Message-Id: <l03102800b05b260d6637@[153.90.236.25]>
In-Reply-To: <v01540b00b05a964522c0@[12.64.1.23]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:14:22 -0700
To: pinhole@exploratorium.edu
From: Steven Eiger <eiger@montana.edu>
Subject: Re: Matter in a vacuum
Karen, You wrote:
>Energy is mass. Or easier to understand, energy can become mass
>(matter/antimatter pair production) or mass can become energy (pair
>annihilation). There are other examples, for example, most of the "mass" of
>the proton is not the "mass" of the quarks, but the "energy" stored in
>keeping them together.
>
I am unclear as to why energy becoming mass is easier to understand. I had
heard about the mass of the proton being mostly a result of the binding
energy; but what throws me is why is there a distinction then made about
the quarks, that they have mass that is different?, that is not due to
energy. This implies that there are two sorts of mass which seems
imcredibly messy.
It is strange to me when both mass and energy are purported to have the
same characteristics yet we speak about them being converted from one to
another. Sounds like "Look here, I have some blue, it is just like this
other blue; now I will convert blue to blue for you."
Could it be that energy can shift between color, electromagnetic and Higgs
fields (perhaps in restricted ways), and that energy in all fields
interacts in ways we interpret as having mass? If that statement were
true, then things might make sense to me. Except for gravitational fields;
they would then be special, a form of interaction between energy,
independent of the field it resided in; and also the type of field which
would not hold energy itself. Perhaps gravity could be a common,exposed
trait of all interactions.
I have to go, which leaves me feeling uneasy about sending some potentially
embarassing out to the world, but I will, Thanks for your help, eiger