SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
- Status
Where is 'there'? The first attempts at transistors were in the 20s. You were born mid 30s. The announcement of the first proper transistor came just after WW2. You weren't even out of high school yet. 
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-03/952639215.Ph.r.html
You were around when Feynman was doing his stuff, have you read his lectures on the transistor? Without quantum mechanics, noone would bother trying to make a transistor because classical mechanics just says, immediately, "It won't work".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Applications
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-03/952639215.Ph.r.html
You were around when Feynman was doing his stuff, have you read his lectures on the transistor? Without quantum mechanics, noone would bother trying to make a transistor because classical mechanics just says, immediately, "It won't work".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Applications
Perhaps you need to give it more time?Vern said:
Because you've claimed to be someone "in the know", but you don't seem to know a few basics, like about the basic photoelectric effect, say.
Which quite probably means, on the evidence, you don't know that much, or think that hard about what you think you do know.
Last edited:
I don't know far, far more than I do (think I) know about stuff, or can ever hope to; sometimes I even come across as a bit of a know-all when discussing this or that with others, but at least I'm not stupid enough to think I do understand something, if I don't (say like string theory or hydrodynamics or friction - possibly one or two other things),
I should know better than that - that's just bullshitting away so you can look more knowledgeable or "intelligent" or something. But it doesn't work does it - most 7-8 year olds figure that out at some stage.
I should know better than that - that's just bullshitting away so you can look more knowledgeable or "intelligent" or something. But it doesn't work does it - most 7-8 year olds figure that out at some stage.
Since I have thought about a photon-only universe for about 40 years now; I might be able to sum up the major incompatibilities with other theories. This may help in judging
Quantum Mechanics theory is not compatible with every photon-only hypothesis I know.
Reason: QM uses particle exchange as the mechanism for transfer of forces. Photon-only concepts use fields of force that operate over distance as the mechanism for transfer of forces. This spooky action-at-a-distance requirement leads many to discount the photon-only universe concept.
Einstein's theory of relativity is not compatible with photon-only hypothesis.
Reason: Relativity phenomena happens naturally in a photon-only universe but only when space and time are fixed in the classic sense. In Einstein's theory of relativity, space and time are variable. In a consistent theory there can not be two different causes for the same phenomena.
Black Hole theory is not compatible with photon-only concepts.
Reason: Black Hole theory allows for a singularity where the force of gravity is strong enough to reduce the frequency of light to zero. In a Photon-Only universe mass is nothing more than electromagnetic change. No frequency; no change. No change; no mass. No mass; no gravity.
The Big Bang theory is not compatible with Photon-Only concepts.
Reason: The Big-Bang theory has the universe essentially spring forth from nothing or a very small Black Hole where gravity is either infinite or almost so. This would prevent the existence of mass, as per the Black Hole problem.
There are others I am sure, that don't come to mind at the moment.
Quantum Mechanics theory is not compatible with every photon-only hypothesis I know.
Reason: QM uses particle exchange as the mechanism for transfer of forces. Photon-only concepts use fields of force that operate over distance as the mechanism for transfer of forces. This spooky action-at-a-distance requirement leads many to discount the photon-only universe concept.
Einstein's theory of relativity is not compatible with photon-only hypothesis.
Reason: Relativity phenomena happens naturally in a photon-only universe but only when space and time are fixed in the classic sense. In Einstein's theory of relativity, space and time are variable. In a consistent theory there can not be two different causes for the same phenomena.
Black Hole theory is not compatible with photon-only concepts.
Reason: Black Hole theory allows for a singularity where the force of gravity is strong enough to reduce the frequency of light to zero. In a Photon-Only universe mass is nothing more than electromagnetic change. No frequency; no change. No change; no mass. No mass; no gravity.
The Big Bang theory is not compatible with Photon-Only concepts.
Reason: The Big-Bang theory has the universe essentially spring forth from nothing or a very small Black Hole where gravity is either infinite or almost so. This would prevent the existence of mass, as per the Black Hole problem.
There are others I am sure, that don't come to mind at the moment.
Source?
Gluon only systems, with non-trivial dynamics, are entirely possible within quantum mechanics because gluons can interact with gluons, unlike photons-photons (if you don't allow matter). So where's your evidence that photon only systems MUST involve action at a distance?
Where are your axioms for photon-photon physics?
Evidence? If everything moves at c then you have trouble defining relativistic effects because all your Lorentz transforms become undefined.
Define 'classical sense'. Given relativity IS classical, your comments seem inconsistent.
Why have you ignored my evidence you lied about 'being there' in the creation of transistors?
Itseemstome
Registered Senior Member
Layman entry.
Because there is no such thing as matter, only energy in different forms.
(I appreciate that this many be just slightly controversial)
Because there is no such thing as matter, only energy in different forms.
(I appreciate that this many be just slightly controversial)
Last edited:
And neutrinos. And perhaps some LSPs.
Yes, i don't know how to answer for neutrino's, apart from what i suggested before, that perhaps the neutrino is a by-product of something which is made from photon energy... Such as the decay of tritium. That way, we could assume neutrino creation is very unique next to other particles on the standard model.
I assumed, purely hypothetically of course, that if neutrino's cannot be created directly from photons, then the creation of neutrino's may only come from a specific type or types of decay, which would be unique, if we can create every other bit of matter from photons themselves.
That's all.
That's all.
So now everything is made of neutrinos AND photons?
I believe, as many scientists do, that very early on in the universe, conditions where extremely volatile, and when photons emerged from spacetime, they collided, and created many types of matter.
I think Vern before, said that neutrino's haven't been made in the lab from photon-photon coupling. I didn't know this, and there was some mention you had said it too. Apart from that, i do believe we can create any type of matter from photon-photon coupling, but if neutrino's cannot be made, then neutrino's might be created from another element that is in adundance.
I never said neutrino's made all of matter, including photons. As i said,
''that if neutrino's cannot be created directly from photons, then the creation of neutrino's may only come from a specific type or types of decay.''
I think Vern before, said that neutrino's haven't been made in the lab from photon-photon coupling. I didn't know this, and there was some mention you had said it too. Apart from that, i do believe we can create any type of matter from photon-photon coupling, but if neutrino's cannot be made, then neutrino's might be created from another element that is in adundance.
I never said neutrino's made all of matter, including photons. As i said,
''that if neutrino's cannot be created directly from photons, then the creation of neutrino's may only come from a specific type or types of decay.''
I believe that a photon-only universe is very accurate to fit the models we have. Even if there are some fluctuations that cannot be created from photons, those very fluctuations in question may very well have derived from photons in a previous decay. Like, the element of tritium, will be made of particles that have antiparticles, and that will resolve back to photon energy.
Ofcourse, antineutrino's exist by our standard model, (have any been detected...?) I don't think there has been?
Ofcourse, antineutrino's exist by our standard model, (have any been detected...?) I don't think there has been?
Would you like to make that sentence coherent or would you like to flip flop again?
Which is it? And remember, you're supposed to have working knowledge of quantum field theory, you should know what the SM's take on neutrinos is.
- Status