SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
- Status
At the risk of being mocked, humiliated and otherwise enthusiastically attacked by the very learned AlphaNumeric, I would like to apologetically offer dispute to this your second entry.
1) Your opening statement is more accurately stated:
"Because you can create an electron and a positron from 2 photons, they must both be made of at least 1 photon."
There is nothing to say 4 photons could not come together to form a more energetic electron/positron pair.
2) The remainder of your entry seems to only support matter being made of photons:
"Because you can create an electron and a positron from 2 photons, they must both be made of 1 photon. "
- you are supposed to be arguing this point.
"Anything that is only made of 1 thing (you are refering to a photon) is that very thing (a photon). "
- thank you. I agree.
"Nothing in the universe can be made of one thing (a photon) that is not itself (a photon), therefore matter is not(?) made of photons."
I'm sorry if any animals were injured during the writing of this post.
Last edited:
I make no reference to the n variable.
I don't care how many photons an electron absorbs. The point is they absorb photons.
This is simple. We don't need great big equations (impressive btw) unless you want to hide the fact that you are wrong in a math cloud.
Electrons absorb photons.
They conserve all that is that photon.
They emit photons.
Thats all I'm saying.
You cannot deny this.
I'm sorry for all that implies.
But I've tried to say that actually understanding photon-photon dynamics - which is called "gamma-gamma" interaction, is a better idea than dreaming up stuff about 2 photons becoming an electron and a positron; or 4 photons creating something.Mike Honcho said:
There's an experimentally observed 'fact' that Maxwell's differential eqns and beta decay are connected; the electromagnetic and weak forces are two sides of the same coin.
You get gamma-gamma photon interaction at certain scales (short distances and high energies) - one of the gamma photons becomes a fermion/antifermion, which is/are charged particles, this implies that a fermion/antifermion can become a photon, or that either is possible at certain scales.
BTW, electrons don't "care" about how many photons they absorb, except they like to shed a quantum or two now and then - charged particles aren't allowed to get too "photon heavy". It's really about probability (possibility) and allowable (available) outcomes. Entropy rules OK?
Last edited:
One more try at the photon sphere: it has no dimension.
This is related to the way spacetime is curved; Einstein used Minkowski space. It has two generally covariant fields in it, balanced by what we perceive as 'gravity' - the "springiness" in the motion of bodies that [are discontinuous, and] interact with each other, and that have [apparent] spherical geometry [and emit black-body radiation].
Photons couple to the stress-energy tensor, as mentioned, and follow geodesics that appear to curve the space around large, compact bodies [like the Sun does to the apparent celestial position of Mercury]. Such bodies can be large enough that the Einsteinian curvature term [part of the equation] exceeds a critical limit.
The path a charged particle within the event horizon of a black hole follows, is straight towards the centre, the radiation it sheds as it accelerates, toward the velocity that same radiation is moving at, follows geodesics that collapse space, or take each quantum of radiation [or electron momentum,] to infinity - there is a hole with a diameter A for photons, but there's an asymptotic curve for particles with charge, that has a different [kind of] area.
Because of black hole dynamics, matter can't be made out of photons.
This is related to the way spacetime is curved; Einstein used Minkowski space. It has two generally covariant fields in it, balanced by what we perceive as 'gravity' - the "springiness" in the motion of bodies that [are discontinuous, and] interact with each other, and that have [apparent] spherical geometry [and emit black-body radiation].
Photons couple to the stress-energy tensor, as mentioned, and follow geodesics that appear to curve the space around large, compact bodies [like the Sun does to the apparent celestial position of Mercury]. Such bodies can be large enough that the Einsteinian curvature term [part of the equation] exceeds a critical limit.
The path a charged particle within the event horizon of a black hole follows, is straight towards the centre, the radiation it sheds as it accelerates, toward the velocity that same radiation is moving at, follows geodesics that collapse space, or take each quantum of radiation [or electron momentum,] to infinity - there is a hole with a diameter A for photons, but there's an asymptotic curve for particles with charge, that has a different [kind of] area.
Because of black hole dynamics, matter can't be made out of photons.
Last edited:
Black hole dynamics are at best just theory; nobody has ever been able to actually measure any of these dynamics.Vkothii said:
The fact that there is a singularity in the calculations tells me the Black Hole concept is not complete. There has to be some not yet discovered component that prevents the singularity.
You don't know how much I appreciate this post.
Thanks.
Gotta little reading to do now.
omg! omg!
25US! I can be able to have enough newly disposable income to buy one jug of my favorite cheap wine! I can be able to buy a quarter tank of gas! I can pay for a day of light bill!
omg! omg! 25US!!
First, I want to be sure to understand the question. Ben The Man seems to be saying that matter cannot be made of, as in OF photons. I want to be absolutely sure that I understand the question correctly.
Ben The Man, is that exactly the question you are asking?
omg! omg! omg! 25US!
25US! I can be able to have enough newly disposable income to buy one jug of my favorite cheap wine! I can be able to buy a quarter tank of gas! I can pay for a day of light bill!
omg! omg! 25US!!
First, I want to be sure to understand the question. Ben The Man seems to be saying that matter cannot be made of, as in OF photons. I want to be absolutely sure that I understand the question correctly.
Ben The Man, is that exactly the question you are asking?
omg! omg! omg! 25US!
You think that is a big equation?! You obviously didn't look at the link I provided or have done any quantum mechanics.
You claimed electrons contained photons. They don't. An electron is just an electron.
Except such effects, of photons turning into matter and back again, is experimentally observed. If you take the non-relativistic limit of quantum field theory, then you end up with quantum mechanics, which says that the number of particles in an interaction is fixed. Quantum field theory allows energy and matter to move about into one another and so particles can appear and disappear, provided energy and momentum is conserved. The corrections this gives to the quantum mechanical predictions are exactly what is seen in experiments.
Plus you have things like the Casimir effect, which can only work if you allow particles to appear and disappear.
Anyone who spends $25 a day on lighting is either terrible at turning lights off and they live in a mansion or is using a lot of halogen lights to get 'home grown' produce...
But why are they "connected to electromagnetic forces", and why would that mean the universe contains "only photons"?Vern said:
EM comes with the weak force; maybe gravity comes with the strong force. Except there's no evidence that the strong force is responsible for more than keeping atomic nuclei together. There is no reason to expect that EM explains everything, rather that EM is an expectation, given what we can explain.
Saying something sweeping like "must explain", is "only" BS, considering explaining things isn't someone's best feature.
Like explaining how someone found a "fundamental saturation limit" in Maxwell's formulas. I tried to follow it, but I can't figure out if maybe he means Planck's limit. I don't know what he means tbh.
Last edited:
It is very simple. Photons must exist at a constant electromagnetic amplitude. We can know this because amplitude is not part of the equation that describes the energy content of a photon. This is something different from Planck's constant although Planck's constant derives from it.Vkothii said:
Now, I suspect that the part of that saturation constant that is not Planck's constant, shows up as gravity. Ambient gravity equals Photon Saturation Constant minus Planck's constant. The actual equation would need factors to make the units of measure match up.
That is a speculation about how to get gravity out of a photon-only universe.
Last edited:
I didn't get that from Kemp's paper Looked to me like he was manipulating Maxwell's equations to arrive at a Electromagnetic Saturation Constant. (ESC) Very limited scope.
Last edited:
- Status