1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can matter be made of light?

« on: 03/02/2011 13:16:25 »

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.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can matter be made of light?

« on: 03/02/2011 13:03:05 »

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.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can a definitive theory of Fermi Energy exist?

« on: 03/02/2011 12:58:50 »

In my eyes this is how wiki should have written the first line in the article:

The Fermi energy is a concept in quantum mechanics which refers to the energy of the highest occupied quantum state in a system of fermions which exist near absolute zero temperatures

That would be much more correct than saying:

''The Fermi energy is a concept in quantum mechanics usually referring to the energy of the highest occupied quantum state in a system of fermions at absolute zero temperature''

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can a definitive theory of Fermi Energy exist?

« on: 03/02/2011 12:49:30 »

You do realize it exists as a limit, which is perfectly well defined?

There are limits in mathematics. The term ''limit'' however can be decieving. For instance, you could have a limit on an equation, where something tends towards zero, while another limit tends towards infinity. The infinity could be anything, but because infinity hardly exists in any practical terms for us, the limit can be meaningless in the sense it is unnatainable. It just so happens we try an draw other meanings from these limits, and a good example would perhaps be Einsteins equations of motion mr = m₀ /sqrt(1 - v²/c²) where relativistic mass increases proportional to an increase with velocity and energy reaches infinity as the object reaches lightspeed.

But it would not make sense to say we have an infinite amount of energy when we finally make a peice of matter reach lightspeed. Just like the zero-Point temperatures, it does not matter how much energy you put into your machine to make that particle accelerate towards lightspeed. It will reach the very boundary of this limit, and then always fail to ever get to that speed. We don't say that the particle will reach lightspeed, that doesn't happen and will never happen, a true matter of experimentation. If we did state that, that then would be analogous to stating that a particle can experience zero temperatures, which the wiki article seems to be hinting at from word go.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can a definitive theory of Fermi Energy exist?

« on: 03/02/2011 11:18:01 »

Think about what the ''zero'' in zero-point means. Go back to when we believed you could cool the system to absolute temperatures. We cannot cool our system to an absolute freezing temperature. We can only get so close, and then it evades us. There is always thermodynamics in a system. I can settle with ''ground state'' this is very true. I don't settle with the terminology that we can make soemthing reach a zero-point temperature. That is false.

Having a personal dislike for the terminology is different than having a legitimate beef with the science.  Your personal opinion is unlikely to change scientific consensus on the terminology:
1) Zero-point energy means essentially the quantum ground state, which is not necessarily zero-energy.
2) Absolute zero is taken to be the case of a system in it's lowest energy state, which is not zero-momentum (which is classically zero movement).
3) The Fermi energy is the energy of the highest quantum particle when a system is at absolute zero.  This doesn't have to be physically achievable, but it is a theoretical and physical limit on the system.

All these are perfectly well defined and are theoretical as well as physical limits, regardless of whether you can obtain them in a lab--no matter how much you cool something you can get as close as you want to absolute zero without passing it, the same with the Fermi energy.

Oh I don't know about that: for me, having a beef with the terminology requires an understanding of what you are arguing about in the science of things. Saying Fermi energy requires an electron at absolute zero temperatures is incorrect! Since we can never reach zero temperatures, it may not be fair to even state a real Fermi energy exists if it depends on this crucial feature.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can matter be made of light?

« on: 03/02/2011 11:13:47 »

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.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?

« on: 03/02/2011 11:08:12 »

I've lost track here of what the conversation is about any more.

8

That CAN'T be true! / Are American astronauts who report UFO's Hero's?

« on: 03/02/2011 11:02:41 »

QC, could you please add a bit to your original post so that it is something other than a link to a separate news and forum website?  As it is, it reads a bit like this forum is being used as an ad for stardrive, which probably isn't your intent.

Sorry. I won't do that again.

There could be worse places though, I mean to advertize. Not that I was. I just thought I should mention Jack Sarfatti has had nothing but good words about this site

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?

« on: 02/02/2011 12:54:18 »

I was not referring to relativity. I was referring to his ideas on time being an illusion.

And I'm not derailing the thread. I'm just asking you to present some evidence to support your claim that time is an illusion. That was an idea that Einstein came up with very late in his career, long after his work on relativity.

yeah, that is relativity - timelessness is part of relativity, a direct solution to General Relativity, hence it is not merely an idea which was kicked around. Understand that and you might get over yourself for a second.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can matter be made of light?

« on: 02/02/2011 12:52:02 »

I'll need to come back to this, I don't have much time right now.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can a definitive theory of Fermi Energy exist?

« on: 02/02/2011 12:51:09 »

Actually, I'm referring to temperatures that have been created by scientists in labs.

EDIT: I was merely pointing out that, despite your assertion -

"Absolute zero is like one of those mythical fairytales your grandma reads you at night. It doesn't exist."

While I agree we will probably never get all the way there, we have created temperatures that come remarkably close to 0K, so I would not exactly describe it as a fairytale. As we reached 0.00000017K about fifteen years ago, it's perhaps being pedantic to say 0K does not exist.

At what temperature do you think we might declare victory?
 

This depends on how much energy you are willing to pump into your cooling system, and also the magnitude of energy you began with. It's not easy to ask how low we can actually go. It's safer to state that we will never reach the condition T=0.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?

« on: 01/02/2011 19:49:20 »

QC - If you can't cite an experiment to confirm this is anything more that speculation, it remains speculation.

Just because Einstein kicked some ideas around in his latter years, it does not make it accepted science. Remember, he also thought that QM was nonsense, and so far, he was wrong on that one.

If you can't provide any empirical evidence to support your ideas, please don't tell other people time is all lies and illusion when all the empirical evidence confirms the existence of time. To do so is only creating unnecessary confusion.

I know you are a moderator, but you are bound to discipline. I will surely report you for derailing a thread with baseless claims.

Relativity is not an ''idea which was kicked around''.

Why does this part escape you so evidently?

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can a definitive theory of Fermi Energy exist?

« on: 01/02/2011 19:45:59 »

So, how far from 0K do you think 170nK is?

You seem to be arguing there is not much difference. If you want to pedantic, then of course, normal spacetime is very close to zero-point energy - that is, a vacuum never reaches zero temperatures. If you take your attention to the wiki article however, the Fermi energy requires the idea of a zero temperature, which is incorrect through terminology and experimentation.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can matter be made of light?

« on: 01/02/2011 19:43:45 »

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?''

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can matter be made of light?

« on: 01/02/2011 15:01:31 »

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.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can matter be made of light?

« on: 01/02/2011 14:50:54 »

Yes, but can you answer this question 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.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can matter be made of light?

« on: 01/02/2011 12:54:09 »

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.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can a definitive theory of Fermi Energy exist?

« on: 01/02/2011 12:51:42 »

''The Absolute Zero of temperature is thought of as an unattainable goal.''

http://www.chronon.org/articles/absolute_zero.html

And that was a very quick search.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can a definitive theory of Fermi Energy exist?

« on: 01/02/2011 12:42:34 »

Think about what the ''zero'' in zero-point means. Go back to when we believed you could cool the system to absolute temperatures. We cannot cool our system to an absolute freezing temperature. We can only get so close, and then it evades us. There is always thermodynamics in a system. I can settle with ''ground state'' this is very true. I don't settle with the terminology that we can make soemthing reach a zero-point temperature. That is false.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can a definitive theory of Fermi Energy exist?

« on: 01/02/2011 12:39:55 »

I think you're confused on what zero-point energy is.  From wikipedia, "Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state."   It does exist and agrees with what I said above about the Fermi energy.  I'm not sure where this idea of all motion ceasing comes from.  Zero-point energy states can definitely have non-zero momentum.  Not to tout my credentials too much, but I have studied Fermi-Dirac statistics and the Fermi energy in graduate level physics coursework, so I'm quite sure what I'm saying about them is correct.  I think this was the book we used, if that helps. 

I am not confused at all. Our archaic definition of zero-point systems is when you cool them down and find no movement at all. However, according to the equation provided by wiki, you find there is still half the energy left in the system. The name zero-point energy caught on, saying that absolute cooling of systems was impossible. If by lowest energy, that is simply a ground state of the system, but the zero in zero-point, is never achieved.