SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
- Status
Newsflash: it takes a lot of computing (usually on fast array processors) to calculate real quantum field perturbations.
Writing some code that makes a picture is fine, as long as you accept it can only be a "rule-of-thumb" model.
That it doesn't, and can't hope to model what really happens at the atomic level - that we can look at in great detail these days, and we're at the point that single excitations in that field can be created and destroyed, or emitted and absorbed, uncollapsed or recovered even; we're at the "classical limit" you might say.
There's just far too much evidence that your theory doesn't fit the evidence, at all in fact.
Writing some code that makes a picture is fine, as long as you accept it can only be a "rule-of-thumb" model.
That it doesn't, and can't hope to model what really happens at the atomic level - that we can look at in great detail these days, and we're at the point that single excitations in that field can be created and destroyed, or emitted and absorbed, uncollapsed or recovered even; we're at the "classical limit" you might say.
There's just far too much evidence that your theory doesn't fit the evidence, at all in fact.
This evidence you mean. Or are you speaking of the evidence BenTheMan is collecting here. So far I haven't seen one piece of evidence that is fatal to the photon-only universe notion that Maxwell proposed.Vkothii said:
I'm just trying to keep people honest with themselves. I've been looking for the fatal blow that BenTheMan is seeking for over 40 years now. It ain't easy.Vkothii said:
Granted, that simple little piece of code I wrote doesn't model the neutron. Its just a schematic.
But it can make a hundred just as easy as one
Your list of 'evidence' is a mixture of ignorance of quantum mechanics and making claims you don't back up. 'Saturated points' in case 14, the photon being 2 points of electric and magnetic saturation in case 13. The first 10 cases or so are nothing but "We mention a physical phenomena or prediction and claim our interpretation works for it". You make quantitative claims you don't back up. Oh and cases 15 and 17 contradict one another.I can be wrong about things; I would like to know which particular delusions you mean; maybe I could avoid them; or maybe change my mind even
Theres more to physics than producing a formula for mass. You'd be suprised how easy that is. It's getting all the dynamics right which are the problem. So you have a formula for the masses of 3 particles. Well if we lived in 1927 you might be okay there, since we only knew about those 3 and the photon. Now we know about loads of fundamental ones and hundreds of composite ones. Where's your formulae for them? Can you explain their dynamics?
Use your model to predict, to within 5%, the differential cross section of the interaction of an electron and a positron going to a muon and an antimuon. Usual 4-vector notation. This is a homework question for people doing a first course in quantum field theory. So I expect you can at least manage to do it in your own model.
If you cannot, you have no right to claim you've explained anything since you cannot model anything which involves interactions. A formula for 3 masses is easy to come up with.
And where did Maxwell propose a photon only universe? I missed that in the more than a dozen courses I took in electromagnetism, electrodynamics, SR, GR, QM and QFT at the same college Maxwell worked at.
Got a source for your claim?
I'm not ignorant of quantum mechanics, I just think there's a better way to describe nature. The Evidence departs from Quantum Mechanics. You can't describe a photon-only universe using Quantum Mechanics. The idea that the forces are exchanged by particle transfer is alien to the idea of a photon-only universe.AlphaNumeric said:
Edit: The last few paragraphs of this hint at Maxwell's hypothesis. I don't have the original reference in hand, but it exists.
But we digress. I hoped you wouldn't do this in this thread.
Last edited:
Really? So what makes you not ignorant of it? Did you do a degree which involved it, so applied maths or physics? If so, where and when? If not, what textbooks have you read and worked through? What have you used to gauge your understanding, so that you have a working knowledge of QM?
And these questions are relevant to this thread because you're using your 'lack of ignorant' to make claims about the answer to the question in the thread title. I'm sure your experience in QM would play a part in how people gauge your answers.
And as I gave examples of, your 'evidence' is nonsense.
You can describe a system which is entirely made of photons. It's called 'Pure Yang Mills', which is the description of a gauge theory without matter in it. Typically research is put into describing a non-abelian gauge theory with $$\mathfrak{su}(3)$$ gauge potential because that gives you gluons, which can self interact due to the non-abelian nature of the gauge potential. If you set the gauge potential to be $$\mathfrak{u}(1)$$ then you get a model where the only particles in the universe are photons. Except they don't interact so you end up with a trivial theory.
Proof you lied about being familiar with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the concept that all processes and interactions are the result of particle exchange!! The electromagnetic force is the effect of photons being exchanged between electromagnetically charged particles. The weak force is the effect of W and Z boson exchanges between weak charged particles (ie leptons). The strong force is the effect of gluons being exchanged between particles with 'colour'. Gravity is the effect of gravitons being exchanged between particles.
We have working, experimentally verified to staggering levels, models for the first 3 quantum mechanical descriptions of forces. The quantum mechanical nature of gravitons is still an area of research.
1. You cannot actually find a quote of Maxwell saying what you claim he said. You have to put words in someone else's mouth who is mentioning his work! So it's not from 'the horse's mouth', it's, supposedly, from Maxwell to Einstein to you to me. Funny how noone else thinks Maxwell said as you claim Einstein implies Maxwell was kinda saying.
But what would I know You are spamming this thread with your crap. If you didn't want people to say "Sorry, I don't believe that!" then you should keep your pet theories to their own thread. Or would you be happy if I had just said "OMG, your idea is amazing! You've revealed the lies I've been taught for all of my life. Monday I'll go into the physics department I'm doing a PhD in and tell them I'm going to throw out the dozens of books I've read and own on quantum mechanics and burn my Cambridge degree because they are all worthless and I'm going to start researching your idea! Thank you so much!"
I bet if I'd kissed your backside you'd have been happy to talk about your work in this thread. You were until I said "Hang on, it's crap!".AlphaNumeric I [i said:am[/i] an expert. I'm a string theory PhD student with a masters in theoretical physics.
.
i dont know, maybe its because i live in ohio, but anyone i have ever known to call themselves teachers or experts on anything are nine times out of ten dumber than the floor they stand on
just because you call yourself an expert on something doesnt make it so AND, EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT that is no excuse to be a complete a-hole about it. you are the only one who has incited agression on this thread.
lighten up dude:shrug:
You said "You can't describe a photon-only universe using Quantum Mechanics. The idea that the forces are exchanged by particle transfer is alien to the idea of a photon-only universe.". That implies that quantum mechanics cannot describe forces by particle exchange, if the universe is nothing but photons. Well quantum mechanical forces only works by particle exchange. Another thing thing you didn't know is that quantum mechanics can describe a system where there is only photons. But, going by the rules of photon interactions we know and observe, such a system would be trivial because the photons would not interact. You said that quantum mechanics cannot deal with a photon only universe, I demonstrated that was false.
Was there some reason you picked out just that one thing to reply to and ignored questions about you supposedly not being ignorant of quantum mechanics, which you dispute? Did you understand my mentioning of gauge potentials? If not, what didn't you understand?
Perhaps I should clarify. I'm about to start my 7th year of university. The first 4 were spent at Cambridge doing maths, eventually concentrating in quantum field theory and general relativity. The last two have been spent doing a theoretical physics PhD, specialising in the compact dimensions of string theory. During that time I've been paid, by professors, to teach 1st and 2nd years mathematical methods for physicists and quantum mechanics. This year I'll be doing relativity and motion, electromagnetism and the aforementioned two courses again.
Unlike people such as Vern, when someone challenges me to show I can do a little of the stuff I talk about, I am able to do it. Or I can just point to my website which includes a few essays I've written for interested people on things like complex manifolds and Penrose diagrams as well as linking to work I've done in compact dimensions as well as little side projects involving quantum field theory. I need to update it actually since I've done stuff on AdS/CFT recently.
So Vern, why are you 'not ignorant' of quantum mechanics? Are we just to accept "Because I say so!" from you?
I am an expert. I'm a string theory PhD student with a masters in theoretical physics.
Thank you for finally admitting that electrons absorb photons. That wasn't so hard now was it? Good tool...good tool. I hope Ben doesn't give you a time out or anything for finally admitting a basic physics. Maybe you could explain it to that expert. Because he catagorically denies the fact here.
Regarding the neutrinos.. Ok remove that arguement from the list. The rest stand.
Your apology is accepted.
Last edited:
Mike, I must assume you're either deliberately trying to come across as stupid or you are actually stupid. You claimed electrons contain photons. Ben and I both said no. Ben and I both say that electrons can absorb photons and thus their momentum and energy (since both those things are conserved in nature) but that doesn't mean they contain photons.
And I didn't apologise, I told you you were wrong. And I told you I am an expert and I justified why I think that.
So please don't be fooled into thinking anyone has said you're right. I haven't. Ben hasn't. And I've got nothing to apologise about. If anything, your post confirms that you're either an idiot, a liar or an idiot who doesn't realise he's lying. Either way, do us all a favour and STFU.
And I didn't apologise, I told you you were wrong. And I told you I am an expert and I justified why I think that.
So please don't be fooled into thinking anyone has said you're right. I haven't. Ben hasn't. And I've got nothing to apologise about. If anything, your post confirms that you're either an idiot, a liar or an idiot who doesn't realise he's lying. Either way, do us all a favour and STFU.
Back to the contest though..
I believe Entry #8 is pretty much debunked. I, of course, am not the final authority.
Now for some of the others:
"Entry #1: from ashura
Layman entry: Matter has mass. Photons are massless. Ergo, matter can't be made of photons.
CptBork pointed out that ashura REALLY means rest mass."
---The latest Quantum concensus is that mass is a property of energy. According to Mr Higgs matter/mass IS in fact made of that which is massless.
For this reason I think Entry #1 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
I stand on this position but have removed references to bosons at the request of my helpful friend Alphalunatic.
"Entry #2: from Diode - Man
Photons are products of excited (heated) atomic matter. ...400 to 790,000,000,000,000 waves per second...With such erratic motions it would be impossible for a photon to become a solid or permanent piece of any molecular or atomic configuration. ” - etc.
---I believe the point of this post is most concisely stated by the following sentence: "With such erratic motions it would be impossible for a photon to become a solid or permanent piece of any molecular or atomic configuration."
Please refer to the Quantum Atomic Model. As stated (repeatedly), photons are absorbed by, contained within and emmitted by electrons (and hence atoms).
Since photons DO in fact become part of all atomic configurations, I think Entry #2 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
Even AlphaAnalretentive did not critique my reasoning here. That is equivalent to having the full endorsement of Bill Clinton. Please remove this entry.
"Entry #3: from Steve100
If two particles with the same mass are made of photons, they must be made of the same amount of photons.
This would make the 2 particles have identical properties, and we already know that we can have particles with different properties and the same mass.
Therefore the particles cannot be made of photons."
---Photons come with widely varying energies depending on their frequency.
I hate to play the E=MC² card but differing energies result in differing masses during the conversion.
As such, particles with the same mass are not necessarily made of the same number of photons. Two high energy photons might create more mass than two low energy photons I therefore think Entry #3 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
"Entry #5: from melodicbard
Photon does not have charge.
Matter can carry positive or negative charge."
---This is nonsensical.
See my primary arguement- Electrons absorb, contain and then emit photons. Electrons carry charge.
As such, I think Entry #5 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
Alphageneric approves of this message.
"Entry #6: from Vkothii.
-I can't argue this entry. Hey Alphatool.. A little help here? Surely you can pick this apart like an OCD tweaker with a lice comb.
"Entry #7: from Cyperium
Why can't mass be made of photons?
Photons are the result of the energy released when mass converts or when something of higher energy enters a lower state (then the energy difference is released as photons to preserve the energy total)
So photons preserves the energy, so then there is no need for preservation in the form of photons, if the energy is already preserved in mass.
You can convert photons to mass, or mass to photons. But photons cannot be mass. "
--- If you can convert photons to mass and mass to photons then OBVIOUSLY photons CAN be mass- and vice versa. As such I think Entry #7 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
"Entry #8: from Janus
Why matter can not be made up of photons...."
---See above posts.
I request Entry #8 be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
Entry #9: from...Vern?
BenTheMan; an entry. In all of the photon theories I can find, not one of them can make a neutrino out of photons....
---I retract my opposition to this entry. Thanks Alpha!
"Entry #11: from CptBork
and ordinary matter would quickly decay into photons if its was simply composed of bunches of them. "
---Ordinary matter IS composed of bunches of protons, neutrons and electrons but atoms very rarely decay into them (alpha particles, nuclear and radioactive materials excluded).
I believe this entry is not yet debunked and requires further debate.
Any insight regarding this entry (#11)? I understand entropy is the tendency but why would the decay occur "quickly"?
I believe Entry #8 is pretty much debunked. I, of course, am not the final authority.
Now for some of the others:
"Entry #1: from ashura
Layman entry: Matter has mass. Photons are massless. Ergo, matter can't be made of photons.
CptBork pointed out that ashura REALLY means rest mass."
---The latest Quantum concensus is that mass is a property of energy. According to Mr Higgs matter/mass IS in fact made of that which is massless.
For this reason I think Entry #1 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
I stand on this position but have removed references to bosons at the request of my helpful friend Alphalunatic.
"Entry #2: from Diode - Man
Photons are products of excited (heated) atomic matter. ...400 to 790,000,000,000,000 waves per second...With such erratic motions it would be impossible for a photon to become a solid or permanent piece of any molecular or atomic configuration. ” - etc.
---I believe the point of this post is most concisely stated by the following sentence: "With such erratic motions it would be impossible for a photon to become a solid or permanent piece of any molecular or atomic configuration."
Please refer to the Quantum Atomic Model. As stated (repeatedly), photons are absorbed by, contained within and emmitted by electrons (and hence atoms).
Since photons DO in fact become part of all atomic configurations, I think Entry #2 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
Even AlphaAnalretentive did not critique my reasoning here. That is equivalent to having the full endorsement of Bill Clinton. Please remove this entry.
"Entry #3: from Steve100
If two particles with the same mass are made of photons, they must be made of the same amount of photons.
This would make the 2 particles have identical properties, and we already know that we can have particles with different properties and the same mass.
Therefore the particles cannot be made of photons."
---Photons come with widely varying energies depending on their frequency.
I hate to play the E=MC² card but differing energies result in differing masses during the conversion.
As such, particles with the same mass are not necessarily made of the same number of photons. Two high energy photons might create more mass than two low energy photons I therefore think Entry #3 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
"Entry #5: from melodicbard
Photon does not have charge.
Matter can carry positive or negative charge."
---This is nonsensical.
See my primary arguement- Electrons absorb, contain and then emit photons. Electrons carry charge.
As such, I think Entry #5 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
Alphageneric approves of this message.
"Entry #6: from Vkothii.
-I can't argue this entry. Hey Alphatool.. A little help here? Surely you can pick this apart like an OCD tweaker with a lice comb.
"Entry #7: from Cyperium
Why can't mass be made of photons?
Photons are the result of the energy released when mass converts or when something of higher energy enters a lower state (then the energy difference is released as photons to preserve the energy total)
So photons preserves the energy, so then there is no need for preservation in the form of photons, if the energy is already preserved in mass.
You can convert photons to mass, or mass to photons. But photons cannot be mass. "
--- If you can convert photons to mass and mass to photons then OBVIOUSLY photons CAN be mass- and vice versa. As such I think Entry #7 is defunct and request it be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
"Entry #8: from Janus
Why matter can not be made up of photons...."
---See above posts.
I request Entry #8 be removed unless a rational arguement is presented to the contrary.
Entry #9: from...Vern?
BenTheMan; an entry. In all of the photon theories I can find, not one of them can make a neutrino out of photons....
---I retract my opposition to this entry. Thanks Alpha!
"Entry #11: from CptBork
and ordinary matter would quickly decay into photons if its was simply composed of bunches of them. "
---Ordinary matter IS composed of bunches of protons, neutrons and electrons but atoms very rarely decay into them (alpha particles, nuclear and radioactive materials excluded).
I believe this entry is not yet debunked and requires further debate.
Any insight regarding this entry (#11)? I understand entropy is the tendency but why would the decay occur "quickly"?
you know much but understand little.
PM me and I'll hold your hand through how absorbing photons, conserving their momentum and energy and then emitting photons is equivalent to containing photons. Gimp.
And thanks again.
Don't gush. Your apology is accepted
Chuckle.
Quick Ben, delete post, spud is the furthest thing from a valuable contributor here.
Gimp!...Guffaw!
Feel free to point out where the 'n' variable is in quantum field theory which counts the number of photon counts is. The variables which describe an electron are spin, polarisation, energy and momentum. An electron which emits a photon is described, in QED and at tree level, through the interaction vertex found by functional variation of the interaction term $$ie\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}A_{\mu}\psi$$. This then provides a power expansion for beyond tree level loop calculations.
When the electrons absorb or emit a photon their energy and momentum change, in line with conservation of energy and momentum, but nothing else changes.
I can walk you through the method to compute such things if you want. Alternatively you can read these but we both know you won't understand them.
It must be tough, being so detached from reality that you have to tell such transparent lies. You are wrong. I never agreed with you or apologised for anything, because I've had nothing to apologise for. I have always agreed with Ben in this thread. And never with you. I consider you a crank of the highest order, given you need to lie about the fact I need to apologise for anything and secondly that you need to pretend I have apologised for anything when the post of mine you quoted was me saying "You're wrong" but you are too stupid to realise it.
Please, please tell me you don't have children.
- Status