Why Does the Standard Model Not Account for the Mass of Potential Energy?

[beeresearch]

Hi guys,

I am a newbie on this forum and I have a pretty general question that I would like to ask.

Why does the standard model not ascribe a mass to potential energy, when clearly the universe has a lot of it, and presumably it had to come from somewhere?

Up, is generally considered to be a negative figure, but that is of course relative to who is observing.

Are we as humans making the same egosentric mistake again, and assuming that our point of view is "normal"?

Steven

 

[malawi_glenn]

Keeping the mass term in the lagrangian makes it mix the (chiral) states, which is not good.

Masses, however, arises due to the non-vanishing vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field.

 

[George Jones]

Hi guys,

I am a newbie on this forum and I have a pretty general question that I would like to ask.

Why does the standard model not ascribe a mass to potential energy, when clearly the universe has a lot of it, and presumably it had to come from somewhere?

Up, is generally considered to be a negative figure, but that is of course relative to who is observing.

Are we as humans making the same egosentric mistake again, and assuming that our point of view is "normal"?

Steven

Potential energy is related to conservation of energy. You have posted these questions in the relativity forum, and the concept of conservation of energy is quite subtle in relativity.

See

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

In relativity an effective potential is quite useful, for example, when working with orbits about spherical masses.

 

[beeresearch]

Potential energy is related to conservation of energy. You have posted these questions in the relativity forum, and the concept of conservation of energy is quite subtle in relativity.

George, you are quite right, potential energy is a Newtonian concept, and may at first appear a bit misplaced in a relativity forum, but really it is just another name for space.

Without some donation of energy, to separate the masses, there could be no space and no time in the first place, therefore there ought to, in my opinion, be an equation that relates energy to space-time.

The other half of E=Mc^2 if you like.

The universe is made up of matter-energy and space-time and as you and I are made of matter, our view of the Universe is naturally biased.

If the entire Universe was a skyscraper with 100 levels, we would be the residents on the 99th level, and the only elevator travels between the 99th and the 100th level, so we have no immediate need to worry about how we got to the 99th level in the first place, but it was with energy for sure.

Just as a small mass has a very large amount of energy, a very large amount of space would have a very small mass.

I believe it is this energy which is responsible for the discrepancies in our theories on a large scale, and that there is no need to postulate dark matter or dark energy in order to explain this.

My gut feeling for what it is worth tells me that for the Universe as a whole -Up/C^2 = M

Importantly for everyone on this forum, I do believe GR holds the answer to this problem.

Steven

 

[beeresearch]

Someone else but George might want to comment on my post..

 

[sketchtrack]

What exactly does -up stand for?

 

[beeresearch]

Although the term is incorrectly used in the context of GR, Up as I have used it here, stands for the total energy required to create the space between all the masses in the Universe.

ie. if you convert all space to energy it ought to be equal but but with opposite sign to all the mass energy.

I am suggesting that there is a missing equation, as well as converting mass to energy, there must be a way to convert space into energy.

This missing equation if it exists, would I believe close the case of the missing mass.