Deriving mass without the Higgs Boson

Please follow and like us:

0.9k

1.1k

788

404

1k

Einstein told us that energy and mass are interchangeable however he did not define what mass is.  He only told us how mass interacts with space-time.

As Steven Weinberg said “Mass tells space-time how to curve while space-time tells mass how to move”.

However Einstein’s inability to define or derive the casualty of mass is can be traced to the fact that he chose to define the energy associated with it in terms of four dimension space-time instead of defining the mass associated with energy in terms four *spatial* dimensions.

Yet Einstein gave us the ability to do this when used the equation E=mc^2 and the velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it allows one to convert a unit of displacement he associated with energy in a four dimensional space-time universe to an equivalent displacement a unit of mass would create in four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words because he defined the geometric relationship between energy and mass in terms of the constant velocity of light means that one can quantitatively and qualitatively define a one to one between the properties of energy in a space-time universe to the physical properties of mass four *spatial* dimensions.

This was the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including thermo and inertia or momentum of mass can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of one in a space-time environment.
However changing ones perspective on the geometric structure of the universe form one of space-time to four *spatial* dimensions not only gives one the ability to understand the causality of mass but also give one the ability derive its quantum mechanical properties as was done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007″ in terms of its wave component and the resonant properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

(Louis de Broglie was the first to predict the existence of the wave properties of mass when he theorized that all particles have a wave component.  His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer).

Briefly that article showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet in one consisting of four.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave that Louis de Broglie associated with a particle the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension at a frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.

Classical mechanics tells us that resonant systems can only take on the discrete or quantized energies associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of their fundamental frequency.

However, this does not explain how the boundaries of a particle’s resonant structure are defined.

In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space. 

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the geometric boundaries of the resonant system associated with a particle.

Therefore, these resonant systems in a four *spatial* dimensions would define mass and its quantum mechanical properties because of the fact that the volumes of space containing them would have a higher concentration of energy and therefore the mass associated with those volumes would be greater.

This would allow one to, not only understand the causality of the absolute properties of mass such as inertia but it would allow us to derive all of its relativistic ones.

For example one can use these concepts to explain why the corresponding particle types across the three fundamental families of particles in the Standard Model listed in the table below have identical properties except for their mass, which grows larger in each successive family.

As mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed that one can derive the mass of a particle in terms of the energy contained within a resonant system generated by a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while the article “Defining energy” showed that one can derive the energy of its environment in terms a displacement in the same three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Therefore using the concepts developed in those articles one could derive the total mass of a particle in terms of the sum of the energies associated with that resonant structure and the displacement in the “surface” of three-dimensional space associated with the energy of the environment it is occupying.

Yet Classical Mechanics tells us there will be specific points in space where the matter wave that Louis de Broglie associated with a particle can interact with the energy content or temperature of its environment to form a resonant system.

Therefore, the mass of each family member would not only be dependent on the energy associated with the resonant system that defined their quantum mechanical properties in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” but also on temperature of the environment they are occupying.

Thus suggest the reason “The corresponding particle types across the three families have identical properties except for their mass, which grows larger in each successive family.” is because of an interaction between the resonant properties defined in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” and the energy content of the environment they are occupying.

This means the particles in the first family would be found in relativity low energy environments, are relatively stable, and for the most part can be observed in nature.  However, the particles in the second and third families would be for the most part unstable and can be observed only in high-energy environments of particle accelerators.  The exception is the Muon in the second family, which is only observed in the high-energy environment of cosmic radiation.

The relative masses of the fundamental particles increases in each successive family because the higher-energy environments where they occupy would result in the corresponding particles in each successive family to be formed with a greater relative “separation” in the “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension..

Therefore, the corresponding particles in the second family will have a greater mass than the particles in the first family because the “separation”, with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension of the three-dimensional space manifold associated with them is greater than the “separation” associated with the first family.

Similarly, the corresponding particles in the third family will have a greater mass than those in the second family because the “separation”, with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension, of the three-dimensional space manifold associated with them is greater than the spatial “separation” associated with the second family.

Additionally the corresponding particle types across the three families have “identical properties” because as shown in the article “The geometry of quarks” Mar. 15, 2009 they are related to the orientation of the “W” axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension with the axis of three-dimensional space.  Therefore, each corresponding particle across the three families will have similar properties because the orientation of the “W” axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension with respect to the axis of three-dimensional space is the same for the corresponding particles in all of the families.

This explains why “The corresponding particle types across the three families having identical properties except for their mass, which grows larger in each successive family” in terms of the properties of classical resonance and the existence of four *spatial* dimensions.

However it also allows one to derive the absolute properties of mass associated with Newton’s first and second laws of motion because as was shown in the article “The Equivalence Principal: an alternative to space-time” July 15, 2008 all accelerations or forces (including gravitational) can be derive in terms of a curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

(This curvature is analogous to the curvature in space-time Einstein assumed was responsible for gravitational forces.)

Newton’s first law of motion which defines the inertial properties of the mass of an object or particle states that “Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it”

However this is what one would expect if one assumes, as mentioned earlier the momentum of an object is caused by a displacement of a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension because according those concepts it would tent to stay rest or once in motion would tend to stay in motion because its displacement would remain constant unless it interacted with an external force or as was shown in the article “The Equivalence Principal: an alternative to space-time” a three dimensional “surface” that was curved with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However it also allows on to understand the causality of Newton’s second law which defines the relationship between an object’s mass “m”, its acceleration “a”, and why the change in velocity of an object or particle is define by the equation is F = ma because as mentioned earlier, the rest mass of an object is directly proportional to a displacement a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.  Therefore, as was shown in the article “Defining energy” there will be a 1 to 1 correspondence between it and the curvature in space associated with the energy required to make a unit change in its displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  Therefore the inertia of an object or its resistance to change in velocity would be directly related to its mass. 

In other words using Einstein’s field equations to redefine his space-time universe in terms of four *spatial* dimension allows one to not only understand and derive the causality of the relativistic properties of mass but also the absolute properties associated with its inertia without the need of assuming the existence of the Higgs Boson.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

Please follow and like us:

0.9k

1.1k

788

404

1k