Butch

Smallest possible mass?

Recommended Posts

On ‎25‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 8:31 PM, 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. 

did you made a mistake ?

 

1 joule = 1 kg*m2/s-2

Share this post


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

did you made a mistake ?

 

1 joule = 1 kg*m2/s-2

Sorry, the notation wasn't very clear. That was supposed to be J.s (joule-seconds) so the units work out as you say.

Share this post


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

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

Why?

 

Like I said, I do not believe the Higgs is my entity, I mention it only because it demonstrates that at least some of my thoughts are not so far fetched. Such an entity as an infinitely deep gravity well would approach zero in all respects. Plot the curve -1/x^2 Since there is no angular momentum the well falls off infinitely precipitously... I can explain this more succinctly with the math if you wish. The curvature of the well becomes a right angle, it reduces to simply a single point with infinite mass. This quandary is what led me to pursue the smallest possible mass, not that my entity would have such mass, rather a system of these entities would produce a quanta of mass. When I can determine that mass, I can produce a mathematical model. Of course this entity would have to be primordial.

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sorry, the notation wasn't very clear. That was supposed to be J.s (joule-seconds) so the units work out as you say.

 I got it just fine! Thx. What I got from Planck however is that photon frequencies are quantitative, is that correct?

Edited by Butch

Share this post


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

Such an entity as an infinitely deep gravity well would approach zero in all respects.

I don't know what "approach zero in all respects" means.

15 minutes ago, Butch said:

Plot the curve -1/x^2 Since there is no angular momentum the well falls off infinitely precipitously... I can explain this more succinctly with the math if you wish. The curvature of the well becomes a right angle, it reduces to simply a single point with infinite mass.

It is not clear why angular momentum is relevant to a gravitational well (apart from the fact that, in GR, it implies more energy).

I assume by "the curvature of the well becomes a right angle" you mean that the slope of the curve becomes 1 (vertical). Except it never does, it gets ever closer to it.

And the mass would not change.

So, yes, I think it would help if you showed the math.

Share this post


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

 I got it just fine! Thx. What I got from Planck however is that photon frequencies are quantitative, is that correct?

Yes. But that’s not the same as being quantized.

Share this post


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

I don't know what "approach zero in all respects" means.

It is not clear why angular momentum is relevant to a gravitational well (apart from the fact that, in GR, it implies more energy).

I assume by "the curvature of the well becomes a right angle" you mean that the slope of the curve becomes 1 (vertical). Except it never does, it gets ever closer to it.

And the mass would not change.

So, yes, I think it would help if you showed the math.

Just a note, I stated "a single point with infinite mass" that is incorrect, it should read "a single point with infinite mass density".

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. But that’s not the same as being quantized.

I assume you are saying that photons can have non quantized frequencies, however at their source the frequencies are quantized by the physics. Is this correct?

Share this post


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

I assume you are saying that photons can have non quantized frequencies, however at their source the frequencies are quantized by the physics. Is this correct?

No. Blackbody radiation, for instance, is a continuum.

Share this post


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

No. Blackbody radiation, for instance, is a continuum.

Understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to what swansont said,

You cannot have a mass without a gravity well.

A gravity well is a local minimum in the value of the gravitational potential.

(Remembering that GP is reckoned as negative)

It is the local increase in gravity due to that mass.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, swansont said:

No. Blackbody radiation, for instance, is a continuum.

Wouldn't that require infinite power to have black body radiation as a continuum of the black body spectrum?

Is it not made up of quantized photons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Wouldn't that require infinite power to have black body radiation as a continuum of the black body spectrum?

Is it not made up of quantized photons?

The issue was quantized frequencies. Any frequency in the emission spectrum is possible.

Share this post


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

The issue was quantized frequencies. Any frequency in the emission spectrum is possible.

Thanks. I figured I had to have taken the context incorrectly.

Share this post


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

The issue was quantized frequencies. Any frequency in the emission spectrum is possible.

OK, now I am confused, if black body radiation is quantized photons(energetically) and the energy = hf, it follows that the spectrum would have to be quantized...

Share this post


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

OK, now I am confused, if black body radiation is quantized photons(energetically) and the energy = hf, it follows that the spectrum would have to be quantized...

The photons at any given frequency have quantized energy, i.e. the energy is delivered in packets. But the spectrum of frequencies is not quantized. If you used a diffraction grating to separate the wavelenghts, you would get a continuous spectrum, rather than series of bright lines like the lines of an atomic emission spectrum.

All of the values of f in the spectrum are present.

Share this post


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

OK, now I am confused, if black body radiation is quantized photons(energetically) and the energy = hf, it follows that the spectrum would have to be quantized...

To put it another way, a single photon can have any energy (the energy level is not quantised) but that photon is indivisible (ie. is a quantum).

Share this post


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

The photons at any given frequency have quantized energy, i.e. the energy is delivered in packets. But the spectrum of frequencies is not quantized. If you used a diffraction grating to separate the wavelenghts, you would get a continuous spectrum, rather than series of bright lines like the lines of an atomic emission spectrum.

All of the values of f in the spectrum are present.

So say we have a photon of 300ghz, it can only have the energy provided via Planck, correct? If so the

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

To put it another way, a single photon can have any energy (the energy level is not quantised) but that photon is indivisible (ie. is a quantum).

OK, I get it. BTW did you see my correction from "mass" to "mass density"? It is important if I am to provide the math for Imaginary mass.

Share this post


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

So say we have a photon of 300ghz, it can only have the energy provided via Planck, correct? If so the

Yes.

But because the spectrum is continuous you can also get photons that are a smidge larger or smaller. If the spectrum were quantized, there would be a gap.

Share this post


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

Yes.

But because the spectrum is continuous you can also get photons that are a smidge larger or smaller. If the spectrum were quantized, there would be a gap.

Yes, the explanation Strange gave cleared it up for me... Can you define smidge in scientific units? Lol

Share this post


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

OK, I get it. BTW did you see my correction from "mass" to "mass density"? It is important if I am to provide the math for Imaginary mass.

Yes. (I thought that might be what you meant...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 2:51 PM, Strange said:

Yes. (I thought that might be what you meant...)

The math! If you pick a point on x say x=1 for example and sum the values of y to x=infinity the total will approach 2.

If you sum the values of y to x=0 the total will approach infinity.

Regardless the x you start at, the sum of the y values will approach a finite value and infinity.

The ratio of mass density indicates that the mass density beyond x=0 approaches 0

This gives you a factor to work with when you consider area and volume, both will produce infinity, however they are different infinities!

Imaginary mass!

Edited by Butch

Share this post


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

If you pick a point on x say x=1 for example and sum the values of y to x=infinity the total will approach 2.

I assume this is for the curve y = -1/x2 ?

Can you show the proof of this?

I get roughly -1.645 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+of+-1%2Fx^2+from+x+%3D+1+to+infinity)

13 hours ago, Butch said:

If you sum the values of y to x=0 the total will approach infinity.

Can you show the proof of this?

It seems intuitively correct that it will sum to -infinity (unlike the other one).

13 hours ago, Butch said:

The ratio of mass density indicates that the mass density beyond x=0 approaches 0

What is the "mass density"? How does it relate to x or y?

What is the "ratio" of the mass density? (ie. mass density divided by what?)

13 hours ago, Butch said:

This gives you a factor to work with when you consider area and volume

Are and volume of what? How do these relate to x or y?

13 hours ago, Butch said:

Imaginary mass!

Imaginary mathematics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Strange said:

I assume this is for the curve y = -1/x2 ?

Can you show the proof of this?

I get roughly -1.645

You are correct, and your math is correct. I was a bit loose with terminology... Point is no matter what value of x > 0 you choose, you will get a real number as a result for x to infinity and the result for x to zero will be infinity.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

What is the "mass density"? How does it relate to x or y?

What is the "ratio" of the mass density? (ie. mass density divided by what?)

X is distance, y is mass density / gravitational influence. (Yes this is my particle that is a gravitational well.)

The ratio is (sum of y for x to infinity : sum of y for x to zero) 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Are and volume of what? How do these relate to x or y?

Space, the formula -1/x^2 provides the mass density along a single line. Cubing then would provide overall mass for the space outside of x (Which would be infinite, if the universe is infinite, a real number if it is not) : overall mass of the space inside of x. The end result of this is that such an entity would reduce to a single point with infinite mass density... Imaginary mass. Of course such a particle could only exist as a primordial and would have to belong to a system that preserved it. That system would have a quanta of true mass, hence I am trying to determine what that mass would be, then x becomes a real value I can work with.

Thank you for your patience, I know this is out there stuff (please no wisecracks!).

Share this post


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

(Yes this is my particle that is a gravitational well.)

!

Moderator Note

Careful here. You know you can't introduce pet theories in mainstream discussions. It's off-topic here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

Careful here. You know you can't introduce pet theories in mainstream discussions. It's off-topic here.

 

Understood.

Share this post


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