What Makes Mass Essential in Understanding Physics?

[dce]

I've been confused on why mass is such an essential component to understanding the physical relationships that we experience. From my limited understanding I want to believe that I can recognize the significance of general relativity, special, the various quantum functions, among recent advancements. I've heard the standard model called a mathematical mess but I don't quite get why. The complexity of the formula itself makes sense to me with there being such a diverse number of forces to account for. With the infinities present in the standard model yielding a possibility of infinite gravitational forces, it seems to me like it would be a statistical anomale. The problem with mass also makes sense to me; because it's possible to envision, from my understanding of the relationship between matter and energy, that mass could be a perceived effect.

I fully expect that my thoughts are flawed most likely from just plainly misunderstanding key concepts, so I would appreciate some feedback on where the flawed logic is.

 

[marcus]

We don't know what mass is.

Do you know what inertia is? It can be measured---you can measure a thing's reluctance to speed up or slow down or change direction. You can measure the force required to produce a certain amount of acceleration.

We can measure inertia---it is defined by how we measure it---that is a pragmatic operational way of defining it. But we don't know what gives things their inertia.

Do you know what gravitational attractiveness is? I suppose for sure you do! That is another thing we can measure---the acceleration of a test particle released at a certain distance.
Inertia is sometimes called "inertial mass" and that kind of attractiveness is called "gravitational mass".

Just as we don't know what gives things their inertia, we also don't know why things have gravitational attractiveness. We don't know why concentrations of matter bend space.

It has to do with the interaction of geometry with matter. Why does matter bend geometry, and why goes geometry guide the motion of matter?

 

[dce]

Alright, it seems clear now that I don't know anything after looking through some of these threads but I appreciate the insight and hopefully i'll be able to contribute to some of these conversations in the future, once I can wrap my head around the actual math involved. Thanks again.

 

[marcus]

Alright, it seems clear now that I don't know anything after looking through some of these threads ...

You may have misunderstood my intent. I didn't mean it as any kind of put down, or as suggesting that it was a dumb question.

It is a very good question. The best kind. What is mass?--it's a question that is going to be hot and spark a lot of thinking and experimenting over the next ten years.

The Higgs business is about what gives things their inertia.

A nobel laureate named Frank Wilczek has written a popular book called "The lightness of being" about this very question.
A gimmicky title---he uses "lightness" to mean "mass" in a kind of reversal.
Measuring lightness of something is the same as measuring its heaviness or its inertia. they are just two ends of the same scale.

Wilczek has some interesting video lectures about the ORIGIN OF MASS the links are at his MIT faculty website. Google. You will enjoy. They are wide-audience lectures about what we know so far about where mass comes from.

You should not back out. You should keep asking.

By my answer I only meant to respond to your question in a truthful straightforward way, as far as I can see we do not yet know what mass is. Our understanding of it is very limited. that is what makes it such an interesting stimulating scientific question.

BTW We don't know why inertial mass and gravitational mass are proportional. Measurements seem to indicate that they are exactly proportional, always. That is, they seem to be the same thing.

 

[humanino]

The Higgs business is about what gives things their inertia.

Quite frankly, I think this overrepeated statement is a conscious fraud. The Higgs (if it exists) gives less than 5% of the mass we know about, the ordinary mass around us, our inertial and gravitational masses. More than 95% comes directly from glue. This is clearly stated in Wilczek's lightness of being.

A gimmicky title---he uses "lightness" to mean "mass" in a kind of reversal.

I think Wilczek was also quite explicit, that he wants to reverse the question "why is gravity feeble ?" into "why is the proton so light ?"

Measurements seem to indicate that they are exactly proportional, always. That is, they seem to be the same thing.

I do not understand why this is not "just" equivalence principle ? I mean, not to state as a "principle" the above equivalence, but the principle that any gravitational field can be locally washed away by going to the referential of an observer in free fall.

 

[marcus]

More than 95% comes directly from glue. This is clearly stated in Wilczek's lightness of being.
...

Sure. But it is still a very interesting 5%.
I want to communicate to a first-time questioner that the origins of mass are a current focus of research. And not say so much that it scares them away.

I have Wilczek's book and like it. I know his message about reformulating the question in terms of lightness "why is the proton so light". For me it goes back to three Scaling Mount Planck essays he had in Physics Today---quite a few years back now!

You have very good additional points to raise, Humanino! Let's see if the first-timer comes back and wants to ask some more, and if so, bring all these things up.

 

[JK423]

I watched Wilczek's lecture that you proposed and it was really great...
Great way to spend an hour. Teaches you a lot!

 

[TFT]

In QFT, mass is just a coupling constant.

 

[Bob S]

I've been confused on why mass is such an essential component to understanding the physical relationships that we experience. From my limited understanding I want to believe that I can recognize the significance of general relativity, special, the various quantum functions, among recent advancements. I've heard the standard model called a mathematical mess but I don't quite get why. The complexity of the formula itself makes sense to me with there being such a diverse number of forces to account for. With the infinities present in the standard model yielding a possibility of infinite gravitational forces, it seems to me like it would be a statistical anomale. .

Gravity is not required to understand the presence of mass. All e/m measurements on charged particles in magnetic fields are a balance of the inertia of charged particle "mass" and Lorentz (Coulomb) v x B forces, giving rise to well understood curved trajectories of relativistic (and non relativistic) charged particles in cyclotrons, synchrotrons, magnetic beamlines, and even electrostatic deflectors.

Bob s

 

[Naty1]

I've been confused on why mass is such an essential component to understanding the physical relationships that we experience.

so are we...
the basic physical relationships revolve around mass,space,time,energy, and the four fundamental forces...but how they are intrinsically related to one another, how they all originated, whether they have a single "unified" origin is unknown.

I've heard the standard model called a mathematical mess but I don't quite get why.

Yes, to the extent it is a hodgepodge of different theories, artifically stuck together, like those of the three forces plus relativity plus quantum mechanics; on the other hand we can explain a lot of the particles and their interactions around us...so we have made great progress such as in combining the strong,weak and electromagnetic forces...but it sucks because nobody knows exactly how gravity fits...Lee Smolin's THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS is an inexpensive current book on many of the current issues in physics, without a lot of mathematical sophistication...but with the conceptual issues faced...

 

[bapowell]

In QFT, mass is just a coupling constant.

Right. A coupling constant that requires the relatively complex machinery of spontaneous symmetry breaking to understand consistently. I think the questioner desires a deeper understanding than this

 

[cmc]

Most of the mass of nucleons (by far) is in the binding energy between the quarks. how does the standard model state how to find this bindng energy (fundamentally, not by subtracting the total from the constituents)?

 

[ansgar]

Most of the mass of nucleons (by far) is in the binding energy between the quarks. how does the standard model state how to find this bindng energy (fundamentally, not by subtracting the total from the constituents)?

from QCD... the masses of hadrons can and have been calcluated using something called Lattice QCD... the results are in delicate agreement with data

 

[ansgar]

In QFT, mass is just a coupling constant.

no one does not call the mass a coupling constant, one calls it "mass parameter" since it sits in front of the mass term

 

[ansgar]

Right. A coupling constant that requires the relatively complex machinery of spontaneous symmetry breaking to understand consistently. I think the questioner desires a deeper understanding than this

not in general.. only if you consider gauge theories and chiral theories

 

[cmc]

from QCD... the masses of hadrons can and have been calcluated using something called Lattice QCD... the results are in delicate agreement with data

Anyone have citations to examples of the calculations?

 

[ansgar]

Anyone have citations to examples of the calculations?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/322/5905/1224PGD ( http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/download/rpp-2008-plB667.pdf 40MB!) chapter 14.6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_QCD

or just google for yourself...

 

[cmc]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/322/5905/1224


PGD ( http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/download/rpp-2008-plB667.pdf 40MB!) chapter 14.6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_QCD

or just google for yourself...

Newtonian theory gives us calculation accuracy to send satellites to Saturn - millions of miles away. QED gives calculation accuracy for atomic spectra for thouands of atomic electron energy levels. And anyone can calculate them for themselves to verify claims. Physics textbooks is where the meat is found. The internet only touches on subjects. I have many physics QCD textbooks, but none with binding energy calculations. The websites cited don't have calculations. Anyone else have any text citations for me?

 

[ansgar]

Newtonian theory gives us calculation accuracy to send satellites to Saturn - millions of miles away. QED gives calculation accuracy for atomic spectra for thouands of atomic electron energy levels. And anyone can calculate them for themselves to verify claims. Physics textbooks is where the meat is found. The internet only touches on subjects. I have many physics QCD textbooks, but none with binding energy calculations. The websites cited don't have calculations. Anyone else have any text citations for me?

The calculations are of course very complicated and has to be performed on large computers, I suggest you get a couple of books and lecture notes on Lattice QCD.

In principle everybody can calculate masses of hadrons too, there are no secrets in science (or what are you suggesting?), but this calculation is 1000 times more involved than QED calculations

also PDG is not "just something you find on the internet" it IS the particle physics "bible". And the article I gave you is contemporary research, just as QED was in the 1950's

 

[tom.stoer]

There are good papers in arxiv; have a look at Ab-initio Determination of Light Hadron Masses

 

[ansgar]

Also I would say that it is on the internet one can found the real stuff, long calculations etc, textbooks just sketch.

 

[cmc]

The PDG pdf file won't load on my computer.
And i am suggesting that the SU(3)xSU2)xU(1) group structure and weinberg-salam lagrangian get more credit than they deserve. The fundamentals must be simple. Complexity comes from the intricacies of manifestation of instantiation.
Newton's laws are simple. Hamiltonian dynamics of systems is complex (yet based on Newton's).
QED, based on the "relatively simple" Dirac equation & Schroedinger equation.
Complexity comes from the tasks of calculating cross sections and dealing with the integrals of the Hilbert spaces involved in the solution spaces of the equations - for things like annhilation operators, and relating them to Feynman diagrams, etc.
For example, quarks have 3 colors. It doesn't take an SU(2) to make a model with 3 elements.
I think more money should be being spent developing mathematical foundations (besides string theory, supersymmetry and the GUTs that have already monopolized the funding without success after 20+ years), than building bigger accelerators.
For example, the Dirac equation is not the only set of linear differential equations consistent with the Klein-Gordon equation. Another may be found at:
http://www.mathematicalphysicsinstitute.org/documents/aFreshRelativisticWaveEquation3.pdf .

 

[ansgar]

The PDG pdf file won't load on my computer.
And i am suggesting that the SU(3)xSU2)xU(1) group structure and weinberg-salam lagrangian get more credit than they deserve. The fundamentals must be simple. Complexity comes from the intricacies of manifestation of instantiation.
Newton's laws are simple. Hamiltonian dynamics of systems is complex (yet based on Newton's).
QED, based on the "relatively simple" Dirac equation & Schroedinger equation.
Complexity comes from the tasks of calculating cross sections and dealing with the integrals of the Hilbert spaces involved in the solution spaces of the equations - for things like annhilation operators, and relating them to Feynman diagrams, etc.
For example, quarks have 3 colors. It doesn't take an SU(2) to make a model with 3 elements.
I think more money should be being spent developing mathematical foundations (besides string theory, supersymmetry and the GUTs that have already monopolized the funding without success after 20+ years), than building bigger accelerators.
For example, the Dirac equation is not the only set of linear differential equations consistent with the Klein-Gordon equation. Another may be found at:
http://www.mathematicalphysicsinstitute.org/documents/aFreshRelativisticWaveEquation3.pdf .

1) QCD IS simple from a symmetry perspective, it is just the 3 dimensional (in field space) analogy to QED, the equations maybe quite complicated, but the REAL physics - the symmetry is simple.

2) QCD makes perfect match with experiemts

Your concern is that "theory is too difficult", but that is subjective, for me QCD is as simple as Newtonian gravity.

QCD is SU(3) not SU(2)... you want to have your theory local in space-times to preserve causality, then you postulate the existence of 3 quantum numbers called "colour" and derive the properties of such quantum field theory just as you do for QED (where you only have one number - the electric charge, i.e a local U(1)) and compare with experiment

I think more money should be spend on getting people - like you - to understand theory...

 

[cmc]

There are good papers in arxiv; have a look at Ab-initio Determination of Light Hadron Masses

nice article, but wher's the mathematics?

 

[cmc]

Also I would say that it is on the internet one can found the real stuff, long calculations etc, textbooks just sketch.

That's not my experience.

 

[ansgar]

nice article, but wher's the mathematics?

why not try to derive it four yourself or mail the authors?

One could not find the calcluations for QED processes in the 40-50's in ordinary textbooks.. that was too complicated to be publised.

The calculations in lattice qcd takes place on huge computers which have to be running for a loooong time, the lattice qcd is basically just to discretize space time and solve the QCD equations, so each iteration is "simple" but the total calculation is very intricated. From your precious pdf:

"And, why is the wave function for the Dirac equation expressed in iso-spin space, rather than real
space, like Maxwell's equations are?"

is wrong, dirac equation is in space-time, the spin 1/2 arises naturally since the Lorentz Group is isomorpic to SU(2)xSU(2)...

To me, it just seems that you are not willing to study and find things on your own, even though I showed you a code for calculating the mass of the proton, you would not understand it if you didn't know about Lattice QCD, so why beeing a troublemaker?Also you are confused on "mathematics" and "calculations"...

 

[ansgar]

That's not my experience.

Look for instance in sheres intro do ChPT lecture notes, there are much longer derivations there then you will find in any book on ChPT on the market.

 

[tom.stoer]

nice article, but wher's the mathematics?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/9807028" - or try the search function with introduction, review etc. in arxiv / hep-lat

 

[humanino]

I think more money should be spend on getting people - like you - to understand theory...

+1

cmc : naive criticism without concrete proposal deserves a more humble tone. It is clear that you have a very limited understanding of professional activity in this business. It is unclear whether the link you posted claims anything new. There is nothing new in there. It's not even published, it's not even correct, it was created with uselessly expensive software, and it does not deserve a second of attention from a professional.

If you want references, please request for them politely.

 

[humanino]

I have many physics QCD textbooks, but none with binding energy calculations.

Please provide a list of the QCD textbooks you have read.

 

[cmc]

Look for instance in sheres intro do ChPT lecture notes, there are much longer derivations there then you will find in any book on ChPT on the market.

Take alook at ay book ny Walter Grenier and you'll see good math in a physics book.
In hig schol and college, math and physics texts have good derivations of subject matter. Articles are more word than derivation - probably because journalists and CEOs are running them.

 

[cmc]

why not try to derive it four yourself or mail the authors?

One could not find the calcluations for QED processes in the 40-50's in ordinary textbooks.. that was too complicated to be publised.

The calculations in lattice qcd takes place on huge computers which have to be running for a loooong time, the lattice qcd is basically just to discretize space time and solve the QCD equations, so each iteration is "simple" but the total calculation is very intricated.


From your precious pdf:

"And, why is the wave function for the Dirac equation expressed in iso-spin space, rather than real
space, like Maxwell's equations are?"

is wrong, dirac equation is in space-time, the spin 1/2 arises naturally since the Lorentz Group is isomorpic to SU(2)xSU(2)...

To me, it just seems that you are not willing to study and find things on your own, even though I showed you a code for calculating the mass of the proton, you would not understand it if you didn't know about Lattice QCD, so why beeing a troublemaker?


Also you are confused on "mathematics" and "calculations"...

The wavefunction is in isospin space.

 

[cmc]

The wavefunction is in isospin space.

Didn't I start out with request for citations of calculations examples so I could calculate some others for myself?

 

[cmc]

1) QCD IS simple from a symmetry perspective, it is just the 3 dimensional (in field space) analogy to QED, the equations maybe quite complicated, but the REAL physics - the symmetry is simple.

2) QCD makes perfect match with experiemts

Your concern is that "theory is too difficult", but that is subjective, for me QCD is as simple as Newtonian gravity.

QCD is SU(3) not SU(2)... you want to have your theory local in space-times to preserve causality, then you postulate the existence of 3 quantum numbers called "colour" and derive the properties of such quantum field theory just as you do for QED (where you only have one number - the electric charge, i.e a local U(1)) and compare with experiment

I think more money should be spend on getting people - like you - to understand theory...

I thought it was against the rules to attack or insult other posters.
Anyway. To the casual observer the qcd lagrangian is not simple compare to classical gravity or electromagnetism - taught in hig hool and te ist years of colege - not subjective. Even the wave equations of general relativity are elementary compared to the qcd lagrangian.
And look publication up in any legal dictionary.

 

[cmc]

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/9807028" - or try the search function with introduction, review etc. in arxiv / hep-lat

Thanks. This looks useful.

 

[tom.stoer]

It would be helpful to see this wave function here ...

 

[humanino]

Take alook at ay book ny Walter Grenier and you'll see good math in a physics book.

Greiner's book on QCD has an entire chapter number 7 on lattice QCD. It includes a discussion of the differences between the string tension and the Polyakov loop. This is detailed enough to provide a sufficient (not proven necessary) mechanism for proton mass and confinement. When you claim

none with binding energy calculations.

it seems you have not understood Greiner's book.

 

[ansgar]

I thought it was against the rules to attack or insult other posters.
Anyway. To the casual observer the qcd lagrangian is not simple compare to classical gravity or electromagnetism - taught in hig hool and te ist years of colege - not subjective. Even the wave equations of general relativity are elementary compared to the qcd lagrangian.
And look publication up in any legal dictionary.

of course it is subjevtive, try to derive the einstein equations for GR to a kid in elementary school...

again, why should we bother about "laymans" understanding?

 

[cmc]

of course it is subjevtive, try to derive the einstein equations for GR to a kid in elementary school...

again, why should we bother about "laymans" understanding?

I have a master's degree in mathematics. Not quite a layman.
In the law there is a concept of "a reasonable man" standard.
They don't go to the level of a "child's understanding" for proof by preponderence or beyond reasonable doubt.
I guess I'll leave the "subjectiveness" question there.

I don't defend the relativistic wave equations at the site I quoted. The mathematics is correct. But don't take my word for it. Find mathematical error in it, and point it out. Whether or not it corresponds to any physical reality is for experiental evidence to establish.
At least qcd has been given a chance to confront experiment.

 

[Hoku]

again, why should we bother about "laymans" understanding?

I don't mean to interrupt a perfectly productive argument but I can't let this one go. I am a layman and I'm happy to give you some very good reasons why "you" should bother.

1) In every layman lies the potential for a future scientist. If you can successfully reach out to an interested layman you are increasing the likelyhood that they will go deeper into the subject, possible ending up back in school to earn graduate degrees because kind people reached out to them and fueled their passion.

I'm 37 now and the idea of going back to school in the future is not out of the question. Even if I never could make it back, I have a 3-year old daughter. The information, in laymans terms, that I learn here can easily be passed on to her AND her friends that reach out to me. This means I have the power to instill a passion for science in these children. When any child asks me, "why should I care?" about math, science, whatever, I can give them reasons that inspire them to go further - because kind people in PF reached out to me.

2) Just because you're a layman doesn't mean you're "stupid". In fact, some layman have what it takes in the raw intelligence and creativity department to help solve some important problems. Similarly, just because you've earned a degree doesn't mean you have the raw intelligence or creativity to move anything forward. It just means you were able to memorize some things. How many "non-layman" graduate with a C average? Unfortunately, many. This is pretty sad.

3) If you can't describe something you've learned in layman's terms then chances are you don't understand it all that well in the first place. There are only two points that layman have trouble with; math and vocabulary. Fortunately, these don't have to be a problem. Science vocabulary is generally big words that describe ultimately simple concepts. If you can't find smaller words to "paraphrase" a vocabulary word, then you should start excercising that portion of your brain. Math describes physical processes. They are *proofs*. Laymen don't need to understand these proofs, they just need to understand what the proofs are describing. Why bother in this case? Because it pushes you to make new connections and solidify your own understanding. Wanna test how well you understand something? Explain it to a layman.

I'll leave it at that. Just becaue a person is "lay" doesn't mean they aren't influential. Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they are. Please open your mind and your heart just a little more...

 

[cmc]

I just asked for some citations to some qcd mass calculations, so I could make some of my own in a similar situation - more inexpensive than the texts on amazon or stanford bookstore. Comparing to experimental evidence is the only proof everyone will accept. More to the point, that I will for my problem. I didn't expect the barrage of bile I've received.

 

[ansgar]

I just asked for some citations to some qcd mass calculations, so I could make some of my own in a similar situation - more inexpensive than the texts on amazon or stanford bookstore. Comparing to experimental evidence is the only proof everyone will accept. More to the point, that I will for my problem. I didn't expect the barrage of bile I've received.

as I have said, the calculations are coded in a certain programming language, one implements the equations from Lattice QCD and compute them using large computers. If you want to have such program to go through it yourself then you have to ask the authors of such programs. Otherwise, all the derivations and how one writes the code is written in textbooks.


The reason for the side step was your attitude I think.

 

[ansgar]

You have misinterpreted me

I said that the formalism (math) of the physical theories should not be adjusted so that laymans can understand it.

However, the physical CONSEQUENCES - phenomenology - one should as a scientist pursue to formulate it in such a way that it can be found appealing and exciting for persons without knowledge of math. I.e popular science.
So this is wath you wrote futher down in your post, and that I have never objected.

One should NEVER claim that "the math in this theory is too complicated for laymen to understand, let's find another theory".

I don't mean to interrupt a perfectly productive argument but I can't let this one go. I am a layman and I'm happy to give you some very good reasons why "you" should bother.

1) In every layman lies the potential for a future scientist. If you can successfully reach out to an interested layman you are increasing the likelyhood that they will go deeper into the subject, possible ending up back in school to earn graduate degrees because kind people reached out to them and fueled their passion.

I'm 37 now and the idea of going back to school in the future is not out of the question. Even if I never could make it back, I have a 3-year old daughter. The information, in laymans terms, that I learn here can easily be passed on to her AND her friends that reach out to me. This means I have the power to instill a passion for science in these children. When any child asks me, "why should I care?" about math, science, whatever, I can give them reasons that inspire them to go further - because kind people in PF reached out to me.

2) Just because you're a layman doesn't mean you're "stupid". In fact, some layman have what it takes in the raw intelligence and creativity department to help solve some important problems. Similarly, just because you've earned a degree doesn't mean you have the raw intelligence or creativity to move anything forward. It just means you were able to memorize some things. How many "non-layman" graduate with a C average? Unfortunately, many. This is pretty sad.

3) If you can't describe something you've learned in layman's terms then chances are you don't understand it all that well in the first place. There are only two points that layman have trouble with; math and vocabulary. Fortunately, these don't have to be a problem. Science vocabulary is generally big words that describe ultimately simple concepts. If you can't find smaller words to "paraphrase" a vocabulary word, then you should start excercising that portion of your brain. Math describes physical processes. They are *proofs*. Laymen don't need to understand these proofs, they just need to understand what the proofs are describing. Why bother in this case? Because it pushes you to make new connections and solidify your own understanding. Wanna test how well you understand something? Explain it to a layman.

I'll leave it at that. Just becaue a person is "lay" doesn't mean they aren't influential. Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they are. Please open your mind and your heart just a little more...

 

[humanino]

3) If you can't describe something you've learned in layman's terms then chances are you don't understand it all that well in the first place.

This I very much agree with.

2) Just because you're a layman doesn't mean you're "stupid".

Sure. But that is irrelevant.

1) In every layman lies the potential for a future scientist. If you can successfully reach out to an interested layman you are increasing the likelyhood that they will go deeper into the subject, possible ending up back in school to earn graduate degrees because kind people reached out to them and fueled their passion.

This is quite against my personal experience. I did not choose physics, Physics chose me. Physics would be better off if it only had people truly passionate about it, to which their life is devoted to. I learned very little, maybe nothing, from texts aimed at "laymen". I only learn from equations written for people who want to understand by themselves.

 

[ansgar]

This is quite against my personal experience. I did not choose physics, Physics chose me. Physics would be better off if it only had people truly passionate about it, to which their life is devoted to. I learned very little, maybe nothing, from texts aimed at "laymen". I only learn from equations written for people who want to understand by themselves.

Well the same applies to me, it was not primarily the popular science books and articles I read that made me go into science and Physics - it was that already at an early stage in my life could understand math and physics - I was the best student in the natural science classes and math in my class - and that was motivating for me! And that was the reason for WHY i started to pursue popular science books, that I know that "science is my thing"

So maybe I should blaim the popular science books for why I am into particle physics, but not into science in general.

 

[cmc]

Greiner's book on QCD has an entire chapter number 7 on lattice QCD. It includes a discussion of the differences between the string tension and the Polyakov loop. This is detailed enough to provide a sufficient (not proven necessary) mechanism for proton mass and confinement. When you claimit seems you have not understood Greiner's book.

I had WG's qcd, relativistic wave equations, & quantum mechanics books until a recent move and the post office lost some of my boxes. I guess I'll need to get some of them again, or maybe copy some pages at stanford library. (I don't have it memorized)
Thanks for directing me back to chapter 7.

 

[Hoku]

ansgar, I understand your perspective and I agree with you. It's nice to know that I simply misunderstood your quote, although I'm sure you can see how easy it was to do.

Sure. But that is irrelevant.

The relevance of my point is twofold: First, intelligent layman can still be of value to those with degrees by offering unique insights. Second, even if those who help laymen don't get any such value, the knowledge that laymen obtain can still be applied as insights that make meaningful impacts elsewhere. So, saying, "why bother about a laymans understanding" is just as much saying, "laymen have no ultimate value, are stupid and not worth wasting time on". I'm saying that intelligent laymen exist and, if they're interested, they ARE worth the time.

Physics would be better off if it only had people truly passionate about it[...]

I completely agree here. This was part of my point. There are people that have degrees in physics that did it for reasons other than a passion. They make good "minions" but are unlikely to drive the progress of science. I think your point here is that, if someone hasn't had a passion for physics since the age of 16, then they will never develope it. This I have to disagree with.

Every person is different. Every life goes in different directions, discovering different passions at different times and for different reasons. You find no value in layman books, I find tremendous value in them. Science and math classes can be very dry and boring for me. It wasn't until I entered college at 23 that I was able to enjoy them (I went for 2 years then had to abandon it). If not for the layman books, I might never have taken science in college and I would never have known what I was missing. My nature is more philosophical. I am more interested by the questions left to answer than the I am the answers that there is nothing to left to question. It wasn't until I encountered layman books that I discovered the fascination to be found in science. Layman books jump to the heart of the philosophical questions that early, routine science classes miss. THIS is what sparks my passion and why I was a late bloomer for my interest in science.

Life takes us all down different paths, but that doesn't mean we won't end up at the same destination. One path is not better than another. In fact, the more different paths we can take to a similar destination, the more insights we have to pool in making discoveries. Viva la difference!

 

[ansgar]

again, you misinterpreted me, you took the quote from it's context.

ansgar, I understand your perspective and I agree with you. It's nice to know that I simply misunderstood your quote, although I'm sure you can see how easy it was to do.


The relevance of my point is twofold: First, intelligent layman can still be of value to those with degrees by offering unique insights. Second, even if those who help laymen don't get any such value, the knowledge that laymen obtain can still be applied as insights that make meaningful impacts elsewhere. So, saying, "why bother about a laymans understanding" is just as much saying, "laymen have no ultimate value, are stupid and not worth wasting time on". I'm saying that intelligent laymen exist and, if they're interested, they ARE worth the time. I completely agree here. This was part of my point. There are people that have degrees in physics that did it for reasons other than a passion. They make good "minions" but are unlikely to drive the progress of science. I think your point here is that, if someone hasn't had a passion for physics since the age of 16, then they will never develope it. This I have to disagree with.

Every person is different. Every life goes in different directions, discovering different passions at different times and for different reasons. You find no value in layman books, I find tremendous value in them. Science and math classes can be very dry and boring for me. It wasn't until I entered college at 23 that I was able to enjoy them (I went for 2 years then had to abandon it). If not for the layman books, I might never have taken science in college and I would never have known what I was missing. My nature is more philosophical. I am more interested by the questions left to answer than the I am the answers that there is nothing to left to question. It wasn't until I encountered layman books that I discovered the fascination to be found in science. Layman books jump to the heart of the philosophical questions that early, routine science classes miss. THIS is what sparks my passion and why I was a late bloomer for my interest in science.

Life takes us all down different paths, but that doesn't mean we won't end up at the same destination. One path is not better than another. In fact, the more different paths we can take to a similar destination, the more insights we have to pool in making discoveries. Viva la difference!

 

[Hoku]

again, you misinterpreted me, you took the quote from it's context.

Hmm... I have to say this post has me most perplexed. The best I can think is that you thought I was quoting you when I was actually quoting Humanino?? I think that must be what happened. At any rate, I'm off to bed now.

 

[qsa]

What is mass is linked to what is charge. What is energy? Can you link all three in a unified concept. If you did, you got the answer. Wilczek's Grid is really a good idea. My own idea is a Grid.

check post #240

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2665832#post2665832