Are the stings in string theory, considered to be matter?

[redhedkangaro]

Are the stings in string theory, considered to be matter?
Are the fundamental particles of the universe cnsidered to be matter?

 

[Nick89]

I think anything with mass is considered matter. So I suppose yes, that includes fundamental particles (except massless once such as photons (are they fundamental? no idea)).

No idea about strings, but I think strings are just considered energy.

 

[malawi_glenn]

matter is excitation modes of the strings.

The elementary particles are indeed considered as matter, even the massless entity called the photon. But matter is not a well defined subject as long as I understand it usage, it is according to me not a fundamental concept.

 

[redhedkangaro]

So matter and energy are diiferent or are they essentially one?

 

[malawi_glenn]

So matter and energy are diiferent or are they essentially one?

I don't think one should use the word "matter" since it is ambiguous - it depends on who you ask what matter is. A particle physicist (like me) would call photons (light) matter, but maybe not a atomic physicist - it is not a fundamental concept, it has no clear definition.

Mass and energy are the same thing, we had long such discussions like a month ago, would be good if you could find those old threads by using the "Search" function. We also had a discussion on what "pure energy" is, if you had the intentions to ask about it too.

 

[enotstrebor]

I don't think one should use the word "matter" since it is ambiguous - it depends on who you ask what matter is. A particle physicist (like me) would call photons (light) matter, but maybe not a atomic physicist - it is not a fundamental concept, it has no clear definition.

Mass and energy are the same thing, we had long such discussions like a month ago, would be good if you could find those old threads by using the "Search" function. We also had a discussion on what "pure energy" is, if you had the intentions to ask about it too.

Matter has mass (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter" ), but maybe it is different in your circle of friends.

However, energy and mass are not the same thing!

The photon has energy but no mass. A massed particle has energy but has massed properties which are different than photon properties. Mass can travel at any velocity less than "c" and requires energy to change its velocity, while the photon only wants to travel at "c''.

As massed energy and photon energy behave differently, energy and mass can not be the same thing.

E=mc^2 says that there is a relationship between the two not that they are the same.

 

[e3bm35]

Greetings! I'm new to this forum and I'm truly impressed with the quality of the discussions.
I especially enjoyed this thread. So the fine folks at Discovery had a contest for the best video explaining string theory in two minutes or less. I thought the winner (String Ducky) was decent. The contenders were pretty good as well.
Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgwxJ-ki-f8"

 

[malawi_glenn]

Matter has mass (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter" ), but maybe it is different in your circle of friends.

However, energy and mass are not the same thing!

The photon has energy but no mass. A massed particle has energy but has massed properties which are different than photon properties. Mass can travel at any velocity less than "c" and requires energy to change its velocity, while the photon only wants to travel at "c''.

As massed energy and photon energy behave differently, energy and mass can not be the same thing.

E=mc^2 says that there is a relationship between the two not that they are the same.

There are several definitions of matter in that wiki article. Also think of this, a container with photon gas will have mass and a volume -> will one call the gas matter, and the constituients "non - matter" ? One has probably the same problem with the dark matter, we don't know what it is made up of - why do we call it matter then? Well it has mass and volume one might say, but that has the photon container also..

So, again to answer OP's question if the fundamental particles are considered as matter, it depends on what definition of matter you employ. The definition "everything that an atom is made out of" then only electrons, protons and neutrons are that for sure. But protons and neutrons are not fundamental particles, they are made up by three valence quarks each, and an "energy soup" of virtual quark- anti quark pairs and gluons (but virtual particles don't exists). Hence neutrinos, tau lepton, muon, photon etc, does not made up atoms are and are then not called 'matter' if one employs that definition.

Now energy, work in the units where c = 1, E = m .. got ya! (I work with them all the time..) What the equation tell you is the relation between mass and energy, energy can not be created nor be destroyed, it can only transfer between different KIDS of energy. Mass is one form of energy, angular frequency of electric and magnetic field waves propagating at the speed of light ($$E = \hbar \omega$$ or, working in units of $$\hbar = 1, E = \omega$$). The c and hbar are just conversion factors in the SI system, but such constants are just a choice of gauge - physics is independent of such choices.

So what if 'massed' energy and 'photon' energy behaves differently, all forms of energy behaves differently in some way. What you have shown is just that an electron and a photon have different kinematical properties due to their rest mass. Nothing more.

I could impose that argument in a reverse order. "Now since photon energy behaves different that mass energy, photons can't be energy."

Late edit: Why u think one calls the equation E = mc^2 "mass–energy equivalence formula" ?

 

[Naty1]

Are the stings in string theory, considered to be matter?
Are the fundamental particles of the universe cnsidered to be matter?

yes, no, in the order asked.

The fundamental entities in string theory are strings, sometime multidimensional: one mode set of vibrations give rise to mass, another basic mode gives rise to energy, another to gravity, yet another is space...space would appear as, say, two dimensional branes and higher...evolving to Penrose spin networks in one formulation...a more energetic string in the right vibrational mode is heavier (more massive) than another similar mode with lesser energy.

 

[per.sundqvist]

Matter has mass (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter" ), but maybe it is different in your circle of friends.

However, energy and mass are not the same thing!

The photon has energy but no mass. A massed particle has energy but has massed properties which are different than photon properties. Mass can travel at any velocity less than "c" and requires energy to change its velocity, while the photon only wants to travel at "c''.

As massed energy and photon energy behave differently, energy and mass can not be the same thing.

E=mc^2 says that there is a relationship between the two not that they are the same.

To make a very simple answer of this: You are confusing the rest mass m0 with the total mass m. The more general version of E=mc^2 reads.

$$mc^2\equiv E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2}$$

where m is the definition of the total mass in terms of E (the equation you wrote actually). So if m0=0 (for the photon) you get: m=p/c, where p, the momentum is given from the de Broglie relation $$p=h/\lambda$$. Hence, the photon has BOTH mass and energy, by postulate (the equivalence principle $$E=m_{tot}c^2$$).

 

[lightarrow]

To make a very simple answer of this: You are confusing the rest mass m0 with the total mass m. The more general version of E=mc^2 reads.

$$mc^2\equiv E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2}$$

where m is the definition of the total mass in terms of E (the equation you wrote actually). So if m0=0 (for the photon) you get: m=p/c, where p, the momentum is given from the de Broglie relation $$p=h/\lambda$$. Hence, the photon has BOTH mass and energy, by postulate (the equivalence principle $$E=m_{tot}c^2$$).

No, the photon has energy but no mass. If you don't believe it, you can have a look at the Particle Data Group informations:
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/s000.pdf

 

[Dmitry67]

no invariant mass - but it has a relativistic mass

 

[lightarrow]

no invariant mass - but it has a relativistic mass

Yes, I had understood what he intended .
Just a little consideration: if a photon of energy 511 KeV collides head-on with a still electron, since it has the relativistic mass = electron's mass, should it stop moving and give the electron all of its energy? No. Why this doesn't happen? Because relativistic mass concept is useful for nothing. Also, since relativistic mass has already a name: energy (divided by c^2), why do you want to give it another name?

 

[malawi_glenn]

what we are trying to demonstrate is that mass and energy is the same thing, that there are no such thing as 'pure energy'

 

[Dmitry67]

Yes, I agree with you, however, it leads toone misconseption we had recently discoered on this forum.

People got used that mass is a gravitational 'charge' and it works as a source of gravity.
Then people read that photons 'do not have mass' and they conclude that, for example, if matter annihilates with anitmatter and it is transformed into light the gravity suddenly dissapears.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I am planning to write about this in FAQ and in the science library.

 

[lightarrow]

what we are trying to demonstrate is that mass and energy is the same thing, that there are no such thing as 'pure energy'

I don't know what you intended with "pure energy", however a single photon has energy but not mass.

 

[lightarrow]

what we are trying to demonstrate is that mass and energy is the same thing, that there are no such thing as 'pure energy'

So you are not talking about "mass" in general, but specifically about "relativistic" mass.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I don't know what you intended with "pure energy", however a single photon has energy but not mass.

Energy must be bound to something, no thing as "pure energy" circles around in space. "Matter turns into energy" is a misconception.

 

[Dmitry67]

BTW, does the 'rest'/'invariant' mass have any sense at all ?
- knowing that it is just an illusion, a result or how strongly massless particles (electrons, quarks, ...) interact with the Higgs field? :)

 

[malawi_glenn]

It depends in what regime you are considering. One may also say that higgs field also is inaccurate since we have string theory and so on. What we can do is to discuss the validity and coherence of physical paradigms, such as theory of relativity, which we are doing now.

 

[per.sundqvist]

I think the absolute or as it has been called here, the "relativistic mass" has impact in reallity. Photons, even though without rest mass are affected by gravity, in a complicated way though (general relativity theory). This must be due to its "mass" and not since it is "pure energy".

The whole concept of mass and matter is bound to be little mysterious since the days Newton defined it, roughly as m=F/a and also as a source for gravity field F=G*m1*m2/r^2. It need a reference to define a mass or another fixed way to define the force F=m*a, but what is then m? and so on. Energy is derived from Newtons equation, and then a little generalized in relativity, but still relies on that change of momentum (force) is related to mass. I know no other way, all I want to say is that its a mess!

Note also that the mass of the proton, which we can measure, is not given by the quarks rest masses! It gains that mass, around 10 times bigger than rest masses, because of its extreme confinement. It is the total relativistic mass that we see as external observers. The same must be true for the photons (but their mass are extremely small, and we have to deal with GR as well to take it into account).

 

[lightarrow]

BTW, does the 'rest'/'invariant' mass have any sense at all ?
- knowing that it is just an illusion, a result or how strongly massless particles (electrons, quarks, ...) interact with the Higgs field? :)

About Higgs field, I cannot pronounce; about the rest, for what I see it, the distinction between (rest) mass and energy is simply the fact that in the first case, that is when a particle has (rest) mass, you can find a frame of reference in which the particle is stationary while in the second, when you have a particle with energy but no (rest) mass, you can't. So (rest) mass is nothing else than "energy that you can see when the particle is still".

 

[Dmitry67]

So (rest) mass is nothing else than "energy that you can see when the particle is still".

(to add even more confusion)
Are we talking about the mass of the "naked" particles? :)

 

[lightarrow]

(to add even more confusion)
Are we talking about the mass of the "naked" particles? :)

No, dressed, it's winter here in Italy

 

[enotstrebor]

To make a very simple answer of this: You are confusing the rest mass m0 with the total mass m. The more general version of E=mc^2 reads.

$$mc^2\equiv E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2}$$

where m is the definition of the total mass in terms of E (the equation you wrote actually). So if m0=0 (for the photon) you get: m=p/c, where p, the momentum is given from the de Broglie relation $$p=h/\lambda$$. Hence, the photon has BOTH mass and energy, by postulate (the equivalence principle $$E=m_{tot}c^2$$).

First, E=mc^2 (E=mc²) is universal for any velocity thus includes E=m₀c².

Second, momentum is different than mass, just as energy is different from mass. The equation $$p=h/\lambda$$ applied to the photon is only true for $$mc^2=E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2}$$ when in a vacuum and Thus Not A Fundamental Relationship For The Photon because;

the wavelength/momentum for the photon changes when not in a vacuum but the photon's energy does not.

As $$mc^2\equiv E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2}$$ is not universally true, the mathematical relationship is misleading.

If you ignore the distictive behavioral differences you are ignoring the physics. Mathematics is not physics. Mathematical relationships are relationships and are often true only in certain circumstances. When a mathematical relationship is not true under all circumstances it is clearly phenomenological and not fundamental.

 

[enotstrebor]

So what if 'massed' energy and 'photon' energy behaves differently, all forms of energy behaves differently in some way. What you have shown is just that an electron and a photon have different kinematical properties due to their rest mass. Nothing more.

I could impose that argument in a reverse order. "Now since photon energy behaves different that mass energy, photons can't be energy."

Look up the definition of mass and the definition of energy. If you want to change the meaning and make the terms meaningless to you, feel free. They are not the same to the rest of the world and you are doing a disservice to those on this website by not acknowledging the difference.

Late edit: Why u think one calls the equation E = mc^2 "mass–energy equivalence formula" ?

It is called the "mass–energy equivalence formula" because it gives the euqivalent amount of energy held by a massed particle (mathematical energy value equivalence) if you could release all of the contained/particle energy. It does not say mass and energy are the same.

The fact that there is a 'E' (energy) term and a 'm' (mass) term in the equation is because the rest of the world understands that these are two different things. If they were the same there would not be two terms to mathematically describe them. QED

Because massed particles (one embodiment of energy) have different properties than photon particles (one embodiment of energy) we use different words to describe those differences of behavior (at least those who want clearity of thought and understanding).

"and words are grown so false I loath prove reason with them"

 

[malawi_glenn]

Look up the definition of mass and the definition of energy. If you want to change the meaning and make the terms meaningless to you, feel free. They are not the same to the rest of the world and you are doing a disservice to those on this website by not acknowledging the difference.



It is called the "mass–energy equivalence formula" because it gives the euqivalent amount of energy held by a massed particle (mathematical energy value equivalence) if you could release all of the contained/particle energy. It does not say mass and energy are the same.

The fact that there is a 'E' (energy) term and a 'm' (mass) term in the equation is because the rest of the world understands that these are two different things. If they were the same there would not be two terms to mathematically describe them. QED

Because massed particles (one embodiment of energy) have different properties than photon particles (one embodiment of energy) we use different words to describe those differences of behavior (at least those who want clearity of thought and understanding).

"and words are grown so false I loath prove reason with them"

Still I can measure mass in units of energy. The reason for bringing this up is to kill misconceptions of the kind "matter turns into energy".

Mass is one form of energy. If apple is one kind of fruit, the apple is fruit. But not all fruits are apples. Hence mass is energy, but not all energy is mass.

And if photons have mass: A container with photon gas will have mass, that is for sure. What is the definition of mass? It can not be the quantity referred to in Newton's 2nd law since Newtonian dynamics is not fundamental. Same with energy, energy is often defined as the amount of work it can produce by asserting a force to something. But the concept of force is not used in quantum mechanics, there Energy is the fundamental thing (in the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian).

 

[The Dagda]

I think the absolute or as it has been called here, the "relativistic mass" has impact in reallity. Photons, even though without rest mass are affected by gravity, in a complicated way though (general relativity theory). This must be due to its "mass" and not since it is "pure energy".

The whole concept of mass and matter is bound to be little mysterious since the days Newton defined it, roughly as m=F/a and also as a source for gravity field F=G*m1*m2/r^2. It need a reference to define a mass or another fixed way to define the force F=m*a, but what is then m? and so on. Energy is derived from Newtons equation, and then a little generalized in relativity, but still relies on that change of momentum (force) is related to mass. I know no other way, all I want to say is that its a mess!

Note also that the mass of the proton, which we can measure, is not given by the quarks rest masses! It gains that mass, around 10 times bigger than rest masses, because of its extreme confinement. It is the total relativistic mass that we see as external observers. The same must be true for the photons (but their mass are extremely small, and we have to deal with GR as well to take it into account).

Are you saying photons have mass? I always thought that was an open question.

Also the equations of GR as I was told recently deal with the bending of space, according to energy, so I suppose mass is superfluous in terms of photons?

 

[per.sundqvist]

First, E=mc^2 (E=mc²) is universal for any velocity thus includes E=m₀c².

Second, momentum is different than mass, just as energy is different from mass. The equation $$p=h/\lambda$$ applied to the photon is only true for $$mc^2=E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2}$$ when in a vacuum and Thus Not A Fundamental Relationship For The Photon because;

the wavelength/momentum for the photon changes when not in a vacuum but the photon's energy does not.

As $$mc^2\equiv E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2}$$ is not universally true, the mathematical relationship is misleading.

If you ignore the distictive behavioral differences you are ignoring the physics. Mathematics is not physics. Mathematical relationships are relationships and are often true only in certain circumstances. When a mathematical relationship is not true under all circumstances it is clearly phenomenological and not fundamental.

Clearly mathematics is not physics, but you must admit that "the power of the equality sign" has been quite successful so far!

1) $$p=h/\lambda$$ (waves has a momentum) $$\rightarrow\;\lambda=h/p$$ -> matter are waves!
2) $$E=mc^2$$ (mass contains energy) $$\rightarrow\;m=E/c^2$$ matter can be PRODUCED by any kind of energy!

2) is the most fruitful result by Einstein, not E=mc^2.

You would agree in that charge is conserved in a reaction, like 0=-e+e, but not mass? My answer is that Yes, the photon has mass. If a container with photon gas has mass, why should not a single photon has mass?

Perhaps I have misunderstood things here, but If it is the Higgs particle that GIVES particles their mass, Its would not exist -> Quite extreme prediction these days... But if it only intermediate mass in some way (like Feynman diagram Kirchoff current of mass) its OK, but why don't predict a "particle" that intermediate momentum and angular momentum at the same time? I here predict the momentum particle in the case you find the Higgs particle.