Raw Thoughts on Mass (updated)
Published on 21 Dec 2007 at 2:18 am.
1 Comment.
Filed under Philosophy, Physics, Probability, Research.
What good is a cortex if it doesn’t dream a little?
I have been thinking about Ariel Caticha and Carlo Cafaro’s derivation of Newton’s Second Law from probability theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1071). In this derivation, they assume three things:
- There exist basic entities called particles
- There is an intrinsic uncertainty about a particle’s position
- There is change… not time necessarily, but change.
The first thing I like about this derivation is the fact that distance in space derives from distances between probability distributions describing particles at two positions. Distance comes from the Kullback-Leibler Divergence, and leads directly to the Pythagorean Theorem. More on that in another post…
The derivation results in an expression describing an interaction between two particles and this results in changes in position which, when parameterized, leads to F = ma.
The mass turns out to be related to the uncertainty in the position of the particle. The more uncertain one is about a particle’s position, the more difficult it is to accelerate it (change its change in position).
uncertainty in position^2 = 1/mass
This is quite satisfying as it is reminiscent of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
But what implications does this picture hold?
First, it gives us another viewpoint of mass. Multiple equivalent viewpoints always leads to constraints. These constraints can be used to figure out how things work… or at the very least to rule out possibilities.
(see my earlier post on E8 to get another picture of mass)
Well, photons have no mass.
So there is infinite uncertainty associated with the position of a photon. In fact, I am not sure photons “travel”. I prefer to imagine that they just “are”. One way to imagine photons might be to see them as lines connecting two particles in spacetime. The photon is spread out across space.
So now comes the important question. Given this probabilistic picture, what can we learn about mass? Do we need a Higg’s boson? I would think not. Except, today I spoke with Ariel, and the way that the Higgs imbues mass is by having the particles scatter off of it. The more the particles scatter, the less certain we are of their position… and the more mass the particle has. Maybe this is where the Zitterbewegung originates. And maybe the Higgs boson is just a reflection of an intrinsic uncertainty.
Instead, I imagine that as these ideas are refined to describe more than Newtonian mechanics, and include spin, charge and flavor, a relationship between the particles and their masses would emerge naturally.
Again, these are raw thoughts… not even half-baked… and should be treated as such. My grandma always said that eating raw dough will give you worms.
Just think what thinking raw thoughts might do!!!
Kevin Knuth
Albany NY
Jonathan on 29 Feb 2008 at 3:23 pm: 1
Very Interesting. I have wondered something similar, along the lines of whether energy can be derived from more fundamental probabilistic notions. Or whether physics could be constructed where all point particles have the same mass. I am infact filled with have baked physics ideas. Way outside my abilities.
Great quote from the article:
“‘the laws of physics are not laws of nature but rules of inference’. Seems outrageous but deserves serious attention.”