Mass is just one of the invariants of the Poincaré group (the other being the spin). The Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism describes how the W and Z bosons-and the Higgs boson itself-and the leptons acquire their mass and how the quarks acquire a small part of their mass. It doesn't imply anything about the hierarchy of masses and is consistent whatever the hierarchy is.

The equivalence principle-that gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass-is a part of general, not special, relativity and is a consequence of the property thzt the only way matter can couple to gravity, if the spacetime geometry is described only by the metric, is through the energy-momentum tensor and not through the matter fields themselves. This is a consequence of invariance under diffeomorphisms. If other fields can contribute to detrrmining the spacetime geometry-as occurs in scalar-tensor theories and supergravity-then the additional fields can couple in a way consistent with invariance under diffeomorphisms with the matter fields and this will lead to violations of the equivalence principle-that, thus far, haven't been observed.

The statrment that the Higgs field couples only to bosons is incorrect: The Higgs field couples to bosons-the W and Z bosons and the Higgs itself-and to fermions, the leptons and the quarks. Its couplings are determined by global Lorentz invariance and the gauge symmetry of the electroweak interactions.

The origin of the concept of mass is put in its historical context in this recently published paper:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol20-issue7/2007532572.pdf

See: http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0034v2.pdf

Nainan

The answer to “【NO.45】 What is Mass? Must the Hierarchy of Mass be Determined Simultaneously by the Origin of Mass?” is given in SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect/1, page 1, August 2:

…..So here we have the answer to the preface point “origin of mass”. Really this problem again is completely transcendent in the mainstream [philosophy and physics], so can be, and is, principally solved only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

:

- because of the self-inconsistence of the absolutely fundamental [“Logos” element in the conception] “Change”, any changes of anything, including, of course, creation of anything, are logically prohibited. To overcome this prohibition it is necessary to pay by two points: (i) – to spend some portion of again transcendent in the mainstream absolutely fundamental [“Logos” element] Quantity “Energy/momentum”; but that isn’t enough, and so (ii) – on some level of changing the state of the changing something is uncertain – “illogical”, and observable changed states are discrete; in Matter that is QM-level.

This logical resistance to changes is again absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Inertia”; Matter is a simple logical system that is based on a set of completely universal laws/links/constants, and so Inertia at changes, including creations, can be measured, in physics that is “inertial mass”, which at small speeds is the Newton’s “measure of inertia”.

Thus really there is no any specific “origin of mass” question. For appearance of some “mass” it is only enough to spend some energy, and for this there is no any necessity to have some specific “fields”, etc.; and so now a rather large zoo of particles-algorithms – and masses – are created at high energy experiments...

So more about what, why, and how that is in the SS quote above, see at least the first two SS posts in the linked thread page 1, though, of course, to read other SS posts in the thread it is useful as well; here only a note to what in in this thread preface

“….. the Equivalence Principle in GR need not be regarded as a specific condition. …”

- the equivalence principle of gravitational and inertial masses was discovered by Galileo and introduced by Newton in his Gravity law. In the principle two fundamentally specific, gravitational and inertial, masses are equivalent, despite that characterize fundamentally different properties of material objects;

- inertial mass relates to the absolutely universal fundamental phenomenon “Inertia”, while “gravitational mass” is the charge of concrete specific fundamental Nature Gravity force.

Why and how these fundamentally different “masses” are, nonetheless, really equivalent, see SS&VT 2007 Planck scale informational physical model of Gravity [and Electric Force, though] in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

Besides note that the Equivalence Principle in GR differs from the Galileo-Newtonian one in that it postulate equivalence of acceleration and gravitational field [“strong EP”], what really fundamentally isn’t adequate to the reality.

The post is rather long already, so now,

Cheers

Mass may be kinetic energy.

Since in the preface in the thread question “【NO.45】 What is Mass? Must the Hierarchy of Mass be Determined Simultaneously by the Origin of Mass?” most of listed sub-questions relate essentially to the Standard Model answer to “what is mass”, including what is “mechanism” of mass creation, the thread question is rather essentially answered in the SS post above – inertial mass is some actualization of fundamental resistance to all changes, including to creation – “Inertia”, of any informational pattern/system, including the patterns/systems “material objects”,

- and so for that at creation of a material object, including particles, which experimentally are observed as that have some inertia – and so of “inertial masses”, really fundamentally there is no any necessity in some specific “mechanisms”: say, at creation of a particle – what happens only at interactions of other particles – at interactions some fundamentally necessary quantity “Energy” is spent, at that the created particle absolutely fundamentally obligatorily simultaneously “obtains” its inertial mass,

- which again simultaneously, etc., directly rigorously corresponds to the spent energy; and if a particle interacts with other particle, its state changes, for the change again some energy is spent, etc. – at that the more inertia of a “creating” particle – the more energy it has, what create some illusions, say, that

“…Mass may be kinetic energy. …..”

Including so the “mechanisms” in SM looks as rather strange, and so in the preface quite rational in this case sub-questions are, which can be generally commented here as that the Hierarchy of Mass in Matter fundamentally isn’t Determined Simultaneously by the Origin of Mass for at least couple of principal reasons:

- about what is Origin of inertial Mass see above; while

- Hierarchy of Mass fundamentally has no relation to Origin of inertial Mass, and really to anything that is specific in Matter else, though.

Hierarchy of Mass is determined completely only by Matter’s design, first of all to make Matter is as it is, i.e. basing, first of all on the stable [including neutrons in nuclei] particles. At that [more SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect/1, page 1, 3, 4 and links in the posts] Matter’s ultimate base is Matter’s “aether”– the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE],

- which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

So everything in Matter, including particles, is/are only some specific disturbances in the lattice, any disturbance completely knows all laws/links/constants that govern everything in Matter, which [all laws/links/constants] are written in every lattice’s FLE,

- and the disturbances are created at impacts on the FLEs with transmission to FLEs some momentums.

At that it looks as rather rational to assume that really only stable disturbances/stable particles above are really determined by the design, while impacts on FLE by huge energies result also in creations of rather numerous zoo of other particles, algorithms [see the links above] of which are rather arbitrary – and are “outside the design” [say, heavy leptons are truncated electron algorithm versions], so have some defects, and the particles decay.

More see links here, SS post above and links in the post

Cheers

Mass Increase with Strong and Gravitational Potentials, and Mass Defect with Electromagnetic Potential

Full Article:

Article Mass Increase with Strong and Gravitational Potentials, and ...

Mass Increase with Strong and Gravitational Potentials, and Mass Defect with Electromagnetic Potential

Full Article:

Article Mass Increase with Strong and Gravitational Potentials, and ...

The thread question is rigorously scientifically answered in two SS posts on page 1.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

There are at least 6 interpretations for the origin of mass here, and your opinion is one of them. You have always believed that your papers are rigorously argued and completely correct, whereas other papers are not. So, are you able to effectively refute other people's views, or prove that they are equivalent to yours?

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear @Enrico P. G. Cadeddu

You commented in the literature [1], “But it's even more incredible that the neutrino rest mass coincide (1,6x10-37 Kg) with the value given, in a different way, in my preprint”[2]. I was very interested in this because of the discovery that there are aspects of physics, such as the fundamental physical constants[3]（and perhaps mass. Sergey Shevchenko @Hany Ali Hussein ）, where the same results can be obtained by different routes. This does not seem to be a coincidence, but a natural consequence. It all seems to indicate the existence of a common goal in physics.

For the neutrino mass you mentioned, have you compared and analysed it in detail?

Best Regards, Chian Fan

-----------------------------------------------

[1] Safonova, N. (2023). On the question of the radius of elementary particles. E3S Web of Conferences, 389, 01059. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338901059

[2] Preprint Theoretical mass value of electron, neutrino and other parti...

[3] e.g. the papers of Stergios Pellis and Christian G. Wolf

Enrico P. G. Cadeddu

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Dear Enrico P. G. Cadeddu

I apologise for confusing the name and the paper link. It's been corrected over.

I'd really like to see everyone's different scenarios eventually come together consistently. What is the probability that everyone has the same outcome, but the wrong idea? So it's more likely that everyone started from different locations on a distributed chain of causality and came to the same spot.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan,

“…Dear Sergey Shevchenko

There are at least 6 interpretations for the origin of mass here, and your opinion is one of them. You have always believed that your papers are rigorously argued and completely correct, whereas other papers are not. …..”

- yeah, that is mostly so, but not completely. First of all I comment practically only mainstream physics and posts of professional physicists, and in such cases it is quite clear – what is in a commented point, and what is in this point really, an example see in last SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_origin_of_Lorentz_transforms/39, page 39 – and SS posts in your “【NO.45】” series, though;

At that I don’t comment rather, if too on the RG, numerous “alternative approaches”, the authors of which aren’t educated enough physicists, quite frankly believe that their approaches are for sure correct; and, at that, tell about their approaches rather, if too, vividly in the RG discussion without any substantial comments

– on what primary assumptions the approaches are based,

- and how from the assumption the approaches results follow,

- while professional scientists as a rule write really scientifically substantiated , and so mostly no more one post/day in a thread, posts.

Besides commenting of alternative approaches mostly is senseless, and even is wrong

– the authors simply don’t understand what is written in scientific comments; and after a such comment in a few minutes write next posts - writing some by no means really scientifically grounded, and so really senseless, posts is rather easy job;

- etc.. while commenting of these posts only more than doubles the spam.

Cheers

The thread question is rigorously scientifically answered in two SS posts on page 1; and, since the addressed to me post above isn’t about some alternative approach [see SS post on page 2] but relates to some really principal point, so a comment to it:

Dear Enrico P. G. Cadeddu

- from this

“… Can a man that says "now work in physics, consciousness problem philosophy" be considered a physicist?….”

- it looks as that you didn’t read [or read, but didn’t understand the content] of the SS posts on page 1, where it is pointed that the answer to【NO.45】question What is Mass? Must the Hierarchy of Mass be Determined Simultaneously by the Origin of Mass?” is given in SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect/1, page 1:

- where, including, in the first SS August 1 post it is pointed that

“…[if any] questions are really fundamental ones, and since in the mainstream really the fundamental phenomena/notions first of all in this case , “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something.…..”

Though to the fundamental phenomena/notions list above it is necessary to add the fundamental phenomenon/notions “Consciousness” also, what is important in physics, and is absentee in the quote only since it is important in other than the 【NO.44】question physical problems. Say, in physics till now the “observer –measurement in QM” problem was/is widely discussed; in mainstream physics the problem “what is Life” is a standard fundamental problem, etc., more see, say, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics , Appendix.

But – as the “what is Life” problem is scientifically clarified in the link above – if quite briefly, that isn’t a physical problem at all because of Consciousness is fundamentally non-material informational system, while physics study Matter, and so any physical theories fundamentally aren’t applicable at description and analysis of Life, and that isn’t essential in concrete 【NO.44】 thread discussion.

However yet in late 1800s the fact that the other fundamental phenomena/notions above were – and are in the mainstream physics – fundamentally transcendent, etc., resulted, and results till now, in that on really fundamental level - which reveals itself in postulates of physical theories - the postulates in most cases are some transcendent statements, which are formulated basing on fundamentally transcendent illusory interpretations of experimental data.

The scientific definitions of the fundamental phenomena/notions above are more 2000 years subjects for study of concrete science “philosophy”, however, again, the mainstream philosophy fundamentally has no any really scientific results in this case.

The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really scientifically defined only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- which was developed by physicists, who understand the fundamental necessity of these definitions in physics; what, at that, correspondingly transforms the philosophy from some scientifically senseless sets of senseless transcendent mental constructions into real science,

- and, moreover, the fundamental phenomena/notions above now aren’t philosophical subjects for study, that are Meta-subjects of real physics.

Correspondingly, in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model more 30 really fundamental physical problems are either solved or essentially clarified; including the problems “What is Mass” – see SS posts in this thread, and “What is Charge” – see 【NO.44】thread.

Cheers

There is a hierarchy in the masses of particles. It follow a logharitmic curve.

My link:

Preprint On the unification of the quantum mechanics and the theory o...

Can mass have multiple origins?

“The Higgs does seem to be the source of the mass of elementary particles, e.g., the electron; but it is responsible for < 2% of the mass of more complex things, like the proton. The mass of the vast bulk of visible material in the Universe has a different source.”[1] “the Higgs boson is almost irrelevant to the origin of the proton mass. ”[2]

Mass is an important particle property. If mass has surprisingly multiple origins, how do we explain their relationship? Do they produce the same results by similar mechanisms, or completely different ones? Do they all rely on external fields? Is the mass-energy equation, m=E/c^2, a clue to determining the uniform origin of mass? Can a mechanism that does not provide energy provide mass?

Does mass obey the superposition principle? Is it a scalar superposition or a vector superposition? Is it a linear or nonlinear superposition? Let us consider a process in which u, d quarks combine to form a proton p. In the early stages of the evolution of the universe, nothing else in particular existed. u and d automatically combine to form p in such a scenario, like a pair of lovers meeting to form a family. The family is a more stable structure, and the ‘quality’ of life of the family (In Chinese, quality and mass are one word, 质量) has increased. The increased ‘quality’ does not come from outside, but from the union itself.

---------------------

[1] Roberts, C. D. (2023). Origin of the proton mass. EPJ Web of Conferences.

[2] Gao, H., Liu, T., Peng, C., Ye, Z., & Zhao, Z. (2015). Proton remains puzzling. The Universe, 3(2).

The thread question is answered in SS posts on page 1, more see the posts and links in the posts; if quite briefly – since the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Change” is logically self-inconsistent, so every change, including, of course, every creation of anything, is logically prohibited, so to overcome this prohibition it is necessary to spend some portion of the indeed till now really mysterious, even in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, phenomenon/notion/absolutely fundamental “Logos” element / Quantity “Energy”.

Nobody knows till now what “Energy” is, however from existent experimental data it is rather clear how Energy is actualized/acts in the simple informational system “Matter”, which exists and evolves basing on rather simple binary reversible logics, be governing by a few fundamental and universallaws/links/constants; so physics, discovering these links/laws /constants, is able in many cases rather adequately to the objective reality describe and analyze what exists and happens in Matter.

That is another thing, that because of in the mainstream physics really not only “Energy”, but all other fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information” – and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., also are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational; so, say, in the mainstream the questions “what is “mass”” – and so moreover “what is origin of mass”,

[ which really have quite so clear answers in the conception above and more concretely in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model that is based on the conception, in this case it is enough to read one paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics :

- really there is no some abstract/arbitrary “mass”, really in this case, as that yet Newton postulated, only “inertial mass” exists,

- which is the actualization in Matter of the so absolute fundamental phenomenon "Inertia", which absolutely objectively exists at changes as the logical resistance to changes above],

- are rather strangely “answered” as some “mass” is caused by some “Higgs mechanism”, while indeed even in mainstream that looks as rather questionable, so, say, that:

“…The Higgs does seem to be the source of the mass of elementary particles, e.g., the electron; but it is responsible for < 2% of the mass of more complex things, like the proton. The mass of the vast bulk of visible material in the Universe has a different source.” ….”

- is in most points correct, besides the fundamental fault – again, the mass of everything in Matter/matter has only one universal source – the fundamentally universal in Matter energy, and so the answer to

“…Is the mass-energy equation, m=E/c^2, a clue to determining the uniform origin of mass? …”

- is “Yes”, though that would be “a clue” only is it is known what is “origin of “c”?” – the answer to last question see 2-nd link above.

SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO47What_is_Force_a_Field_Where_is_the_Force_Field_How_does_it_appear_Is_the_Force_Field_a_Regulating_Effect_of_the_Energy-Momentum_Field/2] are relevant to this thread question. The post is rather long, so now

Cheers

Chian Fan : The origin of mass has been found by Poincaré in 1896 with the universal EM force field coupling relation of dm =E/c2.

The Einstein version (E=mc2) is plain wrong and not a basic physical relation as you can not directly ( field like) transform hadronic mass (like 4He) to (field) energy. So the Einstein version is just an equivalence relation.

The use of the Einstein relation in any field physics only shows the lack of basic physics knowledge of most theorists.

The Higgs idea is known from fairy tales like Münchhausen...the true corner where today's standard model (SM) physics belongs to.

Some hints how you can get the true mass structure you can find in SOP.

The SOP formula for the (CERN 125.95 GeV) exact fake Higgs particle mass is very simple and from first principle. Absolute no need for SM dreamer field only physics.

Dear Jürg Wyttenbach

Thank you for providing a valuable perspective. But I'm sorry to say that I have a different view.

The mass-energy equations of others, such as Poincaré, are exact derivations, and Einstein's mass-energy equations have approximation terms in the derivation. But I don't think that affects their nature. What we seek should not be who is right and who is wrong, but why they got the same result from different starting points. I have found this to be the case in several places in physics. For example, the way physical constants are obtained, see the papers by Christian G. Wolf and Stergios Pellis. There are certain mathematical and physical relationship issues hidden here.

The Higgs mechanism, which explains the mass of elementary particles by introducing an external field, has also been doubted by physicists. But its reasoning is not entirely wrong. My discovery is that as soon as it can be confirmed that the Higgs potential shape is the shape of the potential field that the particle itself has, the mass becomes a property that the particle itself carries. We can divide electrons into internal and external. The potential field of the electron is its measurable external part, and the internal part is symmetrical to its external part. This becomes what the Higgs potential field looks like. In particular, the Goldstone massless boson has been interpreted in the Higgs mechanism with an extremely reasonable response.

Best Regards, Chian

If we transform Einstein equation for a new equation as a classical equation-the Einstein equation itself- plus a quantum equation which reveal the interaction of the single point with vacuum as a full medium with negative pressure (there is no friction) than introducing this formulae in Klein-Gorden equation we obtain all the fields which can create this single point: It depends only at what scale we see this point.

At high scale this point has three spatial dimensions and a time dimension which is also can be considered as a spatial dimension directed by the vector i whoch have a square equal to -1.

At very low scale this point has only one spatial dimension and three time dimensions which also can considered as three spatial dimensions directed by three unitary vectors i, j, k as there squares are equal to -1 and also ijk=-1.

At medium scale this point has two spatial dimensions and two time dimensions and so on.

To balance from the high scale to the very low scale we should pas by the medium scale which also can be called Compton scale.

Compton scale is the border between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. In this border appear the electric charge as an universal constant. In fact the electric charge hide another universal constant which is the mean energy of a Planck oscillator at T=zero Kelvin.

For more lecture please see the following reference which I had obtain it by generating my first paper by AI:

Subhajit Waugh. "Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are fully compatible, and have a common origin: the expanding (hyper) balloon universe.". figshare, 2022, https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Quantum_Mechanics_and_General_Relativity_are_fully_compatible_and_have_a_common_origin_the_expanding_hyper_balloon_universe_/20278734/4

Alaya Kouki

That's so interesting... the era of writing professional papers with AI has begun?

Looking forward to AI's real findings.

Chian Fan

You can try it Chian it can response to your question[NO.45] & you will get more answers .

The link of my profeesional paper genrated by AI:

https://samwell.ai/essay/9aaf6d006827d0

Dear Chian Fan : The potential field of the electron is its measurable external part, and the internal part is symmetrical to its external part. This becomes what the Higgs potential field looks like.

The first part simply is wrong. The basic error made by theorist (missing knowledge of real data) is assuming that the E field of an electron behaves 1/r potential and 1/r2 force like. We can show (by rigorous 3D integrals) that forces match much better than potentials for finite masses. As the electron cannot be a point symmetric particle (due to magnetic moment!) its real topology (higher order torus) produces, what we classically call divergence forces that change the total potential in the near field.

This is a measured fact!

I doubt that the simplistic Higgs field can handle non point field sources and local divergence.

All mass simply is EM mass what means a fix number of field lines (some try it with strings..) induces a structure called (topological/virtual) charge that bends (holds together) the field lines. This is also what we can consistently model in SOP.

Important is one remark of Alaya Kouki that below De Broglie radius physical space changes. There is also no explicit time inside particle space as it degenerates to a frequency/wave number. So any model that uses continuous time for static mass explanation is a logic fail.

Time is only needed for interaction.

So the logic error of Higgs is trivial. Explaining mass does not mean explain its external action. One must explain the internal structure of mass.

E.g. in SOP we can exactly show which internal mass part of 6Li produces the gamma lines - of course with exact energy!

Last remark: I agree that different model/approaches can give the same result. In SOP we talk of projections (=models). If you come from homogeneous 6D space you have 3 degrees of model freedom for a 3D spatial explanation.

Mass is a lump and possesses momentum, even an elementary particle.

The thread question rather in detail is scientifically clarified in SS posts series on pages 1,2, 3.

Cheers

I would like to continue my analysis about mass:

Space-time is in fact a four dimensional space and all those dimensions are spatial. We see only three spatial dimensions the fourth dimension is imaginary as modeled by maths as ict or it is physically real and we have not access to it: it is a replied dimension. To access to this dimension we should use energy perhaps a lot of energy that the apparatus to generate this energy is bigger than the dimensions (LxlxH) of the laboratory (see articles of Nima Arkani Hamed).

Let's remain in the four dimensions.

To get the radiation law of a black body Planck had modeled the cavity of the black body as composed of many oscillators with charge Q and mass L , stiffness K everyone and they absorb and emit EM radiation in a chaotics manner but in the end of his "Theory of Heat Radiation" he put the condition that its oscillators should get enought time to absorb radiation explained in the relationship frequency of the oscillator times time should be a big integer. At this time 1911 Planck don't have any idea about wave-corpuscle duality.

By 2022 Cordoso & De Castro generalize the radiation law for a black body with D-spatial dimensions. If we take D=4 (our Universe) than we obtain the density of energy per unit time and per unit volume. Cordoso & De Castro formulae is like that only half of Planck oscillators radiate energy, the other half are absorbing energy (and it is logic). The power radiated by one oscillator is like equal Planck constant times the square of th frequency of the oscillator.

Let's move for a more crucial step.

Planck oscillators are corpuscles like points which oscillate in space. This classic model signify that Planck oscillators are like pulses. A pulse should not be spread so much over time and so we should put the condition that the frequency of the pulse times time should be little than one (in order to consider the Planck oscillator as pulse).

Taking now the Planck condition and the pulse condition we should choose time as in our everyday life as frequency of the oscillator times time equal approximatively in absolute manner one: this the fundamental stone for our conception of mass. Let's see it:

We know by definition that the power is equal to the force (acting on the corpuscle) times the speed (of the corpuscle which is supposed colinear with the direction of the force): from this equation you can get the fundamental law of dynamics (Newton law) which can be extended to relativist corpuscles.

In Newton law mass is inertia the difficulty to a body to vary its speed and in Relativist mechanics the mass is an equation of the energy of the corpuscle and the momentum of the corpuscle.

In black body theory the mass is one extra-dimension for a space of four spatial dimensions which can be considered as a replied dimension in a very little radius.

Conclusion: mass is geometry and geometry is mass. GR should be revised for a D-spatial Universe.

Signed: Alaya Kouki 18 October 2024.

Remark: you will never find such a demonstration in any paper or a book.

Alaya Kouki : We see only three spatial dimensions the fourth dimension is imaginary...

There is no reason why just one dimension should be imaginary either you go to C3 (6D) or let it be. But from the model power SO(4) (6D) with quaternions or 8D Octonions are a much better match as mass is given by rotation only fields (as manifolds).

Jürg Wyttenbach

Why we need four spatial dimensional Universe? In fact we see only three spatial dimensions, the forth can't bee seen and so we denote it by ict. Is there any reason for this?.

Let's take vacuum energy as driving galaxies away. If we assume that there is a cutting frequency for Planck oscillators filling all the UNIVERSE than this frequency is approximatively equal to ten power eleven hertz. IF you suppose that Universe is a viscous medium with a negative pressure (there is no friction) than the work of the friction force of an electron oscillating in half a period (oscillating calssically) is exactly equal the quarter of the cutting frequency of the vacuum energy of the Universe. Planck oscillator is moving in one spatial direction so to get the same density of vacuum energy of the Universe you four spatial directions.

This is more perhaps explained is the disparency between Planck model for power density of black body in his theory of heat radiation in 1911 and Cardoso & De Castro 2005 theory of black body radiation Article The Blackbody Radiation in D-Dimensional Universes

Dear Alaya Kouki : Let's take vacuum energy as driving galaxies away.

I'm unlucky to say that your basic understanding of real physics is very poor.

Solar objects simply are driven away due to photon emission that causes a repelling momentum during emission and adsorption. (Boiling pot!)

Randall Mills calculated this for the known universe 2 years before Hubble published his finding. And yes the in advanced calculated Hubble constant based on photon pressure has been confirmed by Hubble...

Of course nobody did like simple explanations especially theorist that did loose one more "odd" field.

Jürg Wyttenbach

If you add a constant lambda to the metric tensor of the field gravitation in GR there is no problem and the equations still be available and true. The only signification of constant lambda is that there is energy in vacuum i.e. spatial extension is energy and energy is spatial extension. This constant act as a repulsive force between a galaxy situated in the border of a sphere without any matter.

Let's continue to speak about mass:

Having the fundamental law of dynamics (Newton law) from quantum mechanics, we can extend it to relativist corpuscles but there is a problem here. This law will be not Lorentz invariant by his transformations of space & time. The only invariant are Energy and momentum and so mass is the square of the a formulae introducing the square of energy and momentum in a flat space-time called Minkovski space-time.

Note that we had obtain Newton law from QM because Planck had considered in his theory of heat radiation classic oscillators. Planck constant is the surface in the phase space of an oscillator which energy increases by a quantum equal to the known Planck formulae. A liitle tricky done in Planck integral of this surface we can deduce that Planck formulae can be expressed in another manner as a power (universal constant) times a proper time of the oscillator.

Quantum time is absolute so the only manner to count the proper time of the oscillator is as absolute. Extending this idea to Relativity ( because Planck formulae works in classical mechanics & in relativist mechanics) we should consider our 3-spatial space as a 4-spatial hyper surface moving from the center of the Universe with the speed c. the caractheristic time of the corpuscle is in fact the amount of energy of the corpuscle and if it changes than the corpuscle is moving with variable speeds in the 3-Dimensional space with a real speed (for us). If the corpuscle is in rest in the 4-spatial hyper surface than this time does not change and the its real speed of the corpuscle is constant in module. If its real speed is constant in module & direction in the 3-dimensional space than we can speak about inertial frames and Lorentz transformations of energy & momentum.

Energy is only defined as universal constant times this time ( the caracteristic time of the corspuscle)

Inertia is defined as Energy on square(c) or universal constant times this time.

momentum is defined inertia times speed or universal constant times this time.

Eeverything is related to time.

If speed of light times this time is less than one than QM appears otherwise GR appears.

I think which I had write just now is the most important in the history of all physics.

All which becomes after will be a generalisation in any frame of motion.

momentum is defined inertia times speed or universal constant times this time: to bo corrected as:

momentum is defined inertia times speed or universal constant times a lenght in the 4th dimension.

In fact there is a trinity:

wave-corpuscle duality

wave-lenght duality

corpuscle-lenght duality

All those dualities are erased if we take Planck constant equal to the new universal constant equal to the speed of light equal to one.

The 4-vector momenetum is equal Planck constant times the 4-vector wave-vector is also equal universal constant times the 4-lenght of the corspuscle (three in space and one in absolute time) euqal the speed of light time 4-vector inertia.

The 4-vector inertia is equal mass of the corpuscle times the 4-vector of the corpuscle (positions in space and in absolute time).

It is very easy to anyone to deduce that every photon has an impact equal an universal constant times the square of its frequency. Many photons ejected at the same time to impact the same area can drill on it a hole: it is like that you have a projectile moving at the speed of light.

In future I think that we will be able to do experiments on space-time itself.

The thread question rather in detail is scientifically clarified in SS posts series on pages 1,2, 3.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

I had read your papers one year ago. I agree with you that everything is good but what is new in your articles ?

Are there any realtionship berween the energy of the corpuscle and the absolute time? (Response: NO).

Can your papers lead us to new experiments ? (Response: NO)

After all why we need your papers ?

Dear Alaya Kouki,

- sorry, but I comment practically only conventional physics, and don’t comment alternative approaches.

Cheers