Butch

Smallest possible mass?

Recommended Posts

Is there an answer? If not please share your opinions! A hypothesis I am developing can only be quantized by the smallest possible mass, I cannot locate any information...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just my view on this. But it's imo an electron in a superconductor that has the smallest rest mass. In a superconductor there is no electrical resistance, they travel like photons trough vacuum. All or nearly all of its energy is kinetic energy. The rest mass is then imo 'infinitely' small.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass#Relationship_to_other_physical_constants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no reason to think that mass is quantised.

Assuming you refer to 'rest mass', surely it must be since mass is a property of particles and energy and the smallest mass must therefore be given by the rest mass of the smallest indivisible particle or quantum of energy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, studiot said:

Assuming you refer to 'rest mass', surely it must be since mass is a property of particles and energy and the smallest mass must therefore be given by the rest mass of the smallest indivisible particle or quantum of energy?

One could argue that there is an object with less mass than any other (the electron neutrino(*), as mathematic says). But the mass of all other objects is not constrained to be a multiple of that. After all, neutrinos are not constituents of matter. Nor is mass constrained to be a multiple of electron or quark mass, even though they are the building blocks pf matter. For example, the mass of proton is not just the sum of the masses of the quarks that make it up.

(*) But I'm not sure it is that simple. The mass of neutrinos does not seem to be simply assigned to each type, because of oscillation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

One could argue that there is an object with less mass than any other (the electron neutrino(*), as mathematic says). But the mass of all other objects is not constrained to be a multiple of that. After all, neutrinos are not constituents of matter. Nor is mass constrained to be a multiple of electron or quark mass, even though they are the building blocks pf matter. For example, the mass of proton is not just the sum of the masses of the quarks that make it up.

(*) But I'm not sure it is that simple. The mass of neutrinos does not seem to be simply assigned to each type, because of oscillation.

I don't see how that matters.

After the energy levels in say thorium are not inter multiples of those in say hydrogen or oxygen.

Nor are the differences between them, which is why they have different spectral lines.

Added to which the OP asks if there is a minimum, not is it quantised.

Minima occur in continuous systems too.

 

Happy Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, studiot said:

Added to which the OP asks if there is a minimum, not is it quantised.

 

10 hours ago, Butch said:

A hypothesis I am developing can only be quantized by the smallest possible mass

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Butch said:

Is there an answer? If not please share your opinions! A hypothesis I am developing can only be quantized by the smallest possible mass, I cannot locate any information...

What you are searching for mathematician would call searching for lowest common denominator.

Suppose so we have rest-mass of proton mp , rest-mass of electron me, etc. etc. with the all other particles, isotopes and so on.

After dividing mp, me, etc. etc. the all other known masses, by mq you will get integer multiply of mq which fits in all of them, without any fractions.

 

To calculate mq, programmer should gather the all masses of known particles together in database, and start dividing until there is fraction.

 

The problem here is that masses are measured with limited precision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smallest possible mass is zero. Photons have zero mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

The smallest possible mass is zero. Photons have zero mass.

Ok, but 'zero' implies the complete absence of mass. You can't measure the complete absence of something, you can only calculate or assume it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Ok, but 'zero' implies the complete absence of mass. You can't measure the complete absence of something, you can only calculate or assume it.

 

Yet null methods of measurement have long been known to be be the most accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Itoero said:

Ok, but 'zero' implies the complete absence of mass. You can't measure the complete absence of something, you can only calculate or assume it.

The upper bound on it is quite small, and the measurement is consistent with zero, meaning the smallest possible value, so far as we can tell, is zero.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, studiot said:

Assuming you refer to 'rest mass', surely it must be since mass is a property of particles and energy and the smallest mass must therefore be given by the rest mass of the smallest indivisible particle or quantum of energy?

 

 

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

What you are searching for mathematician would call searching for lowest common denominator.

Suppose so we have rest-mass of proton mp , rest-mass of electron me, etc. etc. with the all other particles, isotopes and so on.

After dividing mp, me, etc. etc. the all other known masses, by mq you will get integer multiply of mq which fits in all of them, without any fractions.

 

To calculate mq, programmer should gather the all masses of known particles together in database, and start dividing until there is fraction.

 

The problem here is that masses are measured with limited precision.

This was the "proof" for Planck as I understand it... I am thinking that a particle with the least possible mass for a particle might be constituted by entities having the absolute least mass possible, that is the absolute minimum via Planck.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

The smallest possible mass is zero. Photons have zero mass.

Ahh, I have considered this! It seems non sequitur, as an entity with 0 mass would not be affected by a gravitational field, unless of course that phenomena were gravitational.

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Butch said:

Ahh, I have considered this! It seems non sequitur, as an entity with 0 mass would not be affected by a gravitational field, unless of course that phenomena were gravitational.

Light is affected by gravity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Butch said:

This was the "proof" for Planck as I understand it..

What was the proof? And for what?

33 minutes ago, Butch said:

Ahh, I have considered this! It seems non sequitur, as an entity with 0 mass would not be affected by a gravitational field, unless of course that phenomena were gravitational.

As gravity is caused the the geometry of spacetime, the paths of all particles are affected whether they have mass or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, swansont said:

Light is affected by gravity.

Yes it is, so it must have mass! Look at it this way, the output of a wall outlet is alternating current, the average of that output is zero. If a photon were a wave in a gravitational field, it would be an expansion and contraction of that field locally. Such excitation might express negative gravity as well as positive gravity, both being absolutes (There would be no repelling gravitational force), however the photon would appear to have zero mass, but would still be affected by a gravitational anomaly.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

What was the proof? And for what?

As gravity is caused the the geometry of spacetime, the paths of all particles are affected whether they have mass or not. 

Planck's constant and Planck units.

Gravity is the geometry of space time. How does the gravitational field differ from mass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Butch said:

Yes it is, so it must have mass! Look at it this way, the output of a wall outlet is alternating current, the average of that output is zero. If a photon were a wave in a gravitational field, it would be an expansion and contraction of that field locally. Such excitation might express negative gravity as well as positive gravity, both being absolutes (There would be no repelling gravitational force), however the photon would appear to have zero mass, but would still be affected by a gravitational anomaly.

Gravity is warped space. Light travels along the curved path. No mass.

No negative gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Particles with mass (rest-mass!) can be accelerated/decelerated, can be put to rest, which means they are in the same frame of reference as observer (we or device).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Gravity is warped space. Light travels along the curved path. No mass.

No negative gravity.

Does a gravitational well have mass? Does a mass have a gravitational well? Are they really different?

Isn't mass just warped space?

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Butch said:

Does a gravitational well have mass?

Mass/energy causes spacetime to warp; We recognise that as gravity.

Quote

Does a mass have a gravitational well?

Yes.

Quote

Are they really different?

Yes.

Quote

Isn't mass just warped space?

No, refer to the first answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Butch said:

Planck's constant and Planck units.

Planck's constant comes from Planck's attempt to explain the black-body spectrum; he assumed that the energy levels were multiples of a small value in order to solve the problem. It has nothing to do mass.

Planck units are just a set of units that use Planck's constant in their definition. It says nothing about mass being quantised. In fact, the Planck mass is pretty big (relative to atoms, etc.): "One Planck mass is roughly the mass of a flea egg[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Butch said:

Does a gravitational well have mass? Does a mass have a gravitational well? Are they really different?

Isn't mass just warped space?

A gravitational well is caused by mass (energy) which is attractive.  It doesn’t have mass, per se.

 

There’s no negative gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Strange said:

Planck's constant comes from Planck's attempt to explain the black-body spectrum; he assumed that the energy levels were multiples of a small value in order to solve the problem. It has nothing to do mass.

Planck units are just a set of units that use Planck's constant in their definition. It says nothing about mass being quantised. In fact, the Planck mass is pretty big (relative to atoms, etc.): "One Planck mass is roughly the mass of a flea egg[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

The process described previously (division to a fraction) fit with Planck. Never said it had anything to do with mass, not so far anyway... That is why I am left trying to discern a quanta of mass. I do believe that the Planck length applied to photon wavelengths might provide an answer... if indeed a photon is a gravitational phenomena. The logic I am pursuing is that at some point when the wavelength shortens the photon becomes a gravitational well, that is it becomes a quanta of mass.

Swansont, I recall when I first stated that a photon was a wave packet in a gravitational field you said "You will have to prove that." I appreciate that you did not discount the possibility, off the cuff. I have seen no science that says it cannot be so! Proof is something that does not exist in science. Acceptance is something I know must be earned through a great amount of work. I am doing that work and have reached a road block at the quanta of mass. 

Perhaps you can help me with something... I understand that Hf provides the energy of a photon... With what units? I could substitute 2 as a constant and say 2f is the energy of a photon... I know I am missing the concept here, can you help me out?

I think I get it via Strange... Planck is saying that energy is in discrete levels, energy quanta?

Thus the wavelength of a photon could not be less than the Planck length?

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.