Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I am not comparing your knowledge, or mans knowledge, to other clusters of mans knowledge, only ever to the ultimate complete perfect truth

But how can you do that if nobody knows what that perfect truth is?

as long as mans knowledge is lacking, you should not be satisfied with what you know about your models now.

I never met a scientist who was satisfied, and if they thought we had all the answers we needed, they probably wouldn't have become scientists whose job it is to find more answers to unanswered questions.

But please keep this in mind:

Just because we don't know what we don't know, doesn't mean that we don't know what we do know (or think we know). For example even though we know Newton's classical mechanics has problems at relativistic velocities so it's "technically wrong", we still can say that all the experiments supporting the model were valid in non-relativistic cases where those experiments applied. So in a way, we were right because as I said, experiments do tell us something about the natural world.

Which is why I have only been questioning how your knowledge of your models, relates to reality itself.

Those are good questions, but all we have are different men's and women's knowledge, so if this isn't a perfect match with reality, how will you know? One way is through experiment, where we can prove a theory false but we can never prove it true with 100% certainty.

Also I think all scientists ask these questions that you're asking. But going back to basic QM interpretation in the OP video, so far nobody has been able to devise an experiment (that I know of) to distinguish DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation from Copenhagen interpretation (though I recall reading some scientists were trying to devise such experiments). If such an experiment is devised, then we aren't spinning our wheels to ask which one is right (or if both are wrong and some other interpretation may be right). But in the absence of such an experiment, trying to pick the right interpretation seems a bit like spinning wheels to me; there's activity, but it's not really going anywhere.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
And then in another post you were trying to tell me that rest mass is not a measurement purely of matter? If a fundamental particle meaning it has no substructure, meaning it at its most fundamental is matter, isnt the rest mass the measurement of its purest material essence? An attempt to measure the quantity of matter almost? Or does rest mass take into account things like how the matter EMly interacts and such?

The most important salient experimental fact is that the ratios of rest masses are fairly arbitrary and ugly numbers. By contrast, a positron and a proton have exactly the same electric charge. Quarks have 1/3rd or 2/3rds, apparently exactly. And other 'quantum numbers' appear to be similar, related in integers or rational numbers. So if you think that 'truth' means closer to mathematical perfection then it looks like charge and lepton number and quark type and other things are more fundamental than rest mass, which has off the wall values.

We know from the Higgs results that *some part* of rest mass appears to be related to interaction of a particle's intrinsic nature with a Higgs field, something more complicated than "it is what it is by the hand of Random Diety Who Loves Group Theory". The whole idea of Higgs is that particles which would-otherwise-in-nice-theory-be-massless get an inertial reaction which makes them act as if they had mass.

But there is no truly fundamental explanation which is convincing to everybody why rest mass is as it is, so it seems that rest mass is in someway different, and probably less "fundamental" (or at least much less simple) than other intrinsic properties of a particle. Nobody is really searching for charge or lepton number as being an effective quantity which arises out of complex interactions, they think they are as fundamental as it gets.

rest mass, not so certain.

It's more like mass is/comes from/will eventually be explained by an ugly grab bag combination of all sorts of things, Higgs, plus this plus that plus a little salt and garlic.

Which is why I ask, is a muon, merely, an accelerated rest mass, measured as a relativistic mass.

People don't use 'relativistic mass' any more. It was a mistake, even Einstein tried to stamp it out. The right idea is to modify Newton's laws appropriately, so that the relationship between momentum and velocity is not as simple.

You an accelerate an electron and you can measure its rest mass, because im sure you know of other signatures an electron would leave, so when you see those, even if you detect a large mass, you posit you have detected the relativistic mass of an electron, because the signatures. When you detect a relativistic mass greater then is possible for an electron to have, but it displays electron signatures, you say this is a muon. You calculate, if its relativistic mass is this much, and the system gave this particle this much energy, its rest mass must be this, which is much greater then the electrons rest mass, thus, new electron like particle, muon, but we didnt start with a muon.

Not relativistic mass, think total energy which comes from rest mass of electron plus energy from movement.

Do you understand all I am asking, is what final rest mass, is 'made of', give me some theory, as to where it comes from.

We don't have an explanation of where rest mass comes from right now so if we get an idea how it arises from more fundamental things in particle physics we can answer that question.

You can ask the question also, what is final charge 'made of'? Charge (total number of pluses and minuses in the universe) is conserved. Every particle has some value for this (it may be zero) and they are all integral multiples times some elementary charge. It just is.

What you're REALLY asking is "why is it that having a particle moving fast contributes energy which can be turned into rest mass in some other interactions, but that doesn't work for other quantum numbers?"

If you have electron worth of charge, and you make it go fast, how much effective charge do you have for interactions? one electron charge.
Charge is a total relativistic invariant in all reference frames!

So yes, rest mass and total energy IS different from other quantum properties like charge and lepton number et cetera which everybody thinks are totally fundamental. There are more manipulations and transformations possible.

Rest mass, people have suspicions it's not quite just 'it is'. There's plenty of speculation, but no theoretically comprehensive and quantitatively predictive theory. It's actually amazing how much the Standard Model can predict correctly to high quantitative accuracy without having a fundamental explanation of mass beyond Higgs field, which is incomplete as an explanation.

If you say 'from the vacuum energy', can you expand a little on what this concept and theory means, because this is the word energy again, which if we are honest, refers to 'matter moving'. If I am wrong, please tell me more exactly what energy refers to in this case, especially this case of vacuum energy, which may be your answer, as to where additional rest mass can be retrieved from...some frickin how.

We don't know if there is any 'how', it just happens because it's not forbidden. Eventually once mass is explained, with great difficulty, as a non-fundamental property of a particle through its complex interactions with the rest of the universe, then particles won't "have" mass any more, they will "do" mass and 'behave" mass.

Nobody will ask "where did it come from", because there wasn't any fundamental possession.

Do you ask "where does your bank balance come from"? No, you ask where does the money come from. Your bank balance is a property of money in certain configurations.

Lol your humour and language is getting similar to iamafungi, there mate
.a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

a reply to: KrzYma

maybe muon does not have the same charge like electron, and it is wrong calculated to be heavier even if it's not ??
maybe it's an "overloaded" electron interacting with itself ( cause for instability ) radiating less charge, speak, interacting less than electron does...

Ok first atoms can be overcharged nature avoids positive overcharge by placing a positron in the nucleus. In other words electrons can cause an overcharge however you need more than one. Now how do we know the difference between a muon and an electron. Well lets start by explaining fundamental particles for a minute. First dont think of it as an electron as a particle its not like a solid grain of sand. Its more like a stable cloud of energy in a fluid energy system. Now how do we know there is different mass in a muon and an electron. well the simple answer is muons are unstable and have a half life and decay into an electron.When it does we get an electron of the same charge as the muon and two neutrinos of different types. This is why one we know its heavier and two its not an electron.

originally posted by: mbkennel

The most important salient experimental fact is that the ratios of rest masses are fairly arbitrary and ugly numbers. By contrast, a positron and a proton have exactly the same electric charge. Quarks have 1/3rd or 2/3rds, apparently exactly. And other 'quantum numbers' appear to be similar, related in integers or rational numbers. So if you think that 'truth' means closer to mathematical perfection then it looks like charge and lepton number and quark type and other things are more fundamental than rest mass, which has off the wall values.

Could they be ugly numbers, because they are compared in units of measurement to 'many many multiples of those numbers summed' which go into the dealing of masses we are used to in our daily more macroscopic lives? that if the numbers were set to scale with units at their realm, the relationships between them, and this is seen when they are compared and things are said 'this particle is 2000 times more massive then this one, this one is 200 more times as massive, etc. but ok.

When you say quarks have 1/3rd or 2/3rd charge, that is 'the power of charge' when compared to 'the standard, or highest power of charge' being 1, full charge? Or no, just compared to 1 power of charge?

It would help so much to understand 'how' electrons and positrons appeared, physically, in space, to comprehend how and why positive and negative charges attract and repel. If field theory is not a statement about a physical space between the entities of particles, but only a statement about the particles themselves, then ok, that is to say if you draw a bunch of dots on a piece of paper, and draw + near some and - near others, and say, there is something unavoidable about the physical entity existence of this + dot, that as it approaches another + dot they are forced apart, where as as this + dot approaches this - dot, they are repelled. And these quark dots, under go this same effect, though to degrees of 1/3rds lesser.

I dont think the weirdness of the numbers matter, you could set the electron rest mass to equaling 1 electron rest mass, couldnt you, and then compare all other particles to that? Just as it appears the charge was set to 1?

Or this is merely because there is realistically, actually, less degrees of freedom for charge to directionally show effect. No matter how fast a charged particle is traveling or at what angle in relation towards another charged particle, and what direction and with what speed that charged particle is traveling , and I believe this is a point you make, the reactivities noted related to charge are always quite 'geometrically' orderly/simple, or can at least obviously be accounted for? Where as all other physical circumstances and results of two particles interacted, are said to be results of the nature of their masses?

Is it possible, just wondering, that the nature of charge has more to do with mass then is currently thought? But this is failed to be noticed by off setting the electron and proton by equal and opposite charges? Is it possible to escape the use of EM and charge when attempting to discover the mass of a fundamental particle experimentally and then theoretically?

As of now I really have no idea how to comprehend what mass means, if it does not directly relate to the material substance of an object, at least at its most fundamental.

I suppose I should attempt to get out of the way, asking you how you think matter exists, meaning, do you believe there is some idea and reality of physical substance, at the bottom of it all, in logic and actuality, therefore physics, therefore reality, there must be, a somethingness, which is responsible, for the existence of mass, of matter. So you can have all types of styles and theoretical ideas on how the most fundamental essence or building blocks might be, strings, or balls, or bubbles, or membranes, or the criss crossing of strings, or strings and balls, or all of these, always changing and clashing around making a mess, but there is a somethingness. I know for some reason you hate when I suggest, the imagining of being able to press pause on all the movement of the universe, to represent the example while yes, all kinetic energy would be missing from the picture, if you imagine the universe then existing like a photograph, like, the universe time halted, and you could explore this, would you deny, that you could zoom in, and see cells in your skin, and further, molecules, and the atoms and then the electron, and nucleus, and quarks (if you had the ability, to see, as I said kinetic energy in the form of movement, would not be detectable, all matter that exists) and lets say you can observe these particles, the particles that are trying to be observed, and studied, and known, without this nifty ability to pause the universe, lets say you had the ability to see, every single minute speck of material that actually existed, that actually made the electron what it is, that actually makes the quarks what they are. I am not suggesting I know how they are, strings, balls, bubbles, waves, waving strings, waving balls, strings made of balls, balls made of strings, strings waving balls made of waving strings combining with strings and fields waving virtual balls combining with strings waving strings made of balls, but I am suggesting, and asking if you would agree with me, that, 'there would be a way they would be'. And if we were to press play on the universe, and things were to resume as they would as if we had never pressed pause, we would have ever right to assume, that what you saw of all that matter, would go on existing, or immediately be altered into some other form, though, of existing matter.

That statement can be proven, by suggesting a pause/play button on this nifty thought experiment. So you could watch each transformative planck space and planck second of the entire universe, and see the matter you view in paused state, press play press pause immediately, press play press pause immediately, press play press pause immediately, and study the transformation of all parts you are able to see so clearly. You will see, matter, its interactions and movements and transformations. Maybe even gain a better understanding of why each part is what it is, moves as it does, interacts with its neighbor as it does, transforms as it does, like being able to take apart a computer completely and then putting it back together, truly understanding what the universe as a machine is, and how and why it works, even though I agree there may very well be a theoretical limit eventually, in a sort of buddhist way as at some point the most primal baseness of reality might only be describable metaphysically as 'it is exactly what it is because it is exactly what it is and there is no meaning or further understanding that can be parsed from the existence of these simple parts', though thinking about that, I am sure there are exact, logical reasons why the fundamental substance, parts and parcels exist in the forms they do and behave as they do.

Reality, unavoidably, by the nature of existing, is extremely limited. That is hilarious to say, considering all the amounts of crazy stuff that occur on earth alone in a day, or your body in a second, not to mention the galaxy. But I mean the most fundamental aspects of the substance. Infinity wasnt built in a day, nor can it ever be achieved

a reply to: mbkennel

(cntd)

infinity wasnt built in a day, nor can it ever be achieved, nor can the entire universe turn into something completely different right now, not because I said that just now, but precisely because it did, nor can it do an infinite number of other things, fundamentally, right now, this is just an example of the limitations, there will always be more limitations then possibilities. Though the limitations 'dont exist' they are abstract, like 'the universe cant turn into one dragonfly eating a piece of cotton candy right now', that statement before I said it, isnt surrounding the universe, or taunting it, it takes a mind to comprehend the nature of limitations, and know that it is the nature of limitations, that make, exactly what is, exactly what is, and exactly what is, exactly why is.

That was me merely suggesting, that it is possible we can fathom, discover, comprehend some grand 'geometric'/'mathematical' truth about why the most fundamental substance/matter/particles have the forms they do, travel the way they do, relate the way they do, exist in the numbers they do, exhibit the behaviors they do, etc.

So that was a long rant, about me trying to get you to discuss what you think the nature of mass is 'pointing to', fundamentally. Me, suggesting, or asking, as I intuitively thought, it is a quality of the substance, the quanta, of 'that' which locally exists there, 1 means of quantify and qualifying its 'thatness' its objectness, is to utilize in comparison, a system of numbers with units, which relate to how that object, that quanta of matter, most physically as itself, interacts with a controlled physical apparatus.

Charge, is another quality of that apparent object, that matter, that fundamental structure of substance.

Not all masses, are the same quantity of matter/mass. Not all masses behave the same when introduced to other masses. Some draw towards each other, some repel.

Obviously, there must be some reason this occurs. What has been came up with, is EM fields/charge.

For 2 years now I suppose, yes I havent read the feynman lectures, but I dont want abstract field lines, I want substance. I have been trying to comprehend what an EM field means, how it exists, what its made of, we know what an apple is made of, we know what makes up a protein, we know what makes an atom, we know what makes a proton and neutron, what makes EM field. Photons? Is there an ever equal quantity of photons that exist everywhere, waiting to be disturbed by an accelerated charge? Or do you for some reason escape admitting this by suggesting the logical conclusion, which is what I just stated, but in its hidden form, by saying there is a 'field of virtual particles that exist everywhere'.

That photon field, EM field, if exists everywhere in space, must be matter? Or energy? must have inherent values of its own. As individual particles, and as a total system, and as binding relation and density between each particle.

the same can be said for the gravity field, instead of photons, gravity particles. Except, when charged particle accelerates the photon field behaves differently than when a mass in general accelerates. This makes me now think in the way that the hierarchy of substances stack on top one another and fit into niches that the inherent difference between gravity particles and photons, of their respective fields, being something to do with their masses/or energy and or average density and/or total quantity, has to do with the different effects, just as the difference between different elements give them different effects on earth, as some can make atmosphere and some can make rock. The gravity particle material behaves as it does in relation to mass traveling through it, and the light particle material behaves as it does in relation to charged particle traveling through it.


I will respond to the rest of your paragraphs later.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
For 2 years now I suppose, yes I havent read the feynman lectures, but I dont want abstract field lines, I want substance.

I'll let mbkennel address the questions you addressed to him, but I just want to make two points:

1. Experimental results aren't abstract. Come up with a different model that doesn't use field lines if you can, but the model is just the model, it's not reality. The reality is if you rub a balloon on your hair, a soda can will roll toward the balloon by an invisible force. Again this is not abstract, it's a real, substantial experimental result. The soda can actually moves. This and other, much more sophisticated experiments are what tell us what we know about this behavior. Since electric charge is currently "fundamental", meaning we don't have a deeper understanding, the definition will get circular if you try to go deeper than the fundamental level. So you end up with something like this:

The soda can rolls toward the balloon.
Q: Why is that?
A: Because of electric charge.
Q: What is electric charge?
A: That which we know exists because we see the soda can roll toward the balloon.

Yes it's a circular definition, but until electric charge is no longer "fundamental", meaning we have a deeper understanding of it, I don't see how we can do much better, though you will obviously get something better than that in the Feynman lectures (however it still won't go deeper than the fundamental level), which brings me to point 2.

2. "For 2 years now I suppose, yes I havent read the feynman lectures"

They've been available for decades, but I think it was only one year ago they were put online to read them for free, so now there's no excuse about having to pay for them like there would have been two years ago:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics

In 2013, Caltech made the book freely available, on the web site feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

There is also a pdf link which you can find via search or I can provide it via pm if you can't find it.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok ive tried to give you some ideas about where we sit but i think the main key to understanding what we know about fields is the Feynman diagrams. But if you dont understand them its just lines drawn on paper so first lets me post this to help you understand them.

physics.tutorvista.com...

Now as i said before "A field is an abstraction. Fields aren't "made of" anything its not something physical its a force meaning it needs a force carrier a photon. the field are photon makes isnt a physical entity but a representation of its properties. When we discuss fields all we are concerned with is its densities (how strong its force is in a particular point in space). Fields do not require something to be there to propagate they do that quite nicely on their own what they do require is a source and that is an interaction between two particles or one if its unstable.

One more thing the Feynman diagrams are designed to give you that mental picture of whats going on but again its just a model the interactions are much more complicated this just helps us visualize them like your trying to do.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I dont think the weirdness of the numbers matter, you could set the electron rest mass to equaling 1 electron rest mass, couldnt you, and then compare all other particles to that? Just as it appears the charge was set to 1?

Yes, and it comes out ugly with mass, and it comes out clean with other stuff. That's why I said 'ratios of rest mass', and rest mass of electron (which is simple unlike a proton) is a good baseline to start. The problem is fundamental, not a property of measurement units.

Or this is merely because there is realistically, actually, less degrees of freedom for charge to directionally show effect. No matter how fast a charged particle is traveling or at what angle in relation towards another charged particle, and what direction and with what speed that charged particle is traveling , and I believe this is a point you make, the reactivities noted related to charge are always quite 'geometrically' orderly/simple, or can at least obviously be accounted for? Where as all other physical circumstances and results of two particles interacted, are said to be results of the nature of their masses?

Something is different with mass vs other particle properties. An electromagnetic force interacts with charged particles. If particles are uncharged, nothing happens. Mass is strange since it seems to come from all sorts of things, and through general relativity, influences all sorts of other things.

Is it possible, just wondering, that the nature of charge has more to do with mass then is currently thought?

There are hypothetical explanations trying to make mass and inertia a derived consequence of electromagnetism but they are not well accepted or considered successful.

But this is failed to be noticed by off setting the electron and proton by equal and opposite charges? Is it possible to escape the use of EM and charge when attempting to discover the mass of a fundamental particle experimentally and then theoretically?

Yes, you can put an uncharged brick on a mass balance. Elementary particles? They're so small people generally infer rest mass through the Einstein formula, see what stuff goes into a reaction and what stuff goes out (and how fast) and if they know all of the masses except for one they can figure it out. That's how particle physics has done it since the beginning.

As of now I really have no idea how to comprehend what mass means, if it does not directly relate to the material substance of an object, at least at its most fundamental.

I don't know what you mean by 'material substance' as a fundamental physics property. You have to be precise about that, but in practical use you can call all particles which have non-zero rest mass as 'material substance'. In human intuitive terms, stuff that "doesn't go away easily", and "stuff which can be heavy" is what a layman might call 'material substance'. In physics terms, this means "strong conservation laws on quantum numbers" and "positive rest mass". In practice: electrons, protons and neutrons, i.e. atoms,--- yes. Photons --- no. There's strong conservation laws on lepton number and baryon number so that electrons and nuclei don't easily disappear, they hang around, and they're heavy. Photons, by contrast don't act like that.

This is also the source of confusion in 'wave-particle duality'. In theory, both atoms/electrons/protons and photons both are combination particles+waves at a fundamental QM level. In practical circumstances relevant to human life on Earth's surface and accessible by technology, the first act much more like particles and the second act much more like waves.

I suppose I should attempt to get out of the way, asking you how you think matter exists, meaning, do you believe there is some idea and reality of physical substance, at the bottom of it all, in logic and actuality, therefore physics, therefore reality, there must be, a somethingness, which is responsible, for the existence of mass, of matter. So you can have all types of styles and theoretical ideas on how the most fundamental essence or building blocks might be, strings, or balls, or bubbles, or membranes, or the criss crossing of strings, or strings and balls, or all of these, always changing and clashing around making a mess, but there is a somethingness. I know for some reason you hate when I suggest, the imagining of being able to press pause on all the movement of the universe, to represent the example while yes, all kinetic energy would be missing from the picture, if you imagine the universe then existing like a photograph, like, the universe time halted, and you could explore this, would you deny, that you could zoom in, and see cells in your skin, and further, molecules, and the atoms and then the electron, and nucleus, and quarks (if you had the ability, to see, as I said kinetic energy in the form of movement, would not be detectable, all matter that exists) and lets say you can observe these particles, the particles that are trying to be observed, and studied, and known, without this nifty ability to pause the universe, lets say you had the ability to see, every single minute speck of material that actually existed, that actually made the electron what it is, that actually makes the quarks what they are. I am not suggesting I know how they are, strings, balls, bubbles, waves, waving strings, waving balls, strings made of balls, balls made of strings, strings waving balls made of waving strings combining with strings and fields waving virtual balls combining with strings waving strings made of balls, but I am suggesting, and asking if you would agree with me, that, 'there would be a way they would be'. And if we were to press play on the universe, and things were to resume as they would as if we had never pressed pause, we would have ever right to assume, that what you saw of all that matter, would go on existing, or immediately be altered into some other form, though, of existing matter.

Sure, what else is physics about? Yes, there's some objective reality shared by all observers and it has quantifiable behaviors. Physics is less concerned about "What is" vs "what happens that we can observe" and "what is" constructs are only useful as needed to explain "what happens".

originally posted by: ImaFungi

That was me merely suggesting, that it is possible we can fathom, discover, comprehend some grand 'geometric'/'mathematical' truth about why the most fundamental substance/matter/particles have the forms they do, travel the way they do, relate the way they do, exist in the numbers they do, exhibit the behaviors they do, etc.

Yeah, that is the "Theory of Everything", to explain all of fundamental observed particles as consequence of limited number of mathematical principles. The string theorists have been going at it for a while now and the problem is getting worse, their mathematics can make astronmically many sorts of universes with their own laws of physics that don't appear to be related to our own.

People do try to get down to the most minimal assumptions of "stuff that you have to believe" vs "stuff that you can calculate from the stuff you believe and the stuff you already calculated". That's how physics has worked since, well in practice, it was invented by Isaac Newton who had the conceptual viewpoint of how the thought process should work.

So that was a long rant, about me trying to get you to discuss what you think the nature of mass is 'pointing to', fundamentally. Me, suggesting, or asking, as I intuitively thought, it is a quality of the substance, the quanta, of 'that' which locally exists there, 1 means of quantify and qualifying its 'thatness' its objectness, is to utilize in comparison, a system of numbers with units, which relate to how that object, that quanta of matter, most physically as itself, interacts with a controlled physical apparatus.

In the end, mass probably won't be as fundamental as other properties. The fact that an electron isn't made up of quarks is fundamental. Particles of three quarks are different from particles of two.

Charge, is another quality of that apparent object, that matter, that fundamental structure of substance.

Yes, as are other 'quantum numbers' which reflect each particle's identity in the group structure of the mathematical theory.

Not all masses, are the same quantity of matter/mass. Not all masses behave the same when introduced to other masses. Some draw towards each other, some repel.

No, we've never seen this with mass ever. All masses behave the same when introduced to other masses gravitationally.

Obviously, there must be some reason this occurs. What has been came up with, is EM fields/charge.

For 2 years now I suppose, yes I havent read the feynman lectures, but I dont want abstract field lines, I want substance. I have been trying to comprehend what an EM field means, how it exists, what its made of, we know what an apple is made of, we know what makes up a protein, we know what makes an atom, we know what makes a proton and neutron, what makes EM field. Photons? Is there an ever equal quantity of photons that exist everywhere, waiting to be disturbed by an accelerated charge?

No, there is an underlying electromagnetic field in the universe which when disturbed happens to like to move around in ways, which when viewed through quantum field theory, is most simply described as photons. Crude analogy: ocean's surface (underlying field), various kinds of waves and how they move (photons). It's a QM and not classical property that restricts EM field in such a way that 'photons' can be counted. In classical electromagnetism, there is no integer 'count' of field amplitudes, it's entirely continuous (larger vs smaller waves). In the ocean analogy, think as if the minimal possible size of the wave is 1 millimeter. Big waves are just collections of many small waves which are pointing in the same direction & wavelength.

You will not be able to intuitively visualize quantum field theory. First you have to understand classical physics, then undergrad quantum mechanics, and then on to QFT, and that's not possible without work & learning. The further you go, the less intuitive and more math you need.

Or do you for some reason escape admitting this by suggesting the logical conclusion, which is what I just stated, but in its hidden form, by saying there is a 'field of virtual particles that exist everywhere'.

There is a field which exists everywhere which supports real and virtual particles and there are specific equations of motion explaining how they work.

That photon field, EM field, if exists everywhere in space, must be matter? Or energy?

Since photons have zero rest mass, hard to call it 'matter'. Sure there's energy associated with configurations of it.

the same can be said for the gravity field, instead of photons, gravity particles. Except, when charged particle accelerates the photon field behaves differently than when a mass in general accelerates. This makes me now think in the way that the hierarchy of substances stack on top one another and fit into niches that the inherent difference between gravity particles and photons, of their respective fields, being something to do with their masses/or energy and or average density and/or total quantity, has to do with the different effects, just as the difference between different elements give them different effects on earth, as some can make atmosphere and some can make rock. The gravity particle material behaves as it does in relation to mass traveling through it, and the light particle material behaves as it does in relation to charged particle traveling through it.

Right, that's called classical physics which is time for you to learn.

Charge couples to E&M which couples to charge, mass couples to gravity which couples to mass (and everything). Some things are similar, and some are not.

Read the lectures. And think much more about experimental facts which need an explanation before thinking about "Truth" or stuff like that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why use field lines, if nothing like field lines exist. If something like field lines exist, why not more explicitly state what they are, substantially. Materially. Physically. Really. If there is something that is causing a force, there is something that is causing a force. If something like the physical description of field lines is not causing the force, what is the idea of what is causing it? Is there substance between what is being represented by the lines of field lines? Are the field lines themselves representing a physicality of some substance? Are field lines strings of Photons? If you remove field lines from your knowledge, they were originally put in your knowledge to represent something, what are they attempting to represent? If field lines are the fake representations of something hat exists, what is the real thing it is attempting to represent. Do photons exist throughout space? If not, how does the force represented by field lines work?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok ive tried to give you some ideas about where we sit but i think the main key to understanding what we know about fields is the Feynman diagrams. But if you dont understand them its just lines drawn on paper so first lets me post this to help you understand them.

physics.tutorvista.com...

Now as i said before "A field is an abstraction. Fields aren't "made of" anything its not something physical its a force meaning it needs a force carrier a photon. the field are photon makes isnt a physical entity but a representation of its properties. When we discuss fields all we are concerned with is its densities (how strong its force is in a particular point in space). Fields do not require something to be there to propagate they do that quite nicely on their own what they do require is a source and that is an interaction between two particles or one if its unstable.

One more thing the Feynman diagrams are designed to give you that mental picture of whats going on but again its just a model the interactions are much more complicated this just helps us visualize them like your trying to do.

I know what feynman diagrams are and understand their essence, I am after a great artists painting of a landscape, not a childs finger painting. I am after the most realness, the most substance, the highest and most truth about reality, not the most minimal abstractions.

originally posted by: mbkennel



I don't know what you mean by 'material substance' as a fundamental physics property. You have to be precise about that, but in practical use you can call all particles which have non-zero rest mass as 'material substance'. In human intuitive terms, stuff that "doesn't go away easily", and "stuff which can be heavy" is what a layman might call 'material substance'. In physics terms, this means "strong conservation laws on quantum numbers" and "positive rest mass". In practice: electrons, protons and neutrons, i.e. atoms,--- yes. Photons --- no. There's strong conservation laws on lepton number and baryon number so that electrons and nuclei don't easily disappear, they hang around, and they're heavy. Photons, by contrast don't act like that.

What I mean by 'material substance' is what I try to explain later in the posts you are responding to, the difference between absolute nothing, and bare minimum requirement for something to be something. The distinction between absolute nothing, and the most minimum potential quanta of something, is an absolute distinction. Either something is, or there is no something, which is referred to as nothing, or should be.

If you imagine the entire spatial extent of the universe to be packed with 'material substance photons' (which I have heard no argument why it ought be thought of any other way), if you disagree, you will say things like 'EM radiation doesnt need a medium to propagate in', but that causes me to respond, by saying, then where does the EM radiation come from? Where and how/in what form, does it exist in prior to being propagated? This is one of those tricky area.

But if you assume, I will do so anyway in anticipation of you attempting to prove my assumption wrong, that like the GR stress energy tensor gravity fields, there exists a medium which is required besides the interacted with the medium, in gravities case mass, in charged particles case, photon medium, or EM field. Then this will show why, why you would call a photon, has 0 comparative rest mass.

And that would be, because you are never measuring the Photon field. Maybe as it is so hard to measure a particle of the gravity field too. If I make this assumptive statement, about a medium/3d network of photons exist, and that charged particles travel 'amongst' this, and when a charged particle is accelerated, then! a novel event occurs amidst the locality, and then beyond, of the photon field, and that is the creation of a wave which propagates. See what I am calling a photon for this example, if that troubles you, use the term base light particle, or something, is a material substance particle, that has a rest mass, and what you are talking about a photon, is the chain reactive wave effect, of those photons being disturbed by a charge accelerating, therefore when you measure that wave you say, this wave has no rest mass! Failing to consider that the substance of the wave, has 'somethingness' in order to 'do something'. That a wave cant be made of nothing, that an object may stop this wave, but 'that which made the wave, in terms of substance' still exists. As the average density of the Photon field.

Just like the gravity particle must have a mass. If you take two planets in free intergalactic space, you presume they would exhibit the phenomenon of gravity. GR, the main reason it was needed, was to explain, how two bodies could interact at a distance without touching. Aha! They existed in a medium, which was alterable by their presence, which allowed them to exhibit forces on one another, without the extent of their physical, local

This is also the source of confusion in 'wave-particle duality'. In theory, both atoms/electrons/protons and photons both are combination particles+waves at a fundamental QM level. In practical circumstances relevant to human life on Earth's surface and accessible by technology, the first act much more like particles and the second act much more like waves.

I have tried to go about receiving some further specific elucidation regarding the meaning of how in actuality or theory, 'a thing' such as for example, an electron, can be both a particle + wave.

In attempting to receive this further knowledge, I assume you are correct, so I am not looking for a 'you just gotta assume I am correct', because we have already accomplishing that step, I am suspending my disbelief to further attempt to grasp most substantial meaning of the interpretations and statements that a fundamental object is a wave and a particle.

I ask for clarification in this way:

Understand, I am only trying to grasp what is meant, when it is said, a particle is a wave and a particle.

What these terms mean, I am trying to be thorough, because why wouldnt and shouldnt I, if all I want to do is understand. This is a phrase that is used a lot, and appears to be an important concept. Maybe I will learn the math later, right now I want to understand the language.

Ok, lets take one particle.

You can give this particle or quanta a name, but for now I will call it quanta.

Is this quanta (singular, one, for this example, and the sake of being thorough) you are referring to in your above response;

always, at all times both a particle and a wave?

never, at all times both a particle and a wave? Meaning, at times exactly a particle, at times exactly a wave.

or, at times a particle which at times waves, and which at times does not wave. And a wave at time which is a particle, and at other times, is not a wave?


Lets say we have a graph, X, Y, axis ( would Z be the 3rd dimension? lets use 2, but always remember the object we are referring to might or must also have depth).

What does our example quanta look like plotted on this graph? I am just wondering about the physicality, a scale or analogy of its possible dimensions or shape.

Does it look more like a sphere maybe that touches X,3 , X,-3, Y,3, Y,-3?

Or a square that touches those numbers? Or a rectangle that touches two of those points of larger values?

Or does it look like a rounded rectangle that does not have straight lines but is wavy?

Is this a snapshot of an object, or is it impossible to separate the physicality of an object from the space (meh, time) in which it 'moves'?

If after we plotted the snapshot of this quanta on our graph, we pressed play, pause,play, pause,play,pause,play,pause,play,pause.... 100 times, then another 100 times, then another 100 times;

how would we expect the quanta to appear over those times? is it moving 'up and down' the graph and THAT, and ONLY THAT is the 'wave nature' of a quanta?

Or, is its physical body not moving up and down the graph at great intervals and value changes, but its body itself, the wavyness of it, is oscillating to relative lower and higher degrees at points along its lengths?

Or both, its physical body is vibrating/waving at its lengths, like if its lengths were jump ropes going up and down, and, the object was moving up and down the graph?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If field lines are the fake representations of something hat exists, what is the real thing it is attempting to represent.

I repeat, the field lines are a model, not reality. The reality is that the soda can is attracted to the balloon. This attraction of positive and negative charges is fundamental, meaning there is no deeper explanation (that we know of). You could ask "why doesn't gravity make things fall up?" We don't know the answer to that either, we just observe it makes things fall down, and that's the reality, whether you draw field lines, or some other model, or whether you don't use any model at all, things still fall down.

The reason we create the model is to not only explain what happens in experiments, but to make predictions about experiments that haven't been done yet. If the model is good, it will make accurate predictions, so that's the end goal of the model, to make accurate predictions. In my opinion it's not the end goal of the model to say that "it's the real thing" because, it never is, and I doubt it will be. If you dig hard and far enough in comparing any model to reality, you always find it differs or breaks down at some point, but the model can still be useful.

For example, Newton's models are still useful, even though we now know they are technically "wrong". We avoid using them in cases where the errors in the model would create a problem (like GPS), but the errors in the model are so small in most cases that they are negligible and we still use the model.

If not, how does the force represented by field lines work?

You need to stop stalling on reading the Feynman lectures. The math isn't that advanced, because it's an introductory text. Aside from the fact nobody want's to re-type the whole book here, it would be a copyright violation to do so.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Yeah, that is the "Theory of Everything", to explain all of fundamental observed particles as consequence of limited number of mathematical principles. The string theorists have been going at it for a while now and the problem is getting worse, their mathematics can make astronmically many sorts of universes with their own laws of physics that don't appear to be related to our own.

Well I know very little about string theory, but I dont think you shouldnt attempt to play nice, as all humans of 'intelligence' should only be working together, in a non waring and battling way (of course argument and discussion requires battle like exchanges of energy/ideas) , but as long as all people are seeking the highest potential understanding of reality achievable by humans, then everyone should be 'on the same page' so to speak, or at least open to understanding. Especially since, scientists will be, as you say, the first to admit they dont know everything, and their knowledge is limited to, quite obviously, what they have learned.

If it can be posited that, (non string theory) standard model will 'flesh out' over time, like, it is apparent, to see that the pieces are just falling into place, you are on the right track, and the model in theory is completeable, from that perspective there would be no reason to even consider beginning thinking or trying something like string theory. So why does 1 smart person, let alone seemingly maybe many, think it is necessary to try anything other than the standard model? Or do you think they are all crazy and dumb and wrong, with their desire to stray from standard model at least?

People do try to get down to the most minimal assumptions of "stuff that you have to believe" vs "stuff that you can calculate from the stuff you believe and the stuff you already calculated". That's how physics has worked since, well in practice, it was invented by Isaac Newton who had the conceptual viewpoint of how the thought process should work.

I see. I believe what I was trying to get at earlier about 'mass', is that I was under the impression it is the quintessential concept of somethingness. That is to say, using math to describe reality, without the concept of mass, would be strictly empty numbers. Hm, well, I think what I am trying to say is the relationship between abstract number, and geometry. Abstract number being 1, 2, 3, 4. The number 4 has no physical association with it, but in an abstract way, the symbol, and abstract essence of 4, is that it is 2 and 2, or 2 more than 2. You add geometry, a circle, or sphere. And therefore are adding the concept of area, circumference etc. Then you can say this sphere has an area of 2. This sphere has an area of 4. And then we see how purely abstract concepts of 'size' and 'difference' of numbers, can relate directly to physical proportions. So the idea of mass, or the reality of mass, I believe, relates directly, to some special statement about an objects physicality, and inherent geometry. Well, we know there is a difference between 'size' and area a mass takes up, as in, an object can take up less area and be more massive, but I believe that is merely a trick of density right? So in reality, if planck lengths are imagined points, or something like this, mass is maybe how many 'minimal spaces' are 'full of something'. The proton is much more massive than the electron, because the proton 'has more stuff to it'? Just as a sphere with an area 4 has more 'stuff to it' than a sphere with an area 2. But as I have just admitted, a sphere with an area 4 that is made of feathers would not be as massive as a sphere of area 2 made of steel. And the problem continues to regress downwards, when you consider, why a sphere area of 4 containing steel and a sphere area of 4 containing feathers does not have equal masses, the problem regresses down to, 'why do the fundamental particles have masses, have different masses, and what actually is mass referring to'?

Oh well, my error! even comparing electron to proton, as i had slipped my mind to instead refer to the more associateable fundamental quanta, the quark, to the electron, as they are both fundamental apparently, it would have been more fair to compare them when speaking of the nature of fundamental mass.

So you think, it might be that there is no physical reason why a fundamental quark and an electron would have different masses? Like area and substance/material may not have any ultimate meaning as to why one would have this quality of mass, more than another? It could just be a whacky, unreasonable, illogical...bahhh, I am so compelled to think that cant be so. That the 'electron essence' is just fundamentally 'less substantial', like its feather essence, inherently, compared to a quark that is fundamentally more mass. When things dont have physical reasons, logical cause and effect relationship reasons why they are, it just seems like a cartoon, where people dont have to obey physics, and explain themselves, the very notion of 'real' is that 'there must be 'something' that explains itself', for things to work, exact things must be occurring, for things to work. This is logic at its most primal simplicity.

So it could be at the fundamental level, that the object electron may even be a bigger physical size then a quark, may have its real physical substance take up more 'minimal units of area' (which is what size means i guess), but 'just because' the substance of its substance, is naturally and inherently 'less substantial' then that of a quark, so that a quark has more mass.

No, there is an underlying electromagnetic field in the universe which when disturbed happens to like to move around in ways, which when viewed through quantum field theory, is most simply described as photons. Crude analogy: ocean's surface (underlying field), various kinds of waves and how they move (photons). It's a QM and not classical property that restricts EM field in such a way that 'photons' can be counted. In classical electromagnetism, there is no integer 'count' of field amplitudes, it's entirely continuous (larger vs smaller waves). In the ocean analogy, think as if the minimal possible size of the wave is 1 millimeter. Big waves are just collections of many small waves which are pointing in the same direction & wavelength.

So EM wave is like a compression wave in this medium? Without measuring an area of EM radiation, its waving, once we measure it, the way the waves interact with our measuring apparatus, quantifies (of course as all things are, the waves themselves were already quantized, but our interacting with them quantizes them in a different way) the wave as a particle, that is to say 'we have measured 1 interactive event of EM radiation crashing into our detector, that is a particular event, that is a particle event'.

There is a field which exists everywhere which supports real and virtual particles and there are specific equations of motion explaining how they work.

Does the EM field have greater then 0 mass/energy values at every point?

In the post I responded to you, you havent responded to yet, I give my argument for why you wouldnt think photons have mass, but why I am arguing the EM field that is not currently actively disturbed in the form of radiation, that is to say the average EM fi

originally posted by: mbkennel


We know from the Higgs results that *some part* of rest mass appears to be related to interaction of a particle's intrinsic nature with a Higgs field, something more complicated than "it is what it is by the hand of Random Diety Who Loves Group Theory". The whole idea of Higgs is that particles which would-otherwise-in-nice-theory-be-massless get an inertial reaction which makes them act as if they had mass.

Why would, in nice theory, any particle be massless? This sounds like circular logic, considering the concept of mass was birthed out of experiment and theory. So reality wants us to take into consideration whatever physically is represented by our need to quantify and consider and calculate 'mass'. And then only after that, you think it would be nice theory if, this apparently very necessary concept, and fact, of reality did not exist in any way? This is why I am so compelled to say of the fundamental importance of quantifying mass, and its potential, maybe obvious, relationship to the very meaning of what it is for 'something at all to exist', is have this detectable characteristic of detectability, or inertial resistance, to exclaim that 'this is something', 'there is something here, that requires something else, to 'move' 'it' '.

Can I ask, why the higgs field needs to be supposed at all, by asking; Say we did not consider this another turtle down, why is it impossible that a reality, that our reality, might exist such that mass is a fundamental characteristic of a particle, just existing? Like, there is an electron, because an electron is an electron, or because an electron is, it has mass. Why do we need a middle man? Please dont tell me the higgs was invented only to try and explain why some particles dont have mass...

Can I also ask, does the higgs particle have mass? And if so, what gives it its mass?

But there is no truly fundamental explanation which is convincing to everybody why rest mass is as it is, so it seems that rest mass is in someway different, and probably less "fundamental" (or at least much less simple) than other intrinsic properties of a particle. Nobody is really searching for charge or lepton number as being an effective quantity which arises out of complex interactions, they think they are as fundamental as it gets.

Well charge ruins me, completely. Yes yes, read Feynman lectures. But I am a firm believer, and have infinite faith, that it is impossible for things to occur that are not caused to occur by other things that occur that are caused by things which occurred because other things occurred etc. So I believe that the nature of charge, must be one that is physically and logically explainable. If reality is doing it, reality must be doing it some way, and some how, this is perfectly reasonable and logical. Reality is reasonable and logical. Reasonable, as, there are reasons why reality is the way it is and does what it does the way it is and the what it is doing and the why and the how and the where and the when. And logic, is pretty much the same thing. The only way these assumptions of mine can be false, is if our reality is 'an illusion' or a fake one, I dont believe that, so I assume reality is real, and therefore logical and reasonable.

As you have heard me say over and over again now, I believe and assume, rest mass, is a fundamental quantitative (maybe qualitative too, though I suppose absolutely everything by default unavoidance is quantity and quality) aspect of what it means, physically, for anything to exist at all. When given the fact that, not only does anything exist at all, apparently lots of stuff exists, comparing the tiniest parts of all the stuff, it is found that some have 'more or less' of this unavoidable thing named 'mass', which appears to be a statement, about the geometrical, physical, substantiveness of the most base, fundamental quanta/units of material.

Last night, after thinking about some of these topics, I realized that yes, I may be falling victim to my own simplification, and fundamental reality may be much more complex then I can perceive. The analogy I thought of, was, the effect when dropping oil, paint, or food coloring into a bowl of water, the details and shapes and forms and speeds and angles and trajectories of the swirls, I thought it could be that every where in the universe, that could be going on, in 3/4 dimensions, in every square millimeter, at and near the speed of light, a million times a second. How could I possibly make sense of a reality like that, if I can not keep track and make sense of the details in my macro world of the swirling colors of dye in a bowl of water. But that was just an analogy of me attempting to admit to myself that reality may be, at the most fundamental level, packed to the brim with complexities. This thought was aided when thinking of how the most fundamental quanta were all of comparatively, relatively small masses, like why is there not a fundamental particle the size of a grain of sand or your head. This made me think that reality is extremely dense, something about that, that all the fundamentality is compressed into the smallest spaces and levels, and can only build and clump up in such ways, such freaking novel ways like the atom, which then does its building and clumping. Its a system of checks and balances.

originally posted by: mbkennel




Not relativistic mass, think total energy which comes from rest mass of electron plus energy from movement.

We don't have an explanation of where rest mass comes from right now so if we get an idea how it arises from more fundamental things in particle physics we can answer that question.

You can ask the question also, what is final charge 'made of'? Charge (total number of pluses and minuses in the universe) is conserved. Every particle has some value for this (it may be zero) and they are all integral multiples times some elementary charge. It just is.

Yes, damn, nature is 'weird', but true, so it is only me that is weird, for thinking truth can be weird, in response to your musings on charge. Well, charge, seemingly is 'made' of, the geometric orientations of physically interacting systems. Using my understanding of gravity, I would say 'gravity is made of' the altered geometric shape of the gravity field by a mass. So the reason charge is as it is, or works as it does, I would say, must be some geometric aspect of the physical nature of the facilitating field and the interacting charge. I dont want to, or dont think, that plus and minus charge exist because plus charges are plus magic and minus charges are minus magic and they interact with the plus minus magic field. I think there must be some, key to lock like reasons that physical systems physically behave as they do in relation to other physical systems.

What you're REALLY asking is "why is it that having a particle moving fast contributes energy which can be turned into rest mass in some other interactions, but that doesn't work for other quantum numbers?"

If you have electron worth of charge, and you make it go fast, how much effective charge do you have for interactions? one electron charge.
Charge is a total relativistic invariant in all reference frames!

Thats not what I am really asking, but that is another interesting question. I was literally asking, how rest mass can be increased in a result, when the only additive feature was 'movement itself'. But maybe if I take a shot in the dark, maybe the faster two objects are moving, the greater the force ( like create more sparks between to pieces of metal maybe the more force you use) they cause when not only colliding with each other, but colliding with the fundamental fields that they exist around/within/coupled to, and it is that forceful reaction which alters the local field into different type of matter then accessible for the newly 'decimated' collided particles to form up with as they congeal. Another interesting thing I can ask about that, is when two particles collide, or any particles collide, do they always result in new particles? Their 'stuff' cannot just be decimated so much it just flitters into the background ambient/fundamental fields. Or as according to my shot in the dark, as maybe it is the reaction with the fields that frees up some matter to be used to make larger fundamental particles, can regular fundamental particles be 'decimated' into fundamental field 'stuff'. Like can standard model particles be turned into gravity particles completely? Can they be turned completely into photons? Like can you theoretically start with quarks and electrons and other particles like that, collide them in such a way, that the result is no particles at all like that, but only photons?

We don't know if there is any 'how', it just happens because it's not forbidden. Eventually once mass is explained, with great difficulty, as a non-fundamental property of a particle through its complex interactions with the rest of the universe, then particles won't "have" mass any more, they will "do" mass and 'behave" mass.

Would I be reading into you correctly, be assuming it is a personally thought conviction that mass is not fundamental, or a mixture of personal and learned? I have asked about mass, or brought it up in a few other replies to you, so maybe you will express in those, why you dont think it is a fundamental quality of, somethingness, as I seem to do.

a reply to: dragonridr

....well the simple answer is muons are unstable and have a half life and decay into an electron.When it does we get an electron of the same charge as the muon and two neutrinos of different types. This is why one we know its heavier and two its not an electron.

could you please provide any experiment on muon-> electron + 2neutrino decay other than calculations coming from the theory ??

How exactly do you detect neutrinos after muon decay, who did it and when ??

all Neutrino Detectors I know of were never used by Millikan, Anderson, Cameron, Compton, Rossi, Street, Stevenson, Neddermeyer, Blackett, Galison, Carlson, Oppenheimer or whoever else worked practically or theoretical with cosmic rays at the time muons were introduced and QM rescued from disaster...

a reply to: ImaFungi

I really recommend you to take a look at Feynman's lecture, so you understand the language the others are using


I would spar the first 34 minutes where he is convincing people to believe what he is saying and start at 34:35 where he explains how they came to the conclusion light (EM radiation) is a particle.
Very interesting also is the part starting at 40:50 where he introduces the probability explaining it with light reflection ( totally ignoring the configuration of the reflecting atoms )

I'm afraid however, you will not find any answers to why or how something works, only the believe - understanding how