SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
- Status
'Groan'
What is the big difference (if someone knows) between light and radiation, of the electromagnetic kind?
It's just, I thought they were the SAME thing...
As for a couple of CLOWNS up in some tree, one of them now seems to be saying he knows what he's talking about, that he understands the questions. Why can't this clown give some answers that make sense then?
Maybe just tell them both to keep climbing?
What is the big difference (if someone knows) between light and radiation, of the electromagnetic kind?
It's just, I thought they were the SAME thing...
As for a couple of CLOWNS up in some tree, one of them now seems to be saying he knows what he's talking about, that he understands the questions. Why can't this clown give some answers that make sense then?
Maybe just tell them both to keep climbing?
Vern: you appear to have made quite a trick out of your ability to step straight over things; you stepped over the reason I posted that, and what it was trying to address, like you keep doing with most stuff that I would say, is relevant to this thread.
If you can't see what the 'so??' is, I don't think I can help (I'm not going to anyway).
If you can't see what the 'so??' is, I don't think I can help (I'm not going to anyway).
I was just trying to get to the substance; do you have another proof or indication that shows that matter cannot possibly be made of photons alone. I can see from your understanding of the principles of nature that you are quite capable. So your input is useful.Vkothii said:
Vern's point is you ramble off an irrelevant point in misguided rebuttals then punctuate them with an insult.
Usually it involves spectroscopy or black holes.
Most of the time you inadvertantly support your opponents view without realizing it.
Thats what I just wrote.
Here is what you just read:
Blah blah stuff BLACK HOLES!!!! COOL!!!! blah blah stuff.
I know you are but what am I.
A clown who thinks he's a monkey, who can do a bit of gibbering from a tree?MikeHonch said:
Spectroscopy supports the argument that the subject of this thread is stuff that comes from matter [and it's stuff that "goes to" matter, or gets absorbed by the matter stuff, so how do you figure matter is "made from that"? answer: you can't]; black hole geometry supports the contention that radiation is massless. If you understand either, rather than how to chant in unison.
Last edited:
You appear to be quite happy to support "vague" (I would call them "misconceived", myself) ideas about particle/antiparticle fluctuations; about "2 photons becoming a fermion/antifermion" --Mike Honcho
That isn't just vague, it's not even right.
So, as I've also noted, this thread might be advised to steer clear of black holes - seeing not many (including me) understand them all that well. Or does your "photon-only" universe come out the "other side", intact and still made out of photons? How do gravitational singularities ever form in such a universe?
Any clues Vern? Or just more extremely vague ideas, that appear to be totally disconnected from observations? Your model uses a "disconnected as much as possibility allows" paradigm, I surmise?
That isn't just vague, it's not even right.
So, as I've also noted, this thread might be advised to steer clear of black holes - seeing not many (including me) understand them all that well. Or does your "photon-only" universe come out the "other side", intact and still made out of photons? How do gravitational singularities ever form in such a universe?
Any clues Vern? Or just more extremely vague ideas, that appear to be totally disconnected from observations? Your model uses a "disconnected as much as possibility allows" paradigm, I surmise?
Last edited:
DwayneD.L.Rabon
Registered Senior Member
Well it appears then that White light contains all of the other lights, is that correct guys.
DwayneD.L.Rabon
DwayneD.L.Rabon
Vern: a couple of (what I thought were) relevant questions about your model.
If you "shoot photon beams" at atoms, where do the beams come from? How do you "make" them? How do gravitational singularities form in a [photon-only] universe?
The model we use, that explains a lot [of observables], that has massless photons that don't couple like you say they do, has an answer for both, essentially simple questions.
Do you? Or do you want to climb up a bit higher first?
If you "shoot photon beams" at atoms, where do the beams come from? How do you "make" them? How do gravitational singularities form in a [photon-only] universe?
The model we use, that explains a lot [of observables], that has massless photons that don't couple like you say they do, has an answer for both, essentially simple questions.
Do you? Or do you want to climb up a bit higher first?
Yes, your model is at issue.
This is because YOU keep presenting it as some sort of "maybe this is it" thing.
I say a photon-only model can't work, and you or anyone else is incapable of saying why it might have a chance. You just want to blithely claim that any questions put to you about it, are irrelevant. This is because you understand neither your own, nor the standard model. Your sidestepping is actually an admission of this.
I say: defend it with some realistic arguments, or stop showing it off. So we can all get some sleep.
I think the answer to the question: "Why isn't matter made out of photons?" is clowns, who chant a few meaningless sentences over and over are all the evidence needed for a theory being wrong - a clown-theory. There is far too much evidence that matter and radiation are not the same thing.
This is because YOU keep presenting it as some sort of "maybe this is it" thing.
. Let's see:Vern said:
I say a photon-only model can't work, and you or anyone else is incapable of saying why it might have a chance. You just want to blithely claim that any questions put to you about it, are irrelevant. This is because you understand neither your own, nor the standard model. Your sidestepping is actually an admission of this.
I say: defend it with some realistic arguments, or stop showing it off. So we can all get some sleep.
And the link you provide does no such thing; you don't understand what the prof is trying to say; I don't understand what he's trying to say; you think whatever he's trying to say must be right - you've spent the last 20 years "trying to get physicists" to think about some idea that you don't appear to have done very much thinking about, an answer does not go: "that's irrelevant to the topic". That one has a short half-life.Vern said:
I think the answer to the question: "Why isn't matter made out of photons?" is clowns, who chant a few meaningless sentences over and over are all the evidence needed for a theory being wrong - a clown-theory. There is far too much evidence that matter and radiation are not the same thing.
Last edited:
Here's some 'background' on white light, which is a continuum of frequencies, a broadband spectrum. As per Dwayne D. Robinson.
Laser light produces frequencies with a narrow band; high intensity pulses from a laser can interact in a nonlinear way with a medium - frequency spreading occurs and additional frequencies are created. You get a supercontinuum of light. One of the nonlinear processes involved is called "self-phase modulation", which results in the additional frequencies.
Laser pulses contain a repeating series of component beams whose spectrum of equal-spaced frequencies forms a comb filter. The highest intensity peaks alter a medium's refractive index, as they travel through it, which modifies the phase of the propagating pulse (self-phase modulation).
A single (UV or IR) frequency is then a part of a broader spectrum of visible white light. Or white light is a continuum of many frequencies.
Laser light produces frequencies with a narrow band; high intensity pulses from a laser can interact in a nonlinear way with a medium - frequency spreading occurs and additional frequencies are created. You get a supercontinuum of light. One of the nonlinear processes involved is called "self-phase modulation", which results in the additional frequencies.
Laser pulses contain a repeating series of component beams whose spectrum of equal-spaced frequencies forms a comb filter. The highest intensity peaks alter a medium's refractive index, as they travel through it, which modifies the phase of the propagating pulse (self-phase modulation).
A single (UV or IR) frequency is then a part of a broader spectrum of visible white light. Or white light is a continuum of many frequencies.
I was taking the other side to show that it wasn't true.
Both of my arguments are however pure speculation, as I am no physicist.
I changed your square brackets--Vkothii said:
I missed this one last night. Yes; the existence of gravitational singularities (Black Hole) would be fatal to a photon-only universe idea. But we don't know that they exist. We just know that something super-massive exists at the center of galaxies.
- Status