SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
- Status
Oh please, don't get me wrong
Most matter seems to us as matter alone. But we live along the flux of matter itself. Energy creates everything around us. It's a fundamental truth of physics.
...This energy is called photons.
You didn't actually understand my criticism, did you? Either you have mistyped the equation, which you do 98% of the time, or you've just typed BS. If Cramer did type exactly that then he's wrong. If you're just claiming he did but you havent' checked, then you're wrong.
Just like, in your PM, I corrected your 'equation' $$\nabla{[\mu\nu\rho]} = \partial[\mu\nu\rho] + \Gamma_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}\rho\lambda$$, after listing about 6 mistakes with it and you completely ignored it? I even gave you the chance "Some of your equations are wrong, can you tell me which ones and why?" to redeem yourself and you maintained they were all right. Just like you're maintaining this one now.
The point is that your equation isn't 'easy to correct', it's nonsense. I suggest you check your source and if your source is you you just say "Opps, turns out it was wrong after all" and retract it.
A 2-p variable mistake, which i finally corrected, thanks to your observation. But likewise, the other mistakes you brought forth, where in fact not obliged.
Nevermind, my talks with you in a personal message, but rather, let us consentrate on my equations then?
For, as far as I can tell, they are correct.
Nevermind, my talks with you in a personal message, but rather, let us consentrate on my equations then?
For, as far as I can tell, they are correct.
No, there were 2 equations you botched up in a big way. The first one was you having 3 indices of the same label. You responded to that but still got it wrong. The second one, the much worse one, was the equation I just posted and you didn't respond to any of that part of my message. Go back and read the PM, look for where I mention torsion and symmetric Christofell symbols. You didn't reapond to that.
For those who aren't sure, here's an example :
$$\partial_{abc}$$ is ill defined, $$\partial$$ only have 1 index. If you defined $$\partial_{ab}$$ as $$\partial_{a}\partial_{b}$$, fair enough but the covariant derivative on the LHS doesn't transform in the right way. Also [abc] means 'anti-symmetrize over a, b and c, so end up considering the permutations of a,b,c with their permutation sign. But the two indices on the Christofell symbols are symmetric so if you were doing the antisymmetric combination, you drop the connection term. Reiku didn't do this and I'm sure Reiku doesn't even know what I'm talking about. It's late and if someone wants me to do the maths explicitly, it'll be in the morning.
Then explain how a scalar becomes the tensor product of two ket states. It's like adding a vector and a matrix, it's meaningless.
Did you not here me?????
I am fucking watching broke-back. That requires a little bit of patience!!!
And yet, how terrible. This work, apart from the final equation;
Some equation can help us understand inertia, a fundamental property of matter, and a principle of equivalence found in relativity that relates inertia with gravity as both as the same thing. Even though it is one of Einstein’s most controversial principles under scrutiny of validity, we should still remain loyal it is correct.
$$P=Mv$$
Momentum is equal to mass times velocity
$$F=Ma$$
Force equals mass times acceleration
1) That mass equals an inertial system.
2) The greater the mass the less a body accelerates under force.
So the equation $$P=Mv$$ is related to $$F=Ma$$ when describing inertia, because the tendency to keep momentum is drastically resistant with the mass of the body. So inertia turns out to be a resistance of an object moving through spacetime, or simply in one dimension.
So, according to relativity, it’s the geometry of spacetime that is inertia, as even distortions are predicted from such geometry. So inertia is caused by the acceleration of an object moving below $$c$$, and has a rest mass.
All indication seem to be pointing to the conclusion that the gravitational mass is somehow the same thing as inertial mass itself. Einstein himself began his general relativity by stating that gravitational mass was not only the same as inertial mass, but in his special theories, he also linked that inertial mass was closely related to relativistic mass.
But since gravitational mass has a rest mass, whilst relativistic mass does not, there is the question of inertia properly applying to both types of fluctuations. It would seem that there is an innate property consistent with gravitational mass and inertia, than there really is of inertia and relativistic mass. The notion that mass has a resistance when moving through spacetime, whilst the relativistic material objects have no resistance at all i.e. a photon, or a gluon.
Relativistic Mass
… Is really just a measure of change in energy; and relativistic mass governs all systems. This is a major principle that even systems of pointlike particles have in them energy, like photon energy. Luxon Theory is the observed phenomena that all particles of mass are but forms of trapped light. The theory is universally-accepted as being correct, since we have observed particles and their antipartners reducing each other back to pure photon energy.
The fact the photon is an electromagnetic fluctuation, it must be assumed there is some kind of mechanism for a photon to transmutate into matter, for matter to return back to their original states; again, electromagnetic fluctuations of gamma energy.
Mathematically, the problem right now is how a photon can even flux into a particle with rest mass, since the math describing a photon is very different to lets say, an electron. Despite this, we have observed light creating matter in particle accelerators. The first proof of this was observed by scientists in September 1997. Since then we have comfortably accepted all matter are different forms of ‘’trapped light.’’
Photon has an energy $$E=hf$$, and so does mass itself, $$E=Mc^{2}$$. So a mechanism begs to be answered. A photon can have momentum and this is related to energy and mass as $$E^{2} = M^{2}c^{4} + p^{2}c^{2}$$, but the mass in this equation is still zero for a photon though $$E = pc$$. So, since we know there is a limited particle model, with right now about 410 known particles on the standard model, there must be a finite limit for the photon to flux into a specific type of particle, which follows the specific quantum action of particle decay.
A previous state of a particle before decay, let’s a say a neutron into a proton, electron, ... In $$\beta$$+ decay, as found in a Feynman diagram, follows this exact process because of the initial state of decay: A neutron. The energy contained in a particle contains a quantum memory of their previous states, because in any particle fluctuation, we must begin to talk about ‘’the photon changing the flux into a new state of matter, rather than dealing with both particles as separate.
The reason why we must assume this, is because the anti-state gives a solution for the matter to return into their original states of photons. The functions involved here seems intriguing enough to presume it is all linked to the actual production of mass itself, and is the same as Inertia.
An Electromagnetic Coupling with Gravitational Force
The fundamental gravitational effect on the Coulomb Self-Energy of a system, like a point charge has been calculated in many modern theories, where the total mass of the system in question takes form quite large; infinite to be exact, and it indicates that it depends only on the charge itself, and no so much the mass itself.
In a specific non-Higgs model, there is even suggestion that this could be an acceptable mechanism for a particle to acquire mass, by saying an electromagnetic phenom is acting on the ‘’innate’’ property of the particle, and only can do so when it possess non-gravitational interactions from quite possibly the zero-point vacuum.
The first appearance of this theory came from Andrei D. Sakharov suggested as much in 1968, an idea which was addressed 20 years later by Puthoff.
The implication here must be assumable that energy provided to the system can also flux and sustain the property of a particle with rest mass, with a non-zero range. But to this, I also add that even the generation of mass must also include a type of gravitational-electric-magneto coupling. This may be the mechanism and cause for inertia in general.
The electromagnetic fluctuation of the zero-point field could act on the charge of the particle as an innate property. As also explained, I mention that there need to be a finite number of fluctuations it can create. The wavelength of the photon may be a useful determining factor of the mass-flux process itself v = fλ. There are already exists a gravitational and electromagnetic coupling.
There is an indication that there might be a relation between charge and mass when concerning the Luxon Theory state of transmutation into rest mass. Photons don’t even interact with each other, but some extent must do, because for photons to turn into matter, it needs the interaction of other photons. Whilst this remains a strange phenomena, we can say a few things for sure, when you take into account the initial state of a photon, before it changes into a particle with rest mass:
$$ \delta (\gamma \gamma \rightarrow \gamma \gamma) delta$$
$$E^{1}=W/c^{2}$$
Where a change in initial energy gives rise to a mass, where the increase is found by W/c2. The invariant mass of a system is found after the change $$\gamma E1$$, but when it can be measured, can be seen from any mechanics, with energy and mass. Naturally, we can now talk about when the system has a non-zero kinetic energy when $$\gamma > 1$$;
$$K= \int_{\gamma < 1} dW=m^{0}c^{2} \int_{\gamma = 1}=1/2m^{0}v^{2}$$
Since photon scattering is assumed as a mechanism for rest mass creation, we must assume there is a very high energy, and a final, or even a total energy.
$$ \gamma mc^{2}=mc^{2} + K$$
Is the total energy of the system, and the kinetic energy of the system will contribute to the rest mass. Only when 2 m0c2 does it take into account particle antiparticle production.
And as I have explained before, the prior state of the photon may very well have an influence on the type of particle it coheres into, and wave length now played a part:
$$\Delta f \lambda=t^{2}S^{f}-t^{1}S^{0}$$
The mechanism is seen as a change in the state of energy, from an initial state of energy DE1 to a final state of DM2 in a time of 0<t<r/c, which is equal to the integral over a change in charge times a change in frequency. The net force is found as;
$$F^{net}=t^{2}+t^{1}$$
The net force will give rise to what I call, a gravitational decoherence, and since I relate the wave length being directly responsible with the type of mass that it inexorably fluxes into, then the coherence equation would be given as:
$$Mg \Delta \lambda / \lambda^{2} ~1$$
And to calculate it’s amplitude, we would use the normal amplitude equation:
$$ P \epsilon = \int \epsilon |\psi (x)|dx$$
Where a $$\Delta t= \delta^{c}$$. The probability of the energy fluxing into mass can be found as an integral:
$$P^{12}= \int t^{1}(S^{0}) t^{2}(S^{0})=|(\Delta S^{0})t>,|\Delta S^{f})t*>$$
Some equation can help us understand inertia, a fundamental property of matter, and a principle of equivalence found in relativity that relates inertia with gravity as both as the same thing. Even though it is one of Einstein’s most controversial principles under scrutiny of validity, we should still remain loyal it is correct.
$$P=Mv$$
Momentum is equal to mass times velocity
$$F=Ma$$
Force equals mass times acceleration
1) That mass equals an inertial system.
2) The greater the mass the less a body accelerates under force.
So the equation $$P=Mv$$ is related to $$F=Ma$$ when describing inertia, because the tendency to keep momentum is drastically resistant with the mass of the body. So inertia turns out to be a resistance of an object moving through spacetime, or simply in one dimension.
So, according to relativity, it’s the geometry of spacetime that is inertia, as even distortions are predicted from such geometry. So inertia is caused by the acceleration of an object moving below $$c$$, and has a rest mass.
All indication seem to be pointing to the conclusion that the gravitational mass is somehow the same thing as inertial mass itself. Einstein himself began his general relativity by stating that gravitational mass was not only the same as inertial mass, but in his special theories, he also linked that inertial mass was closely related to relativistic mass.
But since gravitational mass has a rest mass, whilst relativistic mass does not, there is the question of inertia properly applying to both types of fluctuations. It would seem that there is an innate property consistent with gravitational mass and inertia, than there really is of inertia and relativistic mass. The notion that mass has a resistance when moving through spacetime, whilst the relativistic material objects have no resistance at all i.e. a photon, or a gluon.
Relativistic Mass
… Is really just a measure of change in energy; and relativistic mass governs all systems. This is a major principle that even systems of pointlike particles have in them energy, like photon energy. Luxon Theory is the observed phenomena that all particles of mass are but forms of trapped light. The theory is universally-accepted as being correct, since we have observed particles and their antipartners reducing each other back to pure photon energy.
The fact the photon is an electromagnetic fluctuation, it must be assumed there is some kind of mechanism for a photon to transmutate into matter, for matter to return back to their original states; again, electromagnetic fluctuations of gamma energy.
Mathematically, the problem right now is how a photon can even flux into a particle with rest mass, since the math describing a photon is very different to lets say, an electron. Despite this, we have observed light creating matter in particle accelerators. The first proof of this was observed by scientists in September 1997. Since then we have comfortably accepted all matter are different forms of ‘’trapped light.’’
Photon has an energy $$E=hf$$, and so does mass itself, $$E=Mc^{2}$$. So a mechanism begs to be answered. A photon can have momentum and this is related to energy and mass as $$E^{2} = M^{2}c^{4} + p^{2}c^{2}$$, but the mass in this equation is still zero for a photon though $$E = pc$$. So, since we know there is a limited particle model, with right now about 410 known particles on the standard model, there must be a finite limit for the photon to flux into a specific type of particle, which follows the specific quantum action of particle decay.
A previous state of a particle before decay, let’s a say a neutron into a proton, electron, ... In $$\beta$$+ decay, as found in a Feynman diagram, follows this exact process because of the initial state of decay: A neutron. The energy contained in a particle contains a quantum memory of their previous states, because in any particle fluctuation, we must begin to talk about ‘’the photon changing the flux into a new state of matter, rather than dealing with both particles as separate.
The reason why we must assume this, is because the anti-state gives a solution for the matter to return into their original states of photons. The functions involved here seems intriguing enough to presume it is all linked to the actual production of mass itself, and is the same as Inertia.
An Electromagnetic Coupling with Gravitational Force
The fundamental gravitational effect on the Coulomb Self-Energy of a system, like a point charge has been calculated in many modern theories, where the total mass of the system in question takes form quite large; infinite to be exact, and it indicates that it depends only on the charge itself, and no so much the mass itself.
In a specific non-Higgs model, there is even suggestion that this could be an acceptable mechanism for a particle to acquire mass, by saying an electromagnetic phenom is acting on the ‘’innate’’ property of the particle, and only can do so when it possess non-gravitational interactions from quite possibly the zero-point vacuum.
The first appearance of this theory came from Andrei D. Sakharov suggested as much in 1968, an idea which was addressed 20 years later by Puthoff.
The implication here must be assumable that energy provided to the system can also flux and sustain the property of a particle with rest mass, with a non-zero range. But to this, I also add that even the generation of mass must also include a type of gravitational-electric-magneto coupling. This may be the mechanism and cause for inertia in general.
The electromagnetic fluctuation of the zero-point field could act on the charge of the particle as an innate property. As also explained, I mention that there need to be a finite number of fluctuations it can create. The wavelength of the photon may be a useful determining factor of the mass-flux process itself v = fλ. There are already exists a gravitational and electromagnetic coupling.
There is an indication that there might be a relation between charge and mass when concerning the Luxon Theory state of transmutation into rest mass. Photons don’t even interact with each other, but some extent must do, because for photons to turn into matter, it needs the interaction of other photons. Whilst this remains a strange phenomena, we can say a few things for sure, when you take into account the initial state of a photon, before it changes into a particle with rest mass:
$$ \delta (\gamma \gamma \rightarrow \gamma \gamma) delta$$
$$E^{1}=W/c^{2}$$
Where a change in initial energy gives rise to a mass, where the increase is found by W/c2. The invariant mass of a system is found after the change $$\gamma E1$$, but when it can be measured, can be seen from any mechanics, with energy and mass. Naturally, we can now talk about when the system has a non-zero kinetic energy when $$\gamma > 1$$;
$$K= \int_{\gamma < 1} dW=m^{0}c^{2} \int_{\gamma = 1}=1/2m^{0}v^{2}$$
Since photon scattering is assumed as a mechanism for rest mass creation, we must assume there is a very high energy, and a final, or even a total energy.
$$ \gamma mc^{2}=mc^{2} + K$$
Is the total energy of the system, and the kinetic energy of the system will contribute to the rest mass. Only when 2 m0c2 does it take into account particle antiparticle production.
And as I have explained before, the prior state of the photon may very well have an influence on the type of particle it coheres into, and wave length now played a part:
$$\Delta f \lambda=t^{2}S^{f}-t^{1}S^{0}$$
The mechanism is seen as a change in the state of energy, from an initial state of energy DE1 to a final state of DM2 in a time of 0<t<r/c, which is equal to the integral over a change in charge times a change in frequency. The net force is found as;
$$F^{net}=t^{2}+t^{1}$$
The net force will give rise to what I call, a gravitational decoherence, and since I relate the wave length being directly responsible with the type of mass that it inexorably fluxes into, then the coherence equation would be given as:
$$Mg \Delta \lambda / \lambda^{2} ~1$$
And to calculate it’s amplitude, we would use the normal amplitude equation:
$$ P \epsilon = \int \epsilon |\psi (x)|dx$$
Where a $$\Delta t= \delta^{c}$$. The probability of the energy fluxing into mass can be found as an integral:
$$P^{12}= \int t^{1}(S^{0}) t^{2}(S^{0})=|(\Delta S^{0})t>,|\Delta S^{f})t*>$$
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
You have failed to give any reason as to why the energy absorbed by the electron when it absorbs the photon has to remain in the form of a photon. Just saying that it does is not a rebuttal.
First, no one knows exactly what the "form of a photon" is. No one.
No one knows if it is a particle or a wave.
No one knows anything about what it is when its not being observed.
No one knows what causes the collapse of the wave function (decoherence). No one.
As such, since you responded rationally, I will say that I am making my rebuttal based on what we DO know:
Electrons absorb all of whatever the photon is.
They conserve entirely all of thier energy and momentum.
Maybe at this point the photon HAS become actual electron and is no longer a photon per se, I don't know. (btw if this is the case then the OP is disproved along with your entry because a photon has physically become electron).
What I do know is that at a later point in time the electron does emit a photon using the excess energy/momentum absorbed from the original photon.
Since the electron produces a photon during this emmission, it necessarily must have contained all the components of whatever a photon is to achieve this.
We know this because of the law of conservation of energy.
Where does it get "all the components"? From the absorbed photon.
You see, electrons DO absorb, contain and emit photons.
As such, it is clear that matter CAN be made of photons. :shrug:
Sorry Ben. Your favorite idiot has proved you wrong in your own thread.
Don't know if this will do it. There's a video of single electrons traveling across a superfluid helium chamber, in groups of up to four at a time. They visualised the individual 'particles', by energising the superfluid with ultrasound, which induced the electrons to "flouresce" by expanding the space around them that they usually have - the Coulomb potential - or borrowing energy from the phonons bouncing through the lattice. The increase in this radius is several orders of magnitude I think - like inflating a bubble of repulsion energy which converts phonons to visible light.
The paths the excitations follow are sometimes influenced by magnetic vortices in the superfluid. Photons can be made by inflating an electron's radius effectively, by energising a superfluid with sound waves so the electrons flouresce like a small localised vortex. The other detail (not sure if it's relevant) is that the potential between the electrodes could be zero and electron excitations were still seen (which might be some of the dimmer ones).
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2006-07/06-174.html
And, it's just bloody-well interesting anyway - that they filmed it, and that electrons can be induced to flouresce with ultrasound.
I'm not trying to win anything here either, btw.
The paths the excitations follow are sometimes influenced by magnetic vortices in the superfluid. Photons can be made by inflating an electron's radius effectively, by energising a superfluid with sound waves so the electrons flouresce like a small localised vortex. The other detail (not sure if it's relevant) is that the potential between the electrodes could be zero and electron excitations were still seen (which might be some of the dimmer ones).
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2006-07/06-174.html
And, it's just bloody-well interesting anyway - that they filmed it, and that electrons can be induced to flouresce with ultrasound.
I'm not trying to win anything here either, btw.
I just read this thread from start to here and noticed one huge thing missing. It wasn't mentioned that if the theory of relativity is real, a photon-only universe can not be real.
A photon-only universe requires flat space-time because relativity phenomena develops naturally due to the constant speed of light in flat space-time. This must have been a huge problem for Einstein; he could not complete his photon-only universe theory because it would have trashed his theory of relativity.
A photon-only universe requires flat space-time because relativity phenomena develops naturally due to the constant speed of light in flat space-time. This must have been a huge problem for Einstein; he could not complete his photon-only universe theory because it would have trashed his theory of relativity.
- Status