Is There an End to the Quantization of Mass in Fundamental Particles?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter einstein_vishnu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Quantization
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of quantization of mass in fundamental particles, questioning whether there is a definitive endpoint to this quantization. The analogy drawn with electromagnetic radiation highlights the complexity of elementary particles, suggesting that quarks may not be the ultimate building blocks. The conversation references key figures such as Newton, Maxwell, Penrose, and Hawking, emphasizing the challenges posed by singularities in theoretical physics. The proposal includes the quantization of one-dimensional space to reconcile local acceleration with gravitational and antigravitational forces.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and particle physics
  • Familiarity with the concepts of singularity and spacetime in general relativity
  • Knowledge of electromagnetic theory as proposed by Maxwell
  • Basic grasp of Planck's constant and its implications in quantum theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of quantization in quantum field theory
  • Explore the concept of singularities in Einstein's field equations
  • Study the theories of gravity and antigravity in modern physics
  • Investigate the role of Planck's constant in wave-particle duality
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in quantum mechanics, and students exploring the foundations of particle physics and the nature of mass.

einstein_vishnu
i have drawn an analogy with the quantization of radiation(EM).the motivation behind this thought was "what is the most elemetary particle?"u may say quarks but i can divide it further if i have high energy particles,so then where is ending for this?i thought it's better not end up in point particle,where it does not have any spatial extension.
rest energy+kinetic energy=hf,where h=planck's
f=matter wave frequency.
i have undergone so many crazy thoughts about this one such is there is advatage here in overcoming singularity,beacuase ther is no zero energy particle(atleast ground state of vibrational energy and rest energy).
it may look very prematured thought but let me know the wrong thinking inthis
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your thinking is along the same track that I have been doing. I did have problem with point mass (mass without extension).

Newton used the point-mass model for his laws. Maxwell used point-charge for his theory of electromagnetism. One of the infinite number of solution of Einstein field equations is the singularity (point-spacetime). But when spacetime is exactly zero, all physical laws become meaningless including Einstein's general relativity.

Penrose and Hawking both believe that true naked singularity cannot be seen in order to avoid theoretical complications.

My proposal is to quantized one dimensional space with local acceleration conserved for a timelike force and a spacelike force giving rise to gravity and antigravity force.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K