# It's me again about mass

Guybrush Threepwood

Originally posted by benzun_1999
before i begin, this is my own idea not any sort of a theory. i feel mass is something that exist when there is a charge. Look at an atom it has charge(inside it) and it has mass. but now look at light, it has no charge and it has no mass. So i feel that mass is something caused by charge in space time.

how does the neutron fit in your theory?

Ambitwistor
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.

benzun_1999

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
how does the neutron fit in your theory?

it fits because, nutrons are made up of quarks which have charge.
So as per my idea(theory) they have mass.

Guybrush Threepwood

Originally posted by benzun_1999
it fits because, nutrons are made up of quarks which have charge.
So as per my idea(theory) they have mass.

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?

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html

hey.like
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.

Merkur
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

alex

benzun_1999

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
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?

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html

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 statement was that anything that has charge has mass. i never mentioned that they are directly related.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed

Originally posted by benzun_1999
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 statement was that anything that has charge has mass. i never mentioned that they are directly related.

But it doesn't work the other way. There is a particle that has mass, but not charge: the Z boson.

Merkur
I hope you won't get angry with me ... but does it depend or not?

benzun_1999

But it doesn't work the other way. There is a particle that has mass, but not charge: the Z boson.

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.

-benzun
All For God

Guybrush Threepwood

Originally posted by benzun_1999
... anyway my statement was that anything that has charge has mass. i never mentioned that they are directly related.

true, and until it will be proven that the neutrino has mass you seem to be right.
But since we got moved to theory development let's try and develop something.

benzun_1999
since.....

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

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.

-Benzun
All For God!