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

Is there a quanta of rest mass? say multiples of electron mass?

  1. Sep 9, 2006 #1
    charge is quantized. what about rest mass?

    do particles of the standard model have rest mass that is quantized, and comes in quantas of mass, with i imagine the electron being the lowest that have rest mass (the neutrino does not appearl to have a rest mass)

    do particles of the standard model that have rest mass, have mass that are multiples of electron 9.11 * 10-31kg?

    ?
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 9, 2006 #2

    mathman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Neutrinos have non-zero mass, much smaller than electrons. There is no current theory that mass is quantized, but such an idea might come out of string theory.
     
  4. Sep 13, 2006 #3

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Matter is quantized, and mass is a property of matter.
     
  5. Sep 14, 2006 #4
    So are the particles of the standard model whole-interger multiples of the mass of a neutrino?
     
  6. Sep 14, 2006 #5
    So are the particles of the standard model whole-interger multiples of the mass of a neutrino?
     
  7. Sep 14, 2006 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    There are no existing Standard Model theory that mass is "quantized", whatever that means. A "neutrino" is not the basic building blocks of nature (do you know of any Standard Model theory that describes a a hadron as composing of multiple neutrinos?). Besides, which neutrino are you refering to? The three types of neutrinos do not all have the same mass, or in the case of the tau neutrino, it isn't expected to have the same mass as the electron neutrino, or else we would have measured it as easily.

    Zz.
     
  8. Sep 14, 2006 #7
    I am not suggesting that the neutrino is the basic building block of nature. I am merely speculating whether the rest mass of elementary particles of the standard model can be considered whole interger multiples of some fundamental value, for example, the rest mass of the electron neutrino.
     
  9. Sep 14, 2006 #8

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    But if it isn't the building blocks, then what possible coincidence can there be that other particles would be multiple integers of it?

    In either case, it is moot to argue this, since the Standard Model clearly does not even hint that this is the case. Furthermore, if the Higgs are ever discovered, we then have our "mechanism" for the existence of mass.

    Zz.
     
  10. Sep 14, 2006 #9
    based on your reasoning would you say quarks are the building blocks of electrons?
     
  11. Sep 15, 2006 #10

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Er... why would I say such a thing? Was there a paper, or a discovery, that somehow showed that leptons undergo strong interaction?

    Is there a reason why you are following this line? Presumably, you have done at least some background reading on the Standard Model. Did you find something that somehow suggested the nature of mass and "mass quantization" here? I mean, there has to be a valid reason why you're mixing up lepton and hadrons.

    Zz.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2006
  12. Sep 15, 2006 #11
    would u agree all charge of the SM is quantized as whole-interger multiples of e/3 units?
    down, bottom and strange quarks have e/3 as their electric charge.

    since an electron is 3 times the electric charge as down, bottom and strange quarks is an electron made of 3 down, bottom and strange quarks, according to your reasoning?

    i am not saying that electrons and quarks are made of electron neutroninos, only whether their masses (whether it arises from the higgs field or soem other mechanism) are whole-interger multiples of the neutrino mass.
     
  13. Sep 15, 2006 #12

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Er.. what reasoning?

    The ORIGIN of charge is still a research-front area, and highly a mystery at this point. I never claim of anything making up anything. You did.

    If an electron is made up of quarks, then you have a horrendous time to explain why electrons do not participate in strong interactions. Saying such a thing CONTRADICTS all current experimental evidence. So what do you buy more, a made-up model or empirical evidence? You may also want to look at the mass of the individual quarks and see if they add up to your electron.

    In the particle data book (available freely online), are the masses of ALL the known elementary particles. You are welcome to check for yourself if you can get "whole integer multiples" from there, that is, if you think it makes any sense to claim that, for example, 1.6726e(-27) is actually "whole integer multiples" of 9.1095e-31.

    Zz.
     
  14. Sep 16, 2006 #13

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    actually, some mainstream theories p
     
  15. Sep 16, 2006 #14

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    "some mainstream theories" is a oxymoron.

    Zz.
     
  16. Sep 16, 2006 #15

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  17. Sep 16, 2006 #16

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    anyway the point is that in GUT theories the mass is quantised, but precision limits the trick to the top bottom and tau.

    As for the neutrino, manstream thinking is that it is the algebraic composition of two masses, dirac and majorana.
     
  18. Sep 16, 2006 #17

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    But this is like me claiming that the mechanism of high-Tc superconductivity in "mainstream" thinking is "phonons" and leave it at that, when in reality, it isn't settled, nor unambiguously verified!

    I have chatted with people doing neutrino and muon studies here (you can't help talking to people when they're just down the hall from you) on the possible nature of the "mass constituents" in the lepton family, including neutrinos and muons (they play a major role in MINOS and now the building of NOvA). They said there are no one single accepted ideas on that, especially when the mixing angle between the tau and muon neutrinos are still up in the air.

    So my conclusion here is that these are more speculations than "theories", and they're certainly not "mainstream" or generally considered to be on the right track because there are just nothing empirical to back them.

    Zz.
     
  19. Sep 16, 2006 #18

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well the point really was not about if GUT theories are mainstream or not, I am sorry my PDA touchscreen stressed it by cutting my message in the middle. The point is that quantification of matter, if it happens, happens at some scale, and you can not expect to see the integer pattern when all the masses are run down to low energy.

    The quantisation does not come from subconstituents, it comes usually from mathematical arguments, in the same way that the fact of having a electron charge three times the charge of one quark does not tell anything about subconstituents but a lot about the needs of anomaly cancellation.

    In the specific case of GUT, mases become equal, or integer multiples one another, due to the need of having a common fit into some group representations.
     
  20. Sep 16, 2006 #19

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    as for the neutrinos, I'd say that the seesaw mechanism (the aforementioned algebraic composition) is considered mainstream nowadays.

    But OK, this is your remark about phonons, I see.
     
  21. Sep 24, 2006 #20
    Planck masses as quanta

    Has anyone thought of the fact that according to superstring theory, when the temperature approaches the Planck temperature (10^32 K) (or equivalently, as the energy available approaches the Planck energy [10^19 GeV]), all particles have masses which are integral multiples of the Planck mass? It is only at very low energies (<~10^16 GeV) that various symmetries are spontaneously broken and particle masses very slightly above zero Planck masses appear. Since length and time are known to be quantized by superstring theory, one cannot have an event horizon smaller than the smallest unit of length, the Planck length. The mass of this Planck-scale black hole is one Planck mass, the smallest mass a black hole can have.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Is there a quanta of rest mass? say multiples of electron mass?
  1. Neutrino rest mass (Replies: 21)

  2. Delta++ rest mass (Replies: 6)

  3. Electron's Mass (Replies: 3)

Loading...