Gravity and Normal Force Responsible For Mass?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

QED

Guest
Does the idea seem crazy? Perhaps it's not the theoretical higgs, maybe the graviton that is responsible for gravity... and mass. I probably sound like an idiot so please tell me if I am making no sense.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Huh? Does what sound crazy? There's not enough in your post to tell whether it's crazy or not. It's meaningless fluff, less dense than aerogel!
 
Q

QED

Guest
Of course it's garbage! I'm trying to find a way that it could actually make sense - or not, but I'm a noob.

Mass (inertia and active mass) and weight are determined by an applied force, so gravity and the normal force both "determine" an object's mass, since one pushes and the other pulls, giving relative weight (and actual mass) to the object, as well as the force that maintains position and holding objects together (both forces acting in opposite directions). In other words, could gravitons be partially responsible for creating mass, and if so, what would the normal force be?

Then I guess, one would have to explain why photons have no [rest] mass. I don't think I'm onto anything ground-breaking, but just throwing ideas around (and kind of messing up the physics world a bit probably).
 
J

Jerromy

Guest
Welcome to the universe! It might be a bit constraining but try to get a realistic grip on the proven physics and grow from there... then you will know better than to refer to yourself as a noobie.

All matter in the universe that has been proven to exist has a distinct amount of rest mass. (see periodic table of elements) The only thing that determines an object's mass is the total of its atoms mass. It's weight is only relative to a larger mass's attraction, and it's velocity through space amplifies its mass up to but not including the speed of light at which any atom would in theory have infinite mass. (Theoretically impossible as the force required to accelerate even the smallest particles to c approaches infinity)

Then I guess, one would have to explain why photons have no [rest] mass: Since a single photon has very little energy at the speed of light and the smallest particles with mass have very high energy at close to the speed of light, logic would lead one to believe that a photon is like matter that gave up its mass just to be able to go that fast!
 
R

ramparts

Guest
Jerromy":1mnncm4a said:
Welcome to the universe! It might be a bit constraining but try to get a realistic grip on the proven physics and grow from there... then you will know better than to refer to yourself as a noobie.

All matter in the universe that has been proven to exist has a distinct amount of rest mass. (see periodic table of elements) The only thing that determines an object's mass is the total of its atoms mass. It's weight is only relative to a larger mass's attraction, and it's velocity through space amplifies its mass up to but not including the speed of light at which any atom would in theory have infinite mass. (Theoretically impossible as the force required to accelerate even the smallest particles to c approaches infinity)

The question isn't what gives composite objects their masses, it's what gives the things that atoms are made of - electrons, protons, and the like - and other subatomic particles their masses. Why should electrons have one mass and neutrinos have another? That's very much an open question in physics, and one which may be answered by invoking the Higgs mechanism, which is complicated.

Then I guess, one would have to explain why photons have no [rest] mass: Since a single photon has very little energy at the speed of light and the smallest particles with mass have very high energy at close to the speed of light, logic would lead one to believe that a photon is like matter that gave up its mass just to be able to go that fast!

Well, no, photons are massless because they're quanta of an Abelian gauge field.

As for the OP... there's really no such thing as a "normal force," it's just an effect that arises in classical mechanics, much like the friction force. Fundamentally there are only four forces we know of - gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

As for the rest of your idea, I can't really say much, since it doesn't make any sense. My recommendation: hit the books, learn some more about what we already know about physics - much more fun and productive than stringing some words together and hoping something in there makes sense :)
 
J

Jerromy

Guest
Well, no, photons are massless because they're quanta of an Abelian gauge field.

A photon flying through space can be viewed as a massless spin-1 particle and its characteristics can be observed to match electromagnetic radiation descriptions but that doesn't explain why it is. I can't find any info to read on how photons are quantized by this "abelian" gauge field but for some reason I doubt it explains their assumed lack of mass.
 
R

ramparts

Guest
Well, what kind of description for "why" do you want? A photon - like any particle - is a quantum of a field; that is, it's a localized excitation in some field which permeates space. Given any field, there's a mathematical procedure for quantizing it and seeing what its particles look like. Things like mass and spin just pop out of the quantization, they aren't put in by hand later. So when you quantize the U(1) gauge field which is responsible for electromagnetism, you get massless particles necessarily. That seems like a pretty decent "why" - not all answers to "why" are going to be summarizable in totally qualitative layman's English, and if you're interested in understanding more, you really should learn the relevant math.
 
J

Jerromy

Guest
@Ramparts:
Ok, you have me on the relevant math situation... I am very good at math when I understand what is being calculated, but abstract concepts where I cannot easily visualize relationships tend to confuse me a bit. On the other hand, subatomic physics facinates me to the point that I dwell on the universal checks and balances which dictate the reasons WHY everything is the way it is.

The main argument I have with massless assumptions is the energy/mass equivilence subject. If massive particles can annihilate into pure massless energy then their equivilent energy should be revertable into massive particles once again.
Perhaps the OP has struck a reasonable conclusion that mass is purely derived from energy being balanced in a "normal material attraction" state. To truly understand relativity one must relate why, not only how.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
One small note - the "normal" force is really just an...account term. When an object is at rest on a surface, not sinking
into it, or flying off of it, the surface exerts a force sufficient to make the forces in that direction sum to zero.
 
L

Last89er

Guest
I saw your username and thought hey! But a quantum electrodynamicist would already know.

Mass is responsible for gravity. Gravity can exist without mass.

I have not delved in depth regarding gravitons. I know they are spin 2, and the literature is sketchy about them. However Dr. Robert Baker has published considerable success with HFGW communication. Personally I don't think they are responsible for gravity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts