Mass Explained

[lpetrich]

Twiglet: you started a thread on mass that was garbage because it portrayed the Higgs Field as being responsible for mass when in fact it's only responsible for 1% of mass. Now you're trying desperately to derail this one? That's dishonest, and it's damaging to the forum. I'm putting in a complaint.

The Higgs field is responsible for the (rest) masses of most of the massive Standard-Model particles, even if it is not responsible for 99% of the mass of the nucleons.

Now who wants to talk about mass? It's all very simple. See the OP. Don't let anybody tell you it's mysterious, and that you couldn't possibly understand it, or start wittering on about the fabulous Higgs boson. Einstein solved the mystery of mass in 1905.

No he didn't. He worked out how total mass varies with speed, but not the origin of rest mass. He certainly didn't demonstrate that nearly every elementary particle is nothing but photons going in circles.

[Farsight]

No he didn't. He worked out how total mass varies with speed, but not the origin of rest mass.

Come off it, he gave us what we now describe as E=mc² in Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon It's Energy Content? That's nothing to do with mass varying with speed, especially since mass is invariant, LOL! It's to do with a body losing mass when it emits radiation. Photons.

He certainly didn't demonstrate that nearly every elementary particle is nothing but photons going in circles.

No, the scientific evidence demonstrates that. Pair production creates an electron and a positron, both of which have spin angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. The Einstein de-Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is the same as classical angular momentum. So there's something going round and round in there. What can it be? Cheese? Magic? Something so weird it surpasseth all human understanding? When an electron annihilates with a positron, radiation is emitted. Typically two 511keV photons. Now where did they come from? And guess what, the electron and the positron lose mass just like Einstein's radiating body. Only they lose all their mass, because they aren't there any more. We started with light, we ended with light, so what do you think was rotating?

Face up to it lpetrich, you can't explain why my simple explanation of mass is wrong. That's because it isn't.

[lpetrich]

No he didn't. He worked out how total mass varies with speed, but not the origin of rest mass.

Come off it, he gave us what we now describe as E=mc² in Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon It's Energy Content? That's nothing to do with mass varying with speed, especially since mass is invariant, LOL! It's to do with a body losing mass when it emits radiation. Photons.

Farsight, that's just plain wrong. It's rest mass that is an invariant. The mass in E = m*c2 is what may be called "momentum mass", p = m*v. Photons have nothing to do with it.

(reiteration of Farsight's arguments...)

Farsight, I'm still waiting for your proofs that mainstream physics cannot account for any of the effects that you cite.

[Farsight]

No he didn't. He worked out how total mass varies with speed, but not the origin of rest mass.

Come off it, he gave us what we now describe as E=mc² in Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon It's Energy Content? That's nothing to do with mass varying with speed, especially since mass is invariant, LOL! It's to do with a body losing mass when it emits radiation. Photons.

Farsight, that's just plain wrong. It's rest mass that is an invariant. The mass in E = m*c2 is what may be called "momentum mass", p = m*v. Photons have nothing to do with it.

Photons have everything to do with it, Loren. The Einstein paper concerns the emission of radiation. That's photons. The body emits massless photons and loses mass. Just as the electron and positron do in annihilation, only they lose all their mass and cease to exist. You should also read the OP to understand kinetic energy and relativistic "mass". Then you'll understand "momentum mass". And by the way, see that m in your p=m*v expression? That's m for mass. Methinks you should also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass , paying attention to If the system is one particle, the invariant mass may also be called the rest mass.

Farsight, I'm still waiting for your proofs that mainstream physics cannot account for any of the effects that you cite.

I'm not offering them. What I'm offering is an understanding of the reality that underlies mainstream physics. Like the evanescent wave underlies the virtual particles of QED.

[lpetrich]

Photons have everything to do with it, Loren. The Einstein paper concerns the emission of radiation. That's photons. ...

That's a side issue, and no amount of Einstein-thumping and quote mining can change that.

Farsight, I'm still waiting for your proofs that mainstream physics cannot account for any of the effects that you cite.

I'm not offering them. What I'm offering is an understanding of the reality that underlies mainstream physics. Like the evanescent wave underlies the virtual particles of QED.

Farsight, you must justify your claims that your photon-loop theories represent the "underlying reality". At the very least, you must be able to get the Standard-Model Lagrangian out of your theories: Standard Model (mathematical formulation). You must also make predictions of observable departures from the Standard Model.

Farsight, I'm not asking very much by the standards of mainstream physicists. They consider departures from the Standard Model all the time -- supersymmetry, GUT's, extra dimensions, etc. Instead of whining about how difficult it is to get into print, you ought to try to come up with something that's worth printing.

[Farsight]

Farsight, you must justify your claims that your photon-loop theories represent the "underlying reality". At the very least, you must be able to get the Standard-Model Lagrangian out of your theories: Standard Model (mathematical formulation). You must also make predictions of observable departures from the Standard Model.

The scientific evidence justifies my claims, Loren. How you can miss this and demand mathematics instead is something I find surprising. Particularly when you demonstrate that you haven't read the OP and exhibit confusion about mass. Now come on, read that Einstein paper too, and look at the symmetry between momentum and inertia. There is no need for anybody to cling to all that irrational, mystic, "mystery of mass" hype when the real explanation is so simple.

Farsight, I'm not asking very much by the standards of mainstream physicists. They consider departures from the Standard Model all the time -- supersymmetry, GUT's, extra dimensions, etc. Instead of whining about how difficult it is to get into print, you ought to try to come up with something that's worth printing.

Other people are doing that. People with far better credentials and mathematical skills than me. When they're in print, I'll let you know.

[lpetrich]

Farsight, your theories fit Martin Gardner's pseudoscience criterion #4 VERY well.

Here are the inversions in your theories:

• Mainstream: motion a function of time. Farsight: time is somehow a byproduct of motion.
• Mainstream: stability has nothing to do with elementariness. Farsight: unstable particles cannot be elementary.
• Mainstream: decays happen by creating new particles. Farsight: decays happen by releasing trapped particles, or something like that.
• Mainstream: mathematics is an important part of theories. Farsight: it is secondary if not outright irrelevant.

I also notice this progression of physics crackpottery:

1. Anti-Newton
2. Anti-Einstein: claims to restore Newton's physics
3. Farsight: claims to restore Maxwell's and Einstein's physics

Farsight, you must justify your claims that your photon-loop theories represent the "underlying reality". At the very least, you must be able to get the Standard-Model Lagrangian out of your theories: Standard Model (mathematical formulation). You must also make predictions of observable departures from the Standard Model.

The scientific evidence justifies my claims, Loren.

You have to show how the Standard Model and other mainstream theories fail to account for that evidence. Otherwise your theories don't deserve to be taken seriously.

And when I mean the Standard Model, I mean mathematics and all. Like what's in that page I linked to.

How you can miss this and demand mathematics instead is something I find surprising.

Why do you think that mathematics is irrelevant? It's VERY relevant, or else we wouldn't have gotten anywhere beyond Aristotelianism.

Particularly when you demonstrate that you haven't read the OP and exhibit confusion about mass. Now come on, read that Einstein paper too, and look at the symmetry between momentum and inertia. There is no need for anybody to cling to all that irrational, mystic, "mystery of mass" hype when the real explanation is so simple.

Einstein-thumping. He claimed the opposite of your pet theories about time and inertia. I quoted The Meaning of Relativity and you refused to acknowledge that he believed that time and space are co-equal as space-time.

Farsight, I'm not asking very much by the standards of mainstream physicists. They consider departures from the Standard Model all the time -- supersymmetry, GUT's, extra dimensions, etc. Instead of whining about how difficult it is to get into print, you ought to try to come up with something that's worth printing.

Other people are doing that. People with far better credentials and mathematical skills than me. When they're in print, I'll let you know.

I'll believe it when I see it. Unless they can cough the Standard Model's Lagrangian out of it, I'll find it hard to take seriously.

[colubridae]

Photons have everything to do with it, Loren.

Why did you say "Loren" do you two know each other??

Just interested.

[Farsight]

Farsight, your theories fit Martin Gardner's pseudoscience...

Spare me the pseudoscience, lpetrich. We were talking about mass, and you've been getting it very obviously and very badly wrong. Now read back through the recent posts and let's get back on topic.

Why do you think that mathematics is irrelevant? It's VERY relevant, or else we wouldn't have gotten anywhere beyond Aristotelianism.

I don't. What I've repeatedly reiterated is that unless you understand the terms, like m=mass, you can't make progress. You seem unable and unwilling to appreciate this.

I'll believe it when I see it. Unless they can cough the Standard Model's Lagrangian out of it, I'll find it hard to take seriously.

You'll find it hard to take seriously even then.

Einstein-thumping. He claimed the opposite of your pet theories about time and inertia. I quoted The Meaning of Relativity and you refused to acknowledge that he believed that time and space are co-equal as space-time.

I quoted what Einstein said, and how he made it perfectly clear that space and time are very different. And he claimed the same as what I've been saying here about mass. Now come on, enough of these diversions because you've been getting mass wrong. Try to demonstrate where in the OP I'm wrong, and when you can't, face up to the fact that I'm right.

[ChildInAZoo]

Well, since you base part of your argument on a thought experiment involving a stationary photon, this seems the most obvious place that you are wrong. But you refuse to explain that.

[lpetrich]

Why do you think that mathematics is irrelevant? It's VERY relevant, or else we wouldn't have gotten anywhere beyond Aristotelianism.

I don't. What I've repeatedly reiterated is that unless you understand the terms, like m=mass, you can't make progress. You seem unable and unwilling to appreciate this.

Your so-called "understanding" is nothing but empty rhetoric.

I'll believe it when I see it. Unless they can cough the Standard Model's Lagrangian out of it, I'll find it hard to take seriously.

You'll find it hard to take seriously even then.

I think I'd marvel at the contortions that it would be necessary to go through to get the Standard Model out of your theories.

Einstein-thumping. He claimed the opposite of your pet theories about time and inertia. I quoted The Meaning of Relativity and you refused to acknowledge that he believed that time and space are co-equal as space-time.

I quoted what Einstein said, and how he made it perfectly clear that space and time are very different.

Pure quote-mining. I don't think that you understood it at all.

And he claimed the same as what I've been saying here about mass.

He didn't. What would make you accept that he didn't?

[Farsight]

LOL, you're in denial lpetrich. You've got mass very badly wrong in your recent posts, and it shows. Nor can you elucidate why Mass Explained is incorrect.