The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Will all mass become photons?  (Read 4752 times)

Roy Turner

  • Guest
Will all mass become photons?
« on: 12/01/2011 19:30:03 »
Roy Turner  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Some weeks ago I listened to a television programme called, I think, "Before the big Bang".

At one point, Roger Penrose said that at the end of our universe, there would be no mass, just photons.

I checked this with a buddy who knows something about these things and he didn't understand it either.

I am sure the Naked Scientist will come up an answer...

I enjoy the podcast.
Best wishes

Roy

What do you think?
« Last Edit: 12/01/2011 19:30:03 by _system »


 

Offline Pikaia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #1 on: 12/01/2011 19:47:25 »
Being pedantic, I think he should have said matter, not mass, as photons have mass (=energy).

Whether he is correct depends on whether or not protons decay to positrons and photons, which is predicted by some theories but not yet confirmed by experiment. These positrons would react with electrons to produce more photons.

There would also be black holes, but these would evaporate, if Hawking is correct, but this is also unproven.

So ultimately there will be nothing but photons, plus dark matter (which I think he has forgotten about).

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #2 on: 14/01/2011 10:48:19 »
Ready for a dive? Into the 'matter universe'?

We have according to the standard theory quarks and gluons making protons and neutrons inside the atoms nucleus. A atom is 99.999~ space and then some few quarks.

"The mass of a proton is about 938 MeV. It consists of three quarks, each of which have a mass on the order of 3 MeV (more or less, not very accurate.) There is a huge discrepancy between 938 and 9. The remainder of the mass of the proton is the potential and kinetic energy of the gluons holding the whole thing together. The correct vision of a proton is a little subatomic gluonic lightning storm, buffeting three nearly insignificant quarks. "

Then we have "four fundamental forces at work in the Universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. They work over different ranges and have different strengths. Gravity is the weakest but it has an infinite range. The electromagnetic force also has infinite range but it is many times stronger than gravity. The weak and strong forces are effective only over a very short range and dominate only at the level of subatomic particles. Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three. The strong force is, as the name says, the strongest among all the four fundamental interactions.

We know that three of the fundamental forces result from the exchange of force carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called ‘bosons’. Matter particles transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other. Each fundamental force has its own corresponding boson particle – the strong force is carried by the ‘gluon’, the electromagnetic force is carried by the ‘photon’, and the ‘W and Z bosons’ are responsible for the weak force. Although not yet found, the ‘graviton’ should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity.

The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains extremely well how these forces act on all the matter particles. However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model. In fact, fitting gravity comfortably into the framework has proved to be a difficult challenge. The quantum theory used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of relativity used to describe the macro world, are like two children who refuse to play nicely together.

No one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible in the context of the Standard Model. But luckily for particle physics, when it comes to the minuscule scale of particles, the effect of gravity is so weak as to be negligible. Only when we have matter in bulk, such as in ourselves or in planets, does the effect of gravity dominate. So the Standard Model still works well despite its reluctant exclusion of one of the fundamental forces."

And it's here the 'missing God particle' (Higg's particle/field) comes in creating 'Gravity' from a QM perspective. Why QM wants particles is because it treats SpaceTime as having a 'granularity' even if very fine, a 'quantum-bit' if you will.

So now you know how the standard theory thinks of atoms. And also a little about what 'forces' that keeps them 'together'. So, when we get to the point, according to the theory of entropy, where all 'work' is done in the universe. That is no more usable 'energy' everything should be a uniform 'mass' of 'something'. Matter is usable energy so that has to go. Suns too, so what do we have left? A gluon soup maybe, something outside General relativity at least, if it is right, to small to make sense (Under Plank size as I think) and belonging solely to the quantum world.

And photons are a nice choice :)

If it was the question becomes how big such a universe could be? According to Mach principle I believe you need matter to have a 'space', correct me if I'm wrong there :) So with only massless timeless photons?

Phiuff..

(The sound of a universe disappearing)
« Last Edit: 14/01/2011 12:20:24 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #3 on: 14/01/2011 11:38:46 »
When it comes to Mach principle it states that without mass there can be no 'force' felt upon you. Take it somewhat further and ask yourself how you will know that there is a space?
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #4 on: 14/01/2011 16:42:03 »
Talking about being pedantic, I remember recently someone had a little quibble with me concerning how all matter is essentially made from photon energy. Some even argued that this is not what mainstream believes... but is there a choice? All the evidence points to a universe being fundamentally created from some pure energy in the forms of photons. Eventually, in the universe, there will be no matter interactions because all matter will have reduced back to the photon energy which created them. Think of this stage of the universe, as it settling down to a ground, quiet, matterless state.
« Last Edit: 14/01/2011 16:43:34 by QuantumClue »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #5 on: 14/01/2011 17:18:56 »
You mean the thread you were quoting ajay sharma?  Or the one using Fredd Wolf?  Or the UFOs? etc.  Yes - I am pedantic; because an elision of detail and boundaries is dangerous.  And portraying a thesis that has borderline support or is in its infancy as accepted learning is a misrepresentation.

You know enough to understand where the divide between established knowledge and cutting-edge supposition lies; but many of the readers of the this site do not. 
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #6 on: 14/01/2011 17:34:11 »
You mean the thread you were quoting ajay sharma?  Or the one using Fredd Wolf?  Or the UFOs? etc.  Yes - I am pedantic; because an elision of detail and boundaries is dangerous.  And portraying a thesis that has borderline support or is in its infancy as accepted learning is a misrepresentation.

You know enough to understand where the divide between established knowledge and cutting-edge supposition lies; but many of the readers of the this site do not. 

I can see you don't like me, or my method.

Yes, I am a UFO proponent. Some of the best scientists in the world are UFO proponents. As for Ajay Sharma, I made it explicitely known his work was contraversial, as for Fred Alan Wolf, I admitted to not knowing enough about his work to say anything to the contrary.

Now with that cleared up, and without the notion to make any more enemies, ''no'' is the answer to your question. It was a completely different thread all together, I beleive.

Of course - you are entitled to your own opinion of me. As I am with you. And yes, you do like playing pedantic games, if you recall our little arguement in the early days of my presence here.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #7 on: 14/01/2011 17:38:04 »
I think it somewhat ironic you now say I know enough. I do believe our last spat between each other had you wimpying off with degrading sentances like, ''I don't need to mess around with someone who clearly knows little.''

Ironic indeed.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #8 on: 14/01/2011 17:43:03 »
Anyway, yes, you are right about one thing. It was mentioned in the thread I mentioned Sharma. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36489.0 and again, I recieved the usual dogmatic approach by posters. Understandable, no one wants to ever admit a theory that they have denied all a long.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #9 on: 14/01/2011 19:14:56 »
Anyway, yes, you are right about one thing. It was mentioned in the thread I mentioned Sharma. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36489.0 and again, I recieved the usual dogmatic approach by posters. Understandable, no one wants to ever admit a theory that they have denied all a long.

Back to the topic at hand, you get a lot of flack when you say that everything is made of photon energy because the simple fact is that everything is made of energy.  I can make an electron from any particle I want, so long as I have enough energy and satisfy certain conservation laws.  This could be photons, protons, gluons, W/Z bosons, etc.  (Some of these particles would take multiple steps to satisfy all the right conservation laws.)  Saying that everything is made of photon energy is misleading and confusing to people who don't know enough physics to realize what that properly means.   

In addition, a lot of posters have used similar phrases to aggressively push very fringe models where particles are literally made from photons--an electron in this model would be made of photons zipping around, which is clearly well outside the mainstream. 

Regarrding the theory itself, was the Penrose argument one of continued expansion, in which everything expands so far that there isn't enough energy in any one place to form more complex, massive particles? 
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #10 on: 14/01/2011 19:37:14 »
You can make an electron from any particle you want, let us call this particle, particle X... but you cannot annihilate every fundamental particle with their antipartners and expect to get particle X as the by-product, which was identical to our discussion before JP!! Have you forgotten this?

This is a very important factor, an indication that all matter can and was made at some point from a large enough concentration of photon particles, possibly arose from some form of quantum gas.

 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #11 on: 14/01/2011 19:39:27 »
As for the Penrose claim, yes. It would be when the universe has sufficiently dilluted all the massive particles, annilihated, and no longer exists anything tremendous to create massive particles. By that time, all black holes will have evaporated, so we truely are talking about a universe very far into the future.
« Last Edit: 14/01/2011 19:43:07 by QuantumClue »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #12 on: 15/01/2011 03:26:46 »
You can make an electron from any particle you want, let us call this particle, particle X... but you cannot annihilate every fundamental particle with their antipartners and expect to get particle X as the by-product, which was identical to our discussion before JP!! Have you forgotten this?

This is a very important factor, an indication that all matter can and was made at some point from a large enough concentration of photon particles, possibly arose from some form of quantum gas.

Maybe you've forgotten that you can annihilate particles and antiparticles into W and Z bosons as well.  Aside from that, we pretty much agree on what's going on.  You just use nonstandard terminology, which can be misleading, for it.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #13 on: 15/01/2011 05:05:18 »
What terminology do I use which is misleading, if we both agree matter is made from a fundamental energy, most associated to photons..?

And I agree, with your point on that you can annihilate particles and antiparticles into W and Z bosons as well. But I explained before that the W and Z bosons belong to a strict family of four bosons, one of which is the photon particle. I think I did say though, that this would be understandable. Now if you could make a nuetrino from a particle decay (that is annihilation in this case), you might be on to something.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #14 on: 15/01/2011 07:16:00 »
What terminology do I use which is misleading, if we both agree matter is made from a fundamental energy, most associated to photons..?

The word "most" is misleading.

I think know where this debate is going, since it happens pretty much every time this topic comes up.  I don't really feel like getting into a lengthy debate about this, since neither of us is going to budge.

I'll just leave it with the fact that the standard model says that energy + conservation laws for charge, color, parity, etc., determine what comes out of any interaction.  If whatever claims you're making about photons encompass the above statement, then they're not wrong, but they don't really describe the standard model (which is why mainstream physics doesn't use that terminology). 

If your claims don't agree with the above statement, then they're at odds with mainstream physics and should probably be in the New Theories section.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #15 on: 15/01/2011 07:31:47 »
Then there is no reason discussing it. As for what mainstream has to say, watch this space ;) The standard model has a great deal of room for improvement.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #16 on: 21/01/2011 15:58:56 »
Anyway, yes, you are right about one thing. It was mentioned in the thread I mentioned Sharma. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36489.0 and again, I recieved the usual dogmatic approach by posters. Understandable, no one wants to ever admit a theory that they have denied all a long.

Back to the topic at hand, you get a lot of flack when you say that everything is made of photon energy because the simple fact is that everything is made of energy.  I can make an electron from any particle I want, so long as I have enough energy and satisfy certain conservation laws.  This could be photons, protons, gluons, W/Z bosons, etc.  (Some of these particles would take multiple steps to satisfy all the right conservation laws.)  Saying that everything is made of photon energy is misleading and confusing to people who don't know enough physics to realize what that properly means.   

In addition, a lot of posters have used similar phrases to aggressively push very fringe models where particles are literally made from photons--an electron in this model would be made of photons zipping around, which is clearly well outside the mainstream. 

Regarrding the theory itself, was the Penrose argument one of continued expansion, in which everything expands so far that there isn't enough energy in any one place to form more complex, massive particles? 

JP, energy is one truly interesting subject :)

To my eyes 'energy' only exist in 'interactions. 'Interactions' only exist when there are 'something interacting'. That what 'interacts' will either be matter, aka particles or, in certain cases, light, aka waves/photons. So energy seems, to me that is, to be a description considering transformations of those two?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Will all mass become photons?
« Reply #16 on: 21/01/2011 15:58:56 »

 

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