How Can Particles of Matter Be Massless?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cosmolojosh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Concept Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of massless particles, the Higgs mechanism, and the implications for gravitational fields. Participants explore theoretical concepts in particle physics, including the definitions of mass, the role of the Higgs field, and the nature of gravitational attraction at the quantum level.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that mass is traditionally defined as the amount of matter in an object, while others challenge this definition by discussing mass in terms of inertia and gravitational response.
  • There is a proposal that massless particles, such as photons, do not interact with the Higgs field, which is supported by the construction of the U(1)*SU(2) theory.
  • One participant raises a question about the nature of gravitational fields produced by massive particles at rest, suggesting that energy is the source of gravitation regardless of motion.
  • Another participant questions the conceptualization of attraction at the quantum level, linking it to the search for a unified field theory and the idea of a medium like the Higgs field.
  • Some participants argue that all particles have rest mass equal to zero and that the Higgs mechanism creates the illusion of mass, while others contend that the Higgs mechanism is essential for giving mass to particles.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of relativistic mass and how it relates to gravitational effects, with differing views on whether particles can be considered massive without the Higgs field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the definitions and implications of mass and masslessness, particularly in relation to the Higgs mechanism. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the nature of mass or the role of the Higgs field.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect assumptions about the Higgs field and its effects on particles, while others depend on interpretations of mass and energy in the context of gravitational fields. The discussion includes unresolved questions about the nature of attraction and the implications for unified field theories.

cosmolojosh
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Mass is the amount of matter in an object. Or at least that's the classical definition. But there are particles of matter that don't have mass. How is that possible if it's a particle of matter? Plus how can the theoretical Higgs give "stuff" to matter if the matt er is matter and therefore has matter in them?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
no that is wrong, in classical mechanics mass is a measure of inertia and how it respond to gravity, thus we have mass_inertia and mass_gravity (Einstein showed that they are equal)

Thus a good popular description of the Higgs mechanism is that inertia at quantum level is due to the particles "swimming" in the pool of higgs, thus makes them go slower than without higgs -> they cannot move at speed of light c anymore and thus are massive.

Another example is a famous person entering a room with many people, they will gather around him and make it hard for him to move at fast pace. But if I entered that room- no one would care and I could go faster then the famous person.

So, your mistake was the classical definition of mass.
 
Ok but as for the massless particles are they not affected by the theoretical Higgs field?
 
cosmolojosh said:
Ok but as for the massless particles are they not affected by the theoretical Higgs field?

nope
 
The U(1)*SU(2) theory is constructed such that the coupling of the Higgs vev to one gauge boson (which is identified with the photon) vanishes; therefore by construction the photon is exactly massless.

The so-called Yukawa couplings of the Higgs to the fermions (electron, ... neutrinos, ..., quarks, ...) is arbitrary, that means it must be adjusted according to the experimental data.
 
Regardless of mass or "masslessness", I want to ask if it is not fair to say that at the level of quanta, we can conceptualize replusion, wobble, spin, even pressures, as the result of particle collisions, but that without a clear understanding or concept of a medium of some kind, the fact is we really don't know what attraction is about at any level? Is this what is driving the various brane theories, this quest for a "Sea of Higgs" - is this what we are after? a "medium" to explain attraction? Other than the joy of looking at a really elegant single equation, Is this the root of the search for a unified field theory? Hope you find the question attractive.
 
I was always wondering, if 'massive' particle is at rest, what is a source of its gravitational field?

massive particle has mass=0, and its mass is an illusion because it couples with Higgs field. Without having quantum gravity, can we use some kind of semi-classical approach and tell what components of stress-enegry tensor are non-zero in such case?
 
Dmitry67 said:
I was always wondering, if 'massive' particle is at rest, what is a source of its gravitational field?
This is confusing. Are you suggesting that objects must be moving in order to gravitate? Anything with energy gravitates, even particles at rest.
 
bapowell said:
This is confusing. Are you suggesting that objects must be moving in order to gravitate? Anything with energy gravitates, even particles at rest.

"An isolated non-spinning solid object moving at a constant speed will not radiate."

I am not a physicist, I don't have the name that goes with this quote, I believe we are in the process of sending spacecraft billions of miles apart to attempt to resolve the question: Is "gravitating" a form of "radiating"? I would like to be pushed toward some reference material on this thread. Thanks
 
  • #10
wailinburnin said:
"An isolated non-spinning solid object moving at a constant speed will not radiate."

I am not a physicist, I don't have the name that goes with this quote, I believe we are in the process of sending spacecraft billions of miles apart to attempt to resolve the question: Is "gravitating" a form of "radiating"? I would like to be pushed toward some reference material on this thread. Thanks
No. Gravitating and radiating (in the context that you are quoting) are very different things. I don't have time to elaborate now, but I will check back. Perhaps in the meantime someone else can help out...
 
  • #11
Dmitry67 said:
I was always wondering, if 'massive' particle is at rest, what is a source of its gravitational field?

massive particle has mass=0, and its mass is an illusion because it couples with Higgs field. Without having quantum gravity, can we use some kind of semi-classical approach and tell what components of stress-enegry tensor are non-zero in such case?

massive particle has mass = 0

that is a contradiction... were you drunk when you wrote this? ;)
 
  • #12
wailinburnin said:
"An isolated non-spinning solid object moving at a constant speed will not radiate."

I am not a physicist, I don't have the name that goes with this quote, I believe we are in the process of sending spacecraft billions of miles apart to attempt to resolve the question: Is "gravitating" a form of "radiating"? I would like to be pushed toward some reference material on this thread. Thanks



No we are looking if there IS gravitation radiation - not if gravity is a FORM of radiation...

compare with electromagnetism and electromagnetic waves.
 
  • #13
wailinburnin said:
Regardless of mass or "masslessness", I want to ask if it is not fair to say that at the level of quanta, we can conceptualize replusion, wobble, spin, even pressures, as the result of particle collisions, but that without a clear understanding or concept of a medium of some kind, the fact is we really don't know what attraction is about at any level? Is this what is driving the various brane theories, this quest for a "Sea of Higgs" - is this what we are after? a "medium" to explain attraction? Other than the joy of looking at a really elegant single equation, Is this the root of the search for a unified field theory? Hope you find the question attractive.


what?
 
  • #14
ansgar said:
massive particle has mass = 0

that is a contradiction... were you drunk when you wrote this? ;)

No, I am Russian so vodka does not affect my reasoning :)
As I understand there are no massive particles
All particles have rest mass = 0
Higgs mechanism gives an illusion that they are 'massive'
So what we call 'mass' of massive particle is just a effect of the Higgs condensate on the truly massless particle
 
  • #15
Dmitry67 said:
No, I am Russian so vodka does not affect my reasoning :)
As I understand there are no massive particles
All particles have rest mass = 0
Higgs mechanism gives an illusion that they are 'massive'
So what we call 'mass' of massive particle is just a effect of the Higgs condensate on the truly massless particle

1) protons have mass without the Higgs mechanism

2) it is just not an illusion, the Higgs mechanism GIVES mass to particles.
 
  • #16
1. Most of it is "relativistic" mass of bound system, as quarks are very light
2. If it GIVES mass then without Higgs particles are massless. Hence, they are Fundamentally massless (for example, at very high temperatures when Higgs mechanism does not work).
 
  • #17
Dmitry67 said:
1. Most of it is "relativistic" mass of bound system, as quarks are very light
2. If it GIVES mass then without Higgs particles are massless. Hence, they are Fundamentally massless (for example, at very high temperatures when Higgs mechanism does not work).

1. that doesn't matter from a graviational point of view

2. They have mass without higgs particles ;) but not without the higgs field. And in all high energy/temperature limits the effect of rest mass vanish ...

so a massive particle at rest has mass and thus it has a stress energy tensor
 

Similar threads

High School Can Massless Particles Create Nanotubes That Capture Dark Matter?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Inertial mass, the Higgs field, and Mach's Principle
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad New Constraints On The Higgs Boson Width
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Undergrad How does the strong force give nucleons most of their mass?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Graduate What Happens When a Street Urchin Walks Into the Higgs Boson Analogy?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad How prone is a photon to interacting with uncharged structureless particles?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Graduate What is the problem with the particle masses in the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Shell structure topological defects as substitute for dark matter
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Coleman: "Spin is a concept that applies only to particles with mass"
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Graduate How Does the Higgs Field Affect Particle Mass?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
9K