Can weightless particles affect the forces in the universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter taylordnz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of elementary particles, particularly those with zero rest mass, such as photons and gluons. It addresses the misconception that if these fundamental particles are weightless, then larger particles composed of them should also be weightless and unable to interact with forces. The conversation highlights that while photons and gluons have zero rest mass, they possess energy, which is crucial for their interactions. The principle of mass-energy equivalence explains that high-energy photons can transform into particles with mass, such as electrons and positrons, when influenced by other forces, demonstrating that mass and energy are interconnected in particle physics.
taylordnz
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
If the most elementary particles (beyond the hypothetical hypoquark, gluon, photon) and are weightless wouldn't larger particles made of them weigh notthing either and as they have no mass wouldn't the forces not be able to act upon them and not able to interact with other particles?

whats your veiw on this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Photons and gluons have zero REST mass, but they travel at the speed of light. However, they have energy. The equivalence of mass and energy resolves your question. For example, a high energy photon can (in the presence of a nucleus) change into an electron and a positron.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Newton's Third Law: Action & Reaction Along the Line Connecting Two Objects
Replies
5
Views
1K
I How prone is a photon to interacting with uncharged structureless particles?
Replies
8
Views
3K
B Questions about momentum and force as well as normal force/friction
Replies
35
Views
4K
I Glueballs Observed For The First Time
Replies
10
Views
3K
Empirical and Definitional Content of Newton's Laws
3
Replies
117
Views
9K
B Can Gluons Emit Photons?
Replies
4
Views
3K
I How Does Binding Energy Relate to Nucleon Distance in Atomic Nuclei?
Replies
17
Views
3K
I Are Virtual Exchange Particles a Valid Concept in Understanding Remote Forces?
Replies
3
Views
1K
B Are Tachyons Real or Just a Theoretical Concept Compared to Photons?
Replies
7
Views
3K
I Coulomb's law taken to the extreme
Replies
44
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top