MAP

Monday, 28 November 2016

WHERE DOES MASS COME FROM? 05/12/16, By Diana Kwon The Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles, but most of our mass comes from somewhere else.

“Where does mass come from?”

2nd  OPINION:

My blog “MASS”, dated 05th, June’2014
IS MATTER HAS MASS EVERYWHERE?  NO,...................

Reference-



“As famous scientists or A-list celebrities pass through, people surround them, slowing them down, but less-known faces travel through the crowds unnoticed. In these cases, popularity is synonymous with mass—the more popular you are, the more you will interact with the crowd, and the more “massive” you will be.”

2nd  OPINION:

ALREADY WRITTEN IN My blog dated 24th, Jan’ 2014 - “THEORY of EVERYTHING”- 1st step on the basis of Dark Energy & Dark Matter

Point 5. “Matter has a mass”

2ND OPINION: matter doesn’t has mass. It has mass when it is surrounded by energy [how & why? Can be explained easily] & resisted by ……..

Point 10. “mass of the matter become infinity when it move with the speed of light”
2ND OPINION: at the speed of light mass does not become infinity, in fact its momentum become very-very large or mass become lesser to support law of conservation of momentum. It mass increases to infinity only when it is resisted by ……..

Reference-




The story of particle mass starts right after the big bang. During the very first moments of the universe, almost all particles were massless, traveling at the speed of light in a very hot “primordial soup.” At some point during this period, the Higgs field turned on, permeating the universe and giving mass to the elementary particles.  
The Higgs field changed the environment when it was turned on, altering the way that particles behave. Some of the most common metaphors compare the Higgs field to a vat of molasses or thick syrup, which slows some particles as they travel through.
Others have envisioned the Higgs field as a crowd at a party or a horde of paparazzi. As famous scientists or A-list celebrities pass through, people surround them, slowing them down, but less-known faces travel through the crowds unnoticed. In these cases, popularity is synonymous with mass—the more popular you are, the more you will interact with the crowd, and the more “massive” you will be. 
But why did the Higgs field turn on? Why do some particles interact more with the Higgs field than others? The short answer is: We don’t know.
“This is part of why finding the Higgs field is just the beginning—because we have a ton of questions,” says Matt Strassler, a theoretical physicist and associate of the Harvard University physics department. 
The strong force and you
The Higgs field gives mass to fundamental particles—the electrons, quarks and other building blocks that cannot be broken into smaller parts. But these still only account for a tiny proportion of the universe’s mass.
The rest comes from protons and neutrons, which get almost all their mass from the strong nuclear force. These particles are each made up of three quarks moving at breakneck speeds that are bound together by gluons, the particles that carry the strong force. The energy of this interaction between quarks and gluons is what gives protons and neutrons their mass. Keep in mind Einstein’s famous E=mc2, which equates energy and mass. That makes mass a secret storage facility for energy.
“When you put three quarks together to create a proton, you end up binding up an enormous energy density in a small region in space,” says John Lajoie, a physicist at Iowa State University. 
A proton is made of two up quarks and a down quark; a neutron is made of two down quarks and an up quark. Their similar composition makes the mass they acquire from the strong force nearly identical. However, neutrons are slightly more massive than protons—and this difference is crucial. The process of neutrons decaying into protons promotes chemistry, and thus, biology. If protons were heavier, they would instead decay into neutrons, and the universe as we know it would not exist. 
“As it turns out, the down quarks interact more strongly with the Higgs [field], so they have a bit more mass,” says Andreas Kronfeld, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab. This is why the tiny difference between proton and neutron mass exists. 
But what about neutrinos?
We’ve learned that the elementary particles get their mass from the Higgs field—but wait! There may be an exception: neutrinos. Neutrinos are in a class by themselves; they have extremely tiny masses (a million times smaller than the electron, the second lightest particle), are electrically neutral and rarely interact with matter.
Scientists are puzzled as to why neutrinos are so light. Theorists are currently considering multiple possibilities. It might be explained if neutrinos are their own antiparticles—that is, if the antimatter version is identical to the matter version. If physicists discover that this is the case, it would mean that neutrinos get their mass from somewhere other than the Higgs boson, which physicists discovered in 2012.
Neutrinos must get their mass from a Higgs-like field, which is electrically neutral and spans the entire universe. This could be the same Higgs that gives mass to the other elementary particles, or it could be a very distant cousin. In some theories, neutrino mass also comes from an additional, brand new source that could hold the answers to other lingering particle physics mysteries.
“People tend to get excited about this possibility because it can be interpreted as evidence for a brand new energy scale, naively unrelated to the Higgs phenomenon,” says André de Gouvêa, a theoretical particle physicist at Northwestern University.
This new mechanism may also be related to how dark matter, which physicists think is made up of yet undiscovered particles, gets its mass.
“Nature tends to be economical, so it's possible that the same new set of particles explains all of these weird phenomena that we haven't explained yet,” de Gouvêa says

THEORY THAT CHALLENGES EINSTEIN'S PHYSICS COULD SOON BE PUT TO THE TEST November 25, 2016 by Hayley Dunning

“Scientists behind a theory that the speed of light is variable - and not constant as Einstein suggested - have made a prediction that could be tested.”

2nd  OPINION:

I have been not only writing but also given reason for the variable speed of light in my oral presentation in International Science Conference in Vietnam on “Planetary System – a synergistic view” [19th – 25th, July’ 2015]. My topic was “Regeneration of Star & formation of a Solar system – a Potter man's concept”

Reference-1


Reference-2

MY VIEW: 

I have ALREADY written on 27th, Aug. 2014

AGREED but not with the speed of light it travel with variable velocity [may be much higher or much lower] depending on…..


Reference-3

I have ALREADY written on 24th, Jan.’ 2014 in “THEORY of EVERYTHING”- 1st step on the basis of Dark Energy & Dark Matter

Point 9. “speed of light is the highest speed”

2ND OPINION: speed of DE is higher than light because it is the most fundamental thing of the universe, it is controlled by …… while light is the packet of energy.


“But some researchers have suggested that the speed of light could have been much higher in this early universe.”

2nd  OPINION:

I ALSO AGREED, But WHY??? My hypothesis & my presentation in Vietnam will tell.

“Working with their theory that the fluctuations were influenced by a varying speed of light in the early universe,”

2nd  OPINION:

Speed of light ‘itself’ is varying due to some factors.

My blog dated 24th, Jan 2014 - “THEORY of EVERYTHING”- 1st step on the basis of Dark Energy & Dark Matter

Point 25. “pulsation”

2ND OPINION: it is the universal phenomenon that gives life to the universe.

Reference-



“If observations in the near future do find this number to be accurate, it could lead to a modification of Einstein's theory of gravity.”

2nd  OPINION:

I have already given a new hypothesis on the GRAVITY on 17th, Aug.’ 2013



SPECIAL REFERENCE:

WHAT IF EINSTEIN SEEMS RIGHT WITHOUT HIS THEORIES & PREDICTIONS?




Scientists behind a theory that the speed of light is variable - and not constant as Einstein suggested - have made a prediction that could be tested.
Einstein observed that the speed of light remains the same in any situation, and this meant that space and time could be different in different situations.
The assumption that the speed of light is constant, and always has been, underpins many theories in physics, such as Einstein's theory of general relativity. In particular, it plays a role in models of what happened in the very early universe, seconds after the Big Bang.
But some researchers have suggested that the speed of light could have been much higher in this early universe. Now, one of this theory's originators, Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, working with Dr Niayesh Afshordi at the Perimeter Institute in Canada, has made a prediction that could be used to test the theory's validity.
Structures in the universe, for example galaxies, all formed from fluctuations in the early universe – tiny differences in density from one region to another. A record of these early fluctuations is imprinted on the cosmic microwave background – a map of the oldest light in the universe – in the form of a 'spectral index'.
Working with their theory that the fluctuations were influenced by a varying speed of light in the early universe, Professor Magueijo and Dr Afshordi have now used a model to put an exact figure on the spectral index. The predicted figure and the model it is based on are published in the journal Physical Review D.
Cosmologists are currently getting ever more precise readings of this figure, so that prediction could soon be tested – either confirming or ruling out the team's model of the early universe. Their figure is a very precise 0.96478. This is close to the current estimate of readings of the cosmic microwave background, which puts it around 0.968, with some margin of error.
RADICAL IDEA
Professor Magueijo said: "The theory, which we first proposed in the late-1990s, has now reached a maturity point – it has produced a testable prediction. If observations in the near future do find this number to be accurate, it could lead to a modification of Einstein's theory of gravity.
"The idea that the speed of light could be variable was radical when first proposed, but with a numerical prediction, it becomes something physicists can actually test. If true, it would mean that the laws of nature were not always the same as they are today."
The testability of the varying speed of light theory sets it apart from the more mainstream rival theory: inflation. Inflation says that the early universe went through an extremely rapid expansion phase, much faster than the current rate of expansion of the universe.
THE HORIZON PROBLEM
These theories are necessary to overcome what physicists call the 'horizon problem'. The universe as we see it today appears to be everywhere broadly the same, for example it has a relatively homogenous density.
This could only be true if all regions of the universe were able to influence each other. However, if the speed of light has always been the same, then not enough time has passed for light to have travelled to the edge of the universe, and 'even out' the energy.
As an analogy, to heat up a room evenly, the warm air from radiators at either end has to travel across the room and mix fully. The problem for the universe is that the 'room' – the observed size of the universe – appears to be too large for this to have happened in the time since it was formed.
The varying speed of light theory suggests that the speed of light was much higher in the early universe, allowing the distant edges to be connected as the universe expanded. The speed of light would have then dropped in a predictable way as the density of the universe changed. This variability led the team to the prediction published today.
The alternative theory is inflation, which attempts to solve this problem by saying that the very early universe evened out while incredibly small, and then suddenly expanded, with the uniformity already imprinted on it. While this means the speed of light and the other laws of physics as we know them are preserved, it requires the invention of an 'inflation field' – a set of conditions that only existed at the time.
'Critical geometry of a thermal big bang' by Niayesh Afshordi and João Magueijo is published in Physical Review D.
More information: Niayesh Afshordi et al. Critical geometry of a thermal big bang, Physical Review D (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.101301
Journal reference: Physical Review D  
Provided by: Imperial College London