The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Expectation Energy Value of Photons Transmutating into Matter  (Read 3153 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
« Last Edit: 27/10/2009 08:14:47 by Mr. Scientist »


 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=306768

In the link provided, i show a set of equations which are derived intentionally based on the theory of a ''photon only'' universe, as Vern would call it. Its basically down to logic... how does one measure how much energy is required to create matter? Naturally, one would assume that E=Mc^2 would suffice, since the energy on the right is equal to the mass on the left, but the equation only could describe a single particle, and if a photon, then has the form E=\gamma Mc^2 then as we have observed, by the collision of two of these photons can create and electron and a positron γγ → ee‾. So naturally one can assume that the ''lowest energy expectancy value'' for a collision to occur and successfully create matter is rather energy squared, so the equation becomes: E^2=\gamma M^2c^4. This is the lowest value i present, which means that there are possibly many levels (and infinite amount if quantum theory is correct) of possible energy requirements for matter-production.

The final equation in the work in the link, derived itself from the scientific notes above, the expectency value which will ultimately create whatever type of particle, (we know something like 410 particles in the standard model), only through the relation of wavelength, given by the lambda symbol. The derivations gave a final equation:

\hbar^2 c^2 \frac{E}{2\pi}

What is really interesting is that since \hbar itself (known as the reduced plancks constant), was found in a relation as:

GM^2/c=\hbar

Showing not a large value for G, but actually a quantization itself of the gravitational charge on the system, a0c12e23310339ff14610c4926f2779c.gif.

This means we can now rearrange the formula \hbar^2 c^2 \frac{E}{2π} to mean a specific relation to the gravitational charge, thus now given as:

(GM^2/c)^2(E/2π)=\hbar^2(Mc^2/2π)

Which as an expression, i could only interprete that the gravitational charge the event of a collision with the expectant value of E^2=\gamma M^2c^4 to create matter, would make sense that the gravitational charge would be a quick short burst, ''the spark of gravitational charge and matter'', and then inexorably, share that gravitational charge and matter as the conservation law would state: Out of a positron and electron collision, two photons are ''created'' or ''released'' as a better term?


To add to this, an interesting relationship between the expression \hbar^2 c^2(E/2\π) becomes an equation sucessfully relating kinetic energy to the product of the sqaure root of \hbar^2 c^2(E/2\π) which for added sake, is also related to the fundamental relationships of the gravitational charge and mass relationship GM^2/c=\hbar. This is acheived because:

\sqrt{\hbar^2 c^2(E/2\π)}=\frac{\hbar c(\int_d KE=1/2Mv^2)}{2π}

So this means there is a quantization of kinetic energy related to the gravitational charge.

 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Your reasoning seems valid, I didn't dwell upon the maths. My guess is that the minimum energy possible to produce a stable particle pair would be two gamma ray photons each with energy of about .510 MeV.

Edit: Your derivation in the other forum looks Okay; you probably shouldn't mention a photon-only universe in your reply to the other poster's question. That forum has a very pronounced distaste for the photon-only concept. ;D
Here's one way to overcome the lack of TeX on this forum.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2009 17:40:20 by Vern »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Your reasoning seems valid, I didn't dwell upon the maths. My guess is that the minimum energy possible to produce a stable particle pair would be two gamma ray photons each with energy of about .510 MeV.

Edit: Your derivation in the other forum looks Okay; you probably shouldn't mention a photon-only universe in your reply to the other poster's question. That forum has a very pronounced distaste for the photon-only concept. ;D
Here's one way to overcome the lack of TeX on this forum.


It's good to see that you feel there is logic within needing atleast the expectancy \lambda E^2. Now, take your photon construct, i have a few questions when your theory of shells come into play... are you in fact saying that photons are inside ''shells'' which make up matter, because if you are, that theory itself stands an excellent chance of survival, because we already know of the existence of the positronium, the particle which allows a particle and its antipartner to be bound very close spatially, but never release their energies unless some statistics or another object comes along. In much the same sense, the least energy required to make matter from two gamma photons could have both photons ''tied'' or even ''knotted'' into shell like compositions?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
are you in fact saying that photons are inside ''shells'' which make up matter,
The shells are the photons. The photon comprising a shell traverses a path around the circumference of the shell in one wave length. This places one polarity of the photons electric field on the outside of the curve all the way around. The other polarity is on the inside of the shell.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
are you in fact saying that photons are inside ''shells'' which make up matter,
The shells are the photons. The photon comprising a shell traverses a path around the circumference of the shell in one wave length. This places one polarity of the photons electric field on the outside of the curve all the way around. The other polarity is on the inside of the shell.

For your theory to be correct, are you not simplifying the shells to be comprised of entangled photons?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
For your theory to be correct, are you not simplifying the shells to be comprised of entangled photons?
I didn't see a need for the shells to be comprised of entangled photons. However, composite shells such as the proton and neutron would be locked in a certain phase relationship between shells. This might be considered to be entanglement.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
For your theory to be correct, are you not simplifying the shells to be comprised of entangled photons?
I didn't see a need for the shells to be comprised of entangled photons. However, composite shells such as the proton and neutron would be locked in a certain phase relationship between shells. This might be considered to be entanglement.

precisely. For two photons to comprise a shell that has constituents (the photons) which have polorizable conditions, then it seems reasonable they would be entangled because they are by definition (of the same source) which is again, the reason or creation of entanglement. This may give rise itself to why rest matter exhibits entanglement, because their constituents must obey this rule of photons binding in such a way.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length