The heavy particles of the atom are protons and neutrons and since I am made of atoms, then when I weigh myself, almost all of it is the mass of protons and neutrons.
But protons and neutrons are made of quarks and most of their mass (90%) is in the mass/energy interaction that holds them together.
So am I wrong when I tell people that 90% of me is flowing between existence and non existence?
e = mc2
The answer lies within.
I don’t see how this follows. Of course you exist. Mass exists, energy exists. What part of you is nonexistent?
You might find the following useful.
Dumb it down a bit for me and let me ask a few more questions.
Most of the mass of my body is in a constant flip between mass and energy states. Is this correct?
What is the other 10% doing?
All of your mass is energy.
All your energy is mass.
If you rephrase the question as “is most of my mass really energy that can not be allocated to the rest mass of various constituent particles”, then also yes. The rest mass of quarks contributes very little to the mass of a proton of neutron (which is why protons and neutrons have such similar masses – the masses of the quarks don’t really matter that much, but colour-force-wise they’re pretty much identical systems).
What we think of as matter is just a bunch of force fields interacting with each other.
I believe quarks are confined by the strong nuclear force into protons and neutrons (hadrons).
Certainly your protons are not phasing back and forth between energy and mass… or nuclear energy would be a completely different ball game.
So it’s one of those deals where the whole is different from the parts… in a significant way.
There are no “mass” and “energy” states. Energy has inertia. Energy has gravity. All of the properties you associate with mass are really properties of energy.
A proton is just a way of holding a bit of energy in one place.
Alright, its all energy and its all mass and the two cannot be distinguished from one another. E=mc^2 and all that.
So what is it about this 90% of the mass of quarks is the energy of the forces holding it together and the other 10% is just mass. Did I get this wrong?
That’s a long one. I’ve book marked it for later reading. Thanks.
Not really so long. I just took a quick glance. It’s about 10 screen-pages of article, followed by a vastly lengthier parade of user comments. I’m going to read it too.
ETA: BTW: Poke around Matt Strassler’s other pages on that site too. He’s got a LOT of stuff on particle physics, quantum physics, and stuff like that. From what I’ve read of his other pages, it’s rather cleanly and clearly written for us non-physics majors.
Basically, the mass/energy of any bound system of particles, from protons to solar systems comes from three sources:
[ol]
[li]The rest mass/energy of the constituent particles.[/li][li]The kinetic energy of the constituent particles.[/li][li]The binding energy of the system.[/li][/ol]
For most systems we have experience in the first component dominates by far, so it is fair approximation to say that the mass is just the sum of the masses of the constituent particles. The mass of the solar system is very close to the sum of the masses of the objects in it. The mass of a planet is very close to the sum of the masses of the rocks it’s made of. The mass of a hydrogen-1 atom is very close to the sum of the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron.
For atomic nuclei, considered as being composed of protons and neutrons, the first component still dominates, but enough of the mass/energy is in the other two that we can extract it by breaking big nuclei apart of smushing small nuclei together to make a state comprising the same particles but with a different total binding energy.
For protons and neutrons, considered as being composed of quarks, the first component is barely even significant (and 10% is an overestimate). It’s nearly all the latter two.