Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: QuantumClue on 24/01/2011 10:11:09
-
While I write up some preliminaries, mostly mathematical, perhaps it would be a nice exercise for now, for people here to demonstrate pros and cons. This is your chance to express why you think matter is or is not made of light, and how that light makes matter.
-
Light energy can only make matter in the presence of other matter. For example a high energy gamma ray can interact with an atom to produce an electron positron pair. The atom will recoil from the interaction and the photon will continue with reduced energy. (see pair production) Without any matter present photons just don't interact they always pass right through each other.
A photon is its own antiparticle and one photon can null out another under certain circumstances but the energy pops up with the photons somewhere else i.e. in interference or diffraction fringes.
-
well photons and quarks are interchangeable, so a photon is just one of many configurations of a quark.
-
To avoid confusion between hypothesis and mainstream science, new theories should be posted in that forum.
-
No Geezer, I object. None of the material in this thread presented by me will be -- new theories. So it is reasonable to keep the thread here for now. This is purely educational.
-
And to prove this is not a new theory, it was first investigated by a group of Glaswegian scientists.
http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf
..back in 1997.
-
And to prove this is not a new theory, it was first investigated by a group of Glaswegian scientists.
New theory here doesn't mean the theory has been proposed recently. It means you're proposing a theory that seeks to overturn and replace mainstream science and that doesn't have much mainstream acceptance.
String theory, even though I'm not a huge fan, is not a new theory due to mainstream acceptance. The toroidal photon electron is.
-
it was first investigated by a group of Glaswegian scientists.
Is Eindhoven anywhere near Kelvingrove, or is it off Byres Road?
-
it was first investigated by a group of Glaswegian scientists.
Is Eindhoven anywhere near Kelvingrove, or is it off Byres Road?
I think you will find a glaswegian is either a resident or a native.
-
Maybe this is a good place to post a question that came up in another thread.
Are electrons stable particles? Left alone in the universe, would they spontaneously decay to photons?
How about other fundamental particles? Would a lone quark, a lone W/Z boson, a lone neutrino or a lone gluon decay into photons? Yes, I know that some of these particles are unstable and quickly turn into something else (quarks into jets of hadrons, for example), but is the final decay product of all these purely photons?
-
Maybe this is a good place to post a question that came up in another thread.
Are electrons stable particles? Left alone in the universe, would they spontaneously decay to photons?
How about other fundamental particles? Would a lone quark, a lone W/Z boson, a lone neutrino or a lone gluon decay into photons? Yes, I know that some of these particles are unstable and quickly turn into something else (quarks into jets of hadrons, for example), but is the final decay product of all these purely photons?
They are very light, and so it's difficult to say whether it would eventually decay into other particles. Science cannot rule it out 100% so at this moment in time, this is an unanswered question of physics.
-
Light energy can only make matter in the presence of other matter.
Whilst this might be true, to some extent, it is not a good enough reason. Virtual particles are allowed to exist for very short periods of time, where a virtual photon can change into an electron and positron and can act like a catalyst for the production of new particles via photon transmutation (decay). In other words, all you would still be left with would be the photons.
-
well photons and quarks are interchangeable, so a photon is just one of many configurations of a quark.
Photons do not have any sub-configurations. Photons are not made from quarks. Photons are very fundamental that way.
-
Maybe this is a good place to post a question that came up in another thread.
Are electrons stable particles? Left alone in the universe, would they spontaneously decay to photons?
How about other fundamental particles? Would a lone quark, a lone W/Z boson, a lone neutrino or a lone gluon decay into photons? Yes, I know that some of these particles are unstable and quickly turn into something else (quarks into jets of hadrons, for example), but is the final decay product of all these purely photons?
They are very light, and so it's difficult to say whether it would eventually decay into other particles. Science cannot rule it out 100% so at this moment in time, this is an unanswered question of physics.
So it seems there's doubt as to whether everything does, in fact, decay into photons. I would say that's reason enough to doubt the idea that all matter is made of light. This is a major claim, so it requires more than "science cannot rule it out 100%" in order to be accepted.
-
What one might say JP is that light and matter somehow can transform into each other? Otherwise I think exactly the same, they are not 'equivalently exactly the same'. If I assume, and I'm assuming bigtime here :) that what makes a 'particle' is its 'relations' and then do the same for a photon there will be a difference in that all 'matter particles' will demand a 'place' in our three dimensional reality whilst light demand nothing of the sort. The funny thing is that light, even though in so many ways not 'existing' inside SpaceTime, still will interact.
So, what are dimensions?
-
Maybe this is a good place to post a question that came up in another thread.
Are electrons stable particles? Left alone in the universe, would they spontaneously decay to photons?
How about other fundamental particles? Would a lone quark, a lone W/Z boson, a lone neutrino or a lone gluon decay into photons? Yes, I know that some of these particles are unstable and quickly turn into something else (quarks into jets of hadrons, for example), but is the final decay product of all these purely photons?
They are very light, and so it's difficult to say whether it would eventually decay into other particles. Science cannot rule it out 100% so at this moment in time, this is an unanswered question of physics.
So it seems there's doubt as to whether everything does, in fact, decay into photons. I would say that's reason enough to doubt the idea that all matter is made of light. This is a major claim, so it requires more than "science cannot rule it out 100%" in order to be accepted.
I don't fully understand the crux of your arguement. How is this against the photon-only conjecture?
-
You're making a huge claim that disagrees with the standard model without offering a good reason to believe it. Sure, we can't disprove that everything is made of photons. But science doesn't work by forcing scientists to disprove all radical claims. It works by fighting to get them accepted by knocking down all objections.
Prove to me that all particles will eventually spontaneously decay into photons and remain photons forever and I'll grant you that in some sense, everything is "made of photons."
-
You're making a huge claim that disagrees with the standard model without offering a good reason to believe it. Sure, we can't disprove that everything is made of photons. But science doesn't work by forcing scientists to disprove all radical claims. It works by fighting to get them accepted by knocking down all objections.
Prove to me that all particles will eventually spontaneously decay into photons and remain photons forever and I'll grant you that in some sense, everything is "made of photons."
On the contrary. The claim in not radical, it is a fringe theory. Also, if science does not prove it wrong, then it would be in the ''not even wrong catagory'' and that would be a failure of science to classify it under as that... the job of science is to provide experimental varification either way.
-
"Not even wrong" assumes that it isn't wrong in the first place. What technical claims does this theory make and what is the evidence that it isn't wrong?
-
"Not even wrong" assumes that it isn't wrong in the first place. What technical claims does this theory make and what is the evidence that it isn't wrong?
I know what it means. You are the one who said ''Sure, we can't disprove that everything is made of photons.''
Hence why I said what I said.
-
Ok, but
What technical claims does this theory make and what is the evidence that it isn't wrong?
-
Ok, but
What technical claims does this theory make and what is the evidence that it isn't wrong?
I don't get you. Why you asking me that?
You are the one who said ''Sure, we can't disprove that everything is made of photons.''
Since you said this, you can surely answer your own question:
''What technical claims does this theory make and what is the evidence that it isn't wrong?''
-
You're the one suggesting that all matter is made of light! I don't even know what technical claims you're making.
If I'm going to be put in charge of defending it, I'll just say it's all hand-waving nonsense and there is no evidence that it isn't wrong! QED.
-
You're the one suggesting that all matter is made of light! I don't even know what technical claims you're making.
If I'm going to be put in charge of defending it, I'll just say it's all hand-waving nonsense and there is no evidence that it isn't wrong! QED.
Well actually, charge plays a pivotal part in the understanding of conservation when the decay process occurs between a positron and an electron meeting. And as you know, which is equally pivotal to the only photon conjecture, is the presence of annihilation releasing photon energy.
So yes, charge is very much important, and requires very little arm waving.
ps... lol I just relaized you said ''put in charge'' not that fundamental charge was mentioned. But you want points for the only photon conjecture, this is one of them.
-
Yes, but can you answer this question (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36831.msg342330#msg342330) yet?
-
Yes, but can you answer this question (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36831.msg342330#msg342330) yet?
To be able to falsify a theory, is a good theory indeed. Any true noble scientist who looks upon a theory which has been falsified do not surely look upon it with displeasure or a matter of failure. But rather a matter of progress.
There are ways in which this theory can be falsified, but requires extensive research. Photons belong to a class of four particles which make up a family. If an annilation of a particle with its antipartner create particles which are not part of this family, then it is most likely that it cannot be said for all matter to be made of light, or the BOSON family.
But there is more evidence which points to the idea light does make matter. We see particles come out of high-energy photon fields all the time. Annilation of almost all matter we have observed has a by-product of photon energy. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming, it is understandable how one might think it is not falsifiable.
-
Another way we could falsify this is if we can find a direct mathematical proof which forbids breaking the U(1) combination of SU(2)xU(1) symmetry.
-
I don't think JP said anything about falsification. He asked you to describe the technical claims of your theory and provide some empirical evidence to support them.
-
I don't think JP said anything about falsification. He asked you to describe the technical claims of your theory and provide some empirical evidence to support them.
Why don't you stay out of debates which you cannot follow? He asked:
''What technical claims does this theory make and what is the evidence that it isn't wrong?''
-
I think if you reread that you'll discover it also says -
"What technical claims does this theory make, and what is the evidence that it is right?" (right, as in "not wrong")
-
I did mention falsifiability on purpose. I really don't care to hear the reasons for liking an all-photon-matter theory. I can list many reasons for liking a lot of theories that have been later proved wrong. (Would anyone care for some aether?) I care to hear points on which they're falsifiable. But more importantly, I care to hear specific technical claims made by this theory. I've asked for this a few times, and so far I've gotten word salad as a response. Just give me a handful of specific technical claims and we'll work from there on whether it's a falsifiable theory or not.
The closest you've given so far is:
1) Photons belong to a class of four particles which make up a family. If an annilation of a particle with its antipartner create particles which are not part of this family, then it is most likely that it cannot be said for all matter to be made of light, or the BOSON family.
2)We see particles come out of high-energy photon fields all the time. Annilation of almost all matter we have observed has a by-product of photon energy.
Do you agree that these are the specific technical claims made by your theory? Are there others?
-
I'll need to come back to this, I don't have much time right now.
-
If JJ Thompson's photon exists, and it does as proven by Larmor radiation, then the photon is created by a moving or an accelerating charged particle with respect to an observer. Experiments at the Stanford linear accelerator have shown matter, in certain circumstances, can be created from the collision of two beams of radiation. Therefore the original question is valid. More importantly is the question of what property of space causes charged particles to emit photons? You could say the permeability of space but that does not describe space only a property of it. I think matter is made of space and space is an electric field such that when you have a moving or accelerating charged particle in that field they emit radiation.
-
Well, as for photon's being able to produce particles? Yep, they can. As for how long it would take to make enough particles filling a cup?
How about a hundred thousand years? 200 000? More? CERN is the place with the strongest accelerators. And how will we make them not spontaneously decay? And how will we make them arrange themselves into stable matter? They won't do it just because I want it, as far as I know?
-
yor_on, I'm confused. How is your post related to mine, maybe not? I would think an important question to ask is how did the electric field that space is made of get here. I don't know. It could have been here before the Universe and was somehow compressed into the matter that made our Universe.
-
I did mention falsifiability on purpose. I really don't care to hear the reasons for liking an all-photon-matter theory. I can list many reasons for liking a lot of theories that have been later proved wrong. (Would anyone care for some aether?) I care to hear points on which they're falsifiable. But more importantly, I care to hear specific technical claims made by this theory. I've asked for this a few times, and so far I've gotten word salad as a response. Just give me a handful of specific technical claims and we'll work from there on whether it's a falsifiable theory or not.
The closest you've given so far is:
1) Photons belong to a class of four particles which make up a family. If an annilation of a particle with its antipartner create particles which are not part of this family, then it is most likely that it cannot be said for all matter to be made of light, or the BOSON family.
2)We see particles come out of high-energy photon fields all the time. Annilation of almost all matter we have observed has a by-product of photon energy.
Do you agree that these are the specific technical claims made by your theory? Are there others?
There are others.
A scientist called Vernon Brown made it clear to the world that a photon travelling a bent spacetime path is either analogous or does experience a charge. So one theory right now is that a photon could be in a topological knot, probably following some bent path which cannot be much larger than a compton wavelength. The knot is just another way of saying something like a photon moving in a circular like path squeezed into a very small area, making up all particles, but more notably an electron - a little like the paper I cited from the Glaswegians.
I however, have a different view. I don't think the photon exists inside particles, those particles are just a different phase of a photon. To understand how this happens, would be to understand inertia and even the origin of mass. To disprove this theory once again, would also be to find a Higgs Boson. Then we don't require a full understanding of this theory to understand how particles with matter arise.
-
I did mention falsifiability on purpose. I really don't care to hear the reasons for liking an all-photon-matter theory. I can list many reasons for liking a lot of theories that have been later proved wrong. (Would anyone care for some aether?) I care to hear points on which they're falsifiable. But more importantly, I care to hear specific technical claims made by this theory. I've asked for this a few times, and so far I've gotten word salad as a response. Just give me a handful of specific technical claims and we'll work from there on whether it's a falsifiable theory or not.
The closest you've given so far is:
1) Photons belong to a class of four particles which make up a family. If an annilation of a particle with its antipartner create particles which are not part of this family, then it is most likely that it cannot be said for all matter to be made of light, or the BOSON family.
2)We see particles come out of high-energy photon fields all the time. Annilation of almost all matter we have observed has a by-product of photon energy.
Do you agree that these are the specific technical claims made by your theory? Are there others?
There are others.
A scientist called Vernon Brown made it clear to the world that a photon travelling a bent spacetime path is either analogous or does experience a charge. So one theory right now is that a photon could be in a topological knot, probably following some bent path which cannot be much larger than a compton wavelength. The knot is just another way of saying something like a photon moving in a circular like path squeezed into a very small area, making up all particles, but more notably an electron - a little like the paper I cited from the Glaswegians.
I however, have a different view. I don't think the photon exists inside particles, those particles are just a different phase of a photon. To understand how this happens, would be to understand inertia and even the origin of mass. To disprove this theory once again, would also be to find a Higgs Boson. Then we don't require a full understanding of this theory to understand how particles with matter arise.
Wow - I think that's the first time that a NSF poster has been put forward as evidence in a citation. Vernon's theories are all very well and he has spent a huge amount of time on them - but they are a huge distance from being even close to accepted - or being "made clear to the world".
I don't understand your use of "phase"; light (waves in general) has/have a well defined property called phase - and this does not lead to the creation of mass. Mass comes from the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the scalar field of the higg's - if it doesn't (and it's unproven at moment), there is gonna be a lot of head-scratching in Geneve.
-
I did mention falsifiability on purpose. I really don't care to hear the reasons for liking an all-photon-matter theory. I can list many reasons for liking a lot of theories that have been later proved wrong. (Would anyone care for some aether?) I care to hear points on which they're falsifiable. But more importantly, I care to hear specific technical claims made by this theory. I've asked for this a few times, and so far I've gotten word salad as a response. Just give me a handful of specific technical claims and we'll work from there on whether it's a falsifiable theory or not.
The closest you've given so far is:
1) Photons belong to a class of four particles which make up a family. If an annilation of a particle with its antipartner create particles which are not part of this family, then it is most likely that it cannot be said for all matter to be made of light, or the BOSON family.
2)We see particles come out of high-energy photon fields all the time. Annilation of almost all matter we have observed has a by-product of photon energy.
Do you agree that these are the specific technical claims made by your theory? Are there others?
There are others.
A scientist called Vernon Brown made it clear to the world that a photon travelling a bent spacetime path is either analogous or does experience a charge. So one theory right now is that a photon could be in a topological knot, probably following some bent path which cannot be much larger than a compton wavelength. The knot is just another way of saying something like a photon moving in a circular like path squeezed into a very small area, making up all particles, but more notably an electron - a little like the paper I cited from the Glaswegians.
I however, have a different view. I don't think the photon exists inside particles, those particles are just a different phase of a photon. To understand how this happens, would be to understand inertia and even the origin of mass. To disprove this theory once again, would also be to find a Higgs Boson. Then we don't require a full understanding of this theory to understand how particles with matter arise.
Wow - I think that's the first time that a NSF poster has been put forward as evidence in a citation. Vernon's theories are all very well and he has spent a huge amount of time on them - but they are a huge distance from being even close to accepted - or being "made clear to the world".
I don't understand your use of "phase"; light (waves in general) has/have a well defined property called phase - and this does not lead to the creation of mass. Mass comes from the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the scalar field of the higg's - if it doesn't (and it's unproven at moment), there is gonna be a lot of head-scratching in Geneve.
Oh good point. This is not to be mistaken as the [phase of a photon]. This is a transition phase.
Also, I did not know Vernon was a member here.
-
My post 342421 actually has a lot in common with the idea of phase transitions explaining how a photon can transmutate into matter. Here wiki actually has something surprising to say about this too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition
Relevance in cosmologySymmetry-breaking phase transitions play an important role in cosmology. It has been speculated that, in the hot early universe, the vacuum (i.e. the various quantum fields that fill space) possessed a large number of symmetries. As the universe expanded and cooled, the vacuum underwent a series of symmetry-breaking phase transitions. For example, the electroweak transition broke the SU(2)×U(1) symmetry of the electroweak field into the U(1) symmetry of the present-day electromagnetic field.
-
yor_on, I'm confused. How is your post related to mine, maybe not? I would think an important question to ask is how did the electric field that space is made of get here. I don't know. It could have been here before the Universe and was somehow compressed into the matter that made our Universe.
Sorry Ron, I was looking at the main question, wanting to put it into perspective. To make particles by light is possible, as physics have proved already, but from that to fill a cup with it? And from that to make that lasting piece of matter? Nobody have ever been near it as far as I now? I think 'matter creation' have more mechanism(s) unknown to us, not that I can prove it other than by pointing out that what nature does every second, particle physics still can't.
It all depends on how one look at it of course. One might want to say that it's only the 'energy' missing for us :). Well, that 'only' is incredibly large, in fact more or less impossible to us, but nature manage it daily all the same
==
By the way "On the other hand, as shown by Jeans and H. Poincaré, it is demonstrable that if the motion of the material particles in light sources obeyed the laws of classical mechanics it would be impossible to derive the exact law of blackbody radiation, Planck’s law. It must therefore be assumed that traditional dynamics, even as modified by Einstein’s theory of relativity, is incapable of accounting for motion on a very small scale." by Louis de Broglie receiving the Nobel Prize 1929 .
So photons do not have a restmass, as defined.