You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I do.
Anything with zero mass is effectively accelerated to infinity, beyond the horizon.
IOW, the 'hole' makes light "go" to the visible horizon of the universe, it 'disappears' beyond any light cone we will ever see.
Accelerated by what? Gravity?
And its not pulling light in, but pushing it out. To infinity.
Never mind.
WTF?
What does "pushing or pulling" have to do with a black hole?
Energy doesn't create mass, it's the other way, Einsteins relation doesn't mean you can go back and forth from mass to energy;
virtual pairs at the event horizon of black holes can radiate mass back into our universe, but like I said, any photon with a worldline that takes it inside that horizon, effectively goes to the visible edge of our universe. Because it does not interact gravitationally. but according to curvature of spacetime.
BHs curve the stuff infinitely, so massless particles accelerate to infinity, beyond any future light-cone we are in. So do massive particles, when they get to the singularity.
What does "pushing or pulling" have to do with a black hole?
Energy doesn't create mass, it's the other way, Einsteins relation doesn't mean you can go back and forth from mass to energy;
virtual pairs at the event horizon of black holes can radiate mass back into our universe, but like I said, any photon with a worldline that takes it inside that horizon, effectively goes to the visible edge of our universe. Because it does not interact gravitationally. but according to curvature of spacetime.
BHs curve the stuff infinitely, so massless particles accelerate to infinity, beyond any future light-cone we are in. So do massive particles, when they get to the singularity.
Last edited:
I'm sure you know that photon's do attract gravitationally. That doesn't imply there's inertial mass there I don't think.
True in theory; I'm not sure the theory is 100% reality. I suspect there is a saturation constant that limits the process so that the singularity that is supposed to exist in Black Holes is never quite reached.
Yes. Photons curve the spacetime fabric (around them).
Only in a particular way. Depending on their directions of motion relative to one another sometimes photons won't interact.Yes. Photons curve the spacetime fabric (around them).
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Photons can't accelerate and matter can.
So what happens when matter, say a bunch of electrons, accelerates past c, into a BH?Simon A said:Photons can't accelerate and matter can.
True; that's why when mass, if it is comprised of photons trapped in resonant patterns, must distort when it moves and so exhibit relativity phenomena. H Ziegler explained this to Einstein in 1906.Simon Anders said:Photons can't accelerate and matter can.
Last edited:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Oh, I haven't the slightest idea.So what happens when matter, say a bunch of electrons, accelerates past c, into a BH?
I am hoping for the layperson consolation prize.
(moderator, please note: my answer is concise. A quality often given some weight in competitions.)
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I felt this was the most important part of your response. The rest was over my head but no doubt interesting.True;
Maybe we should just say that a ball of photons moving in circles would need to squeeze together some to move because all the photons are already moving at the speed of light and can't move any faster, as you observed.Simon Anders said:I felt this was the most important part of your response. The rest was over my head but no doubt interesting.
Before any electrons get to the speed of light, they emit radiation - 'energy', as high energy photons (with a large or extreme frequency).
Electrons 'emit' (low-energy) all the time, actually, in wires and other semiconducting crystals; electrons create perturbations in spacetime when they move through it -it's called: propagation (of EM radiation).
Electrons 'emit' (low-energy) all the time, actually, in wires and other semiconducting crystals; electrons create perturbations in spacetime when they move through it -it's called: propagation (of EM radiation).
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Hey, that I could follow. Thanks.Maybe we should just say that a ball of photons moving in circles would need to squeeze together some to move because all the photons are already moving at the speed of light and can't move any faster, as you observed.
Who is willing to have a go at undoing this a bit and seeing if it goes back together? What mechanism might he be talking about? "In a way that" some field binds particles isn't all that illuminating.Albrecht Giese. said:If two particles are bound to each other in a way that the binding field enforces a specific distance then, at every change of the position of one of them, it needs a finite time caused by the finite speed of light to make the other particle moving. This delay is sufficient to explain the inertial behaviour.
It turns out that the inertial mass of an elementary particle is given by the universal equation $$\; m= \frac \hbar {(R.c)} $$
Also the relativistic increase of mass at motion and as a consequence the mass energy equivalence (Einstein) is perfectly explained by this mechanism.
--www.ag-physics.org/rmass/
BTW I didn't find the word "photon" on this webpage.
A mathematical observation:
on p3 of this thread, the 3rd "point" was included in the published "book list", and then on the 2^3 page, it got rehashed, there seems to be a recurrence. Or am I imagining one?
This is the (2^3 + 2^2 + 1)th or the (2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 + -1)th page...?
then the matrix would go: {0,1,0, -1}{1,0,0,0}{1,1,0,1}
(or {0,0,1,1} for the first, and/or {1,1,1,-1} , for the last row), Iff we get another rehash; maybe not...?
in what mathematical sense, anyway, and why am I bored enough to care?
on p3 of this thread, the 3rd "point" was included in the published "book list", and then on the 2^3 page, it got rehashed, there seems to be a recurrence. Or am I imagining one?
This is the (2^3 + 2^2 + 1)th or the (2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 + -1)th page...?
then the matrix would go: {0,1,0, -1}{1,0,0,0}{1,1,0,1}
(or {0,0,1,1} for the first, and/or {1,1,1,-1} , for the last row), Iff we get another rehash; maybe not...?
in what mathematical sense, anyway, and why am I bored enough to care?
Last edited:
Albrecht Gieses seems to be advocating a photon theory of the universe without straying too far away from QM theory. He is presenting in some high places, but I could never convince him that his two basic building block particles were actually photons. Phd's don't listen too good to lowly engineers.Vkothii said:Who is willing to have a go at undoing this a bit and seeing if it goes back together?
Last edited:
He mentions "light particles, e.g. photons and neutrinos"; what does that imply?
Where does deBroglie's idea of photons being composite leptons (electrons, neutrinos) get to? How equivalent, and what does that mean?
Isn't there an immediate problem there, with then giving, or assigning every boson a gravitational charge?
He does appear to be trying to tie the fundamental angular momentum of particles to mass, and the geometry of the spin (via $$ \pi $$).
Spin is a wavefunction that every particle conserves, by "keeping" it, it doesn't gain or lose any.
But electrons can interact with a strong magnetic field across a 2-d surface, the quantum Hall effect, and you get fractional magnetic potential states, like 1/3, 1/2, 1/5, 1/7 - like harmonics, but explained by isospin (of electrons in a magnetic field); you get phases of magnetic quanta, like liquids, gases, and solids - the magnetic part of EM is seen compartmenting itself when electrons are forced to move coherently spin-wise, over a spectrum of 1/2 the EM field, the magnetic "component".
Where does deBroglie's idea of photons being composite leptons (electrons, neutrinos) get to? How equivalent, and what does that mean?
He doesn't actually describe these other than as SM particles like the above.Albrecht Giese said:It is a well proven fact, that the speed of light is reduced in a gravitational field. As a consequence, a light beam, which passes a big object, is bent towards the object. This bending process is quantitatively explained by the refraction of light at the gravitational potential. - The same is true for every light-like particle.
Isn't there an immediate problem there, with then giving, or assigning every boson a gravitational charge?
He does appear to be trying to tie the fundamental angular momentum of particles to mass, and the geometry of the spin (via $$ \pi $$).
Spin is a wavefunction that every particle conserves, by "keeping" it, it doesn't gain or lose any.
But electrons can interact with a strong magnetic field across a 2-d surface, the quantum Hall effect, and you get fractional magnetic potential states, like 1/3, 1/2, 1/5, 1/7 - like harmonics, but explained by isospin (of electrons in a magnetic field); you get phases of magnetic quanta, like liquids, gases, and solids - the magnetic part of EM is seen compartmenting itself when electrons are forced to move coherently spin-wise, over a spectrum of 1/2 the EM field, the magnetic "component".
Last edited:
He's not here to defend his views and I'm not qualified to do so. In any event we're straying off the topic. Giese was just a reference to show that debunking, in general, all photon-only universe ideas is not a simple undertaking.Vkothii said:Isn't there an immediate problem there, with then giving, or assigning every boson a gravitational charge?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.