SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?

[funkstar]

Good one! I think this has already been covered by temur, though, because whether a particle obeys the exclusion principle or not depends on the spin of the particle.

Sure, ok.

Here's another layman one: We can excite an atom with a photon, but that doesn't change its mass.

 

[BenTheMan]

Sure, ok.

Here's another layman one: We can excite an atom with a photon, but that doesn't change its mass.

Hmm... Excited atoms have higher energy, so they SHOULD have larger masses, right? This is the same statement as "a compressed spring weighs more than a non-compressed spring". The difference is probably pretty tiny, but there IS still a difference.

 

[BenTheMan]

I've seen this argument, but it does not consider the confinement pattern that a photon would contort within, which is not known.

You yourself said that the radius of confinement must be ORDERS of magnitude smaller than the Compton wavelength of the electron.

The bottom line is that you have no convincing argument of WHY a photon should do this. The best you can do is say "interference from another photon", which is hardly convincing.

 

[Vern]

You yourself said that the radius of confinement must be ORDERS of magnitude smaller than the Compton wavelength of the electron.

I've always thought of the electron size as the circumference of one wavelength. If I said otherwise, I did so in error. This table shows my scheme; which can be wrong.

Neutron Mass Calculator Software

 

[funkstar]

Hmm... Excited atoms have higher energy, so they SHOULD have larger masses, right?

Even larger rest mass? My Google skills aren't up to figuring this out...

This is the same statement as "a compressed spring weighs more than a non-compressed spring".

Knowing nothing about this example (except that I think I've heard it stated before), my initial reaction is that weight and mass are not the same. But I'd like to hear more.

The difference is probably pretty tiny, but there IS still a difference.

Well, you're the physicist, if you think it's invalid, it probably is!

 

[Vern]

The bottom line is that you have no convincing argument of WHY a photon should do this. The best you can do is say "interference from another photon", which is hardly convincing.

Well BenTheMan, you are the one I need to convince since you are among the few people in the world who could actually become rich and famous by completing Maxwell's hypothesis.

We know that photon's do interfere with each other as detailed in Graduate level texts such as Principals Of Photonics. The interference can bend the paths of both interfering photons. In the bent paths the photons fields are not symmetrical. This results in a residual electric charge. The electric charge is positive feedback to the photons making them bend more in the same direction. At the right frequency this can trap them in a stable pattern.

We almost know enough now to state the problem of finishing Maxwells hypothesis. We know the frequency, that of the electron. We know the bend radius from that frequency. Some enterprising soul will soon figure out the rest of it.

Edit: Hypothesis

The final irreducible consitituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field

 

[BenTheMan]

We know that photon's do interfere with each other as detailed in Graduate level texts such as Principals Of Photonics. The interference can bend the paths of both interfering photons. In the bent paths the photons fields are not symmetrical. This results in a residual electric charge. The electric charge is positive feedback to the photons making them bend more in the same direction. At the right frequency this can trap them in a stable pattern.

So shall we leave it at that, then, and get back to the contest?

 

[(Q)]

I'll go with this one:

The breaking of the unbroken U(1) combination of SU(2)xU(1) symmetry.

 

[CptBork]

There's always the possibility of challenging conventional views of physics, quantum mechanics and such. Vern, unlike 99% of the people who come along with alternative hypotheses to the standard view, actually seems to know what he's talking about and understands the conventional view. It also seems like his own hypothesis is incomplete and untested at present, but who knows, maybe he's right. I'm obviously not qualified (yet) to discuss this stuff, I'm just a beginner when it comes to QFT, String Theory, etc.

Perhaps the original question would be better phrased as:
"Give your best argument against the view of matter being composed of photons." That would leave open the possibility that matter is indeed composed of photons, while allowing people to present arguments for why they think this is highly unlikely.

 

[BenTheMan]

I'll go with this one:

The breaking of the unbroken U(1) combination of SU(2)xU(1) symmetry.

I THINK you're saying that photon masses break U(1) spontaneously, which means we wouldn't have electromagnetism. But this is just the argument that ashura gave, no?

Did you mean something else?

 

[Vern]

Sorry BenTheMan; I'll try to do better

The breaking of the unbroken U(1) combination of SU(2)xU(1) symmetry.

Symmetry could be broken by the bent path of the field. But I don't know enough about Symmetry to make a rational argument

Thanks for the kind words CptBork; who knows, you may be that rich and famous person who completes Maxwell

 

[BenTheMan]

Bent path of the field?

I've never heard that one before...

 

[(Q)]

I THINK you're saying that photon masses break U(1) spontaneously, which means we wouldn't have electromagnetism. But this is just the argument that ashura gave, no?

Did you mean something else?

Gauge symmetry would be broken when attempting to use photons to produce mass, hence no resulting renormalization would occur as the field operator parameters become literally worthless.

 

[Vern]

Bent path of the field?

I mean when the path of a photon is bent, the fields on the outside of the bend occupy more area than those on the inside. This assumes the photon is comprised of two saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude with the electric and magnetic fields extending outward forever diminishing in amplitude.

 

[fadingCaptain]

I thought photons had been used to create mass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

"In nuclear physics, this occurs when a high-energy photon interacts with an atomic nucleus, allowing it to produce an electron and a positron without violating conservation of momentum. Since the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by something, pair production cannot occur in empty space out of a single photon; the nucleus is needed to conserve both momentum and energy."

 

[BenTheMan]

Gauge symmetry would be broken when attempting to use photons to produce mass, hence no resulting renormalization would occur as the field operator parameters become literally worthless.

Adding an explicit mass term for the photon certainly breaks gauge invariance. But this is the same answer as "photons must be massless". You just gave the reason WHY photons must be massless.

 

[Vern]

I thought photons had been used to create mass:

Yes; for many years; that's what happens downstream in electron-positron collisions. Your quoted paragraph states "cannot occur in empty space", this was recently proven not so. Particles of mass are produced any time sufficient energy comes to bear whether there is nucleus present or not.

 

[BenTheMan]

I thought photons had been used to create mass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

"In nuclear physics, this occurs when a high-energy photon interacts with an atomic nucleus, allowing it to produce an electron and a positron without violating conservation of momentum. Since the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by something, pair production cannot occur in empty space out of a single photon; the nucleus is needed to conserve both momentum and energy."

There's a difference---just because you can create an electron positron pair from a photon doesn't mean that the electron and positron are MADE of photons.

I could just as well say: The LHC will be producing many new particles by colliding protons together (or quarks and gluons, if you like). Therefore, any particles resulting from said collisions are made of quarks and gluons. This is not true at all.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Ben,
Yes, I see. I guess the best I can come up with is that photons have no mass. Matter, by definition, has mass. I know it is simpleton and has been said already but, well there you have it.

(As an aside, I did not use the term 'rest' mass because it doesn't make sense to me when talking about photons. A photon can never be at rest so of course it could have no rest mass.)

 

[Mike Honcho]

If electrons absorb and emit photons when jumping orbitals, doesn't this mean that (regardless of size) electrons can in fact "contain" photons... or even be composed of them?