Origin of mass and Noethers theorem

In summary, Emmy Noether's theorem relates symmetry to conserved quantities, such as energy which is conserved due to invariance under translations in time. Through the principle of relativity, we see that energy and mass are related by a conversion factor of the speed of light. The Higgs-mechanism explains how massive gauge bosons, leptons, and quarks acquire mass through the spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge invariance. Similarly, hadrons acquire their mass primarily through the spontaneous symmetry breaking of chiral invariance. It is correct to say that energy is a fundamental conserved quantity, while mass is simply an alternate form that it takes as a consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Other conserved quantities, such as linear
  • #1
AlanKirby
20
0
Let me set up the question briefly. Emmy Noether's theorem relates symmetry to conserved quantities, e.g. invariance under translations in time => conservation of energy. A fundamental truth revealed.
Massive gauge bosons, leptons and quarks all appear to acquire mass through the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the gauge invariance and hadrons acquire there mass primarily through the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the chiral invariance.
Through relativity we see that energy and mass are related by a conversion factor of c (speed of light).

And so, firstly, is it correct to say that energy is a fundamental conserved quantity and that mass is simply an alternate form that it takes as a consequence of the spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Secondly, would it be reasonable to assume that other conserved quantities such as linear momentum (from invariance under translations in space) take on an alternate form as a consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking, or perhaps due to something else. If not, what makes energy special?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
AlanKirby said:
And so, firstly, is it correct to say that energy is a fundamental conserved quantity and that mass is simply an alternate form...
Yes. Energy in general is conserved, not mass. This is a relativistic result, however; basically, the reason is that one of the Casimirs of the Poincaré group is given by ##P_{a}P^a##. Non-relativistically, mass is conserved, but there algebraically it is not given by a Casimir (which is per definition quadratic in the generators) but by a central extension of the Galilei group called "Bargmann group".

However, most of the mass of matter is not given by the Higgs-mass but by the kinetic energy of the quarks moving inside hadrons!

Secondly, would it be reasonable to assume that other conserved quantities such as linear momentum (from invariance under translations in space) take on an alternate form as a consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking, or perhaps due to something else. If not, what makes energy special?

Thanks.
No, because the Higgs-mechanism does not break translation invariance, like e.g. mediums or gravitational fields do.
 
  • Like
Likes AlanKirby
  • #3
haushofer said:
most of the mass of matter is not given by the Higgs-mass but by the kinetic energy of the quarks moving inside hadrons!
not only motion... but the whole dynamics inside hadrons.

AlanKirby said:
is it correct to say that energy is a fundamental conserved quantity
yes, it is something we currently trust to a high degree.

AlanKirby said:
that mass is simply an alternate form
mass is a form of energy; it is also affected by the interactions and so on... Higgs provides the bare mass of particles, and that is not their physical mass (which is obtained after you take some loop interactions into account).

AlanKirby said:
Secondly, would it be reasonable to assume that other conserved quantities such as linear momentum (from invariance under translations in space) take on an alternate form as a consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking, or perhaps due to something else. If not, what makes energy special?
In special relativity nothing is special about energy or momentum. In special relativity, those two quantities get "unified" into a single object (the 4-momentum)...
Does the conservation of energy take an alternative form? I didn't get where you mentioned that in all your previous phrases.
 
  • Like
Likes AlanKirby
  • #4
ChrisVer said:
not only motion... but the whole dynamics inside hadrons.yes, it is something we currently trust to a high degree.mass is a form of energy; it is also affected by the interactions and so on... Higgs provides the bare mass of particles, and that is not their physical mass (which is obtained after you take some loop interactions into account).In special relativity nothing is special about energy or momentum. In special relativity, those two quantities get "unified" into a single object (the 4-momentum)...
Does the conservation of energy take an alternative form? I didn't get where you mentioned that in all your previous phrases.
I didn't mean that the conservation of energy takes an alternate form, but rather that energy and momentum are both conserved quantities, energy can take an alternate form (mass), so can momentum then also take an alternate form? I.e. Is energy a special conserved quantity in this sense, such that other conserved quantities don't also take alternate forms. Thanks.
 
  • #5
AlanKirby said:
energy can take an alternate form (mass)
What does "alternate form" mean? Mass is one type of energy. Kinetic energy is another one, and potential energy is also one. There is nothing special about mass.

Momentum doesn't have those groups.
 
  • Like
Likes AlanKirby
  • #6
AlanKirby said:
Through relativity we see that energy and mass are related by a conversion factor of c (speed of light).
I guess correcting this phrase of yours will "solve" your confusion?
[itex]E=mc^2[/itex] is not the complete equation (it applies only for stationary objects).
The complete equation is [itex]E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2 c^4[/itex], where [itex]p[/itex] is the momentum's magnitude.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and AlanKirby
  • #7
mfb said:
What does "alternate form" mean? Mass is one type of energy. Kinetic energy is another one, and potential energy is also one. There is nothing special about mass.

Momentum doesn't have those groups.
Thank you for the insight, this is helping me to progress. I think I need to properly take on QFT and group theory before I can expect to really make sense of those things that I'm thinking about.

Can I just ask though, what would you consider both energy and mass (seperately) to be? Thanks.
 
  • #8
AlanKirby said:
Thank you for the insight, this is helping me to progress. I think I need to properly take on QFT and group theory before I can expect to really make sense of those things that I'm thinking about.
There is no need to include quantum mechanics at all, you can understand this using classical physics only.
AlanKirby said:
Can I just ask though, what would you consider both energy and mass (seperately) to be?
Important concepts in physics?
 
  • Like
Likes AlanKirby
  • #9
ChrisVer said:
I guess correcting this phrase of yours will "solve" your confusion?
[itex]E=mc^2[/itex] is not the complete equation (it applies only for stationary objects).
The complete equation is [itex]E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2 c^4[/itex], where [itex]p[/itex] is the momentum's magnitude.
I thought I'd get pulled for saying that. I was just referring to the relation between energy and mass, or rather that they are in a sense the same. I see from the above posts that I'm not quite thinking about that peoperly though. What I'm really trying to understand is what is energy (maybe that's a dead end question), and what is mass (eluded to above as a form of energy in the same sense as kinetic energy). Thanks.
 
  • #10
mfb said:
There is no need to include quantum mechanics at all, you can understand this using classical physics only.Important concepts in physics?
Wouldn't I need QFT to understand the origin of the majority of the mass within hadrons?

I understanding that asking "why" repeatedly within physics eventually leads to the answer of "because that's how/what the universe is", and I understand that we learn of energy and mass early on. But I can't stop myself asking what energy actually is, and maybe that isn't a good question. Similarly I'm realising that I actually don't understand mass all that much either. I understand that it sounds like I'm asking something daft or that I've never seen the inside of a lecture theatre but this confusion usually comes out of nowhere and results with an improved understanding. Thanks.
 
  • #11
AlanKirby said:
Wouldn't I need QFT to understand the origin of the majority of the mass within hadrons?
To understand how much: yes. To understand that there are other contributions: no.
 
  • Like
Likes AlanKirby
  • #12
AlanKirby said:
And so, firstly, is it correct to say that energy is a fundamental conserved quantity and that mass is simply an alternate form that it takes as a consequence of the spontaneous symmetry breaking.

One important caveat to this notion. While there are both easy Hamiltonian and Lagrangian equation ways to define conservation of mass-energy in a system, one has to be careful in how you apply the principle to use consistent definitions in a particular application of the concept, because defining energy itself in absolute terms is a much more slippery concept than conservation of mass-energy.

Frequently systems trade off between kinetic energy and potential energy, for example. Yet, the absolute value of the potential energy in a system is pretty much arbitrary; potential energy relative to what? Similarly, the conventional classical definition of kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) (and likewise the usual formula for linear momentum, another conserved quantity) is also arbitrary because velocity is defined relative to a reference frame and there is no preferred reference frame for an object's velocity (even in Newtonian mechanics). Throw in special relativity and definitions of energy in gauge fields and it gets even trickier.

Part of what makes general relativity distinctive mathematically is its ability to give answers that are consistent in all reference frames related to motion and in all consistent definitions of potential energy.

I also personally prefer the term "mass-energy" to "energy" as the fundamental conserved quantity, rather than presuming that one form of mass-energy or another is inherently more fundamental. Otherwise you create a linguistic ambiguity between "energy" referred to in the sense of things that aren't mass, and "energy" referred to in the sense of the conserved quantity "mass-energy".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes AlanKirby
  • #13
haushofer said:
However, most of the mass of matter is not given by the Higgs-mass but by the kinetic energy of the quarks moving inside hadrons!

It is true that only about 1% of the mass of a proton or neutron comes from the rest Higgs-mass of the quarks (its really a bit more complicated than that because if you do the QCD estimates of hadron mass assuming that all quarks are massless, the reduction in mass is, if I recall correctly, more like 8-9% due to the way that quark mass impacts the gauge fields in the hadron in a way that impacts the total mass of the system more than the rest mass of the quarks themselves).

This is less true of heavier hadrons. As a rule of thumb, the heavier the quarks, the greater the percentage of the mass of the hadron is Higgs mass. Heavier quarks give rise to a strong force field that has more energy than the strong force field between lighter quarks, but the energy of the strong force field rises much more slowly than the mass of the constituent quarks. For example, the vast majority in the electrically neutral B meson (total mass 5.280 GeV), a bit less than 4.2 GeV of the mass (almost 80%) comes from the Higgs-mass of the quarks, a bit more than 1 GeV of mass comes from the gluon field, and something less than 0.1 GeV comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks, electromagnetic fields, etc.

More importantly, the lion's share of the remaining mass of a hadron comes not from the kinetic energy of the quarks, but instead from the strong force gauge field that binds the quarks together (with the electromagnetic field between the quarks, virtual weak force loops, and kinetic energy of the quarks making orders of magnitude smaller contributions that are comparable to each other). In other words, most of the mass of a proton or neutron and most of the non-quark mass in other hadrons comes from the energy of the gluons that bind them.

Also, FWIW in a proton or neutron, most of the energy of the gluon fields is concentrated in the middle 1/3rd of the volume of the proton or neutron (the definition of which is a wee bit tricky since 99.99...% of the volume of a hadron is empty space and the constituent point particles are in constant motion) which makes up just 1/9th of the total volume of the proton or neutron.
 
  • Like
Likes haushofer
  • #14
Yes, I said "kinetic" energy while that should be "binding energy". Just curious: to which extent is it possible now to calculate the proton mass from the quark masses and QCD? Do you have any nice reference where I can find more about the examples you give?

This is actually one of those things I see popping up every now and then in popular context but have never looked upon more carefully.
 
  • #17
haushofer said:
Yes, I said "kinetic" energy while that should be "binding energy". Just curious: to which extent is it possible now to calculate the proton mass from the quark masses and QCD? Do you have any nice reference where I can find more about the examples you give?

This is actually one of those things I see popping up every now and then in popular context but have never looked upon more carefully.

The most recent first principles calculation of the proton mass from QCD had a precision of about 1%. I'll see if I can find a reference. Another approach to calculate a theoretically expected mass is to use the Coleman-Glashow relation which argues generally that certain combinations of hadron masses should be equivalent to each other based on symmetry considerations that follow from QCD. So, if you measure the masses of the other hadrons that should be equivalent, you can back out a phenomenologically predicted mass for the hadron whose mass you care about.

One of the biggest sources of uncertainty in that calculation is uncertainty in the QCD coupling constant (roughly 0.5% in the world average measurement). The uncertainty from omitting higher order loops from the calculation (because the infinite series approximation terms in QCD converge much more slowly than in QED) is another big one, and is more fundamental - one of the reasons that the QCD coupling constant and quark masses are not known with great precision is that the theoretical error due to omitted loops is so significant in QCD.

In contrast, the precision with which the proton mass has been measured experimentally has about eight significant digits (a million times more precise than the theoretical calculation), so theory lags far behind experiment here.

The disparity between theory and experiment, however, is far less extreme for heavy hadrons containing higher generation quarks, with experimental measurements often only precise to three or four significant digits, and theoretical calculations approaching three significant digit precision.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #18
Thanks. I recently read "Exploring fundamental particles" by Wolfenstein and Silva to boost my knowledge of phenomenology, and there it states that "it is not actually possible to calculate the mass of the proton in QCD" (ch6.5), but 1% off seems to me pretty accurate. The book was released in 2011, so I guess a lot can happen in a few years ;) If you can find that reference, I'd be happy to see it. I'll do a search on my own too.
 
  • #20
The arVix post-print of the study mfb refers to is at http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3599 The link to the published result is http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5905/1224.full The lead author explains the result with conference slides at http://www.durr.itp.unibe.ch/talk_09_psi.pdf The conference slides also mention that if quarks were massless that the proton mass would be about 890 MeV rather than about 940 MeV, a 5% difference despite the fact that the quark masses themselves are only about 1% of the total mass of the proton and neutron.

Electromagnetic corrections are discussed by the same author are discussed at http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4189 and a first principles calculation of the proton-neutron mass difference by the same author is at http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4088 An effort to back out the light quark masses from the known hadron masses by the same author is http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2403

A survey of efforts to directly calculate the proton mass from QCD can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0126 Some related points are discussed at http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4234

A study predicting the masses of the Delta and Omega baryons with the proton and neutron masses as inputs is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.0199.pdf with experiment measuring a mass about one order of magnitude more precise than theory.

A nice overview of mass generation in QCD is found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06581
 
  • #21
I don't think the statement "mass is a form of energy" is really accurate. In modern usage, "mass" is just the energy (over c^2) of the system as measured in the center-of-momentum frame, which is the frame with minimal energy. Even a system of two photons has mass, as long as their directions of motion are not parallel. Mass is important mainly because it is a Lorentz-invariant aspect of the energy. When we say that the Higgs mechanism "gives particles mass", it just means that the particle's interaction with the Higgs field involves an energy that cannot be made arbitrarily small by a choice of frame (unlike a photon's energy that can be redshifted away).

As for the older Newtonian meaning of "mass"- the ratio of momentum to velocity, which gives a measure of inertia- this turns out to be simply the energy itself (over c^2). That is why some people talk about mass increasing with speed. For a while this was referred to as "relativistic mass", but the term fell out of use among physicists because you may as well just say "the energy".
 
  • Like
Likes AlanKirby
  • #22
Well, the mass term is just a part of the Hamiltonian of the quantum fields in the standard model. In this sense, it's part of energy. The invariant mass of a system is defined as ##m^2 c^2=p_{\mu} p^{\mu}##. If ##m^2>0## there is a CM frame and then ##m=E_{\text{cm}}/c^2##. For a massless system there's no such CM frame and the invariant mass is simply 0. Tachyons (##m^2<0##) make so much trouble that I'm very thankful to nature that so far there's no necessity to deal with them. Fortunately the Opera result on faster-than-light neutrinos was just an unfortunate bug in the apparatus ;-)).
 
  • Like
Likes AlanKirby
  • #23
vanhees71 said:
The invariant mass of a system is defined as m2c2=pμpμm2c2=pμpμm^2 c^2=p_{\mu} p^{\mu}. If m2>0m2>0m^2>0 there is a CM frame and then m=Ecm/c2m=Ecm/c2m=E_{\text{cm}}/c^2. For a massless system there's no such CM frame and the invariant mass is simply 0.
We can think of mass as the lower bound on the frame-dependent energy. Then there is no need to mention the massless case separately.
 
  • Like
Likes AlanKirby

What is the origin of mass?

The origin of mass is a fundamental question in physics that has been studied for centuries. The most widely accepted explanation is the Higgs mechanism, which proposes that particles acquire mass through interactions with the Higgs field.

What is Noether's theorem?

Noether's theorem is a fundamental principle in theoretical physics that states that for every continuous symmetry in a physical system, there exists a corresponding conserved quantity. It connects the concepts of symmetry and conservation laws in physics.

How does Noether's theorem relate to the origin of mass?

Noether's theorem is closely related to the origin of mass because it explains how the symmetry of the Higgs field gives rise to the mass of particles. The Higgs field is a scalar field that breaks the electroweak symmetry and gives mass to the W and Z bosons, which in turn give mass to other particles.

What evidence supports the Higgs mechanism and Noether's theorem?

The discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider in 2012 provided strong evidence for the Higgs mechanism. Additionally, the conservation of energy and momentum in physical systems, as predicted by Noether's theorem, has been observed and verified in numerous experiments.

Are there any other theories or explanations for the origin of mass?

While the Higgs mechanism is currently the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of mass, there are other theories and models that have been proposed, such as technicolor theory and supersymmetry. However, these theories have not yet been confirmed by experimental evidence.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
974
Replies
6
Views
677
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
858
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
677
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
11
Views
8K
Back
Top