proton question

[hoola]

As the proton and other fundamental nucleons are described as having "mass energy", in the proton, what percentage of the overall mass is composed of matter, vs. the amount of energy? It would seem logical that the proton has a higher matter to energy ratio, as opposed to the electron, which seems reversed in proportion.

Edited December 13, 2016 by hoola

[EdEarl]

wikipedia

 

In quantum chromodynamics, the modern theory of the nuclear force, most of the mass of protons and neutrons is explained by special relativity. The mass of a proton is about 80–100 times greater than the sum of the rest masses of the quarks that make it up, while the gluons have zero rest mass. The extra energy of the quarks and gluons in a region within a proton, as compared to the rest energy of the quarks alone in the QCD vacuum, accounts for almost 99% of the mass. The rest mass of a proton is, thus, the invariant mass of the system of moving quarks and gluons that make up the particle, and, in such systems, even the energy of massless particles is still measured as part of the rest mass of the system.

 

Two terms are used in referring to the mass of the quarks that make up protons: current quark mass refers to the mass of a quark by itself, while constituent quark mass refers to the current quark mass plus the mass of the gluon particle field surrounding the quark.[20]:285–286 [21]:150–151 These masses typically have very different values. As noted, most of a proton's mass comes from the gluons that bind the current quarks together, rather than from the quarks themselves. While gluons are inherently massless, they possess energy—to be more specific, quantum chromodynamics binding energy (QCBE)—and it is this that contributes so greatly to the overall mass of protons (see mass in special relativity). A proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks contributes only about 9.4 MeV/c2; much of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons' QCBE.[22][23][24]

 

The internal dynamics of protons are complicated, because they are determined by the quarks' exchanging gluons, and interacting with various vacuum condensates. Lattice QCD provides a way of calculating the mass of a proton directly from the theory to any accuracy, in principle. The most recent calculations[25][26] claim that the mass is determined to better than 4% accuracy, even to 1% accuracy (see Figure S5 in Dürr et al.[26]). These claims are still controversial, because the calculations cannot yet be done with quarks as light as they are in the real world. This means that the predictions are found by a process of extrapolation, which can introduce systematic errors.[27] It is hard to tell whether these errors are controlled properly, because the quantities that are compared to experiment are the masses of the hadrons, which are known in advance.

 

These recent calculations are performed by massive supercomputers, and, as noted by Boffi and Pasquini: "a detailed description of the nucleon structure is still missing because ... long-distance behavior requires a nonperturbative and/or numerical treatment..."[28] More conceptual approaches to the structure of protons are: the topological soliton approach originally due to Tony Skyrme and the more accurate AdS/QCD approach that extends it to include a string theory of gluons,[29] various QCD-inspired models like the bag model and the constituent quark model, which were popular in the 1980s, and the SVZ sum rules, which allow for rough approximate mass calculations.[30] These methods do not have the same accuracy as the more brute-force lattice QCD methods, at least not yet.

[Bender]

short answer: all of it is energy

[swansont]

As the proton and other fundamental nucleons are described as having "mass energy", in the proton, what percentage of the overall mass is composed of matter, vs. the amount of energy? It would seem logical that the proton has a higher matter to energy ratio, as opposed to the electron, which seems reversed in proportion.

 

 

As EdEarl's quote shows, little of the mass of nucleons is in the mass of the constituent particles. The electron is a fundamental particle. There are no constituent particles, so there is no binding energy involved.

[hoola]

so, if all is energy, what is energy but a repeating coindcident set of algorithmic loops that express an observed phenomena. If minor variations within each particular description of one component deliver an equivalent effect to differing minor random variations (within tight limits), do not these alterations represent the hidden variables Einstein referred to ?

Edited December 16, 2016 by hoola

[swansont]

so, if all is energy,

 

 

 

It's not. Energy is a property, not a substance. A property that's conserved under time translation

[hoola]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that energy has a property, not is a property? If so, what sets the parameters of said property? This infers an informational substrate, namely string theory, which is a string of numbers, allowing an algorithmic loop soup delineating a developing sub-planck medium of great attractors.

Edited December 16, 2016 by hoola

[Mordred]

No energy is still a property. It is simply the ability to perform work. That requires some particle, object or field.

[hoola]

Is it accurate to say that work is a form of interactive communication between particles, fields, etc. and that causes work by changing the interactive elements to some degree, and is that degree of change a measure of entropy?

Edited December 18, 2016 by hoola