Terry Blanton wrote:
> > Anyone have a Newscientist subscription to fetch the whole article? > > http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7844&feedId=online-news_rss20 > This was posted on another list. Harry >> 13 August 2005 >> >> From New Scientist Print Edition . >> >> Mark Anderson >> >> Where mass comes from >> >> >> >> WHERE mass comes from is one of the deepest mysteries of nature. >> Now a controversial theory suggests that mass comes from the >> interaction of matter with the quantum vacuum that pervades the >> universe. >> >> >> >> The theory was previously used to explain inertial mass - the >> property of matter that resists acceleration - but it has been >> extended to gravitational mass, which is the property of matter >> that feels the tug of gravity. >> >> >> >> For decades, mainstream opinion has held that something called the >> Higgs field gives matter its mass, mediated by a particle called >> the Higgs boson. But no one has yet seen the Higgs boson, despite >> considerable time and money spent looking for it in particle >> accelerators. >> >> >> >> In the 1990s, Alfonso Rueda of California State University in Long >> Beach and Bernard Haisch, who was then at the California Institute >> for Physics and Astrophysics in Scotts Valley and is now with >> ManyOne Networks, suggested that a very different kind of field >> known as the quantum vacuum might be responsible for mass. This >> field, which is predicted by quantum theory, is the lowest energy >> state of space-time and is made of residual electromagnetic >> vibrations at every point in the universe. It is also called a >> zero-point field and is thought to manifest itself as a sea of >> virtual photons that continually pop into and out of existence. >> >> >> >> Rueda and Haisch argued that charged matter particles such as >> electrons and quarks are unceasingly jiggled around by the zero- >> point field. If they are at rest, or travelling at a constant >> speed with respect to the field, then the net effect of all this >> jiggling is zero: there is no force acting on the particle. But if >> a particle is accelerating, their calculations in 1994 showed that >> it would encounter more photons from the quantum vacuum in front >> than behind it (see Diagram). This would result in a net force >> pushing against the particle, giving rise to its inertial mass >> (Physical Review A, vol 49, p 678). >> >> >> >> But this work only explained one type of mass. Now the researchers >> say that the same process can explain gravitational mass. Imagine >> a massive body that warps the fabric of space-time around it. The >> object would also warp the zero-point field such that a particle >> in its vicinity would encounter more photons on the side away from >> the object than on the nearer side. This would result in a net >> force towards the massive object, so the particle would feel the >> tug of gravity. This would be its gravitational mass, or weight >> (Annalen der Physik, vol 14, p 479). >> >> >> >> Rueda and Haisch say this demonstrates the equivalence of inertial >> and gravitational mass - something that Einstein argued for in his >> theory of general relativity. "In place of having the particle >> accelerate through the zero-point field, you have the zero-point >> field accelerating past the particle," says Haisch. "So the >> generation of weight is the same as the generation of inertial >> mass." >> >> >> >> The idea is far from winning wide acceptance. To begin with, >> there's a conundrum about the zero-point field that needs to be >> solved. The total energy contained in the field is staggeringly >> large - enough to warp space-time and make the universe collapse >> in a heartbeat. Obviously this is not happening. Also, the pair's >> work can only account for the mass of charged particles. >> >> >> >> Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow of Boston University is dismissive. >> "This stuff, as Wolfgang Pauli would say, is not even wrong," he >> says. But physicist Paul Wesson of Stanford University in >> California says Rueda and Haisch's unorthodox approach shows >> promise, though he adds that the theory needs to be backed up by >> experimental evidence. "If Haisch [and Rueda] could come up with a >> concrete prediction, then that would make people sit up and take >> notice," he says. "We're all looking for something we can >> measure." >>
