A proton isn’t defined by it’s mass, its defined by its charge. The mass of a proton in different elements is quite a bit, speaking in micro terms. Consider the binding energy curve, the hydrogen bomb, or our sun. Both the hydrogen bomb, and the sun release great amounts of nuclear energy, by slamming hydrogen protons into one another until they fuse creating heluim which has a smaller proton then hydrogen, this access energy is released, the sun shines, and nuclear bombs explode and vaporize everything in their path.
Of course if you were say “God”, and could mess with nature everything would change though. If you decreased the hydrogen proton, then our sun would burn its nuclear fuel quicker or not at all… hmm in fact after replying I don’t really understand the relevance of this post?? yeah if we could change physics everything would be messed up… uhmm… maybe you can clarify for me what you are getting at
The question is this. Is there a theoretical relationship between the mass of a proton and other nuclear particles? Is this relationship fixed?
If the mass were increased a little, what would happen?
Would the mass of the neutron, for example, also have to be changed in order for the physical world to exist in its present form (or near enough)?
Could the mass of the neutron remain unchanged? And have the physical world exist …?
Would the electron still exist in its present form? Or would it collapse into the nucleus? Or fly off? Or what?!
As an analogy, imagine Man having an extra two teeth. I don not imagine that that would have any effect on the physical world or on any of Man’s abilities or features. For example, it would not follow:“… therefore he has to have smaller eyes”
Dear Noel - you’re dealing with constants here - not only are they constants but they MUST be constants. Any variation would result in the universe being so different that we would never have existed. If you like you can say they are constant only because we are here to notice they are constant - the anthromorphic concept of astrophysics.
I may be off-base (my memory is crap) But I’m sure Rounder will set us on the right path…
They are constant because they do not change. The proton in the nucleus of a hydrogen atom has the same mass as one in the nucleus of a gold atom.
They are constant also because they do not vary: all are the same.
Fair enough.
My question is this, then: can those constants be a little different from what they are? For example, the average distance Earth-Sun is constant (by definition) - but that does not mean that anything radical would change (in the universe) if the Earth wobbled and got closer to the sun.
Sigh I’m just going to respond to this because I asked for you to clarify your question. Yes there is the theoretical relationship between the mass of a proton and other particles, and that relationship is defined by Einstiens theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics, the standard model, and the GUT’s. All theory’s that we have produced by observations, and experimentation.
Again if you are attempting to say that the mass of all protons is constant, then sorry you are very very wrong. Just go and google the “binding energy curve”, and you’ll see that.
In your example of the earth getting closer to the sun… hell yes things would change… weather would be extremely affected.
I don’t know I just don’t see the point of this. Its like asking “if things were different, would they be different?”. Ever hear of the butterfly effect. In all seriousness a man could sneeze, and create a chain reaction, which would end in a series of hurricanes.
If you increased the mass of certain protons, neutrons, electrons then they would just form different elements. Gravity is what binds these particles, and creates stable atoms. If you increase or decrease the mass for certain particles, then the atom they have formed will become unstable, and they will simply form new atoms.
I do not disagree that sneezing in Brazil may cause a strom in NY City.
However, I’d say, in that instance, that the effect would be limited to planet Earth. On the universal scale, the effect is zero.
Now, is there a theoretical relationship between the amss of the proton and other particles? I belive there is not (but I am prepared to be convinced).
My understanding is that physical experiments are used to discover those relationships. And that the results are of the form ‘we believe that the mass of particle X is between A and B’. That statement is not a theoretical relationship!
In fact, there seems to be some argument about whether some particles actually have mass at all. Some say no, others say, very little.
So, my question remains unanswered.
(Correct me if I’m wrong, but the standard model does not include gravity. Right?)
Actually I’m an idiot for writing “Gravity is what binds these particles together”. I think I posted that sometime in the mourning?? Before A couple of coffee’s I’m useless. Its more like the strong nuclear force is what binds the subatomic particles, electromagnetic force would push these particles away preventing them from creating stable atoms if it wasn’t for the strong force binding them, but really its all a delicate balancing act between the four forces.
Basically I just wanted to correct that.
Nope the standard model doesn’t include gravity.
Yep you are right some particles have no mass at all. Such as 3 of the four force particles the Gluon, photon, and graviton(theoritically, its never actually been proven to exist.)
The mass of a proton isn’t fixed, in different elements protons have different masses. The mass of an electron is fixed, but really muon is just a bigger electron, identical to an electron except 200 X heavier.
If you increased the electron in mass then electron’s and protons would combine and create neutrons, making it impossible for the element hydrogen to exist, one of the most fundamental building blocks for more complicated elements.
The answer is if you fudge with something a little in the universe, everything would be way different. Its as I said before all a delicate balancing act. Anyways just wanted to correct my previous post. Sorry bout that.
Does anyone actually have the figures? “Well, the electron could be different by x % and it would not modify anything. Beyond that, atoms could not exist.”
Yeah for Tabula I think my reference earlier to the butterfly effect was basically the same thing. I think science paints a pretty clear picture that it took a billion accidents to create life as we know it, and to mess with a tiny part of evolution would have vast effects on our universe as we know it.