Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Heavy question about nothing

  1. Aug 1, 2008 #1
    Hi guys,

    I am a newbie on this forum and I have a pretty general question that I would like to ask.

    Why does the standard model not ascribe a mass to potential energy, when clearly the universe has a lot of it, and presumably it had to come from somewhere?

    Up, is generally considered to be a negative figure, but that is of course relative to who is observing.

    Are we as humans making the same egosentric mistake again, and assuming that our point of view is "normal"?

  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 1, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Keeping the mass term in the lagrangian makes it mix the (chiral) states, which is not good.

    Masses, however, arises due to the non-vanishing vacum expectation value of the Higgs field.
  4. Aug 1, 2008 #3

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Potential energy is related to conservation of energy. You have posted these questions in the relativity forum, and the concept of conservation of energy is quite subtle in relativity.



    In relativity an effective potential is quite useful, for example, when working with orbits about spherical masses.
  5. Aug 2, 2008 #4
    George, you are quite right, potential energy is a Newtonian concept, and may at first appear a bit misplaced in a relativity forum, but really it is just another name for space.

    Without some donation of energy, to separate the masses, there could be no space and no time in the first place, therefore there ought to, in my opinion, be an equation that relates energy to space-time.

    The other half of E=Mc^2 if you like.

    The universe is made up of matter-energy and space-time and as you and I are made of matter, our view of the Universe is naturally biased.

    If the entire Universe was a skyscraper with 100 levels, we would be the residents on the 99th level, and the only elevator travels between the 99th and the 100th level, so we have no immediate need to worry about how we got to the 99th level in the first place, but it was with energy for sure.

    Just as a small mass has a very large amount of energy, a very large amount of space would have a very small mass.

    I believe it is this energy which is responsible for the discrepancies in our theories on a large scale, and that there is no need to postulate dark matter or dark energy in order to explain this.

    My gut feeling for what it is worth tells me that for the Universe as a whole -Up/C^2 = M

    Importantly for everyone on this forum, I do believe GR holds the answer to this problem.

  6. Aug 11, 2008 #5
    Someone else but George might want to comment on my post..
  7. Aug 11, 2008 #6
    What exactly does -up stand for?
  8. Aug 11, 2008 #7
    Although the term is incorrectly used in the context of GR, Up as I have used it here, stands for the total energy required to create the space between all the masses in the Universe.

    ie. if you convert all space to energy it ought to be equal but but with opposite sign to all the mass energy.

    I am suggesting that there is a missing equation, as well as converting mass to energy, there must be a way to convert space into energy.

    This missing equation if it exists, would I believe close the case of the missing mass.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook