you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is excellent, as well as

the content! ]]>

I appreciate you taking the time and energy to put this informative article together.

I once again find myself personally spending a significant

amount of time both reading and posting comments. But so what, it was still worth it! ]]>

“Chiral symmetry breaking is an example of spontaneous symmetry breaking affecting the chiral symmetry of the strong interactions in particle physics. It is a property of quantum chromodynamics, the quantum field theory describing these interactions, and is responsible for the bulk of the mass (over 99%) of the nucleons, and thus of all common matter, as it converts very light bound quarks into 100 times heavier constituents of baryons” ]]>

I have long been interested in gravity and I think I have the big picture figured out. At the smallest scale the problem is more difficult.

There is a related question I would like the answer to. It may be physics 101 to you but the answer has escaped me. Will you please send me the answer, my e-mail address is below.

An object of weight 10 moving at velocity 10 has X lb/ft energy. If the weight is doubled to 20 and the velocity remains 10 the energy is 2X. However, if the weight remains 10 and the velocity is doubled to 20 the energy becomes 4X.

Why does the energy increase linearly with the increase in weight but it increases by the square of the velocity?

If you are interested in a layman’s insights concerning gravity gained over many years of thought and some study, I would be interested in a correspondence on that subject.

Justin Ingalls

justiningalls@centurylink.net

You mentioned that 99% of the mass of the proton is due to the potential and kinetic energy of the quarks inside of the proton. Shouldn’t the sum of kinetic and potential energy be a term that is negative? (Or is this only for forces like gravity and E&M that drop off as 1/r2?) If the sum is negative (i.e. confinement), this would imply negative mass rather than positive mass, right?

Could you expand on what you mean by 99% of the mass can be explained by kinetic and potential energy?

Thank you ]]>

[…]The Origin of Mass? « The Everything Seminar[…]…

]]>[…]The Origin of Mass? « The Everything Seminar[…]…

]]>[…]The Origin of Mass? « The Everything Seminar[…]…

]]>