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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Einstein tried to unite the field theories of Maxwell with relativity to explain the existence of everything - a unified theory; this concept - that EM is a unifying force - has been abandoned by the mainstream, since there is far more evidence that EM is derived from another unifying force, that we know also explains neutrons and the existence of protons and electrons. Something Einstein overlooked, for some reason.

QM has succeeded, where the search for an explanation based on Maxwellian electric and magnetic fields being the fundamental underlying mechanism, has not succeeded.

Except SU(5) is a gauge theory; unifying it with gravity means either a gauge theory of gravitational interaction is needed, or another formulation of some kind.
Not sure what "SU(5) is experimentally excluded" means exactly, but that's why string theories and higher-order groups with 10 dimensions are around now.

(Edit: I might know what it means: "the SU(5) energy scale is beyond our technology", I presume)
 
Last edited:
Well, I vote those who declare allegiance to a "photon-only" theory, be disqualified on the following grounds:

1) They can't explain the theory they declare allegiance to, when asked.
2) Einstein couldn't explain how to use Maxwell's covariant tensor fields to construct the only theory that looks remotely like such a thing. He can't be asked any more.

Therefore by default there is no such thing.

P.S. Einstein asked in 1950 in an article published in SciAm: "What would physics look like without gravitation?" He thought such a question was not justified. But QM does just that, it concerns itself with momentum of discrete particles in terms of algebraic solutions, not geometric ones.
Events have far more degrees of freedom in the atomic realm, so geometry is an outcome rather than a definitive prediction; locality is spread out and discrete particles can behave as a group; gravity is a continuous, large-scale background arena with definable surfaces and large-scale geometries and distances, whereas QM at the other scale, is where surfaces and interactions are much less orderly or continuous, and inertia is locally inconsequential..
 
Last edited:
Those who declare allegiance to a photon only theory can't even enter.
Read the name of the thread.
 
Vkothii said:
QM has succeeded
Click to expand...
QM is the most successful theory ever if we gauge popularity as a measure of success. But no great discovery has been made. Within QM theory we still don't know what mass is. We don't know the WHY of any thing. QM is so successful because there are no limiting bounds. Space and time are not even fixed. Cause and effect are dismissed. The physical laws of nature are ignored; we invent virtual particles which do not necessarily follow physical laws to prop up the theory; and when reality itself is at odds with the theory; we say there is something wrong with reality.

Any photon-only theory is much more fragile. Space and time are fixed. There are no virtual anything that may depart from the physical laws. Every phenomenon has a known cause and effect. There is no magic.

To me it seems more real.
 
Vern said:
QM is the most successful theory ever if we gauge popularity as a measure of success. But no great discovery has been made.
Click to expand...
"QM is the most successful theory ever if we gauge popularity as a measure", because it explains a whole pile of stuff, not because we like the reruns.

Where did you get on to the myth that "no great discovery has been made" with QM?

When will you stop plugging a theory that has absolutely zero evidence to support it, so you then appear to be exhibiting an irrational response by claiming it: "seems more real"? More real than what? You haven't presented anything other than the "double zero" theory...? (that's zero evidence and zero predictions)
 
Well, maybe I'm wrong. What is a great discovery QM has brought us ??? I'll put it in my corrections list.
 
Last edited:
Mike Honcho said:
Transistors for your computer
Click to expand...
Hi Mike; I was helping out back in the labs when we invented transistors; had nothing to do with QM. We just experimented with mixing silicon based stuff and doping it with P and N compounds to make switches.
 
Vern said:
What is a great discovery QM has brought us ???
Click to expand...
You've heard of lasers though?
Photomultiplier tubes? Photocell detectors and solar cells?

The CMB was predicted by the presumed condensation of QM particles in the early universe that hadn't been observed at the time. A lot of things that QM predicted have been found [to be true]. Quarks, the W and Z bosons, other short-lived particles - even the other families of matter particles, although not how many. The number of families or the hierarchy may have been resolved because of QM and the experiments that can test it - that's an unexpected sort of finding that becomes more expected as time passes and the theory holds together.

Why isn't it surprising that you don't know any of this ? ? ???
 
Last edited:
Vkothii said:
You've heard of lasers though?
Photomultiplier tubes? Photocell detectors and solar cells?
Click to expand...
Sure; they have nothing to do with QM theory; we were doing that way before QM was the rule of the land.
 
Vern said:
..we were doing that way before QM was the rule of the land.
Click to expand...
You seem to be completely ignorant of the actual history of the discipline, how it started off, who was responsible for the new ideas - the papers that mattered.

Why we use so many devices and appliances that we probably wouldn't if not for these guys way back; you appear to believe some kind of urban-mythology instead, Vern, old chuck.

At this juncture, I'm possibly wasting typing effort, however.
 
Vkothii said:
Why isn't it surprising that you don't know any of this ? ? ???
Click to expand...

I knew all of that before it was first claimed. It is nonsense. The jumble of particles seen downstream of collisions in particle accelerators is just that. It is short-lived photon curls that have nothing to do with the make up of mass. They didn't predict before hand what they would find. There was such a variety that no matter what they predicted, some of the jumble would match what they needed.
 
Vkothii said:
You seem to be completely ignorant of the actual history of the discipline
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not; I was there. what a shame :) You kids will finally have to get through this; QM is not going to be the final answer for you. I'm guessing it's got another fifty years before it collapses.
 
Vern said:
I knew all of that before it was first claimed. It is nonsense.
Click to expand...
And yet you seem to believe that photocells and lasers were around before QM; and that particle physicists didn't look for any predicted signals, or find any. What are they up to now, you think? They must be bored so they want to smash some more together to see if any of the jumble matches what they need to ask for more money?

That doesn't inspire me with confidence that "you were there", or anything much you've had to say.

You can't say anything coherent about the subject; you can't explain the ideas to anyone that your favourite professor tries to explain; you don't seem to know when quantum theories first arrived, or when practical devices were first used; you appear to be a big fake who believes a lot of ill-informed hoopla.

At least admit you don't actually understand any of it, rather than posing as some kind of "informed observer who was at the coalface"; the act's getting a bit tired...'yawn'
 
Last edited:
Vern said:
Hi Mike; I was helping out back in the labs when we invented transistors; had nothing to do with QM. We just experimented with mixing silicon based stuff and doping it with P and N compounds to make switches.
Click to expand...
History says you weren't. Unless you were 'helping out' when you were 7 years before your birth. :rolleyes:

Besides, even if the first transistor was a case of 'Try it all and see', quantum mechanics allowed us to understand why it worked and then to massively improve it. It has been a critical component of the electronics industry.
Vern said:
Well, maybe I'm wrong. What is a great discovery QM has brought us ??? I'll put it in my corrections list.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously claiming nothing has come from quantum mechanics? Better tell the Manhattan Project. :rolleyes: What were they doing?
Vern said:
Sure; they have nothing to do with QM theory; we were doing that way before QM was the rule of the land.
Click to expand...
People were building lasers and photocells pre 1920? History yet again disagrees with you.
 
Vkothii said:
Well Vern: in that case I think you're an idiot who can't see very well.
Click to expand...
Well; I don't think quite that badly of you. I think your view will change with time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top