systems of particles, however. As such, it may also be applied to systems of unbound particles in high-speed relative motion. Because of this, it is often employed in particle physics for systems which consist of widely separated high-energy particles. If such systems were derived from a single particle, then the calculation of the invariant mass of such systems, which is a never-changing quantity, will provide the rest mass of the parent particle (because it is conserved over time).

Despite the convenience that the invariant mass is the same as the total energy of the system (divided by c2) in the center of momentum frame, the invariant mass of systems (like the rest mass of single particles) is also the same quantity in all inertial frames. Thus, it cannot be destroyed, and is conserved, so long as the system is closed. (In this case, "closure" implies that an idealized boundary is drawn around the system, and no mass/energy is allowed across it).

The term relativistic mass is also sometimes used. This is the sum total quantity of energy in a body or system (divided by c2). As seen from the center of momentum frame, the relativistic mass is also the invariant mass, as discussed above (just as the relativistic energy of a single particle is the same as its rest energy, when seen from its rest frame). For other frames, the relativistic mass (of a body or system of bodies) includes a contribution from the "net" kinetic energy of the body (the kinetic energy of the center of mass of the body), and is larger the faster the body moves. Thus, unlike the invariant mass, the relativistic mass depends on the observer's frame of reference. However, for given single frames of reference and for closed systems, the relativistic mass is also a conserved quantity.

Although some authors present relativistic mass as a fundamental concept of the theory, it has been argued that this is wrong as the fundamentals of the theory relate to space-time. There is disagreement over whether the concept is pedagogically useful. The notion of mass as a property of an object from Newtonian mechanics does not bear a precise relationship to the concept in relativity.

For a discussion of mass in general relativity, see mass in general relativity. For a general discussion including mass in Newtonian mechanics, see the article on mass.

Terminology
If a stationary box contains many particles, it weighs more in its rest frame, the faster the particles are moving. Any energy in the box (including the kinetic energy of the particles) adds to the mass, so that the relative motion of the particles contributes to the mass of the box. But if the box itself is moving (its center of mass is moving), there remains the question of whether the kinetic energy of the overall motion should be included in the mass of the system. The invariant mass is calculated excluding the kinetic energy of the system as a whole (calculated using the single velocity of the box, which is to say the velocity of the box's center of mass), while the relativistic mass is calculated including invariant mass PLUS the kinetic energy of the system which is calculated from the velocity of the center of mass.

Relativistic mass and rest mass are both traditional concepts in physics, but the relativistic mass corresponds to the total energy. The relativistic mass is the mass of the system as it would be measured on a scale, but in some cases (such as the box above) this fact remains true only because the system on average must be at rest to be weighed (it must have zero net momentum, which is to say, the measurement is in its center of momentum frame). For example, if an electron in a cyclotron is moving in circles with a relativistic velocity, the weight of the cyclotron+electron system is increased by the relativistic mass of the electron, not by the electron's rest mass. But the same is also true of any closed system, such as an electron-and-box, if the electron bounces at high speed inside the box. It is only the lack of momentum in the system which allows the kinetic energy of the electron to be "weighed." If the electron is stopped and weighed, or the scale were somehow sent after it, it would not be moving with respect to the scale, and again the relativistic and rest masses would be the same for the single electron (and would be smaller). In general, relativistic and rest masses are equal only in systems which have no net momentum and the system center of mass is at rest; otherwise they may be different.

The invariant mass is proportional to the value of the total energy in one reference frame, the frame where the object as a whole is at rest (as defined below in terms of center of mass). This is why the invariant mass is the same as the rest mass for single particles. However, the invariant mass also represents the measured mass when the center of mass is at rest for systems of many particles. This special frame where this occurs is also called the center of momentum frame, and is defined as the inertial frame in which the center of mass of the object is at rest (another way of stating this is that it is the frame in which the momenta of the system's parts add to zero). For compound objects (made of many smaller objects, some of which may be moving) and sets of unbound objects (some of which may also be moving), only the center of mass of the system is required to be at rest, for the object's relativistic mass to be equal to its rest mass.

A so-called massless particle (such as a photon, or a theoretical graviton) moves at the speed of light in every frame of reference. In this case there is no transformation that will bring the particle to rest. The total energy of such particles becomes smaller and smaller in frames which move faster and faster in the same direction. As such, they have no rest mass, because they can never be measured in a frame where they are at rest. This property of having no rest mass is what causes these particles to be termed "massless."

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Higgs mechanism...


In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is a process by which gauge bosons in a gauge theory can get a nonzero mass.

The mechanism requires an extra field, known as a Higgs field, to be added to the gauge theory. The field is chosen so that spontaneous symmetry breaking of a local symmetry causes the field to interact with some of the other fields in the gauge theory, in a manner causing them to gain mass terms. An additional consequence of the symmetry breaking is the presence of an additional gauge boson, known as a Higgs boson, mediating the interaction between the other fields and the Higgs field.

In terms of the standard model, the phrases Higgs mechanism and Higgs boson can refer specifically to the Higgs mechanism and Higgs boson which give mass to the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons, in the Standard Model[1]. Due to the effect of the quantum sea, current W and Z bosons gain an additional mass when they become constituent bosons. The Higgs mechanism in the standard model, together with the effect of the quantum sea, successfully predicts the observed mass of the W and Z bosons to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Although the evidence for the Standard Model's Higgs mechanism is overwhelming, accelerators have yet to produce its Higgs boson, or evaluate its physical properties. So it is not even known if it is elementary or composite, or even if it is a standard particle at all. It is hoped that the Large Hadron Collider at CERN will produce Higgs bosons of this kind, so that these questions can be answered.

Discovery
It was Higgs' insight that when a gauge theory is combined with a spontaneous symmetry-breaking model the (unobserved) massless bosons can acquire a mass. The total inability of previous models to describe short-range forces, and any experimentally discovered bosons, apart from pions and photons, had now been overcome.
Higgs' original article presenting the model was rejected by Physical Review Letters when first submitted, apparently because it did not predict any new detectable effects. So he added a sentence at the end, mentioning that it implies the existence of one or more new, massive scalar bosons, which do not form complete representations of the symmetry; these are the Higgs bosons.

List of seminal papers
The mechanism is also called the Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism, or Higgs–Brout–Englert–Guralnik–Hagen–Kibble mechanism,[2] or Anderson–Higgs mechanism.
It was proposed in 1964 by Robert Brout and Francois Englert,[3] independently by Peter Higgs,[4] and by Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble[5] who worked out the results by the spring of 1963[6]. It was inspired by[citation needed] the BCS theory of superconductivity vacuum-structure work by Yoichiro Nambu, the preceding Ginzburg–Landau theory, and the suggestion by Philip Anderson that superconductivity could be important for relativistic physics. It was further anticipated by earlier work of Ernst Stueckelberg on massive quantum electrodynamics.

Ben Lee is often credited with first naming the "Higgs-like" mechanism although there is debate around when this first occurred. One of the first times the Higgs name appeared in print was in 1972 when Gerardus 't Hooft and Martinus J. G. Veltman referred to it as the "Higgs-Kibble mechanism" in their Nobel winning paper.

The three papers written on this discovery by Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble; Higgs; and Brout and Englert were each recognized as milestone papers by Physical Review Letters 50th anniversary celebration. While each of these seminal papers took similar approaches, the contributions and differences among the 1964 PRL Symmetry Breaking papers are noteworthy. Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble, Higgs, Brout, and Englert were awarded the 2010 J. J. Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Particle Physics jointly for this work.

Superconductivity
The Higgs mechanism can be considered as the superconductivity in the vacuum[citation needed]. It occurs when all of space is filled with a sea of particles which are charged, or in field language, when a charged field has a nonzero vacuum expectation value. Interaction with the quantum fluid filling the space prevents certain forces from propagating over long distances.

In the Standard model
The Higgs mechanism was incorporated into modern particle physics by Steven Weinberg and is an essential part of the Standard Model.

In the standard model, at temperatures high enough so that the symmetry is unbroken, all elementary particles except the scalar Higgs boson are massless. At a critical temperature, the Higgs field spontaneously slides from the point of maximum energy in a randomly chosen direction. Once the symmetry is broken, the gauge boson particles, such as the W bosons and Z boson, acquire masses.

Fermions, such as the leptons and quarks in the Standard Model, also acquire mass as a result of their interaction with the Higgs field, but not in the same way as the gauge bosons.

(not that I agree, but interesting video)
The Mystery of Vacuum Space http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vKh_jKX7Q

[Bogie]

It's called the Higgs' Field and Higgs' Particle, or the Higgs' Mechanism, Bogie... That's what the new Hadron Collider is hunting for...

I know. There may or may not be a direct correlation between “the Higgs' Field and Higgs' Particle, or the Higgs' Mechanism”, and the missing form of energy and the sub-particle process of quantization. I don’t try to talk intelligently about the highest level of physics and math that underpin that whole search even though I am keeping up with the pop-science aspects. The Symmetry magazine that I post links to occasionally is one good source of info about the LHC for the layman as is Bee’s blog a good source to follow about theoretical physics, among many which I try to follow.

Let me submit that the Higgs field is the “dense state” energy that I call the missing state of energy, and the source of the unquantized energy at the heart of process of matter formation and quantization. The Higgs particle in my scenario is the core of a big crunch (which I sometimes refer to in my ranting ).

What I am saying is that the Higgs particle decays into dense dark energy that inflates at light speed or superluminal speed (ala Alan Guth) at the instant of the Big Bang. That means that the particle precedes the Big Bang. If they find evidence of the Higgs mechanism in data captured by Atlas at the instant after the decay of some massive particle created by the LHC, then those findings point to an origin of the Big Bang. Such a finding would push back the “beginning” of the known universe and would point to the existence of a big crunch that preceded the Big Bang; that is then in line with my QWC scenario.