The Term "no mass" is poorly defined

  • B
  • Thread starter Trooper149
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mass Term
In summary: Please provide a valid source.Sorry, but this is just word salad and has nothing to do with actual physics. Mass is a property of a system, nothing else. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being any form of "container".
  • #1
Trooper149
14
3
Problem Statement: NA
Relevant Equations: NA

Come across the mentioning that some particles have "no mass". Is this stated by physicists because there simply isn't evidence to prove that they have mass. It doesn't seem logical to make a fact based on absence of information to the contrary.

All particles must have some form of mass in order to have validity in interaction with other particles and establish a boundary of interaction and function. If it had no mass, then it would have no container for its influence and function.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Trooper149 said:
Come across the mentioning
This is not a valid reference. Please provide a valid source.

Trooper149 said:
some particles have "no mass". Is this stated by physicists because there simply isn't evidence to prove that they have mass. It doesn't seem logical to make a fact based on absence of information to the contrary.
This depends on context, which you have not provided. The photon is treated as massless because there is only a (very stringent) upper bound on its mass. Therefore, in the standard model of particle physics, it is treated as being massless. Being a gauge theory, it is also required from the theory itself that the photon is massless. So far, all experimental evidence is consistent with this prediction.

Trooper149 said:
All particles must have some form of mass in order to have validity in interaction with other particles and establish a boundary of interaction and function. If it had no mass, then it would have no container for its influence and function.
Sorry, but this is just word sallad and has nothing to do with actual physics. Mass is a property of a system, nothing else. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being any form of "container".
 
  • #3
An example I am referring to is this Link here. Perhaps not the best source as it comes straight from the internet, in which case I would appreciate any direction towards reliable sources which can provide core understanding and context to the behaviour of particles.

They state that the neutrino might have "no mass". How does this compute in the grand scheme of things? If it has no mass, then where does the influence of a single neutrino "meet its border" as they participate in the weak force.

Word *salad is the best way to express ones opinion IMO.
 
  • #4
Trooper149 said:
They state that the neutrino might have "no mass". How does this compute in the grand scheme of things? If it has no mass, then where does the influence of a single neutrino "meet its border" as they participate in the weak force.

Word *salad is the best way to express ones opinion IMO.
It is, however, an awful way of doing physics. Your description has absolutely nothing to do with how the weak interaction is modeled. The description of the electroweak and strong forces in the standard model of particle physics is based on a precise mathematical model. According to this model, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having interactions with massless particles. As long as appropriate conservation laws are satisfied (such as energy and momentum conservation), there is nothing wrong with those processes involving massless particles. The photon is a massless particle and it interacts quite readily with charged particles.

Your reference also shows no publication date, but Art McDonald won (half) the Nobel prize 2015 for his contributions to the SNO experiment showing that neutrinos do have mass. (The other half of the prize going to T Kajita for his role in the Super-K experiment.)
 
  • #5
Trooper149 said:
Is this stated by physicists because there simply isn't evidence to prove that they have mass. It doesn't seem logical to make a fact based on absence of information to the contrary.
On the contrary we have very good information on, for example, the 0 mass of a photon. That has been measured with a variety of exquisitely precise measurements, all of which have been 0 to within the experimental error.

Of course no measurement of any quantity has infinite precision, so there is a small range of values around 0 that would also be consistent with the data. But that small uncertainty doesn’t imply an absence of information. The information that we do have is quite strong and provides strong support for 0 mass.
Trooper149 said:
All particles must have some form of mass in order to have validity in interaction with other particles and establish a boundary of interaction and function. If it had no mass, then it would have no container for its influence and function.
None of this is correct.
 
  • #6
Orodruin said:
Your reference also shows no publication date

It's from 1999. The OP is using a 20-year old article that doesn't even say what he says it says (it says the mass is small and might be zero) to defend his opinion that scientists are all doing it wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
  • #7
Orodruin said:
It is, however, an awful way of doing physics. Your description has absolutely nothing to do with how the weak interaction is modeled. The description of the electroweak and strong forces in the standard model of particle physics is based on a precise mathematical model. According to this model, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having interactions with massless particles. As long as appropriate conservation laws are satisfied (such as energy and momentum conservation), there is nothing wrong with those processes involving massless particles. The photon is a massless particle and it interacts quite readily with charged particles.

Your reference also shows no publication date, but Art McDonald won (half) the Nobel prize 2015 for his contributions to the SNO experiment showing that neutrinos do have mass. (The other half of the prize going to T Kajita for his role in the Super-K experiment.)

Could you advise me of some possible sources of reliable information that provide some more in depth explanations of quantum mechanics for beginners?
 
  • #8
Vanadium 50 said:
It's from 1999. The OP is using a 20-year old article that doesn't even say what he says it says (it says the mass is small and might be zero) to defend his opinion that scientists are all doing it wrong.

So passive forum slandering aside, could you gentlemen perhaps point me in the direction of some reliable sources of information that can give a breakdown of quantum mechanics for someone who is just starting out?

Cheers
 
  • #9
  • #10
Trooper149 said:
So passive forum slandering aside

You deliberately misstated what the article said. I was kinder than your behavior warranted.
 
  • #11
Trooper149 said:
So passive forum slandering aside, could you gentlemen perhaps point me in the direction of some reliable sources of information that can give a breakdown of quantum mechanics for someone who is just starting out?

Cheers
Your OP started out by making a claim, not making a question. Your title suggests that you are promoting an idea that is strongly misguided, not making a question, and the rest of the OP is in the same vein. If you are just starting out, this is not a constructive way to learn.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #12
weirdoguy said:
The issues you've raised in your OP belongs to quantum field theory rather than quantum mechanics, but to understand QFT you have to understand QM... And you can start with this one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071765638/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Much appreciated, cheers
 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213
  • #13
Coming late to topic, may I caution that claiming 'no mass' is dangerously inadequate, especially if 'No Rest Mass' was intended ?

There's some very sloppy 'popular' presentations about, and a surfeit of woo, at best due misunderstanding. IMHO, any claim of 'no mass' is too-often a red flag that worse errors may lie ahead...
YMMV.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #14
Nik_2213 said:
Coming late to topic, may I caution that claiming 'no mass' is dangerously inadequate, especially if 'No Rest Mass' was intended ?

There's some very sloppy 'popular' presentations about, and a surfeit of woo, at best due misunderstanding. IMHO, any claim of 'no mass' is too-often a red flag that worse errors may lie ahead...
YMMV.
I disagree with this. While it doesn't hurt to clarify, the standard scientific meaning of the term "mass" is the invariant mass. The other type of mass, "relativistic mass", is rather strongly deprecated by the professional scientific community.

So "no mass" is both adequate and standard usage. While it does no harm to say "no invariant mass", but it is cumbersome and typically unnecessary.

Btw, I prefer the term "invariant mass" instead of "rest mass"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213, Orodruin and weirdoguy

1. What exactly does "no mass" mean?

The term "no mass" refers to an object or particle that has no physical mass or weight. This means that it does not have any measurable amount of matter or energy.

2. How can something have no mass?

According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy are interchangeable and can be converted into each other. Therefore, an object or particle can have no mass if it is made up entirely of energy or if it is moving at the speed of light.

3. Is it possible for an object with no mass to exist?

Yes, it is possible for an object with no mass to exist. In fact, particles such as photons (particles of light) and gluons (particles that hold quarks together) are examples of particles with no mass.

4. Why is the term "no mass" considered to be poorly defined?

The term "no mass" can be considered poorly defined because it is often used in a colloquial or non-scientific way. In physics, the concept of mass is more precisely defined and can be measured, whereas the term "no mass" can be ambiguous and can lead to misunderstandings.

5. How does the concept of "no mass" impact our understanding of the universe?

The concept of "no mass" is important in understanding the fundamental laws of the universe, such as the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. It also helps us to understand the behavior of particles and objects at the subatomic level and the nature of energy and matter in the universe.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
792
Replies
4
Views
608
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
704
Back
Top