# Smallest possible mass?

## Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Butch said:

Perhaps you can help me with something... I understand that Hf provides the energy of a photon... With what units?

The value of h (not H) is normally defined in terms of m2 kg / s, or J s. So the result will be joules.

##### Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Strange said:

The value of h (not H) is normally defined in terms of m2 kg / s, or J s. So the result will be joules.

So, a photon with a wave length equal to one Planck length would be the greatest energy a photon could have? If so, E= mc^2 should derive to a quanta of mass?

##### Share on other sites

I realize that a gravity well is a perturbation of the gravitational field which has influence that extends to infinity, mass on the other hand has a periphery... The model I am working on pertains to an entity that is a gravitational well and combinations of these would produce a perturbation that has a periphery, that perturbation would have a single quanta of mass... Before I can apply math to see if it fits with current science I need to know what that mass is!

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Butch said:

So, a photon with a wave length equal to one Planck length would be the greatest energy a photon could have? If so, E= mc^2 should derive to a quanta of mass?

Planck units are not based on any particular phenomenon. This conjecture isn’t based on any science.

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Planck units are not based on any particular phenomenon. This conjecture isn’t based on any science.

I guess I need more study time on Planck units. Thx.

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Butch said:

I guess I need more study time on Planck units. Thx.

Well, you could do the calculation and see for yourself that this is a non-starter. The energy associated with that wavelength is around a million times bigger than the proton mass

That should have been the first thing you checked.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Butch said:

So, a photon with a wave length equal to one Planck length would be the greatest energy a photon could have? If so, E= mc^2 should derive to a quanta of mass?

Why? What about a photon with a wavelength of 0.9 Planck lengths? Or 0.5 or ...

##### Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Well, you could do the calculation and see for yourself that this is a non-starter. The energy associated with that wavelength is around a million times bigger than the proton mass

That should have been the first thing you checked.

I guess you must have done the calculation, much appreciated!

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why? What about a photon with a wavelength of 0.9 Planck lengths? Or 0.5 or ...

From what I have read such a thing may not be possible?

If a photon were to have sufficiently short wavelength to decay into mass what would happen to its velocity, the mass could not be at rest as c is constant regardless of frame... Am I thinking correctly? Can you clarify my thoughts a bit Strange? You are very good at that!

##### Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Butch said:

From what I have read such a thing may not be possible?

Why not?

32 minutes ago, Butch said:

If a photon were to have sufficiently short wavelength to decay into mass

Do you have any reason to think that photons decay into massive particles?

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Butch said:

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.

Butch you are allowing your thoughts to wander all over the place.

Try focusing on the subject.

What is the size (mass, diameter, volume whatever) of the smallest orange?

There must have been one somewhere on /earth and perhaps one is recorded in the Guinness book, like the height of the tallest man.

Whatever it is is just that. It does not mean that oranges or men are quantised.

For discrete objects like particles.

So for discrete individual objects the smallest mass is the mass of the smallest object, whatever that is.

However a field that has energy acts as though it has mass (albeit very small) from relativity theory, not quantum theory.

And as far as we know there is no quantised limit to this.

Merry Christmas.

##### Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, studiot said:

However a field that has energy acts as though it has mass (albeit very small) from relativity theory, not quantum theory.

This is why I inquired to what is the difference between a gravity well and a mass, of course a mass has a periphery, you can refer back to see my conjecture on this... You have all been very helpful! I am seeing much more clearly now! I have been trying to resolve this backwards! I had hypothesized that a photon(as a gravitational phenomena) at some point would be very much like a gravity well. This would not be at an extremely short wavelength but rather at a very long wavelength!

This forum has been so helpful! Without it I fear my head would explode!

Merry Christmas!

Edited by Butch

##### Share on other sites
Just now, Butch said:

This is why I inquired to what is the difference between a gravity well and a mass

A "gravity well" (curvature of space-time) is caused by the presence of energy. Usually this means mass. But energy also contributes to gravity. So a photon, for example, will cause a gravitational well.

Quote

This would not be at an extremely short wavelength but rather at a very long wavelength!

Which means it will have lower energy and will therefore cause less space-time curvature / gravity.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Butch said:

If a photon were to have sufficiently short wavelength to decay into mass what would happen to its velocity, the mass could not be at rest as c is constant regardless of frame... Am I thinking correctly? Can you clarify my thoughts a bit Strange? You are very good at that!

A photon can’t do that on its own. You violate conservation of momentum, if you conserve energy.

This is physics you need to learn. As long as you resist learning it, your idea is going nowhere.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

A photon can’t do that on its own. You violate conservation of momentum, if you conserve energy.

This is physics you need to learn. As long as you resist learning it, your idea is going nowhere.

Sorry, I really did not mean that a photon would increase in f, obviously I am a bit foggy... To much thinking! But once again you have all been very helpful!

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

A "gravity well" (curvature of space-time) is caused by the presence of energy. Usually this means mass. But energy also contributes to gravity. So a photon, for example, will cause a gravitational well.

Which means it will have lower energy and will therefore cause less space-time curvature / gravity.

Yes and yes! Careful though! You are treading dangerously close to unifying fields!

I have been trying to resolve this in the wrong direction of course, your statements are the right direction.

Again, thank you!

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Butch said:

Sorry, I really did not mean that a photon would increase in f, obviously I am a bit foggy... To much thinking! But once again you have all been very helpful!

That’s not it. A photon can’t spontaneously turn into a single massive particle.

##### Share on other sites

From a purely theoretical viewpoint...

We have massive particles that interact with the Higgs field, and massless particles that do not.
The particles that do interact, gain the property of mass through the Higgs mechanism.
This is an energetic interaction, and like all others, there is a certain threshold that this quanta of action must meet for the interaction to be realized.

Would that not indicate that the property of mass would only be evident above a certain threshold, I.E. mass is quantized ?

I'm still trying to come to grips with the Higgs mechanism, so I have my doubts about this.
( Timo was always good for clarifying Higgs interactions, if he's around )

##### Share on other sites

I’m confused. I thought that the gravitational effect on a photon was due to kinetic energy displaying mass. Take away the momentum then there would be zero energy thus zero mass. This would basically mean that a photon would not exist at rest, but that then there should be some minimum energy level where a photon would exist.

I got my thinking here from past conversations. So, basically I managed to get the wrong understanding from those past conversations? Lol, and it made so much sense for me to be completely wrong.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s not it. A photon can’t spontaneously turn into a single massive particle.

I understand, I am speaking of a limit to f of a photon... Just doing it badly.

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I’m confused. I thought that the gravitational effect on a photon was due to kinetic energy displaying mass. Take away the momentum then there would be zero energy thus zero mass. This would basically mean that a photon would not exist at rest, but that then there should be some minimum energy level where a photon would exist.

I got my thinking here from past conversations. So, basically I managed to get the wrong understanding from those past conversations? Lol, and it made so much sense for me to be completely wrong.

Sorry, my fault for creating confusion.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

From a purely theoretical viewpoint...

We have massive particles that interact with the Higgs field, and massless particles that do not.
The particles that do interact, gain the property of mass through the Higgs mechanism.
This is an energetic interaction, and like all others, there is a certain threshold that this quanta of action must meet for the interaction to be realized.

Would that not indicate that the property of mass would only be evident above a certain threshold, I.E. mass is quantized ?

I'm still trying to come to grips with the Higgs mechanism, so I have my doubts about this.
( Timo was always good for clarifying Higgs interactions, if he's around )

I have been reading up on Higgs, I am looking for something less than Higgs. My thinking is that an entity with more than one property (mass and spin for example) must have underlying structure... Granted my "thinkin' may be stinkin'" but for now that is the direction I am going in, I am looking for an entity with only mass, and that mass must be a quantum.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Butch said:

I guess you must have done the calculation, much appreciated!

From what I have read such a thing may not be possible?

If a photon were to have sufficiently short wavelength to decay into mass what would happen to its velocity, the mass could not be at rest as c is constant regardless of frame... Am I thinking correctly? Can you clarify my thoughts a bit Strange? You are very good at that!

If this was true, what photon would not have a sufficiently short wavelength with respect to the right choice of frame?

##### Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Butch said:

I understand, I am speaking of a limit to f of a photon... Just doing it badly.

Sorry, my fault for creating confusion.

I have been reading up on Higgs, I am looking for something less than Higgs. My thinking is that an entity with more than one property (mass and spin for example) must have underlying structure... Granted my "thinkin' may be stinkin'" but for now that is the direction I am going in, I am looking for an entity with only mass, and that mass must be a quantum.

Not having spin would mean it has a spin of 0. You can’t make angular momentum a nonexistent concept.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, swansont said:

Not having spin would mean it has a spin of 0. You can’t make angular momentum a nonexistent concept.

True! That is why multiples of such an entity would have to be engaged in a primordial system that produced spin and the most basic particle! (I have found in my candidate that they produce spin, mass, polarity and charge!)

I just do not have a handle on what that mass would be!

Edited by Butch

##### Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Butch said:

This is why I inquired to what is the difference between a gravity well and a mass, of course a mass has a periphery, you can refer back to see my conjecture on this... You have all been very helpful! I am seeing much more clearly now! I have been trying to resolve this backwards! I had hypothesized that a photon(as a gravitational phenomena) at some point would be very much like a gravity well. This would not be at an extremely short wavelength but rather at a very long wavelength!

This forum has been so helpful! Without it I fear my head would explode!

Merry Christmas!

I missed this before, but thanks for listening.

18 hours ago, Butch said:

I realize that a gravity well is a perturbation of the gravitational field which has influence that extends to infinity,

What gravitational field would this be ?

It seems you consider whatever causes a 'gravity well' to be somehow separate from any other gravitational field.

How does this work?

##### Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Butch said:

I realize that a gravity well is a perturbation of the gravitational field which has influence that extends to infinity, mass on the other hand has a periphery...

It’s not a perturbation. They are different representations of the same thing. The field tells you the force or acceleration at any point. The well is the energy at that position.

The force is the gradient of the potential

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, studiot said:

I missed this before, but thanks for listening.

What gravitational field would this be ?

It seems you consider whatever causes a 'gravity well' to be somehow separate from any other gravitational field.

How does this work?

It may seem that way, but no... I just assume the reader understands that no well is an island.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not a perturbation. They are different representations of the same thing. The field tells you the force or acceleration at any point. The well is the energy at that position.

The force is the gradient of the potential

Very well put, better than my explanation!

I still do not accept the Higgs boson as my entity, it is however close... In thinking through my ideas, I clearly understand where the term imaginary mass comes from. A gravity well that was infinitely deep with infinite mass density at a single point would have such imaginary mass. As to spin! I came across this encouraging bit! https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson%23Properties_of_the_Higgs_boson&ved=2ahUKEwjE47mqn77fAhWFTt8KHUMzANMQygQwD3oECAQQAw&usg=AOvVaw3IWVIt89ajqHcTWiogq-g_

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Butch said:

I still do not accept the Higgs boson as my entity, it is however close...

I thought you were looking for something with minimum mass; the Higgs is really massive. Only the top quark is more massive, I think.

Quote

A gravity well that was infinitely deep with infinite mass density at a single point would have such imaginary mass.

Why?