Are massless particles truly massless?

In summary: According to mass-energy equivalence, these particles DO have mass, but it is not the same as the intrinsic mass of quarks.
  • #1
Christofer Br
51
0
Most of the mass of matter comes from energy of strong force interactions between quarks. However the quarks still have intrinsic mass. Other particles have no intrinsic mass but still have energy. So according to mass-energy equivalence, these particles should still have effectively mass, to my understanding. If so, how can we label a particle as massless or not if they all have mass due to energy they carry? Doesn't mass of quarks come from energy too?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Christofer Br said:
Most of the mass of matter comes from energy of strong force interactions between quarks. However the quarks still have intrinsic mass.
Exactly. They are not massless particles.

Other particles have no intrinsic mass but still have energy.
Yes, a photon is massless but is subject to gravity

So according to mass-energy equivalence, these particles should still have effectively mass, to my understanding. If so, how can we label a particle as massless or not if they all have mass due to energy they carry?
Because they don't HAVE mass, they have energy.

Doesn't mass of quarks come from energy too?
Quarks are not massless.
 
  • Like
Likes geoelectronics
  • #3
So what it boils down to is gravity acts on both energy and mass, but they're not the same thing, there's no "duality" there? Does energy resist acceleration in the same sense that mass resists acceleration (F=m*a)?
 
  • #4
Christofer Br said:
So what it boils down to is gravity acts on both energy and mass, but they're not the same thing, there's no "duality" there?
That is correct, sort of. Gravity is the curvature of space-time and that "curvature**" is a result of the stress-energy tensor of an object.

Does energy resist acceleration in the same sense that mass resists acceleration, giving it a finite value (F=m*a)?
Yes, energy "acts like mass" in that sense. If you weigh a box of gas and then heat it up, it will weigh more.

** "Curvature" is a common term for this, but really it's straight lines (formally geodesics) in space-time geometry, which is pseudo-Riemann, not Euclidian.
 
  • Like
Likes geoelectronics
  • #5
Simple distinction: Anything moving at the speed of light (in a vacuum) is massless. Otherwise it has mass.
 
  • Like
Likes geoelectronics, vanhees71 and dextercioby
  • #6
Calculate the invariant mass of a photon and you'll get zero. It has energy but not mass.
Calculate the invariant mass of an electron and you'll get 511 keV - in every reference frame. We call this the mass of the electron.
 
  • Like
Likes geoelectronics, Nugatory and vanhees71
  • #7
"according to mass-energy equivalence, these particles should still have effectively mass,"
That is wrong, which is the basis for your confusion.
 
  • Like
Likes ChrisVer, weirdoguy and vanhees71

1. What is a massless particle?

A massless particle is a type of subatomic particle that has no rest mass, meaning it does not have any intrinsic mass at rest. These particles are always moving at the speed of light and are described by the theory of special relativity.

2. What are some examples of massless particles?

The most well-known example of a massless particle is the photon, which is the particle that makes up light. Other examples include the gluon, which is responsible for holding quarks together in protons and neutrons, and the graviton, which is a theoretical particle that is thought to mediate the force of gravity.

3. How do we know that massless particles have no mass?

Massless particles are observed to travel at the speed of light, which is a fundamental constant in the universe. This means that they have no rest mass, as objects with mass cannot reach the speed of light. Additionally, experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider have confirmed the existence and properties of massless particles.

4. Are massless particles truly massless?

Based on our current understanding of physics, massless particles are indeed truly massless. However, some theories, such as string theory, propose that these particles may actually have a very small mass that is undetectable by current technology. This is still a topic of ongoing research and debate in the scientific community.

5. What implications do massless particles have for our understanding of the universe?

The existence of massless particles plays a crucial role in our understanding of the fundamental forces and interactions in the universe. It also has implications for the behavior of light and the properties of matter. The study of massless particles continues to contribute to our understanding of the laws of physics and the nature of the universe.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
723
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top