# All Particles Must Have 3 Types of Mass. [WRONG!]

## Recommended Posts

The following ref. says neutrinos have 3 types of mass (see timestamp 31:08):

Then all particles must have 3 types of mass and theory does not predict this.

##### Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The following ref. says neutrinos have 3 types of mass (see timestamp 31:08):

Then all particles must have 3 types of mass and theory does not predict this.

Two issues. First, my understanding is that there are 3 mass states, i.e. 3 possible mass values, but this does not mean there is more than one type of mass.

Second, you need to explain why you think that multiple mass states must apply to all subatomic particles. It does not seem to follow automatically from the observation of this in neutrinos.

##### Share on other sites

"All Particles Must Have 3 Types of Mass."

Are you then telling me that massless particles have 3 types of mass?

##### Share on other sites

Massless = has no frame of reference in which the particle is at rest.

Mass = has a rest-mass = has a frame of reference in which the particle is at rest (and the measurements can be done on it).

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The following ref. says neutrinos have 3 types of mass (see timestamp 31:08)

That’s not what he says. He says that neutrino mass is the combination of 3 masses - the electron, muon and tau neutrino masses. He does not say type of mass or kind of mass.

##### Share on other sites

• Phi for All changed the title to All Particles Must Have 3 Types of Mass. [WRONG!]
20 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not what he says. He says that neutrino mass is the combination of 3 masses - the electron, muon and tau neutrino masses. He does not say type of mass or kind of mass.

They call it mass 1,2,3.

##### Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

They call it mass 1,2,3.

That means three mass values, not three different types of mass. Mass is mass.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

They call it mass 1,2,3.

Referring to the electron, muon and tau neutrinos.

##### Share on other sites

As repeatedly noted above, there isn't such a thing as 'three different types of mass.'

You could speak, in some sense --and some people do-- about two types of mass: Majorana mass, and Dirac mass. But those are not different types. It's really about how the mass term --the only type of mass we all know and love-- connects the left-handed component to the right-handed component in the Dirac equation. But it's the same kind of mass in terms of inertia.

1, 2, and 3 refers indeed to three distinct values of mass.

It's really the three kinds of so-called flavours that the theory doesn't predict. IOW: Why are there three families of particles? Ie: three versions of every other particle that there is in the universe, with every other parameter exactly the same, except for mass, which differs from one family to another.

##### Share on other sites

The line of comments above brought memories of this sketch:

##### Share on other sites

The line of comments above brought memories of this sketch:

LOL

##### Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, joigus said:

As repeatedly noted above, there isn't such a thing as 'three different types of mass.'

You could speak, in some sense --and some people do-- about two types of mass: Majorana mass, and Dirac mass. But those are not different types. It's really about how the mass term --the only type of mass we all know and love-- connects the left-handed component to the right-handed component in the Dirac equation. But it's the same kind of mass in terms of inertia.

1, 2, and 3 refers indeed to three distinct values of mass.

It's really the three kinds of so-called flavours that the theory doesn't predict. IOW: Why are there three families of particles? Ie: three versions of every other particle that there is in the universe, with every other parameter exactly the same, except for mass, which differs from one family to another.

Thank you for pointing me at material I need to brush up on. +1

##### Share on other sites

The line of comments above brought memories of this sketch:

That is actually very funny indeed, in the context of this thread.👍

##### Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you for pointing me at material I need to brush up on. +1

You of all people are most welcome.

The situation with mass in the standard model is potentially a bit confusing, at least to me. Well defined mass states are made up of superpositions of flavours, a phenomenon we call mixing*. The fixed-mass states --eigenstates of the mass operator in QFT parlance-- are the physical states, while superpositions of different flavours get physically connected --can evolve into each other-- by means of these mixing angles, contributing to the observed mass by means of perturbative quantum corrections.

OTOH, people do talk about "Majorana mass" vs "Dirac mass." Example:

Not very proper terminology --mass is mass indeed--, but just saying.

Neutrinos are anything but trivial. QFT itself is anything but trivial. And neutrinos seem to be on a mission to make the world look as skewed as they can.

-------------------------------

##### Share on other sites

On 2/4/2023 at 2:36 PM, exchemist said:

Second, you need to explain why you think that multiple mass states must apply to all subatomic particles.

Because in my model neutrinos come from pi-mesons. I meant all massive particles.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Referring to the electron, muon and tau neutrinos.

No they have diagrams of electron, muon and tau neutrinos with various amounts of mass 1,2,3.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joigus said:

It's really the three kinds of so-called flavours that the theory doesn't predict. IOW: Why are there three families of particles? Ie: three versions of every other particle that there is in the universe, with every other parameter exactly the same, except for mass, which differs from one family to another.

May I suggest a correction?

Three versions of every fermion rather than every particle.

##### Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Because in my model neutrinos come from pi-mesons. I meant all massive particles.

This violates charge conservation for pi+ and pi-.

Unless you mean something else, like pions decay to neutrinos and other things (e+, e-), via beta decay or the like.

Three versions of every fermion rather than every particle.

That's actually IMO a very good way to put it.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

No they have diagrams of electron, muon and tau neutrinos with various amounts of mass 1,2,3.

These represent the 3 mass state. Each named neutrino is not a pure state, as originally thought. Each is in a superposition of the three states.

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

These represent the 3 mass state. Each named neutrino is not a pure state, as originally thought. Each is in a superposition of the three states.

I thought it is rather a pure state (as opposed to a mixed state), but not an eigen state. Is it correct?

##### Share on other sites

I thought it is rather a pure state (as opposed to a mixed state), but not an eigen state. Is it correct?

The flavor eigenstates are not mass eigenstates, correct. This is an example of a mixing angle between the two, like happens with quarks (and I only recall this because that’s the Cabbibo angle, and I gave a lab tour to Cabbibo, not knowing who he was, because it’s not my area of physics. Only found out later from some jealous colleagues, who were more familiar with that area of physics)

## Create an account

Register a new account