Exploring the Relationship Between Charge and Mass in Space-Time

  • Thread starter Guybrush Threepwood
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mass
In summary, the conversation discusses the relationship between mass and charge in particles. The original poster believes that mass is an effect in space-time caused by a charge. They use the example of atoms having mass due to the presence of charge, while light does not have mass because it lacks charge. However, another poster points out that the Z boson has mass but no charge, and the original poster explains that this is due to the conservation of charge in the breakdown of the Z boson into particles with opposite charges. The conversation then moves towards developing this theory further, with the original poster suggesting that mass is an effect caused by charge in space-time and asking for feedback on their hypothesis. They clarify that particles without charge, such as light, do not
  • #1
Guybrush Threepwood
520
1


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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #3


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.
 
  • #4


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.

: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?

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

alex
 
  • #7


Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
: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?

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.
 
  • #8


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.
 
  • #9
I hope you won't get angry with me ... but does it depend or not?
 
  • #10


Originally posted by selfAdjoint
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
 
  • #11


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.:smile:
 
  • #12
since.....

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:

-Benzun
All For God!
 

What is mass and how is it measured?

Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object. It is measured in units of kilograms (kg) using a scale or balance.

What is the difference between mass and weight?

Mass and weight are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, while weight is a measure of the force of gravity acting on an object. Mass remains constant regardless of location, while weight can change depending on the strength of gravity.

How does mass affect an object's motion?

According to Newton's Second Law of Motion, the greater the mass of an object, the more force is needed to accelerate or decelerate it. This means that objects with greater mass will have a slower acceleration and require more force to move.

Can mass be created or destroyed?

No, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass, mass cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transferred or converted into other forms of energy.

How does the mass of an object affect its gravitational pull?

The greater the mass of an object, the stronger its gravitational pull. This is because mass is directly proportional to the force of gravity. Therefore, objects with greater mass will have a stronger pull towards them than objects with less mass.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
386
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
27
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
10K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
21
Views
873
  • Cosmology
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
Back
Top