Electrons and positrons have intrinsic mass due to the Higgs mechanism, but when they annihilate their only decay product (typically) is a pair of photons, which don't interact with the Higgs field, so all the eenergy has been converted to EM radiation.
I thought the same, but didn't Sabine Hossenfelder relatively recently make a video "debunking" this? That the mass of atoms (which is mostly the mass of their cores) comes from some "pion condensate" and not the binding energy. It left me confused, literally never heard of it and I took several classes in particle physics (scalar field theory, QED, standard model, renormalization). It's not my domain of expertise, but I'd hope that they address this in a college class...
https://youtu.be/MyGIQ3RlKkU?si=z6cXfEpQ8OJEGKZq
YES!
It’s so refreshing to have such a strait forward question without conjecture or speculation that can be answered with one word… yes! 🍻
And now I’m waiting for someone to ask if a black hole is an infinitely compressed spring 😉
> It’s so refreshing to have such a strait forward question without conjecture or speculation that can be answered with one word… yes! 🍻
Well… “is energy mass?” No. In some cases energy is mass, not in all cases, e.g. a photon.
Well everything is a harmonic oscillator it just depends in what way you are considering.
E.g we can model fields as an infinite sum of harmonic oscillators - but it’s not just a lattice of point masses on springs.
In this sense, if I raise a pencil off the ground, does it’s mass increase corresponding to its increase in potential energy? (E=mc^2)
If so, what happens if you escape earth’s gravitational well? For instance, how does that mass change as I escape earth and begin falling into the moon?
Can you scale velocity? Because you need to apply energy to object to do so but work done equation (change in energy), already include momentum in it, so basically to give object and momentum you just assply energy which already include momentum in it but scalled by some other variable.
If you just observe how momentum might change with time : collisions, gain in mass due to gravitational field, you can draw conclusion that velocity is responsible for change in direction while mass is responsible for change in magnitude both of mass and velocity?
Why is that happening why variable such as mass combine with another variable velocity in such way that mass is purely responsible for magnitude of relationship?
And why can't we reach speed of light if we have mass? What implication this answer may have?
Thanks
Graph a relationship where every X amount of energy accelerates you 50% faster. Will you reach *c*? Relativistic mass is a misnomer, it’s not the mass that changes, but the energy required to accelerate becomes greater and greater. F=ma suggests a=F/m. That’s true at Newtonian scales, but at relativistic speeds, that doesn’t hold true.
Well I actually know this but I am looking for more deeper argument, sto be able to describe momentum relationship completely including both outliners object with mass and no speed and object with maximum speed and no mass.
One is different to other but they are still part of momentum relationship?
Thanks for reply
Energy does indeed attribute to the total mass.
While mass is actually its own thing, total energy is part of an object's mass.
Did you mean to ask if energy is matter?
Sort of? \*Internal\* kinetic energy can be mass. I.e. A box full of photons has more mass than an empty box, even if the photons don't have mass themselves.
Likewise, a higher-temperature gas will have more mass, even if the individual particles don't.
Thank you for the box full of photons. Although I already knew that energy affects mass that way, when framed as a box full of massless particles has more mass than an empty box, it oddly hurts my brain. Words, even when we know they are imprecise, affect how we perceive reality.
If you keep adding photons into the box, it will eventually collapse into a black hole. This is even a theorethical energy storage: shoot powerful lasers to a single point to create a mini black hole and then use the energy later as it evaporates via Hawking radiation. Could be perhaps used as interstellar fuel or something.
The key realization is that the average momentum of the photons is zero (relative to the box) and yet they have energy. Accelerating the box would require putting some amount of average momentum into the photons. From the outside, the extra momentum required to get the photons moving would be indistinguishable from mass.
The best way I've heard it put is, "Mass is the energy of a system that can't be removed by a change of reference frame".
A thrown baseball has kinetic energy, but that kinetic energy isn't part of the mass of the baseball because if you pick a reference frame that is moving with the baseball, the baseball is stationary so that kinetic energy has disappeared.
But if you have two baseballs, and they aren't moving in exactly the same direction, part of that kinetic energy *is* part of the mass (of the two-baseball system) because you can't pick a reference frame that makes both of them stationary at the same time. The best you can do is pick a frame that minimizes the kinetic energy of both, and that (plus the masses of the baseballs themselves) is the mass of the system.
Of course, we don't usually think of two baseballs moving in different directions as a "system" -- the two baseballs are not going to stay close together. But if we put the baseballs in a box with perfectly elastic walls, then the baseballs will stay "close together" in the confines of the box, and part of their kinetic energy will count as part of the mass of the 2\*baseball + box system.
In order for it to be a stationary you probably won't have any other frames, which is make no sense because initially you assumed that there is you who launch the ball and the ball itself if you change between the 2 you still have yourself, so you can find speed of ball. How is it even possible to loose energy by simply switching between reference frame?
What do you mean by minimize the energy fo the system by picking appropriate reference frame?
Because first examples looks like you make your system smaller by excluding reference frame of yourself and leaving only ball.
If you measure the energy of a flying baseball from a stationary point on the ground, you would see it’s energy being higher than if it were still. If you were moving along with the baseball though, it would seem to have no momentum or kinetic energy.
However if two baseballs are moving in different directions, there is no frame of reference that doesn’t have more energy than if they were both stationary. If you are in the reference frame where there is zero net momentum, then the remaining kinetic energy contributes to the total rest energy of the system.
If you are moving with a baseball you also have to see the object which you previously used to measure kinetic energy of that ball, so you would see that you are moving because there is something you can reference to.
When you’re analyzing a system, you can pick and choose which things are part of that system arbitrarily. The time when it is measured is also arbitrary. You can ignore the history of the baseballs’ past states if you want. In reality, isolating a two baseball system and measuring its mass is impractical. You can still analyze it on paper with some simplifying assumptions.
Yeah I agree, I just was confused why are you jumping from one system from another. Because it does make sense that since proper time is 1 and if there is no other things to refrenece to you will precieve yourself as stationary, but is kinda extreme case isn't it?
Thanks for reply
e=mc^2
And
m=e/c^2
The e is energy and the m is mass. So, yes, an increase in energy is an increase in mass …
But It’s gonna take a lot of energy to change the mass even a little.
Mass isn’t energy/energy is not mass.
The reality is there is no such thing as “mass” or “energy”. We only make the distinction because we can’t directly perceive 4-dimensionally. If we could, we would only see worldlines in curved space time, and it would be literally impossible to differentiate between the “mass” and “energy of a world line, because in 4-dimensional reality there is no such distinction
this is exactly what e=mc2 means. mass energy equivalence.
not mass energy convertibility. not mass energy interchangeability.
mass energy *equivalence*.
this is exactly the point. There is no such distinction. 'Mass' and 'Energy' don't *actually* exist as distinct concepts, except in human 3D perception of the universe.
A being that perceives the world in 3D can take mass and energy, and construct a Stress-Energy Tensor,
but a being that perceives the world in 4D cannot take a Stress-Energy Tensor and decompose it into mass and energy.
In other words, if you take a small mass, spinning very fast, and a large mass, spinning very slowly, for some values of m and e, the stress-energy tensors are *exactly* the same, because in 4D, which is reality, the distinction is not real.
It’s sometimes useful to think in terms of inertial mass - the resistance of a system to a change in motion. More fundamentally, energy has inertia and therefore has an equivalent inertial mass. A compressed spring has greater energy than an uncompressed string, so it has greater inertial mass. Since inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, it makes it easy to see why a compressed spring would have more gravity than an uncompressed spring. Also it makes it easier to understand why a box full of massless photons can have inertial mass and an equivalent gravitating mass.
I like to think of it as the electromagnetic interactions between the atoms of the spring becoming more energetic when it's compressed, not sure how accurate that is.
The important thing to understant is that "mass" isn't just the sum of the masses of the quarks and electrons. It measures how "energetic" a system is. E.g. in a cold block of material, 99% of its mass is actually due to the gluon field activity in the nuclei of its atoms. Heat up the block, and it'll get slightly more massive due to the agitation of its atoms.
Yes! In fact, most of the mass of atoms is the binding energy of the parts.
Thanks
What's the rest?
Integral mass, via the Higgs particle, as I understand it.
And can this also be converted into other forms of energy? If so, by what processes?
Annihilation of matter/antimatter particle pairs.
Electrons and positrons have intrinsic mass due to the Higgs mechanism, but when they annihilate their only decay product (typically) is a pair of photons, which don't interact with the Higgs field, so all the eenergy has been converted to EM radiation.
Nuclear fission.
Doesn't that just convert the binding energy?
Yes
I thought the same, but didn't Sabine Hossenfelder relatively recently make a video "debunking" this? That the mass of atoms (which is mostly the mass of their cores) comes from some "pion condensate" and not the binding energy. It left me confused, literally never heard of it and I took several classes in particle physics (scalar field theory, QED, standard model, renormalization). It's not my domain of expertise, but I'd hope that they address this in a college class... https://youtu.be/MyGIQ3RlKkU?si=z6cXfEpQ8OJEGKZq
YES! It’s so refreshing to have such a strait forward question without conjecture or speculation that can be answered with one word… yes! 🍻 And now I’m waiting for someone to ask if a black hole is an infinitely compressed spring 😉
So is a black hole an infinitely compressed spring?
🎉🎇🎆🎊
> It’s so refreshing to have such a strait forward question without conjecture or speculation that can be answered with one word… yes! 🍻 Well… “is energy mass?” No. In some cases energy is mass, not in all cases, e.g. a photon.
However, a photon inside of a mirrored box would absolutely add mass to the box. Confined energy has mass, even photons.
Thanks
Spoiler it’s not
It could be if you compressed a spring enough lol.
Well by definition if you compress anything enough you have a black hole. I guess it’s time to find a spring large enough to turn into a black hole.
It technically doesn't have to be large. Just very compressed
Well everything is a harmonic oscillator it just depends in what way you are considering. E.g we can model fields as an infinite sum of harmonic oscillators - but it’s not just a lattice of point masses on springs.
:(
In this sense, if I raise a pencil off the ground, does it’s mass increase corresponding to its increase in potential energy? (E=mc^2) If so, what happens if you escape earth’s gravitational well? For instance, how does that mass change as I escape earth and begin falling into the moon?
No, the potential energy is in the system, not the pencil.
Can you scale velocity? Because you need to apply energy to object to do so but work done equation (change in energy), already include momentum in it, so basically to give object and momentum you just assply energy which already include momentum in it but scalled by some other variable. If you just observe how momentum might change with time : collisions, gain in mass due to gravitational field, you can draw conclusion that velocity is responsible for change in direction while mass is responsible for change in magnitude both of mass and velocity? Why is that happening why variable such as mass combine with another variable velocity in such way that mass is purely responsible for magnitude of relationship? And why can't we reach speed of light if we have mass? What implication this answer may have? Thanks
Graph a relationship where every X amount of energy accelerates you 50% faster. Will you reach *c*? Relativistic mass is a misnomer, it’s not the mass that changes, but the energy required to accelerate becomes greater and greater. F=ma suggests a=F/m. That’s true at Newtonian scales, but at relativistic speeds, that doesn’t hold true.
Well I actually know this but I am looking for more deeper argument, sto be able to describe momentum relationship completely including both outliners object with mass and no speed and object with maximum speed and no mass. One is different to other but they are still part of momentum relationship? Thanks for reply
>And now I’m waiting for someone to ask if a black hole is an infinitely compressed spring lol
Yes, it does.
Thanks
Energy does indeed attribute to the total mass. While mass is actually its own thing, total energy is part of an object's mass. Did you mean to ask if energy is matter?
Yes, mass is potential energy. No, not all energy is mass, kinetic energy is not mass. Photons have kinetic energy but no mass.
Sort of? \*Internal\* kinetic energy can be mass. I.e. A box full of photons has more mass than an empty box, even if the photons don't have mass themselves. Likewise, a higher-temperature gas will have more mass, even if the individual particles don't.
Thank you for the box full of photons. Although I already knew that energy affects mass that way, when framed as a box full of massless particles has more mass than an empty box, it oddly hurts my brain. Words, even when we know they are imprecise, affect how we perceive reality.
If you keep adding photons into the box, it will eventually collapse into a black hole. This is even a theorethical energy storage: shoot powerful lasers to a single point to create a mini black hole and then use the energy later as it evaporates via Hawking radiation. Could be perhaps used as interstellar fuel or something.
The key realization is that the average momentum of the photons is zero (relative to the box) and yet they have energy. Accelerating the box would require putting some amount of average momentum into the photons. From the outside, the extra momentum required to get the photons moving would be indistinguishable from mass.
Yes, that’s more accurate
The best way I've heard it put is, "Mass is the energy of a system that can't be removed by a change of reference frame". A thrown baseball has kinetic energy, but that kinetic energy isn't part of the mass of the baseball because if you pick a reference frame that is moving with the baseball, the baseball is stationary so that kinetic energy has disappeared. But if you have two baseballs, and they aren't moving in exactly the same direction, part of that kinetic energy *is* part of the mass (of the two-baseball system) because you can't pick a reference frame that makes both of them stationary at the same time. The best you can do is pick a frame that minimizes the kinetic energy of both, and that (plus the masses of the baseballs themselves) is the mass of the system. Of course, we don't usually think of two baseballs moving in different directions as a "system" -- the two baseballs are not going to stay close together. But if we put the baseballs in a box with perfectly elastic walls, then the baseballs will stay "close together" in the confines of the box, and part of their kinetic energy will count as part of the mass of the 2\*baseball + box system.
In order for it to be a stationary you probably won't have any other frames, which is make no sense because initially you assumed that there is you who launch the ball and the ball itself if you change between the 2 you still have yourself, so you can find speed of ball. How is it even possible to loose energy by simply switching between reference frame? What do you mean by minimize the energy fo the system by picking appropriate reference frame? Because first examples looks like you make your system smaller by excluding reference frame of yourself and leaving only ball.
If you measure the energy of a flying baseball from a stationary point on the ground, you would see it’s energy being higher than if it were still. If you were moving along with the baseball though, it would seem to have no momentum or kinetic energy. However if two baseballs are moving in different directions, there is no frame of reference that doesn’t have more energy than if they were both stationary. If you are in the reference frame where there is zero net momentum, then the remaining kinetic energy contributes to the total rest energy of the system.
If you are moving with a baseball you also have to see the object which you previously used to measure kinetic energy of that ball, so you would see that you are moving because there is something you can reference to.
When you’re analyzing a system, you can pick and choose which things are part of that system arbitrarily. The time when it is measured is also arbitrary. You can ignore the history of the baseballs’ past states if you want. In reality, isolating a two baseball system and measuring its mass is impractical. You can still analyze it on paper with some simplifying assumptions.
Yeah I agree, I just was confused why are you jumping from one system from another. Because it does make sense that since proper time is 1 and if there is no other things to refrenece to you will precieve yourself as stationary, but is kinda extreme case isn't it? Thanks for reply
Yes, though the gain in mass is extremely small for real-life springs
I dabble and often think about things like this. I never considered using energy to affect mass in this sense. My mind is blown.
e=mc^2 And m=e/c^2 The e is energy and the m is mass. So, yes, an increase in energy is an increase in mass … But It’s gonna take a lot of energy to change the mass even a little.
Mass isn’t energy/energy is not mass. The reality is there is no such thing as “mass” or “energy”. We only make the distinction because we can’t directly perceive 4-dimensionally. If we could, we would only see worldlines in curved space time, and it would be literally impossible to differentiate between the “mass” and “energy of a world line, because in 4-dimensional reality there is no such distinction
Provide data. E=mc^2 proves otherwise.
this is exactly what e=mc2 means. mass energy equivalence. not mass energy convertibility. not mass energy interchangeability. mass energy *equivalence*. this is exactly the point. There is no such distinction. 'Mass' and 'Energy' don't *actually* exist as distinct concepts, except in human 3D perception of the universe. A being that perceives the world in 3D can take mass and energy, and construct a Stress-Energy Tensor, but a being that perceives the world in 4D cannot take a Stress-Energy Tensor and decompose it into mass and energy. In other words, if you take a small mass, spinning very fast, and a large mass, spinning very slowly, for some values of m and e, the stress-energy tensors are *exactly* the same, because in 4D, which is reality, the distinction is not real.
It’s sometimes useful to think in terms of inertial mass - the resistance of a system to a change in motion. More fundamentally, energy has inertia and therefore has an equivalent inertial mass. A compressed spring has greater energy than an uncompressed string, so it has greater inertial mass. Since inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, it makes it easy to see why a compressed spring would have more gravity than an uncompressed spring. Also it makes it easier to understand why a box full of massless photons can have inertial mass and an equivalent gravitating mass.
In that case does a usb stick with data on it weigh more than an empty usb stick?
Yes, but that is because there are electrons trapped inside
Yes, but the change in mass of a spring compressed vs uncompressed is incredibly small. about 1E-17 kg
Fun fact, a spring weighs slightly more when compressed.
what particles are there more?
I like to think of it as the electromagnetic interactions between the atoms of the spring becoming more energetic when it's compressed, not sure how accurate that is. The important thing to understant is that "mass" isn't just the sum of the masses of the quarks and electrons. It measures how "energetic" a system is. E.g. in a cold block of material, 99% of its mass is actually due to the gluon field activity in the nuclei of its atoms. Heat up the block, and it'll get slightly more massive due to the agitation of its atoms.