Where does the mass of particles come from in the electroweak theory?

[kevinsetiono]

That formula is the so-called "relativistic mass" and is no longer used, because it is just equal to $\frac{E}{c^2}$. Mass of an object is the unprimed m in the formula and is invariant. As Drakkith said, the energy increases with speed, not mass.

will it be the same value between my formula and E / c^2?

 

[tiny-tim]

hello kevinsetiono!

it's easiest to think in terms of the energy, E

for every particle, E/c² is proportional to 1/√(1 - v²/c²), where v is the speed

we call the constant of proportionality the mass, m …

E/c² = m/√(1 - v²/c²)​

we can also write it

E√(1 - v²/c²)/c² = m​

from that we immediately see that, for a photon (for which v = c always), m = 0 …

the mass of a photon is zero​

since m is the value of E/c² when v = 0, we also call m the rest-mass, the energy it has when it's at rest (divided by c²)

(obviously, a photon can't be at rest, so "rest-mass" is a meaningless name for a photon … that's why nowadays we usually prefer to call it "mass" rather than "rest-mass" )

is magnetic field made of photon ?

the magnetic field is part of the electromagnetic field

it isn't "made" of anything, it just "is"

light waves are a special kind of electromagnetic field, in which the electric and magnetic parts are equal and perpendicular

 

[kevinsetiono]

i was count the formula
if the formula m' = m / (( 1-(V /c )^ 2 )) ^ 0,5 have the same state with m= E/ c^2
it will make the final formula m ' = m. E / ((c.v)^2)
i just think if this formula is right , the rest mass is very very small if v=c
one question : i don't know what difference between rest mass ( m' ) and mass ( m)

sorry if wrong :)

 

[Whovian]

There are two kinds of mass: relativistic mass, and rest mass.

Rest mass is the mass an object has at rest.
Relativistic mass is the total mass, affected quite a bit by velocity, also equal to kinetic energy + rest mass (after, of course, converting kinetic energy via E=mc^2 and note that the formula for kinetic energy is no longer mv^2/2)

 

[Dead Boss]

i was count the formula
if the formula m' = m / (( 1-(V /c )^ 2 )) ^ 0,5 have the same state with m= E/ c^2
it will make the final formula m ' = m. E / ((c.v)^2)
i just think if this formula is right , the rest mass is very very small if v=c
one question : i don't know what difference between rest mass ( m' ) and mass ( m)

sorry if wrong :)

It's the other way around.
m is rest mass, or simply mass and it does not change with speed
m' is relativistic mass and it increases with speed

The substitution you should be making is:
m' = E/ c^2 = m / (( 1-(V /c )^ 2 )) ^ 0,5
So: m' = Ec^2/(( 1-(V /c )^ 2 )) ^ 0,5

I should stress that relativistic mass is not a very useful concept and it's not healthy to treat it as the mass of an object.

 

[j_phillips]

I was thinking about this today and looked up a bit about the history of mass measurement. Obviously it is still defined by a physical object (an ingot of some alloy). My question is more toward defining it another way. Why not use Kepler's law's aka. gravity? If we can define Force as a kg*m/s^2, then why not equate force to electrostatics or any other branch?

 

[ZapperZ]

I was thinking about this today and looked up a bit about the history of mass measurement. Obviously it is still defined by a physical object (an ingot of some alloy). My question is more toward defining it another way. Why not use Kepler's law's aka. gravity? If we can define Force as a kg*m/s^2, then why not equate force to electrostatics or any other branch?

You are way too late. The BIPM is already setting in motion to tie the definition of a standard mass to the Planck constant, thus making it tied to a fundamental constant rather than a piece of material kept in a vault.

Zz.

 

[Neandethal00]

Good afternoon. I am wondering what exactly is mass. Some say, quite inaccurately, that it is a measure of how much "stuff" an object has (what do they mean by "stuff"?). Others say that it's a quantity that means resistance to acceleration. What is mass and where does the mass of particles come from? I read that it arises from spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak force through interaction with 2 Higgs fields. Could anyone explain this in a very straightforward way?

Thank you in advance.

Not sure if anyone already gave this answer.

Mass of anything is number of atoms in it, and number of nucleons in each atom.

 

[harrylin]

[..] I should stress that relativistic mass is not a very useful concept and it's not healthy to treat it as the mass of an object.

Sorry, I couldn't resist!
Many people who understand the concept find it very useful for its application - and as they also understand how the concept should not be misused, they manage to stay perfectly healthy.

 

[harrylin]

Not sure if anyone already gave this answer.
Mass of anything is number of atoms in it, and number of nucleons in each atom.

That's according to classical, Newtonian theory. However, we now know that that doesn't work well: the effects that characterize "mass" are slightly less than that of the sum of separate particles or atoms - thus some "mass" is "missing".
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_defect#Mass_defect

 

[ZapperZ]

Not sure if anyone already gave this answer.

Mass of anything is number of atoms in it, and number of nucleons in each atom.

Then how do you define the mass of an electron, or any lepton and other fundamental particles for that matter?

Zz.

 

[Khashishi]

Mass does not depend on gravity. W in your equation is weight.

Mass appears in several different laws and the amazing thing is that the same quantity gets used for different laws. Mass is equivalent to the amount of energy in a system. But this quantity also tells you how much the system or object resists motion. (By resists, I mean, it takes an amount of force proportional to the mass to change the velocity by a set amount.) Mass also tells you how strong the gravity is around the object. So there are at least three different definitions of mass, but they turn out to be the same quantity.

 

[Dead Boss]

Sorry, I couldn't resist!
Many people who understand the concept find it very useful for its application - and as they also understand how the concept should not be misused, they manage to stay perfectly healthy.

If you know what you're doing. If not, you'll end up plugging relativistic mass where it does not belong and draw incorrect conclusions. I would advise to learn relativistic dynamics without it.

 

[harrylin]

If you know what you're doing. If not, you'll end up plugging relativistic mass where it does not belong and draw incorrect conclusions. I would advise to learn relativistic dynamics without it.

I have seen the same problem with people who didn't understand "mass" as rest mass. It's a never-ending -and off-topic- debate (which I therefore won't bring to this thread and I would advice you to do the same).

 

[Neandethal00]

Then how do you define the mass of an electron, or any lepton and other fundamental particles for that matter?

Zz.

Oops. I was going to say
Mass of anything [STRIKE] is[/STRIKE] depends on number of atoms in it, and number of nucleons in each atom, and the materials in each nucleon.

If there's a proof nucleons and elementary particles are made of different materials, I'm ready to give up my long-shot idea.

But deep down I still think matters (materials) are "transformed" or another state of EM waves. Waiting for some exceptional physicist to prove it.

 

[Drakkith]

But deep down I still think matters (materials) are "transformed" or another state of EM waves. Waiting for some exceptional physicist to prove it.

How about neutrinos that don't interact via the electromagnetic force?

 

[ZapperZ]

Oops. I was going to say
Mass of anything [STRIKE] is[/STRIKE] depends on number of atoms in it, and number of nucleons in each atom, and the materials in each nucleon.

If there's a proof nucleons and elementary particles are made of different materials, I'm ready to give up my long-shot idea.

But deep down I still think matters (materials) are "transformed" or another state of EM waves. Waiting for some exceptional physicist to prove it.

This makes even LESS sense. Leptons are not made of any of the "material" you described.

Please note that, per the PF Rules that you had agreed to, you are not allowed to make things up as you go along, nor bring up your own pet beliefs.

Zz.

 

[Neandethal00]

This makes even LESS sense. Leptons are not made of any of the "material" you described.

Please note that, per the PF Rules that you had agreed to, you are not allowed to make things up as you go along, nor bring up your own pet beliefs.

Zz.

The correct answer is "No one knows what mass exactly is at this point in time".

But this thread is gone 3 pages, meaning most posts are speculations.

Leptons, neutrinos? Can anyone say with certainty at this time he knows 'all states of sub-atomic materials', like solid/liquid/gas in macroscopic world?

OK, my last post here.

 

[ZapperZ]

The correct answer is "No one knows what mass exactly is at this point in time".

But this thread is gone 3 pages, meaning most posts are speculations.

Leptons, neutrinos? Can anyone say with certainty at this time he knows 'all states of sub-atomic materials', like solid/liquid/gas in macroscopic world?

OK, my last post here.

Then you should follow you own advice and admit you don't know these stuff, rather than make inconsistent, contradictory statements. I consider your posts to be equally speculative.

Zz.