why not probabilistic mass?

[AntonioLao]

In all of quantum mechanics, mass is a known quantity, determined by experiments. In the Standard Model, the Higgs mechanism provides the acquisition of mass. But the working probability of this mechanism is depended on the discovery of the scalar Higgs boson. So, until this boson is discovered, the mass generation probability of the mechanism is for all practical purposes equals zero.

http://www.desy.de/desy-th/higgs_mechanism.html

[Guille]

WOuld probabilistic mass be equal to the other two (relativistic and inertial) like a 3-way principle of equivalence?

[AntonioLao]

when the values of the mass becomes greater and greater the particles associated with them become harder and harder to detect hence their probabilities becomes nearer and nearer to zeros. But greater masses can surely be more probable in the past not in the future yet the smallest fermions such as the protons do not decay or die. They seem to live forever after they were formed in the early universe.

[hdeasy]

when the values of the mass becomes greater and greater the particles associated with them become harder and harder to detect hence their probabilities becomes nearer and nearer to zeros. But greater masses can surely be more probable in the past not in the future yet the smallest fermions such as the protons do not decay or die. They seem to live forever after they were formed in the early universe.

Heim's mass formula is the greatest success of his theory - and as you opened the thread with a link from DESY in Hamburg - note that in 1982 Heim, with the assistance of DESY scientists, programmed his mass formula on the DESY computers and all were amazed when the values came out as very accurate. The strange thing is, the experimentailsts who worked with Heim on that wanted confirmation of the equations from more theorists, but at that time no other theorists knew of the formula. Funny, as the results should be proof enough. Also, they complained of lack of lifetime estimates - 20 years later Heim had those too and so could narrow down the mass spectrum of excited states to the resonances actually observed in accelerators - which is what the DESY people had wanted. But of course when he produced it he was close to death and the DESY people were no longer as active as in 1982. C'est la vie.

Heim needs no Higgs mechanism as the masses arise by internal metron interactions of the particles.

http://heim-theory.com/Contents/Intr...s_mass-fo.html
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads...ed_Results.pdf

Oh and your idea about greater energy implying greater probabililty reminds again of Haisch et al.'s idea of some particles (muons, pions?) being variations of the basic electron, where the charge gets smeared out in such a way as to give more mass by interacting with the vacuum polarisation...

[Guille]

What about probabilstic mass being probability that a body B has mass M knowing that there are n bodies of this substance (matter) in a given space S (or V VOLUME)?

[hdeasy]

Of course with quantum mechanics you can have the wave functions of any number of particles smeared our over the universe - all we can say is that the lump of iron on the scales weighs 10 kg with probability 0.9999999999999(lots of 9's)999999999999998 . But then there is a tiny probability that it will disappear from the scales in the next millisecond to one of the places its wave function is non-zero. So that sort of effect is already inherent in QM.

[AntonioLao]

So that sort of effect is already inherent in QM.

Can this mean that QM is asserting that anything is possible? There is a chance that the universe will disappear tomorrow. Does a bigger object has a greater chance for existence? Does a smaller object has a lesser chance for existence? The most stable particle seem to be the protons and their life spans are greater than [math]10^{33}[/math] years, while the life span of an average person is around 47 years circa 1900.

site about law of averages
http://www.corsinet.com/trivia/average.html