Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: ScientificSorcerer on 29/05/2014 09:01:10
-
I am familiar with Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation which states that mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass. But Einstein doesn't go into detail as to how energy can be turned into mass, I want to know what mechanism causes that? Apparently light (energy) seems to somehow defy physics and ball up to form complex quark arrangements and electrons not to mention gluons, neutrinos and mass. How can simple light make these things?
I was learning about a concept called "gravitons" from alan hess, another member on this forum. He postulated that gravitons travel with light and that is why light can be bent by gravitational fields. Thus suggesting that light has an incredibly tiny gravitational field which is too small to measure. If he is right then I might have a theory as to how light can form particles. Here is my theory.
For this I need you to pull an Einstein and imagine yourself as a photon traveling at the speed of light. now imagine another photon traveling next to you in the same direction, relative to you the second photon is standing still, because its traveling at the same speed in the same direction. If alan hess is right and photons can attract each other via a tiny gravitational effect then it might be possible for the 2 photons to orbit each-other, thus slowing down, because the light isn't traveling straight anymore. it's still going at light speed but in a rotational way.
I hope this makes sense, it's not that complex.
This might be the reason why matter didn't come into existence for thousands of years after the big bang, because light needed time to get close enough to other light to orbit it to form mass.
Also. You are right to say that light has no net charge BUT it is still electro-magnetic like charged particles, neutrons have no charge but it is still made up of 2 charged particles. light does indeed have an "alternating charge" in the form of a sine wave. It has no NET charge but it does have charge.
-
Let's keep speculative theories outside the realm of mainstream science to New Theories, please.
-
It's spatially defined entities, without a definable center. They do keep to a 'circumstance' (circumference?) though and they do create matter macroscopically. It's a question of decoherence.
=
da¨'n my spelling and syntax suks
-
Well, I guess nobody has a good answer, oh well [:-\] I realize that it's stupid to think it could be that simple. But nobody will even give a hypothesis, at least give it a try.
-
Electrons are the stationary (timeless?) negatively-charged (versus positrons) versions of photons. Unlike photons they are able to have their state (dynamic?) varied. Their main purpose is to glue together atoms to create molecules. Sort of stateful gluons. They stabilise the molecule and absorb stray radiation. Sort of a molecular protector. They enable the molecule to become a frame of reference so that the laws of physics are the same for all components of the molecule (as per relativity). They may be event brokers, ferrying events (photons) to and from and without and within the molecule. They can also "travel" and may use this ability to enable atom-to-atom and molecule-to-molecule communication. This is just a slightly educated guess on my part, given I am a software developer by profession (these are all state machine constructs).
-
mxplxxx I Get the jist of your hypothosis/educated guess. Try this one on for size [^]
Ok as mentioned before, photons traveling in the same direction parallel to each-other appear to sit still relative to each-other and "gravitons" cause these photons to attract each-other into orbitals like a "photon cloud" which is similar to an "electron cloud" of an atom. this "photon cloud" would likely have an electromagnetic wave phase moment, similar to the way electron orbitals have magnetic moments.
these "wave phase moments" cancel each-other out for the most part, but in the process repel each-other as like charges repel, the gravity force holds it together in a stable equilibrium, forming an orb of light (electron)
wave interference of light in the same phase causes the effect to work. If all light made during the moment of the big bang was in phase then and only then could they bond together to form electrons.
-
I've split and moved this thread, as it's gone very much into new theories.
-
I am familiar with Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation which states that mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass.
That is not what the mass-energy relationship means. To obtain a proper understanding of what it does mean one should read the derivation of the relationship. I’ve posted it on my website at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm
I’ve posted Einstein’s other derivation of the relationship on my website as well. That derivation is often referred to as Einstein’s box thought experiment. In this experiment Einstein used the principle of the conservation of the center of mass of a system to derive the mass-energy relationship. It’s at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm
Here Einstein derived an expression for the mass density of radiation. The question of whether mass is converted into energy is addressed by Ralph Baierlein in the American Journal of Physics in the article Does Nature convert mass into energy? Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys. 2007. See
See http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/Baierlein_2007.pdf
See also http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/05.02.TPT.pdf
But Einstein doesn't go into detail as to how energy can be turned into mass, …
That’s not true. In his original 1905 paper he spoke of it when he said
It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. radium salts) the theory may be successfully be put to the test. If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies
[/quotes]
This means that it could be done using bodies whose energy content is highly variable. Instead of radium salts it was done with nuclei of atoms.
However Timothy Boyer showed examples of mechanisms using electrostatics in the following papers
Electrostatic potential energy leading to an inertial mass change of a system of two point charges by Timothy H. Boyer, Am. J. Phys., 46(4), Apr. (1978)
http://link.aip.org/link/ajpias/v46/i4/p383/s1
Electrostatic potential energy leading to a gravitational mass change for a system of two point charges by Timothy H. Boyer, Am. J. Phys., 47(2), Feb. (1979)
http://link.aip.org/link/ajpias/v47/i2/p129/s1
Example of mass-energy relation: Classical hydrogen atom accelerated or supported in a gravitational field by Timothy H. Boyer, Am. J. Phys., 66(10), Oct. (1998)
http://link.aip.org/link/ajpias/v66/i10/p872/s1
The mechanism is different for each form of energy. Take as an example two charged particles. Let’s measure their weight by placing them in a uniform gravitational field, each charge being located at z = 0. Let them be supported by an electric field. The gravitational field distorts the electric field and causes them to point down. However the closer together the charges are, thus the greater the energy of the two-charge system, the greater the electric field is directed downward. This requires a greater electrostatic force to support them. However the oppositely directed force required to support the two charges is exactly what is meant by the weight and hence the mass of the body. That’s why an increase in energy causes an increase in mass. You wanted the mechanism and now you have one of them. There isn’t just one single mechanism though. For each modality of energy there is a different mechanism in the change in mass.
Apparently light (energy) seems to somehow defy physics and ball up to form complex quark arrangements and electrons not to mention gluons, neutrinos and mass.
That’s absolutely wrong. Why you think that light balls up to form other particles is beyond me. Perhaps you’re thinking in terms of analogous objects in your every day existence? I.e. a car is made of an engine, drive shaft, wheels, a frame, etc. and so those things make up the car. I.e. if you take those things and put them together you have a car. That is not how particle physics works. Take as an example a hydrogen atom that is composed of a proton with an electron orbiting it. If the electron is moving in such a manner corresponding to a state of higher energy (at least higher than the “ground state” which is the state of minimum energy) then the state of motion of the electron can change, the new state now corresponding to a lower energy state. The difference in energy is carried off in the form of a photon. That means that a photon was actually created out of nothing, the energy coming from the decreased energy state of the atom. So you see, the atom didn’t “contain” a photon that was later vomited up.
How can simple light make these things?
It can’t. Where did you get the idea that it could?
I was learning about a concept called "gravitons" from alan hess, another member on this forum. He postulated that gravitons travel with light and that is why light can be bent by gravitational fields.
I don’t see any connection other than the fact that gravitons, by definition, quantize the gravitational field and the gravitational field can deflect light. However just because some gravitational fields can deflect light it doesn’t mean that they all do.
Suppose you have an incredibly powerful laser beam which lying on the x-axis and directed in the direction of increasing x. There are three sources of gravity here; stress, energy and momentum. Light has all three. Since light has energy the mass density of the light is non-zero. Therefore the beam of light creates a gravitational field and can deflect light. If you have photon moving in the gravitational parallel at a distance R from the beam moving parallel to the beam, i.e. also moving in the +x direction. Calculation shows that this light is not deflected. However a photon moving in the opposite direction will be.
Some of the calculations are online at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_light.htm
The rest can be found in Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Richard C. Tolman, Dover Pub, Sections 112-115. If you want to follow the derivation then the text is online at http://bookos-z1.org/book/1129690/7d3171
Thus suggesting that light has an incredibly tiny gravitational field which is too small to measure.
The reason for the small gravitational field of light is because the mass density of the sources if light that you’re familiar with are very small. Therefore a small mass gives rise to a small gravitational field.
For this I need you to pull an Einstein and imagine yourself as a photon traveling at the speed of light.
John Wheeler thought about that many decades ago. The object was called a Geon. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)
However the object formed this was is unstable and falls apart and is far too large to be thought of as a particle.
… now imagine another photon traveling next to you in the same direction, relative to you the second photon is standing still, because its traveling at the same speed in the same direction. If alan hess is right and photons can attract each other via a tiny gravitational effect then it might be possible for the 2 photons to orbit each-other, thus slowing down, because the light isn't traveling straight anymore. it's still going at light speed but in a rotational way.
I hope this makes sense, it's not that complex.
That’d be quite impossible. The field are far too weak for one photon to create a gravitational field large enough for another photon to orbit it. There are other complications which preclude such things from existing.