Register to reply

...the observed masses of the particles.. R. Feynman

by Buckeye
Tags: feynman
Share this thread:
Buckeye
#1
May14-08, 05:34 PM
P: 162
Feynman wrote: "Throughout this entire story there remains one especially unsatisfactory features: the observed masses of the particles, m. There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use these numbers in all our theories, but we do not understand them - what they are, or where they come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of view, this is a very interesting and serious problem." end of quotation

Is this statement by Feynman from 1985 still true?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
'Squid skin' metamaterials project yields vivid color display
Team finds elusive quantum transformations near absolute zero
Scientists control surface tension to manipulate liquid metals (w/ Video)
humanino
#2
May14-08, 05:42 PM
humanino's Avatar
P: 2,828
Quote Quote by Buckeye View Post
Feynman wrote: "Throughout this entire story there remains one especially unsatisfactory features: the observed masses of the particles, m. There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use these numbers in all our theories, but we do not understand them - what they are, or where they come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of view, this is a very interesting and serious problem." end of quotation

Is this statement by Feynman from 1985 still true?
Which mass are you talking about ? Your quotation is out of context : where was that written ?

The masses of fundamental particles, your mass and the ones of familiar objects around you, or the electromagnetically invisible masses that show up gravitationnally at astronomical scales ? At different levels, all those different masses are not satisfactorilly explained. But you need to focus the discussion, otherwise if you want to talk about all of them, you should open separate discussions, since those are independent problems.
Buckeye
#3
May14-08, 05:49 PM
P: 162
Quote Quote by humanino View Post
Which mass are you talking about ? Your quotation is out of context : where was that written ?

The masses of fundamental particles, your mass and the ones of familiar objects around you, or the electromagnetically invisible masses that show up gravitationnally at astronomical scales ? At different levels, all those different masses are not satisfactorilly explained. But you need to focus the discussion, otherwise if you want to talk about all of them, you should open separate discussions, since those are independent problems.

The quote is on p152 from "QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".

humanino
#4
May14-08, 06:02 PM
humanino's Avatar
P: 2,828
...the observed masses of the particles.. R. Feynman

Quote Quote by Buckeye View Post
The quote is on p152 from "QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".
So I suppose you are refering to the masses of fundamental particles. Assuming this is correct, do you want to talk about the Higgs mechanism in electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking, or about the so-called hierarchy problem (fine-tuning and naturalness) ?
Buckeye
#5
May14-08, 06:09 PM
P: 162
Quote Quote by humanino View Post
So I suppose you are refering to the masses of fundamental particles. Assuming this is correct, do you want to talk about the Higgs mechanism in electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking, or about the so-called hierarchy problem (fine-tuning and naturalness) ?

I have not referred to any particular particles. I'm simply asking if Feynman's statement is true or not?
humanino
#6
May14-08, 06:14 PM
humanino's Avatar
P: 2,828
Quote Quote by Buckeye View Post
I have not referred to any particular particles. I'm simply asking if Feynman's statement is true or not?
I already told you that Feynman statement is still valid, independently of which type of mass you are interested in. I do not ask you whether you refer to any specific or "particular" particle. I ask you whether you refer to fundamental particles, like e.g. quarks, and by contradistinction to, for instance, the proton.

The Higgs mechanism allows you to have massive fundamental particles in the standard model.
Buckeye
#7
May14-08, 06:22 PM
P: 162
Quote Quote by humanino View Post
I already told you that Feynman statement is still valid, independently of which type of mass you are interested in. I do not ask you whether you refer to any specific or "particular" particle. I ask you whether you refer to fundamental particles, like e.g. quarks, and by contradistinction to, for instance, the proton.

The Higgs mechanism allows you to have massive fundamental particles in the standard model.

If we have no clue where the mass comes from, then how do we know it is not simply "mechanical" mass instead of "electromagnetic" mass or "inertial" mass?
humanino
#8
May14-08, 06:27 PM
humanino's Avatar
P: 2,828
Quote Quote by Buckeye View Post
If we have no clue where the mass comes from, then how do we know it is not simply "mechanical" mass instead of "electromagnetic" mass or "inertial" mass?
This is not a discussion. Trying to address your own questions, I ask you another question to clarify, which unfortunately you do not seem to understand, therefore you prefer to ignore it instead of admiting you do not understand my question. You want to use Feynman's quotation to bring in your own personal views on a mechanical model of fundamental particles. This is unfair. Feynman's quotation has a context which I wish you would like to understand. But you do not understand the currently admitted Standard Model of fundamental particles, so how can you claim it is wrong ?

Should I continue feeding the troll ?
Buckeye
#9
May14-08, 06:40 PM
P: 162
Quote Quote by humanino View Post
This is not a discussion. Trying to address your own questions, I ask you another question to clarify, which unfortunately you do not seem to understand, therefore you prefer to ignore it instead of admiting you do not understand my question. You want to use Feynman's quotation to bring in your own personal views on a mechanical model of fundamental particles. This is unfair. Feynman's quotation has a context which I wish you would like to understand. But you do not understand the currently admitted Standard Model of fundamental particles, so how can you claim it is wrong ?

Should I continue feeding the troll ?
I'm simply here to learn. I offer my apology since my way of learning bothers you.
humanino
#10
May14-08, 06:47 PM
humanino's Avatar
P: 2,828
Quote Quote by Buckeye View Post
I'm simply here to learn.
I am here for the same reason. I can share what I know, and I am happy to be corrected when my claims are wrong.

The problem with any kind of mechanical model of fundamental particles is that is has to be quantum. That severely reduces intuition.
Buckeye
#11
May14-08, 06:55 PM
P: 162
Quote Quote by humanino View Post
I am here for the same reason. I can share what I know, and I am happy to be corrected when my claims are wrong.

The problem with any kind of mechanical model of fundamental particles is that is has to be quantum. That severely reduces intuition.
I guess that Malcolm MacGregor (retired from LLNL) and one of his mentors must be all wet when they propose that the electron might have mechanical, nearly spherical, mass with a point charge located at its equator of that mechanical mass that is spinning at near relativistic speed and with a title angle of 55 deg to accommodate the spin nature of the electron.
humanino
#12
May14-08, 07:11 PM
humanino's Avatar
P: 2,828
Quote Quote by Buckeye View Post
Malcolm MacGregor (retired from LLNL) and one of his mentors
I do not take authority arguments as acceptable.
the electron might have mechanical, nearly spherical, mass with a point charge located at its equator of that mechanical mass that is spinning at near relativistic speed and with a title angle of 55 deg to accommodate the spin nature of the electron.
What is this good for ? Why should we need to change from a simple, well motivated mathematical formalism (Dirac equation) which does explain the spin to a complicated mechanical model. Can you reproduce the accuracy of the calculations for the electron and muon magnetic moments ?
Buckeye
#13
May14-08, 07:17 PM
P: 162
Quote Quote by humanino View Post
I do not take authority arguments as acceptable.What is this good for ? Why should we need to change from a simple, well motivated mathematical formalism (Dirac equation) which does explain the spin to a complicated mechanical model. Can you reproduce the accuracy of the calculations for the electron and muon magnetic moments ?
If memory serves me right, then the answer is Yes. MacGregor has worked out the moments. It would be helpful if you had access to MacGregor's book "The Enigmatic Electron". They might also have the book by Myron Evans and Jean-Pierre Vigier titled "The Enigmatic Photon - Volumes 1-3".
humanino
#14
May14-08, 07:20 PM
humanino's Avatar
P: 2,828
Quote Quote by Buckeye View Post
If memory serves me right, then the answer is Yes. MacGregor has worked out the moments. It would be helpful if you had access to MacGregor's book "The Enigmatic Electron". They might also have the book by Myron Evans and Jean-Pierre Vigier titled "The Enigmatic Photon - Volumes 1-3".
Has he not calculated 55 deg to reproduce the magnetic moment ? This is very different from being able to calculate it, like in QED. Besides, this still does not account for the muon. And QED can do even much more
Buckeye
#15
May14-08, 07:30 PM
P: 162
Quote Quote by humanino View Post
Has he not calculated 55 deg to reproduce the magnetic moment ? This is very different from being able to calculate it, like in QED. Besides, this still does not account for the muon. And QED can do even much more
If QED is so great, then why do we have QCD? MacGregor is just one man, who in some circles might be called a crackpot or quack, and yet he is hard at work together with other professional scientists trying to sort out some of the problems with the mass of the electron and its other properties. Remember - this thread is about mass, yes?
humanino
#16
May14-08, 07:32 PM
humanino's Avatar
P: 2,828
Quote Quote by Buckeye View Post
If QED is so great, then why do we have QCD?
You question is similar to asking "if you have a kitchen, then why do you have a bedroom ?".
Buckeye
#17
May14-08, 07:35 PM
P: 162
Quote Quote by humanino View Post
You question is similar to asking "if you have a kitchen, then why do you have a bedroom ?".
Not really. I'm comparing a Quantum Electric Kitchen with a Quantum Colored Bedroom.
humanino
#18
May14-08, 07:41 PM
humanino's Avatar
P: 2,828
Quote Quote by Buckeye View Post
Not really. I'm comparing a Quantum Electric Kitchen with a Quantum Colored Bedroom.

You got me once again.

QED is for eletromagnetism, QCD is for the strong force. Those are different interactions.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Are the Feynman Lectures on Physics books good? Science & Math Textbooks 53
Feynman integration trick - textbooks? Calculus 13
Have anyone read Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman ? Science & Math Textbooks 22