Mass: The Quest to Understand Matter from Greek Atoms to Quantum Fields

Eugene Hecht

Citation: American Journal of Physics 86, 237 (2018); doi: 10.1119/1.5021906

View online: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5021906
View Table of Contents: https://aapt.scitation.org/toc/ajp/86/3
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Can mechanical energy vanish into thin air?

American Journal of Physics 86, 220 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5019022

The Lazy Universe: An Introduction to the Principle of Least Action

American Journal of Physics 86, 395 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5024210

Einstein's Mass-Energy Equation, Volume I: Early History and Philosophical Foundations

American Journal of Physics 86, 797 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5052425

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Exploration of the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory

American Journal of Physics 86, 953 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5050194

The Quantum Labyrinth: How Richard Feynman and John Wheeler Revolutionized Time and Reality
American Journal of Physics 86, 159 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5020065

A Student s Guide to General Relativity

American Journal of Physics 87, 407 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5094771
BOOK REVIEWS
The downloaded PDF for any Review in this section contains all the Reviews in this section.

Craig F. Bohren, Editor

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802; mailing address: P.O. Box 887, Boalsburg, PA 16827; bohren@meteo.psu.edu

Mass: The Quest to Understand Matter from Greek paraphrases Newton: “So, an object has a certain intrin-
Atoms to Quantum Fields. Jim Baggott. 362 pp. sic mass—the ‘quantity of matter’ in it—which is related
Oxford U.P., New York, 2017. Price: $27.95 to its density and volume…” Replacing the word “mass”
(hardcover). ISBN 978-0-19-875971-3. (Eugene Hecht, by the words “quantity of matter” without defining the
Reviewer.) latter, was forgivable when Newton did it, but it’s less
so more than three centuries later when Baggott does it;
A book titled “MASS” promises all sorts of conceptual especially considering that we now know that a cannon-
delights, and so I came to this work with great expecta- ball when hot has more mass than when cold. If quan-
tions. The concept of mass, though central to most, if not tity of matter is the amount of stuff, as my students
all of physics, is exquisitely subtle and still evolving. would assert, how could mass increase with internal
Anyone bold enough to take on the task of explaining energy, even as the number of atoms stays fixed? It
the as yet unexplained deserves encouragement. Alas, I would have been nice if that issue had been dealt with
must apologize to the author, Jim Baggott, at the outset; in a book titled MASS.
having read the book twice in whole, and several times We are then told that “in addition to introducing and
in part, I remain somewhat disappointed. Readers of AJP defining the concept of mass, Newton has now intro-
know and enjoy physics, and like me, no doubt come to duced a second concept: that of force.” Alas, every
a popularization expecting to find something insightful, aspect of that sentence is misleading; Sir Isaac did not
perhaps some fresh explanation, or a novel synthesis, “introduce” into physics either the concept of “mass” or
possibly a new perspective, or even an elegant historical “force.” Indeed, the physical idea of force [vis] had
account, but above all such a book must be scrupulously already been around for nearly two thousand years—one
accurate. This book—i.e., at least its first 110 pages or might read Aristotle. It was here that my disappointment
so—seems not to have been written for the informed AJP began.
subscriber. Despite the preceding 32 pages of familiar historical
“MASS” has a friendly light style, even while admirably material, there was no mention of Giles of Rome
attempting to explain concepts that are extremely subtle and (c. 1243–1316), known in Latin as Aegidius Romanus. It
complex, such as general relativity and quantum field theory. was Giles who, for purely religious reasons, conceived the
Unfortunately, it too often rather casually says things about concept of quantity of matter [quantitas materiae]; there
physics that are not rigorously true; if you are a reader of was no mention of the French scholar Jean Buridan (c.
AJP those little lapses will be quite jarring. One thing seems 1295–c. 1358) who brought quantity of matter into physics
certain, this book was neither written nor edited by a physics with his impetus theory; nor does Baggott mention that
teacher. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) was probably the first to use
On the strikingly handsome black dust jacket the book the word mass [moles] in the physical sense of quantity of
proclaims itself to be about MASS, but the easily missed matter. Kepler gave us the basics for both the concepts of
small-print subtitle, “The quest to understand matter from inertial mass and gravitational mass decades before Newton
Greek atoms to quantum fields,” is much closer to its was born.
true overly ambitious intent. The treatment begins under On page 33 we are informed that perhaps Newton drew
the banner of “ATOMS AND VOID” with the often- “most notably [on] the work of Galileo” in order “to
irrelevant notions of the usual collection of ancient Greek frame his first law.” Well, not quite; Galileo had gotten
scholars. The next chapter wanders around dropping close to apprehending the Law of Inertia, as had
names like Sixtus IV, Gutenberg, Spinoza, and Bruno; I Beeckman, but in the end both men concluded that it
love Giordano Bruno, he’s one of my heroes, but not applied to circular motion. Descartes had already cor-
here in a book that’s supposed to be about MASS. rectly stated that law in 1644, and he, in turn, had simply
Continuing this aimless historical meandering, the author linearized what he had taken, without acknowledgement,
lists “mechanical philosophers” from Bacon to Descartes mostly from Beeckman.
to Newton, (p. 21) inexplicably overlooking two pivotal The author of “MASS” goes on to tell us that
figures, Isaac Beeckman (from whom Descartes learned “Newton explains that this [i.e., force] is simply an
what meaningful physics he had) and the great Robert “action” [whatever that is] exerted on an object that
Hooke. changes its state of motion, either from rest or from uni-
It is not until Chapter 3 that the word mass finally form motion in a straight line.” Here Baggott does not
appears, and then it’s done by quoting Newton’s awk- say that “force can change…,” or that “if there is a
ward Definition 1, from the Principia, as if this is when change it is due to a force,” he says instead that “force
the concept first entered physics—it is not. Baggott changes…” and that’s not quite what Newton said. After

237 Am. J. Phys. 86 (3), March 2018 http://aapt.org/ajp C 2018 American Association of Physics Teachers
V 237
all, what about the entire discipline of statics. What if I hence the interferometer had to be rotated as Michelson
push on the wall of a building, which does not then watched the fringes to see if they moved, Baggott’s
change its state of motion? Is that push not a force? Is description is utterly useless.
the Strong Force holding a nucleus together not a force? A reader of AJP might be a little troubled that
A careful reading of Newton’s First and Second Laws Baggott does not bother to distinguish between “speed”
and his Definition 4 would reveal that the genius Newton and “velocity,” as a careful physics teacher must. There
had it right. Clearly, defining force is no easier than was already a vague awareness of that distinction in
defining mass. That immensely important fact gets lost in medieval times. And Newton sensed the significance of
this book. the directionality of motion. So it is a tad distracting to
“MASS” contains a number of assertions, physics have the two distinct concepts used interchangeably and
statements, that are, at the very least, mystifying. For misleadingly. Moving on to energy, it would have been
example: (p. 34) talking about kinds of “actions” [i.e., nice on page 76 had Baggott mentioned that Leibniz
forces] that can be applied to objects, “if it’s made of was inspired to introduce vis viva by the work of
conducting material I can charge it with electricity and Huygens on collisions and conservation of the scalar
move it with an electromagnet.” Unfortunately, he does quantity mv2.
not tell us how we might do that. Discussing forces and We now come (p. 77) to the exposition of Einstein’s
momentum in what seems to be a frictionless situation, we beautiful but subtle equation E ¼ mc2. The treatment in
are informed (p. 35) that: “Applying a force that exactly “MASS” is a kind of time capsule of every misconcep-
matches the linear momentum but in the opposite direction tion that filled the textbooks and journals of the 1960s
will slow the object down and bring it back to rest.” What is and on to, and through, the 1980s. One obvious error is
a force that “exactly matches the linear momentum”? I in the interpretation of Einstein’s (1905) second paper on
thought that any oppositely directed force acting long enough Special Relativity wherein he showed that (in modern
can stop a freely moving object. And then (p. 35) we learn notation) DE ¼ Dmc2. In Einstein’s own words, “If a
that “Applying the force at an oblique angle may change the body releases the energy L in the form of radiation, its
direction in which the object is moving.” Why may change? mass decreases by L/V2.” Here Baggott, following in the
I thought it will change. On page 38 we are informed that footsteps of countless less-than-rigorous 20th-century
Hooke deduced the inverse square law in 1681 and yet in a authors, tells us that if the energy of an object changes
letter he wrote to Newton dated January 6, 1680 Hooke by an amount E—not as it should be written, DE—the
related, “But my supposition is that the Attraction always is mass changes by m—not as it should be written, Dm—
in a duplicate proportion to the Distance from the Center such that E ¼ mc2—not as it should be written,
Reciprocall…” DE ¼ Dmc2. This is no small point! What happened in
Throughout the book we find little awkward physics state- the 20th century was that several scholars, being less
ments that are reminiscent of undergraduate exam papers. cautious than Einstein, immediately leapt from
For example (p. 43), “Newton also defined force in terms of DE ¼ Dmc2 to E ¼ mc2. Yet if we remove all the energy
an action that changes an object’s state of motion—specifi- from an object, will there remain some inert mass, some
cally, it changes the object’s acceleration.” Wow, that’s a residual dust, if so DE ¼ Dmc2, whereas E 6¼ mc2? In
shocking typo, using the word “acceleration” instead of 1905 Einstein knew he didn’t know the answer to that
“velocity.” But no, that apparently was not just a typo since question, and being appropriately cautious, he did not
the next sentence is, “Mass (inertial mass) is then a measure publish the equivalent of E ¼ mc2 until 1907. Missing the
of an object’s resistance to changes in its acceleration.” Yes, entire drama, Baggott’s account incorrectly uses E when
Baggott really said that. In fact, it’s so remarkable I must he should have used DE, and voila, out pops E ¼ mc2. It
repeat it, “Mass (inertial mass) is then a measure of an does not seem to bother Baggott that his E is the change
object’s resistance to changes in its acceleration.” When I in energy, not the total energy, and his mass is the
first read that sentence, I immediately read it again, rolled it change in mass, not the total mass. Furthermore, since
over unbelievingly in my mind, and then read it again just to Einstein’s analysis dealt with a body carefully kept at
make sure. rest, it is the rest energy (E0) not the total energy (E) he
Baggott goes on (p. 64), “… change a magnetic field was discussing, and we should actually write E0 ¼ mc2
and you generate an electric current.” Not if I just wave (as astutely suggested by Lev Okun). Therein lies much
a magnet around in free space where there are no of the lingering confusion; E ¼ mc2 is the total energy of
charges. I’m sure Faraday didn’t think it was all that sim- an object at rest.
ple. On page 67 there is a rather poor attempt at elucidat- Chapter 6 is where I became truly disheartened. At the
ing the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. It begins end of his first 1905 Relativity paper Einstein added a
by referring to these two gentlemen as “physicists.” piece (I suspect as a nod to Lorentz, whom he greatly
Actually, Morley was a chemist who happened to have admired) about slowly accelerating electrons. Lorentz and
lots of mercury on which Michelson could float the mas- others had been working laboriously for years trying to
sive platform that his interferometer was set up on. prove that mass was actually an electromagnetic effect.
Without mentioning that the direction of the Earth’s Making a few assumptions, Einstein was able, in a mere
motion through the supposed aether was crucial, and two pages, to come up with a similar result to Lorentz’s,

238 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 3, March 2018 Book Reviews 238
namely, two speed-dependent equations for “longitudinal” whirled around at high speeds.” What whirls them
and “transverse” mass. The idea of mass arising electro- around I wonder? Chapter 9 is full of odd treasures,
magnetically was a chimera, but before it vanished it including a novel account of Planck’s analysis of
evolved into what came to be known as “relativistic blackbody radiation—apparently, Planck quantized the
mass,” m ¼ cm0; c being the speed-dependent Lorentz fac- radiation (p. 133) and not Einstein, as the rest of us
tor. After reading Planck’s 1907 paper in which he have been led to believe. Alas, two paragraphs later
insightfully associated c, not with the mass, but with the Baggott changes the story leaving the whole account
momentum, Einstein completely abandoned the idea of a complete muddle. In that same chapter we learn
speed-dependent mass. Today it is understood that the that “[i]n a closed system, isolated from all external
momentum of a material entity is the product of its mass influences, in any spontaneous change the entropy of
and its 4-velocity, and not the classical mv. whatever is inside always increases.” Is that really
Nonetheless, the concept of relativistic mass was an true for a gas rattling around (undergoing continuous
alternative perspective that had a life of its own. With spontaneous change) in equilibrium in a chamber?
few exceptions by the 1960s it had come to dominate How about this one (p. 132)—“The intensity of radia-
the way Special Relativity was being taught. That all tion a black body [sic] emits is then directly related
began to change with advances in high-energy particle to the amount of energy it contains.” Is that true
physics, and a seminal paper by Lev Okun (Physics independent of the size of the blackbody and hence
Today, June 1989). Today most introductory physics of its energy density?
textbooks—which are highly competitive and have to Not wanting to further tire the reader of this review, I
keep up-to-date—tell us that mass is Lorentz invariant, leave the hunt for more of these imaginative notions to
that there is only one mass, and hence there is no you. See if you can find such gems as “charges moving
need to even talk about “rest mass.” Baggott indiffer- in an electromagnetic field will radiate;” or that the
ently mentions the paper by Okun, but seems to have energy of hot water molecules moving around in a kettle
missed the ensuing thirty odd years of conceptual are quantized; or “there is no such thing as mass…”; or
evolution. “changes in the energy of a physical system are sym-
Regarding E ¼ mc2, if you take E to be the total metric to continuous changes in time…”; or how
energy of a moving object—as Baggott does—then
Galileo, who I thought didn’t talk about mass, suppos-
m ¼ cm0; whereas if you take E to be total energy of an
edly “refined” the concept; or how the ancient Greeks
object at rest (E ¼ E0)—as Einstein does—then m is sim-
believed that atoms possessed “weight (or mass)” almost
ply m; there is only one invariant m. With a voice remi-
two thousand years before Kepler introduced the concept
niscent of the 1970s and the old physics textbooks that
of mass into physics. These are just a sample; the care-
Baggott tells us are still on his shelves, he robustly main-
ful reader will find many more strange and wonderful
tains “mass is relative”—it is not. Indeed, the back of
ideas.
the dust jacket on MASS alleges that “Mass is surely
If you are not a stickler for accuracy, and don’t mind
just the amount of matter in things.” And so Baggott
your physics loosely delivered, this book is aimed at
would have us believe that “the amount of matter in
you. It does get much more interesting in the last hun-
things” increases with speed, relative speed; what could
that possibly mean? dred pages or so, as it mathlessly works through the
Although the popular literature is a lagging indicator, development of quantum field theory, all the way up to
there is little or no modern-day controversy among prac- the Higgs boson, and the Standard Model. For anyone
ticing physicists, though Baggott seems to wish there unfamiliar with these matters I suggest you first read the
were. And, of course, to date, the supposed increase in up-to-date discussion “How Things Get Heavy: The
mass with speed has never been unambiguously mea- Nature of Mass,” by Don Lincoln of Fermilab (The
sured. Moreover, Baggott’s statement that the Physics Teacher, Oct. 2017). It will get you to the
“interpretation of c as an ultimate speed [which it cer- Higgs field in three accurate pages. As for “MASS,”
tainly is] relies on the assumption that mass is relative,” caveat emptor.
is utter nonsense. The philosopher Paul Feyerabend
(1965), quoted for moral support in MASS, is simply
wrong. By contrast, in his “Introduction to Elementary Eugene Hecht is a Professor of Physics at Adelphi
University in Garden City, New York. He has written
Particles” David Griffiths (2010) succinctly said of rela-
a number of books including seven on physics. His
tivistic mass, “It is a superfluous quantity that serves no
main interests concern the foundational issues of the
useful function.… it has died out because it differs from discipline. For example: What is energy? What is
E only by a factor of c2.” It would seem it hasn’t quite mass? In what way are they equivalent? What did
died as yet. Einstein actually say about that? What is time? In the
At times Baggott sounds like he’s adopted Kepler’s process of attempting to address such basic questions,
sweeping force (p. 119): “Planets close to the [orbital] he has published a number of papers in this and other
center feel the full force of the Sun’s gravity and are journals.

239 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 3, March 2018 Book Reviews 239
BOOKS RECEIVED
A Philosophical Approach to Quantum Field Theory. 2017. Price $69.99 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-107-
€
Hans Christian Ottinger. 273 pp. Cambridge U. P., New 15401-8.
York, 2017. Price $49.99 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-108- The Theory and Application of Instanton Calculations. Manu
41511-8. Paranjape. 323 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2018. Price
Elements of Ethics for Physical Scientists. Sandra C. $140 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-107-15547-3.
Greer. 250 pp. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2017. Understanding Acoustics: An Experimentalist’s View of
Price $50 (hardcover) ISBN 9780262036887. Acoustics and Vibration. Steven L. Garrett. 926 pp.
Perspectives on Statistical Thermodynamics. Yoshitsugu Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2017. Price $129 (hard-
Ooono. 478 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, cover) ISBN 978-3-319-49976-5.

AJP Index to Advertisers

2018 AAPT Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover 2

AAPT Membership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 161
Princeton Univesity Press . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 163
Alpha Immersions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 164

240 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 3, March 2018 Book Reviews 240