Quark matter's connection with the Higgs

Aug 27, 2012
Quark matter's connection with the Higgs
The three valence quarks that make up each proton account for about one percent of its mass; the rest comes from interactions among the quarks and gluons.

(Phys.org)—You may think you've heard everything you need to know about the origin of mass. After all, scientists colliding protons at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe recently presented stunning evidence strongly suggesting the existence of a long-sought particle called the Higgs boson, thought to "impart mass to matter." But while the Higgs particle may be responsible for the mass of fundamental particles such as quarks, quarks alone can't account for the mass of most of the visible matter in the universe—that's everything we see and sense around us.

To get a grasp on what holds these visible forms of matter together—everything from stars to planets to people—you have to understand how quarks and gluons interact. That's the essence of quark matter physics—and the Quark Matter 2012 international conference, taking place in Washington, D.C., August 12-18.

"We're studying the 99 percent of the mass of the that isn't explained by the Higgs," says Peter Steinberg, a physicist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory and a keen participant in the Quark Matter conference. 

Visible matter, he explains, is everything made of atoms, which get their mass mainly from the protons and neutrons that make up . The electrons orbiting around the nucleus contribute practically nothing. But the protons and neutrons, each made of three quarks, are much more massive than the sum of their constituent particles. Where does all the "extra" mass come from?

The answer, physicists believe, lies in how the quarks interact via the exchange of gluons, that hold the quarks together via nature's strongest force, and interactions among the gluons themselves. To tease apart the features of this force, which gets stronger and stronger if you try to pull the subatomic quarks apart, physicists accelerate atomic nuclei (a.k.a. heavy ions) to near light speed, where the gluons become dominant, and then steer them into head-on collisions at particle accelerators like the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven and the Large Hadron Collider in Europe. These collisions recreate conditions that last existed early in the universe, before quarks joined up to form protons and neutrons. Studying the behavior of "free" quarks and gluons in this primordial quark-gluon plasma should help scientists better understand the strong force, and how it generates so much of the mass we see when the particles coalesce to form ordinary matter.

So, while accounts for a mere fraction of the total universe—just five percent, the rest being composed of dark matter and mysterious dark energy—it's enough to keep physicists like Steinberg busy for a while!

Explore further: What is Nothing?

Related Stories

eRHIC gets to the heart of the matter

Apr 26, 2006

At the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, scientists have proposed a new way of studying the structure of matter down to a level never before observed. Their proposal is the "eRHIC" ...

Explained: Quark gluon plasma

Jun 09, 2010

For a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, the universe consisted of a hot soup of elementary particles called quarks and gluons. A few microseconds later, those particles began cooling to form protons ...

Physicists plan quark conference

Apr 13, 2005

Physicists from around the world will gather at Madison's Monona Terrace from Wednesday, April 27 - Sunday, May 1, to explore the world of quarks, subatomic particles that represent the frontier of modern particle physics. The mee ...

Masses of common quarks are revealed

May 03, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A research group co-founded by Cornell physics professor G. Peter Lepage has calculated the mass of the three lightest and, therefore, most elusive quarks: up, down and strange.

Recommended for you

What is Nothing?

Aug 22, 2014

Is there any place in the Universe where there's truly nothing? Consider the gaps between stars and galaxies? Or the gaps between atoms? What are the properties of nothing?

On the hunt for dark matter

Aug 22, 2014

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

Water window imaging opportunity

Aug 21, 2014

Ever heard of the water window? It consists of radiations in the 3.3 to 4.4 nanometre range, which are not absorbed by the water in biological tissues. New theoretical findings show that it is possible to ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jitterbewegung
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
You are getting close to the right wording but why have two opposite statements in the same article?

Eg.
"But while the Higgs particle may be responsible for the mass of fundamental particles such as quarks"

And

"Visible matter, he explains, is everything made of atoms, which get their mass mainly from the protons and neutrons that make up atomic nuclei. The electrons orbiting around the nucleus contribute practically nothing. But the protons and neutrons, each made of three quarks, are much more massive than the sum of their constituent particles. Where does all the "extra" mass come from?
The answer, physicists believe, lies in how the quarks interact via the exchange of gluons, massless particles that hold the quarks together"
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2012
These are not opposite statements. The second part simply illustrates that the mass of an atom is, for the overwhelming part, concentrated in the nucleus.
Electrons are only about 1/2000th as massive as protons. And with (very) roughly double the number of nucleons as electrons in most atoms you can see that electrons only contribute about 0.025% of the mass.

indio007
2.1 / 5 (17) Aug 27, 2012
How long are we going to bash our heads against the wall trying to preserve Einstein?

Where is the rest of the mass?
Anyone ever think we can't find it because Einstein is wrong?
Jitterbewegung
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
If quarks can't exist on their own and that means without agluon sea, then how can we know they have a 1 percent mass on their own?

As far as I know they only infer a mass on quarks by the energy it takes to create a quark antiquark pair.
Ventilator
3.3 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2012
In simple terms, indio007, E = mc^2 still.

Where the mass and energy reside remains to be seen. Dark matter seems a likely candidate, especially considering the fact that an article recently went by specifying that a dark matter filament might have been spotted out in space.

We have a good measuring stick in Einstein's ideas; whether or not there's any tweaking in the future is still up in the air.
chardo137
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2012
This article was a very good summing up of a much under-appreciated area of high energy physics. The RHIC and the ALICE experiment at CERN are very important to the future of the field.
indio007
3.1 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2012
In simple terms, indio007, E = mc^2 still.

Where the mass and energy reside remains to be seen. Dark matter seems a likely candidate, especially considering the fact that an article recently went by specifying that a dark matter filament might have been spotted out in space.

We have a good measuring stick in Einstein's ideas; whether or not there's any tweaking in the future is still up in the air.


I say there is a big problem is you can't explain 95% of the mass of the universe using the existing theory.

If you used a method of common accepted accounting methods that vanished 95% of your money would you keep using it?


ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2012
Regarding the gluons the mainstream physics (as represented with Standard Model) does the very same conceptual mistake, like with photons. The gluons are consider massless in SM, but they aren't and they mediate both momentum, both energy and matter, like the photons. The concept of massless gluon violates the trivial fact, the gluons cannot mediate force at distance larger than 10E -15 meters, so they must be massive. The atom nuclei can be characterized like the piece of heavily dense and curved space-time, so when some particle appears massless in it, it's still pretty massive from perspective of the outer observer. In this thread I'm explaining the longevity of gamma ray bursts with mutual gravitational interaction of photons. The gravity of gluons manifests itself with formation of so-called the glueballs, i.e. dense clusters composed of pure gluons only. The distant gamma ray bursts are sorta photonballs.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2012
The connection of energy to matter can be understood easily with intrinsic inhomogeneity of space-time. If the water surface would be pure homogeneous plane, the the deformation of water surface wouldn't affect the spreading of another ripples through the undulating place. But such an idealistic dAlambert's wave is not physical. Because the water surface is inhomogeneous due the Brownian noise, every deformation of surface exposes more density fluctuations and such deformed surface slows down the spreading of another waves through it in additive way. Therefore the bosons like the photons and gluons can be never massless particles - they do behave like less or more dense blobs of vacuum traveling from place to place. And they all contribute to the total mass of the heavier composite particles. The problem is, the mainstream physics neglects the energy density of curved space-time and it considers all these bosons massless, which leads into conceptual inconsistencies.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2012
@ indio007:

You seem terribly confused or set to provoke. The article describes how scientists have 99 % of a nucleus pinned down to quark-gluon interactions in the nucleons.

As for relativity, it figures in in two major ways. I am going to reference Strassler, an LHC physicist for this.

First it tells us mass and energy are interrelated properties of objects. You figure that out with relativity: http://profmattst...-energy/ .

Second it turns out that the most of the nucleons quarks are traveling at relativistic speed.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2012
[cont] "A somewhat more accurate picture of a proton, filled with gluons (g) and quarks (u,d,s for up, down and strange) and antiquarks (same letters but with an overline bar.) These particles are whizzing around at speeds that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. The number of gluons and quark-antiquark pairs is enormously understated, for reasons of clarity. (If you look carefully, you'll see there are two more up quarks than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquark; that EXCESS of two up quarks and one down quark is what leads to the shorthand: "a proton is made from two up quarks and one down quark.")"

So relativity is needed to make sense of Noether's theorems relating quantum field properties.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2012
[cont] But notice how difficult it is for colliders to make sense of these things. Many collisions and data has to be collected. "That process of gluon radiation from the quark can be calculated! And so, far more properties of jets can be calculated, using the equations of the strong nuclear force, than might be guessed from the more naive picture of Figure 2. These calculations have been verified in data, thereby testing the equations of the strong nuclear force." http://profmattst...-gluons/

The accounting still isn't very good I think. Out of those 99 % of the energy of the nucleons, they predict and test at some few percent uncertainty. I see that the some theoretical values can be pressed under 1 % uncertainty. So they need more experiments to predict this better.

Really, did you think they were entirely clueless in this? That doesn't make sense.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
@ ValeriaT: You contradict what is described in the SM, for example its gluons are zero intrinsic mass. If you don't define your terms as the rest, no one can discuss the physics with you.

Also, if you diverge from known physics (and this is known, see the article for refs) it behooves you to make references. I'm sure it can be confusing for those who read your claims and believe it is open issues (say, gluon mass). The discovery of the higgs field is expected by all LHC physicists to nail down the SM masses it describes, and that includes a massless gluon.
indio007
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
@ indio007:

You seem terribly confused or set to provoke. The article describes how scientists have 99 % of a nucleus pinned down to quark-gluon interactions in the nucleons.

As for relativity, it figures in in two major ways. I am going to reference Strassler, an LHC physicist for this.

First it tells us mass and energy are interrelated properties of objects. You figure that out with relativity: http://profmattst...-energy/ .

Second it turns out that the most of the nucleons quarks are traveling at relativistic speed.


"We're studying the 99 percent of the mass of the visible universe that isn't explained by the Higgs,"

It seems you got it backwards. That does not say they have 99% explained.
There are a few ways to guesstimate the mass of the Universe. If you use relativity 95% of the mass has to be unseen to make it keep working.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2012
no one can discuss the physics with you
IMO most of concepts aren't discussed simply because they could threat the jobs and grants in many areas, being inconsistent with accepted models. It's not so easy to develop new math and until we do it, then the physicists have nothing to say about it, i.e. they cannot get any salary for such an idea.

The physicists postulated, when some particle sits inside of curved space, then this particle is of zero mass, no matter how such curved space-time is actually dense. It's something like the postulation, that the fish is massless, because it has the same density, like the water in which it resides. At the case of water such a mistake is still acceptable, but whole the Standard Model works so for very dense piece of space-time: for the interior of atom nuclei. Every minute density fluctuation of such dense environment behaves like distinct massive particle with its own gravity and dark matter fields - the gluons aren't any exception.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2012
For example, if we observe the photons revolving the gravity field inside of some gravitational lens, we may think easily, that the photons follows the area of gravity lens, which is of the same mass/energy density, like the photon itself - so its motion is sorta buoyancy effect. But from perspective of general relativity such a photon travels along straight path - it's the space-time what is curved, not the path of photon. The mass density of this space-time curvature is neglected in general relativity in the same way, like the mass of space-time curvature within photon itself. The relativity simply lives in its own virtual flatland - not matter how such flatland is actually curved for observer outside of it. Well, and the Standard Model does the very same for highly curved space-time inside of atom nuclei: it handles it as a flatland too. It works well for nuclear phenomena inside of atom nuclei, but outside of it it's a freaky theory separated from reality.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2012
the discovery of the higgs field is expected by all LHC physicists to nail down the SM masses it describes, and that includes a massless gluon.
You're living in deep illusion - the SM doesn't predict any mass of particles, which it describes - instead of it, these masses are parameters in it. And the finding of Higgs boson cannot contribute to it at all, simply because the Standard Model with its 26 parameters doesn't predict the mass of Higgs boson as well. The introduction of supersymmetry would enable to introduce a constrains into SM in such a way, the MSSM is able to predict Higgs boson mass, but this mass is 1) different from the experimentally determined one 2) it requires the introduction of another one hundred (!) of adjustable parameters. The SUSY version of SM is not for kids.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2012
Visible matter, he explains, is everything made of atoms, which get their mass mainly from the protons and neutrons that make up atomic nuclei. …
Where does all the "extra" mass come from?
The answer, physicists believe, lies in how the quarks interact via the exchange of gluons, massless particles that hold the quarks together via nature's strongest force, and interactions among the gluons themselves.

It is interesting to note that according to conventional view there is no explanation why gluons is the strongest force, and how could they hold quarks together! May be this understandable physical view could help to get it;
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
There's no Higgs boson.
The mass is the electric dipole moment

Antonio Saraiva
Anda
not rated yet Aug 28, 2012
Another idiot above who knows it all.
We don't yet know if the higgs boson exists... Or not.
Hope tomorrow we'll know more
typicalguy
5 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2012
Anyone reading these comments, note that most of these comments are filled with people who claim that the standard model is not complete and doesn't work so you should believe their model. They have no math or science behind their models. Real science involves experimentation to prove or disprove theory. They have no theory and no way to prove or disprove.

There is a simple reason modern science can't describe everything : it's a work in progress. These guys would have you believe that because science doesn't have it right, you should believe their crazy ideas because they have ALL the answers. No questions allowed, no disputes of the "facts", they have the answers. I have read claims where they say science is religion but to me, these guys are the ones drinking the koolaide. If you see the electrics universe, eather wave theory, Electric dipole moment, neutron repulsion, vacuume mechanics, etc, just keep in mind these guys have the zeal of religious fundamentalists.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2012
Natello, provide a way to proe or disprove your theory.
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2012
The mass is the electric dipole moment:

m = q.k / x ( 1 - pi^3.alpha^2/2 )

m-mass;q- electroc charge;k-Boltzmann constant.
x-Compton wavelength;pi=3.1415927
alpha-fine structure constant

kilogram = Coulomb meter

Antonio Saraiva
typicalguy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2012
Netello, thanks for ignoring a simple question. You are a religious zealot.

Saraiva, please provide a new version of the standard model that doesn't have a Higgs mechanism as you believe that the LHC has not discovered it. The standard model has worked quite well, it's rather annoying that you want to throw it away without good reason.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2012
Netello, thanks for ignoring a simple question. You are a religious zealot.
How did you got into such stance?
typicalguy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2012
Netello, thanks for ignoring a simple question. You are a religious zealot.
How did you got into such stance?

How did you got into your stance? Did you got into your stand by non understand ov engrish so u got into said stand by ignorant head?
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2012
OK, how did you gEt into your stance? Are you interested about matter of fact discussion or just about the training of grammar?
Standing Bear
1 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2012
Somebody made a comment objecting to any criticism of the 'standard model'. At present it is 2 dimensional with forces and particles. We have only touched the surface of deeper levels of the structure and interactions matter subunits...and already we are seeing glimpses of other forces, particles, etc. Who knows in the increasingly involved study of quark matter dynamics that other particles, types of gluons, and other forces will start to separate from the veil of ignorance surrounding these ultra small pieces of matter and energy. Could be even that the strong force is itself a composite. Methinks that the standard model will become three dimensional with the inclusion of particles and forces about which at present we can only guess, yet whose control and manipulation could deliver untold benefits to mankind. Do not forget that space itself may have a quantum mechanical role as ITs particulate nature becomes known. Control of expansion, etc. of space yields warp drive for one
typicalguy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2012
OK, how did you gEt into your stance? Are you interested about matter of fact discussion or just about the training of grammar?

Because you ignored the question idiot.
higgs_boson
1 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2012
Higgs Boson / "God Particle" -2012 Science validates a 150+ year old discovery ……............Infinite Intelligence….Steve Meyer / New Thought Movement / HolisticDNA

The Sixth Sense Activation Sequence – GROUNDBREAKING New Book in 2012!

"New Thought promotes the ideas that "Infinite Intelligence" or "God" is ubiquitous, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect..." Wikipedia
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2012
Consider an electron moving through free space: It is a coherent wave since it can diffract: BUT this wave moves at a speed v that is lower than the speed of light. Thus, it MUST be a stationary wave within the inertial reference frame moving with it.

Stationary energy is mass-energy. You do not require a Higgs boson to understand mass-energy: Mass energy is a natural consequence of the wave-nature of matter. The only building blocks of matter are the proton, the electron and the neutrino.

All the debris they are creating at CERN are only excitations of these three building blocks; and it is unlikely that these excitations even existed while Guth-inflation took place at the "Big Bang". We are wasting billions of dollars to create debris which probably played no role in the origin of matter and the forces holding matter together.
HumbleOpinion
not rated yet Sep 03, 2012
In the article is a statement that
physicists accelerate atomic nuclei (a.k.a. heavy ions) to near light speed, where the gluons become dominant,


What does the author mean - dominant in terms of mass or some other attribute?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2012
My dear Natello,
Does a photon-wave moving through free space has mass-energy? The answer is NO!!! Because it cannot be stationary within an inertial reference frrame:

An electron wave moving through free space has a speed v
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2012
I do not know why my whole message was not posted:

An electron wave moving through free space has a speed v which is smaller than the speed of light MUST be stationary within the inertial refrence frame travelling with it. STATIONARY WAVE-ENERGY = MASS-ENERGY!! Why do you need a Higgs boson??
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2012
W/Z bosons, just like the Higgs boson, are a fantasies of hallucinating minds! The excitaions are there, but their explanation is physics-nonsense.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2012
Does a photon-wave moving through free space has mass-energy? The answer is NO!
It would mean, that the material objects cannot lose their mass with radiation of photons and energy - which would violate the mass-energy equivalence in its consequence. So, just the wave-nature of matter is actually the reason, why the photons must have some mass.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 04, 2012
Does a photon-wave moving through free space has mass-energy? The answer is NO!
It would mean, that the material objects cannot lose their mass with radiation of photons and energy - which would violate the mass-energy equivalence in its consequence.
Nope! Absolute BS!!! I agree that I should have asked "rest-mass" energy but assumed that nobody would be so stupid not see the context! I am not talking about kinetic-energy but rest-mass. Do you say that a light-wave has rest-mass?? Clearly you have not yet heard of Galileo, Newton's first law, and Einstein's special relativity.
So, just the wave-nature of matter is actually the reason, why the photons must have some mass.
Not rest mass!!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 04, 2012
Easy man, nobody talks about rest mass here...
I am! Rest mass means that the moving entity is at rest wihin the inertial reference frame (IRF) moving with it.

Light moving with speed c can never be at rest within an IRF and therefore it cannot have rest-mass. Kinetic mass-energy is the energy when viewing an entity with rest mass from any other IRF to which the entity is moving.

Light can have rest-mass if you slow it down to move at a speed v which is less speed c. This happens within a gravitational field, and therefore light is attracted and bends around the sun.

What people do not realise is that Schroedinger's equation (and also Dirac's abomination) cannot model a freely moving electron through space.

It only models stationary electron waves within an IRF which have LESS rest-mass energy than an electron's free rest-mass energy. In fact, the intensities of these waves relate to both this reduced rest-mass energy AND the gravity field surrounding this mass-energy.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 04, 2012
Light can have rest-mass if you slow it down to move at a speed v which is less speed c. This happens within a gravitational field, and therefore light is attracted and bends around the sun.
Well, and this may be the point of photons, when such particles don't propagate with speed of light exactly, but with lower speed. After then the rest mass of photon gets some meaning too.
What people do not realise is that Schroedinger's equation (and also Dirac's abomination) cannot model a freely moving electron through space.
It's different, actually dual problem to the rest mass of photon. No quantum mechanics equation describes the motion of free particle, because such a particle would evaporate with speed of light in vacuum (as follows from solutions of Schrodinger/Dirac's equations for free particle wave packet). In this sense the quantum mechanics ignores the gravity field of photon in similar way, like the relativity, just from another side of it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 04, 2012
ValeriaT, I am not going to quote the nonsense you have just posted. Just accept one THING: A "particle" is a wave which has rest-mass energy and therefore a centre-of-mass. Therefore its centre-of-mass moves like a "particle" while it IS A WAVE!!

A free moving electron is not a wave packet but a coherent light-wave moving wih a speed v less than light speed. This is why an ensemble of electron waves generate a diffraction pattern having the SAME frequency. If such an ensemble consisted of wave packets one would NOT have measured a diffraction pattern with the SAME frequency! There would NOT have been a diffraction pattern at all. Please start to try to think physics!
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 04, 2012
A free moving electron is not a wave packet but a coherent light-wave moving with a speed v less than light speed.
Electron is not light wave, because the light wave doesn't exhibit weak nuclear charge, for example. But you're apparently fooled with double slit experiment. Well, it's not the wave of electron itself, which participates to its result, but the "wake wave" (deBroglie wave actually) formed with electron motion through vacuum foam. The electron itself may be therefore quite complex soliton / mixture of waves from inside, but its de Broglie wave is simple monochromatic artifact so it can interfere with double slit in predictable way. After all, the electron itself is way too tiny for being able to interfere with whatever macroscopic slit in meaningful way. Only objects of the similar size can interfere mutually.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2012
Electron is not light wave,
Oh yes it is: Unless you are just as stupid as Dirac was: You can derive directly from the relativistic equation for the motion of an electron through space with momentum p that it is a light-wave moving with a speed v, which is less than the speed of light. Can you do that? I doubt it: If Dirac was too stupid to see this, why would you have the brains to derive this?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2012
I explained it already: the electron mediates two charges, whereas light wave only one. Phenomenologically
Phenomelogical theories are not worth the paper they are written on.
they're both just some undulations of vacuum foam, but because this foam gets more dense under shaking, the resulting blob of dense foam violates the total reflection condition at its surface and traps portion of waves into itself. So that the electron has something like the physical surface, which light wave or photon hasn't

Do you really think that this claptrap you are posting is real physics? It is simple to directly derive from Einstein's special theory that the wave equation which models a moving electron is the same as Maxwell's equation for light, except that the electron wave moves at a speed v which is less than the speed of light.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2012
You cannot derive from Einstein's special (relativity?) theory, that the light wave is moving in electron with speed lower than the speed of light

But you can test it very easily in experiment, since if light did ever move at other speeds then simultaneity between events would be broken. Two events which coincide in spacetime (E.g. two light beams hitting a specific point) will always be observed as hitting that point at the same time - no matter how you and that move relative to each other.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2012
You cannot derive from Einstein's special (relativity?) theory, that the light wave is moving in electron with speed lower than the speed of light, because this theory assumes, that the light wave is always moving with speed of light. No rigorous theory can predict the violation of one of its postulates.

How much do you want to bet? I will take you on at $100000! Willing to try your luck?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2012
But you can test it very easily in experiment, since if light did ever move at other speeds then simultaneity between events would be broken.
Listen carefully to what I am stating: Both a moving photon-wave and a moving electron-wave are coherent electromagnetic waves except that the electron-wave moves with a speed lower than the speed of light.
Two events which coincide in spacetime (E.g. two light beams hitting a specific point) will always be observed as hitting that point at the same time - no matter how you and that move relative to each other.
I did not say that an electron-wave moves with light speed. The reason for observing two simultaneous events in one inertial refrence frame as being non-s in another is caused by the fact that light does not have rest-mass energy.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2012
How much do you want to bet? Willing to try your luck?
You cannot derive from theory, which is considering A=30000 that A=0.003 in rigorous way.


Are you accepting the bet?? I will state it again: Dirac derived his equation for the electron from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Dirac made an F-up. By following the same procedure but not being stupid, one can derive that a moving photon is modelled by Maxwell's equation for coherent light-wave moving with a speed c; AND that a moving electron is also modelled by Maxwell's equation for a coherent ligh-wave; but the light is now moving at a speed v less than the speed of light c.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2012
You are wrong!

Do accept Dirac's and Schroedinger's equations which were derived by replacing momentum by an imaginary gradient operator and energy by an imaginary time differential?

Using the same replacements I will prove to you, after you have accepted my bet, that a photon is a coherent EM-wave (NOT A PARTICLE) which is modelled by Maxwell's wave equation for the electric-potential of light, AND that an electron is also a coherent EM-wave (NOT A PARTICLE) modelled by the same equation but now the wave is moving with a speed v which is less than the speed of light.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2012
The same starting equation describes the motion of a photon, when setting the mass-energy term equal to zero, and the motion of an electron when you do NOT put the mass energy term equal to zero. Are you saying that Einstein's equations for the special theory of relativity are wrong? BTW I am doing physics NOT algebra axioms. Mathematical theorems do not necessarily determine physics.