time can still be measured it's just not measured by physical change, it's measured by numbers. — Metaphysician Undercover
Inertia and gravity are supposed to be properties of all material things. So are you suggesting that there are "bits" of reality which are immaterial, and this is why the theories of gravitation are incompatible with the theories of inertia? Or do you think that there are inconsistencies in our conceptions of space and time, as BC implied in the op? — Metaphysician Undercover
Neither, rather that inertia is one of the 'bits' we didn't used to know and now know with some degree of confidence through experimental verification. — Kenosha Kid
Talking with someone who insists we know with confidence what inertia is, it is what is produced by the Higgs field, makes boring conversation, in my opinion — Metaphysician Undercover
And yet your entire objection was that inertia is not accepted as what you insist it is, namely an inherent property of the body in question. And while you may find science boring, I assure you that more people are bored by ignorant recourse to scientific ideas to promote anti-scientific hogwash. So if you expect me to be moved by your intolerance toward facts, you're doubly deluded. — Kenosha Kid
Try this KK. The "strong interaction" (gluons) is responsible for the mass of protons and neutrons, and it acts from within the nucleus of the atom, not externally to it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Quarks only make up a very tiny portion of this mass, so in this context of providing mass and inertia, it is incorrect to say that a hadron, as massive, is comprised of quarks. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your claim that inertia comes from "the outside" is completely unsupported, and contradictory to what is known by physicists. . — Metaphysician Undercover
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8grN3zP8cgQuarks only make up a very tiny portion of this mass — Metaphysician Undercover
Which ought to give you a clue, since gluons are massless. Therefore what you call the intrinsic inertia of the massive particles in a hadron -- the rest masses of the quarks -- cannot actually account for the hadron's inertia. — Kenosha Kid
Quarks couple to the Higgs field: the higher the energy of the quark, the greater the strength of the interaction. You cannot have a bare quark, but if you could it would be extremely light compared to one in a hadron. — Kenosha Kid
Same goes for the strong interaction except that, instead of lowering the energy of each, the interaction increases it. This increases the strength of the interaction with the Higgs field and thus the inertial mass. — Kenosha Kid
Exactly, neither quarks nor gluons have substantial mass in relation to hadrons. That's why your claim to know that inertia comes from an external source, is an absurdity. — Metaphysician Undercover
Neither the quark not the gluon brings the mass to the object, as an independent, external source of the mass, rather the mass is a product of the interaction internal to the hadron. — Metaphysician Undercover
Only a very small portion of the mass of a hadron comes from the quarks, less than one percent. So if this is the "bit" you're talking about, I'd say it's an insignificant bit, and really quite irrelevant to the inertia of the object. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your claim that the electroweak interaction of the Higgs field is responsible for the strong interaction of the gluons, is absurd. — Metaphysician Undercover
Notice that the force required for the mass of the hadron, and its inertia, is provided by the gluons, not the quarks (which you relate to the Higgs). — Metaphysician Undercover
To acknowledge on the one hand that the mass of the hadron cannot be due to the intrinsic masses of the quarks or gluons but still maintain that all inertial masses are intrinsic properties of the massive particles themselves is not even trying. — Kenosha Kid
Gluons add energy, not mass, to the system of quarks, which increases the coupling strength of the quarks with the Higgs field, which in turn increases its mass. — Kenosha Kid
There is no mechanism by which gluons can add mass directly. — Kenosha Kid
The mass is intrinsic to the hadron. — Metaphysician Undercover
Furthermore, the energy which accounts for the mass of the hadron is represented as gluons. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ah, now your starting to catch on. — Metaphysician Undercover
You know that energy is equivalent to mass — Metaphysician Undercover
But try to tell a physicist that this principle is really a deep misunderstanding! — Metaphysician Undercover
I'd say that this is very clear evidence that being empirically validated as useful does not constitute being truthful. — Metaphysician Undercover
The hadron is a system. You would say the mass of a bowl of fruit is intrinsic to the bowl of fruit: it is derived from the masses of its constituents. — Kenosha Kid
No, if you're speaking of quarks and gluons, you speak of the standard model in which mass is conferred by interaction with the external Higgs field. This interaction is, in terms of energy-mass equivalence, more fundamental, since rest masses are not theoretically added by hand as they are in SR. (In other respects, SR is more fundamental than QFT.) — Kenosha Kid
A fact that few take into account because few know it: there are more mentally ill people among celebrated scientists than in the general population — bcccampello
because we know that time passes when no physical change occurs. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do we know that time passes when nothing happens? How do we know that time passes when things happen? — god must be atheist
If we accept that time passes when nothing happens, then we can equally claim that time never passes, — god must be atheist
There is a shortest period of time,Planck time, during which something can happen. So there is a state at t1, then a state at t2, and nothing can happen between t1 and t2 because it is too short of a period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is a shortest period of time, Planck time, during which something can happen. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I've already explained to you, the mass of all the quarks of a hadron is very, very small, insignificant in relation to the mass of a hadron. Will you acknowledge this fact, or will you continue to play dumb? — Metaphysician Undercover
It is wrong to attribute inertia to the field rather than to the particle. And, the Standard Model indicates that the causal relationship between the field and the particle is unknown. So it is more ridiculous to claim that the particle's inertia comes from outside the particle (what is known to be wrong), than it is to claim that it comes from the will of God (what may or may not be wrong). — Metaphysician Undercover
The main purpose of his studies was to found a new Christianity without the Trinity - a kind of "absolute unity" in the Islamic style. Failed. — bcccampello
You now seem to accept that the mass of the quark comes from its interaction with an external field, which is a retraction the above. — Kenosha Kid
If you now consider it uncontroversial that quarks and leptons individually get their inertia from interaction with the Higgs field, that's good enough to lay your original argument to rest. — Kenosha Kid
If you specifically want to how gluons contribute to the hadron mass, either refer to my description of atomic binding energy for the gist or begin a thread on it; we should not derail bcccampello further. — Kenosha Kid
And not merely be non-measurable? — jgill
I don't know whether it's controversial or not, but I agree that this is the case within The Model. But as I've indicated, I consider this mass to be insignificant, and I don't agree with The Model. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.