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

It's me again about mass

  1. Nov 14, 2003 #1
    Re: i feel.................

    how does the neutron fit in your theory?
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 14, 2003 #2
    A point particle's mass doesn't depend on its location in the gravitational field. (That's true whether you are speaking of invariant mass, or relativistic mass.)

    It's not generally possible to speak of a gravitational potential at a point in general relativity, and thus not possible to speak of the potential energy of a particle at a point.

    Under some circumstances you can define gravitational potential energy in a quasilocal way, over a region of space rather than at a point, so you can sometimes speak of a extended body's gravitational self-energy. As for the mass-energy of an extended body in another body's gravitational field, that can change depending on location due to tidal forces, which can cause internal stresses and a rearrangement of the body's configuration.
  4. Nov 14, 2003 #3
    Re: Re: i feel.................

    it fits because, nutrons are made up of quarks which have charge.
    So as per my idea(theory) they have mass.
  5. Nov 14, 2003 #4
    Re: Re: Re: i feel.................

    :smile: I was expecting that.....
    so the next question is obviously why the quarks with the same charge (u, c, t and respectively d, s, b) have masses so different?

  6. Nov 14, 2003 #5
    Mass and gravity

    mass and gravity is a unit , I think
    The charge is not,
    it is relation with time-space, don't relations each other.
  7. Nov 15, 2003 #6
    I know ... I'really noisy ...

    So ... is mass absolute or does it depend on something?

    (I know that it certainly depends on the relative speed)

    Thank you very much ....

    Greets from

  8. Nov 15, 2003 #7
    Re: Re: Re: Re: i feel.................

    i accept this is a very resonable question. i almost forgot about the quarks.any way if you would give me a day or so i will figure it out anyway my statment was that anything that has charge has mass. i never mentioned that they are directly related.
  9. Nov 15, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i feel.................

    But it doesn't work the other way. There is a particle that has mass, but not charge: the Z boson.
  10. Nov 15, 2003 #9
    I hope you won't get angry with me ... but does it depend or not?
  11. Nov 17, 2003 #10
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i feel.................

    z bosons decompose into quark and its anti quark or lepton and its anti lepton(both of them have charge)

    according to the law of conservation of charge, charge can neither be created nor destroyed, sum total of charge is always conserved in any process.

    so just as an atom has a 0 charge but has electrons and protons of +1 and -1 charge(totalling to 0)

    Z bosons also has a charge of 0 (it has a charge) but it has quark and a antiquark or lepton and a anti lepton which have charges totalling to 0.

    there by i conclude that Z bosons have charge which is produced in space time by is mathemetically zero.

    i want to make one thing clear a charge is always present in an atom even if atom has zero charge. a charge according to me is something that causes some sensation(such as curve) in space time.

    Hope you understand.

    All For God
  12. Nov 17, 2003 #11
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i feel.................

    true, and until it will be proven that the neutrino has mass you seem to be right.
    But since we got moved to theory developement let's try and develop something.:smile:
  13. Nov 18, 2003 #12

    Since we are in the theoretical development area I will tell what my hypothesis is all about.:smile:

    I believe that mass is an effect (such as curve) in space-time that is caused due to a charge.

    All fundamental particles such as quarks, leptons etc have a charge but at the same time we have certain compound particles such as neutron whose charge=0 but particles cause effect in space time because of the fundamental particles they are made up of.

    But at the same time we have certain things such as light, which does not exercise the property of mass because they do not have charge.

    I hope everyone understands it. I hope to receive clarifications from you.

    Wait! If this is wrong, please let me know where the mistake is.:wink:

    All For God!!!!!!!
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: It's me again about mass
  1. Mass and Time again! (Replies: 1)

  2. About Negative Mass (Replies: 13)