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

[John Connellan]

Interesting; I had never seen that before. Do you have a reference as to where you came across this info?

Funnily enough, I can't remember where I read about it and even Google is not throwing anything up. It seems to make sense to fire at the nucleus to help with the separation but it is obviously not being used as commonly as I thought!

Anyone else ever hear of this method of producing particle-antiparticle pairs?

 

[Vern]

Funnily enough, I can't remember where I read about it and even Google is not throwing anything up. It seems to make sense to fire at the nucleus to help with the separation but it is obviously not being used as commonly as I thought!

Most scientists thought until just recently that nucleons must be present in order to create particles out of energy. That may be where you heard it.

 

[John Connellan]

Most scientists thought until just recently that nucleons must be present in order to create particles out of energy. That may be where you heard it.

Maybe. Although at the time I remember thinking that using nucleons was not mandatory. Just that the positive charge of the nucleon would help with the separation of the partcle-antiparticle pair.

 

[gluon]

Funnily enough, I can't remember where I read about it and even Google is not throwing anything up. It seems to make sense to fire at the nucleus to help with the separation but it is obviously not being used as commonly as I thought!

Anyone else ever hear of this method of producing particle-antiparticle pairs?

No, because the production of particle and antipartners come from when adding enough energy into the vacuum, for a virtual particle, such as an electron and the electrons leaves behind a hole. Whilst this is Diracs formulation, one will quickly argue that the Dirac Vacuum leads to an infinite density which cannot be cancelled out. But recently scientists had also came to the conclusion that it equally could be just a set of unknown laws. In other words, there must be new quantum laws set to describe the Dirac Vacuum, or as sometimes called, the zero-point energy field, since one could argue there be a scientific ''cut-off'' of the quantum laws and the zero-point laws, where energy is not conserved and particles do not obey $$pc^4-E^2=Mc^2$$ meaning mass is does not exist in the false vacuum, and that $$E=pc$$ is only adiquate in imaginary terms. To cut a long paragraph up into size, whenever an electron comes into the vacuum (under the strict condition that the uncertainty principle decided not to have influence over the coupling with CPT violation), an electron will also emerge from the vacuum, but with absolute conjugated properties, yielding the information which requires the electron to make contact, and create two photons due to the conservation in angular momentum, which states their net charge is zero.

 

[John Connellan]

No, what? Are you disagreeing that the pair production of particles is not possible even with high energies?

Check out this simple Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

 

[gluon]

No, read what I said. I said that ''at high enough temperatures particles can be made.''

 

[Vern]

Maybe. Although at the time I remember thinking that using nucleons was not mandatory. Just that the positive charge of the nucleon would help with the separation of the partcle-antiparticle pair.

The larger implication is that the stuff we see downstream when smashing particles together does not come out of nucleons; it is simply created by the EM forces in the collision. This means that the discovery of the quarks etc. is bogus. All kinds of short lived unstable particles may be created depending upon the energy of the collisions. They have nothing to do with what might be contained within normal nuclei.

 

[gluon]

Do you know what i cannot understand with all this talk. A few have mentioned ''the spin of a fermion is $$\frac{1}{2}$$, so a photon can't make one if it has a spin of $$1$$. Spin can i add, was just a mathematical necessity, whilst the public and media flouted it, and took it conceptually as a real physical spin. We now know that spin isn't what it seems, but has close relations behind the angular momentum of a particle.

But whatever spin is, it doesn't refer to reality as $$\frac{1}{2}$$ nor is it real as $$1$$. Mathematics, as Einstein once said ''does not refer to reality.'' This is just our way of being able to help represent the reality we observe. So in the end of the day, do the spins really matter as an explanation to why photons can't make matter?

No. In the end of the day, reality could very well have a unique way of using this property we observe, other than thinking in human abstract terms of numbers.

 

[Bishadi]

Spin can i add, was just a mathematical necessity, whilst the public and media flouted it, and took it conceptually as a real physical spin. We now know that spin isn't what it seems, but has close relations behind the angular momentum of a particle.

good stuff

h maintains the bohr(ing) regime within current physics


the wave function of 'l' is replaced by angular momentum (planck did it)


That is what ruins defining a 'transition' from energy (em) to mass.


'You' can't convert an 'f' (or even a range) to a particle (mass) within the current physics.


so now there are 2 real important items to observe on this thread;


that energy is bound to 'speed' (completely illogical (non-causal) caused by the math)

and the transition of energy to mass (mathematically) cannot be performed (opposing fission/fussion as experiments)



these are both real important areas to focus on

 

[gluon]

Not quite my point however.

 

[Bishadi]

i was contributing, as you shared what many are unaware of

 

[gluon]

well for starters, what does ''energy bound to speed'' mean?

 

[Vern]

Do you know what i cannot understand with all this talk. A few have mentioned ''the spin of a fermion is , so a photon can't make one if it has a spin of . Spin can i add, was just a mathematical necessity, whilst the public and media flouted it, and took it conceptually as a real physical spin. We now know that spin isn't what it seems, but has close relations behind the angular momentum of a particle.

Particle spin is actually one of the cases of evidence for a photon-only universe. Follow the link to see how.

Edit: See Case 15;

 

[gluon]

I've never heard of half-cycles of photons.

What are they?

 

[Vern]

Classic Photon

Back in the day when I studied; ancient times; photons were described as an electromagnetic wave with a positive half cycle and a negative half cycle like this.

Now days we have left that concept but I still find it useful.

 

[gluon]

What reason was there for it to have such qualities? The magnetic field?

 

[John Connellan]

No, read what I said. I said that ''at high enough temperatures particles can be made.''

Oh, I know this and I have agreed with this before. I have never said the nuleon was necessary

 

[Vern]

What reason was there for it to have such qualities? The magnetic field?

Yes it is as Maxwell described it back in the 1800's.

Edit: Of course Maxwell didn't know about the quantum nature of the fields.

 

[John Connellan]

The larger implication is that the stuff we see downstream when smashing particles together does not come out of nucleons; it is simply created by the EM forces in the collision. This means that the discovery of the quarks etc. is bogus. All kinds of short lived unstable particles may be created depending upon the energy of the collisions. They have nothing to do with what might be contained within normal nuclei.

Don't get me wrong, I understand this and I was not trying to say that the matter came out of the nucleon. I understand the equivalence of matter and energy. I was merely reiterating what I (thought ) I had heard about how, in experimentation, they actually used nucleons in the separation process. In either case, looks like this method if it was ever used is well out of date now as they use higher and higher energies to create the pairs directly

 

[Vern]

In either case, looks like this method if it was ever used is well out of date now as they use higher and higher energies to create the pairs directly

I've been following this pretty close since about 1986 and have never heard of the method. I do know that some physicists thought a nucleon was necessary to get the energy mass conversion. Now we know that a nucleon need not be present.