Been watching some documentaries on QM.

One video talked about deriving the mass of a proton from first principles and said something along the lines of (if i remember it correctly) 95% of the mass of the proton comes not from the mass of the quarks, but from the energy of the gluons which bind the quarks together. He mentioned E=MC^2 and talked about mass energy equivalence etc in regards to that.. All seemed cool

Then he talked about the Higgs field and how the modern ‘explanation’ for mass is that a particle moving through the Higgs field experiences a kind of ‘resistance’ and that resistance is what we feel as “mass”.

So which is it? Does a proton get its mass from the binding energy of the gluons, in an e=mc^2 type arrangement or does it get it through interaction with the Higgs field?

Dropbear said:

Been watching some documentaries on QM.

One video talked about deriving the mass of a proton from first principles and said something along the lines of (if i remember it correctly) 95% of the mass of the proton comes not from the mass of the quarks, but from the energy of the gluons which bind the quarks together. He mentioned E=MC^2 and talked about mass energy equivalence etc in regards to that.. All seemed cool

Then he talked about the Higgs field and how the modern ‘explanation’ for mass is that a particle moving through the Higgs field experiences a kind of ‘resistance’ and that resistance is what we feel as “mass”.

So which is it? Does a proton get its mass from the binding energy of the gluons, in an e=mc^2 type arrangement or does it get it through interaction with the Higgs field?

PMSL. Damn good question. I wish I’d thought up that question myself. I don’t know the answer. I can see that I’ll have to do some really deep searching to get to the bottom of it. Excellent question. Anyone else want to have a go at answering it?

Dropbear said:

Been watching some documentaries on QM.

One video talked about deriving the mass of a proton from first principles and said something along the lines of (if i remember it correctly) 95% of the mass of the proton comes not from the mass of the quarks, but from the energy of the gluons which bind the quarks together. He mentioned E=MC^2 and talked about mass energy equivalence etc in regards to that.. All seemed cool

Then he talked about the Higgs field and how the modern ‘explanation’ for mass is that a particle moving through the Higgs field experiences a kind of ‘resistance’ and that resistance is what we feel as “mass”.

So which is it? Does a proton get its mass from the binding energy of the gluons, in an e=mc^2 type arrangement or does it get it through interaction with the Higgs field?

I hope you don’t mind. I’ve reposted your question on facebook. I’ll let you know if there are any answers.

Found some other postings on the web.

“The Higgs field gives mass to fundamental particles—the electrons, quarks and other building blocks that cannot be broken into smaller parts. … The energy of this interaction between quarks and gluons is what gives protons and neutrons their mass.”

“Assuming the theories that the Gluon field and the Higgs field are both responsible for particles gaining mass, They are not. The Higgs field is responsible for the mass of elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics.”

Dropbear said:

Does a proton get its mass from the binding energy of the gluons, in an e=mc^2 type arrangement or does it get it through interaction with the Higgs field?

Yes.

An atom consists of a heavy nuclei surrounded by light electrons and a whole lot of empty space.

The nuclei contains protons and neutrons, each of which is about 2,000 times heavier than an electron. Thus most of the mass of an atom is in the protons and neutrons. Protons are composed of three quarks, so you might expect that each of those quarks would have a mass of one third of a proton, but they don’t. In fact the mass of the three quarks makes only a few per cent of the total mass of the proton. The quarks are whizzing around inside the proton and their binding energy (and the energy of the force holding them together) is what makes up mass.

It can been seen from this that the vast majority of mass in the universe is the kinetic and potential energy of moving quarks. However there remains a tiny component of mass which is not kinetic or potential energy but is actually “real” mass. This is the mass of the quarks (and leptons) and it’s postulated that the Higgs field is what gives these quarks and leptons their “real” mass.

esselte said:

Dropbear said:

Does a proton get its mass from the binding energy of the gluons, in an e=mc^2 type arrangement or does it get it through interaction with the Higgs field?

Yes.

An atom consists of a heavy nuclei surrounded by light electrons and a whole lot of empty space.

The nuclei contains protons and neutrons, each of which is about 2,000 times heavier than an electron. Thus most of the mass of an atom is in the protons and neutrons. Protons are composed of three quarks, so you might expect that each of those quarks would have a mass of one third of a proton, but they don’t. In fact the mass of the three quarks makes only a few per cent of the total mass of the proton. The quarks are whizzing around inside the proton and their binding energy (and the energy of the force holding them together) is what makes up mass.

It can been seen from this that the vast majority of mass in the universe is the kinetic and potential energy of moving quarks. However there remains a tiny component of mass which is not kinetic or potential energy but is actually “real” mass. This is the mass of the quarks (and leptons) and it’s postulated that the Higgs field is what gives these quarks and leptons their “real” mass.

Edit correction: “..and their binding energy…” should read “…and their moving energy…”

mollwollfumble said:

Found some other postings on the web.

“The Higgs field gives mass to fundamental particles—the electrons, quarks and other building blocks that cannot be broken into smaller parts. … The energy of this interaction between quarks and gluons is what gives protons and neutrons their mass.”

“Assuming the theories that the Gluon field and the Higgs field are both responsible for particles gaining mass, They are not. The Higgs field is responsible for the mass of elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics.”

So the answer is that the higgs field gives mass to the quarks and other fundamental hadrons, but the total mass of the proton is both the mass due to the higgs interaction and the resultant energy equivalence from the gluons ?

esselte said:

Dropbear said:

Does a proton get its mass from the binding energy of the gluons, in an e=mc^2 type arrangement or does it get it through interaction with the Higgs field?

Yes.

An atom consists of a heavy nuclei surrounded by light electrons and a whole lot of empty space.

The nuclei contains protons and neutrons, each of which is about 2,000 times heavier than an electron. Thus most of the mass of an atom is in the protons and neutrons. Protons are composed of three quarks, so you might expect that each of those quarks would have a mass of one third of a proton, but they don’t. In fact the mass of the three quarks makes only a few per cent of the total mass of the proton. The quarks are whizzing around inside the proton and their binding energy (and the energy of the force holding them together) is what makes up mass.

It can been seen from this that the vast majority of mass in the universe is the kinetic and potential energy of moving quarks. However there remains a tiny component of mass which is not kinetic or potential energy but is actually “real” mass. This is the mass of the quarks (and leptons) and it’s postulated that the Higgs field is what gives these quarks and leptons their “real” mass.

Ok yeh that’s cool and basically what I just said in better words. Thank you very much for that. Interesting isn’t it that most of the mass (95%) of the universe is binding energy. I think that’s a statistic that most lay people would have no idea about.

Dropbear said:

Ok yeh that’s cool and basically what I just said in better words. Thank you very much for that. Interesting isn’t it that most of the mass (95%) of the universe is binding energy. I think that’s a statistic that most lay people would have no idea about.

Even me. It hadn’t occurred to me.

So when an object with mass approaches the speed of light it’s mass approaches infinity, yeah.
So does this apply to it’s ‘real’ mass or it’s kinetic mass or both?

Peak Warming Man said:

So when an object with mass approaches the speed of light it’s mass approaches infinity, yeah.
So does this apply to it’s ‘real’ mass or it’s kinetic mass or both?

Interesting and with such a large mass would it collapse on itself

Peak Warming Man said:

So when an object with mass approaches the speed of light it’s mass approaches infinity, yeah.
So does this apply to it’s ‘real’ mass or it’s kinetic mass or both?

Neither. The increase is mass with speed is now considered an anachonism. It’s called “relativistic mass” and is never referred to any more. Instead we say that kinetic energy has inertia and gravity.

esselte said:

esselte said:

Dropbear said:

Does a proton get its mass from the binding energy of the gluons, in an e=mc^2 type arrangement or does it get it through interaction with the Higgs field?

Yes.

An atom consists of a heavy nuclei surrounded by light electrons and a whole lot of empty space.

The nuclei contains protons and neutrons, each of which is about 2,000 times heavier than an electron. Thus most of the mass of an atom is in the protons and neutrons. Protons are composed of three quarks, so you might expect that each of those quarks would have a mass of one third of a proton, but they don’t. In fact the mass of the three quarks makes only a few per cent of the total mass of the proton. The quarks are whizzing around inside the proton and their binding energy (and the energy of the force holding them together) is what makes up mass.

It can been seen from this that the vast majority of mass in the universe is the kinetic and potential energy of moving quarks. However there remains a tiny component of mass which is not kinetic or potential energy but is actually “real” mass. This is the mass of the quarks (and leptons) and it’s postulated that the Higgs field is what gives these quarks and leptons their “real” mass.

Edit correction: “..and their binding energy…” should read “…and their moving energy…”

hang on, their kinetic energy?

so you’re saying the mass of the proton and neutron is frame dependent?

Dropbear said:

esselte said:

esselte said:

Yes.

An atom consists of a heavy nuclei surrounded by light electrons and a whole lot of empty space.

The nuclei contains protons and neutrons, each of which is about 2,000 times heavier than an electron. Thus most of the mass of an atom is in the protons and neutrons. Protons are composed of three quarks, so you might expect that each of those quarks would have a mass of one third of a proton, but they don’t. In fact the mass of the three quarks makes only a few per cent of the total mass of the proton. The quarks are whizzing around inside the proton and their binding energy (and the energy of the force holding them together) is what makes up mass.

It can been seen from this that the vast majority of mass in the universe is the kinetic and potential energy of moving quarks. However there remains a tiny component of mass which is not kinetic or potential energy but is actually “real” mass. This is the mass of the quarks (and leptons) and it’s postulated that the Higgs field is what gives these quarks and leptons their “real” mass.

Edit correction: “..and their binding energy…” should read “…and their moving energy…”

hang on, their kinetic energy?

so you’re saying the mass of the proton and neutron is frame dependent?

Can you ask that question differently

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

esselte said:

Edit correction: “..and their binding energy…” should read “…and their moving energy…”

hang on, their kinetic energy?

so you’re saying the mass of the proton and neutron is frame dependent?

Can you ask that question differently

kinetic energy is frame dependent ..

ie if you get hit in the face by a baseball, that hurts.. because you’re in a different frame of reference than the baseball..

if you’re in a falling elevator with the baseball then the baseball has no kinetic energy relative to you, so getting hit in the face with it won’t hurt..

kinetic energy is FOR dependent.

Dropbear said:

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

hang on, their kinetic energy?

so you’re saying the mass of the proton and neutron is frame dependent?

Can you ask that question differently

kinetic energy is frame dependent ..

ie if you get hit in the face by a baseball, that hurts.. because you’re in a different frame of reference than the baseball..

if you’re in a falling elevator with the baseball then the baseball has no kinetic energy relative to you, so getting hit in the face with it won’t hurt..

kinetic energy is FOR dependent.

thanks

Dropbear said:

hang on, their kinetic energy?

so you’re saying the mass of the proton and neutron is frame dependent?

Sorry, any questions tendered move beyond what I am able to crib from more educated people on other forums. Also, I don’t really understand the question.

If you are interested, my initial answer was based on this post http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=10395 made by one of the SPCF resident experts.

The rest mass of the protons and neutrons is invariant. The relativistic mass of the protons and neutrons is dependent on FOR. (Except, as Moll has indicated “relativistic mass” isn’t really a thing but the how’s and why’s of that is way beyond my current level of knowledge.) Does this answer your question?

esselte said:

Dropbear said:

hang on, their kinetic energy?

so you’re saying the mass of the proton and neutron is frame dependent?

The rest mass of the protons and neutrons is invariant. The relativistic mass of the protons and neutrons is dependent on FOR. (Except, as Moll has indicated “relativistic mass” isn’t really a thing but the how’s and why’s of that is way beyond my current level of knowledge.) Does this answer your question?

Yes. The mass of the proton and neutron is frame invariant.

For example, the mass of the photon is zero even though, because of its energy, it exerts a gravitational influence.

I guess the question is more to do with the binding energy of the gluons, whether that energy is potential energy of the gluon bond, or whether it’s kinetic energy related to the exchange of gluons between quarks..

I hope that makes some sense.

Dropbear said:

I guess the question is more to do with the binding energy of the gluons, whether that energy is potential energy of the gluon bond, or whether it’s kinetic energy related to the exchange of gluons between quarks..

I hope that makes some sense.

It makes sense to me. Which isn’t to say that it would necessarily make sense to a quantum physicist.

Always at the back of my mind is the equation on the back of the T-shirt I bought from the Australia Synchrotron. It’s the Lagrangian of the standard model of particle physics.

I can’t seem the find it right now but it contains electroweak terms. It contains gluon-quark interaction terms. It contains quark-higgs interaction terms. And other terms (higgs-higgs interaction?)

If I look at that equation as the origin of mass, then the gluon-quark interaction terms and the quark-higgs interaction terms combine to supply the mass of the proton. I don’t think it matters if it’s treated as potential energy or kinetic energy.