SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
- Status
I also have a second reply to Diodes thread.
Take other examples of other systems made up of other systems. It's not unheard of. We have glueballs, made up of gluon luxon particles. The positronium consists of an electron and a positron in momentum inside the particle itself.
The same goes for the picture of particles with rest mass. They consist of energy: photon energy to be precise. We know this, because of the matter-antimatter process of releasing their fundamental componants. Two gamma rays of energy.
BenTheMan; an entry. In all of the photon theories I can find, not one of them can make a neutrino out of photons. Maybe it is not fair; you posted this yourself
But I have known it for years.
Now; how sure are we that neutrinos actually exist as theory suggests?
But I have known it for years.Now; how sure are we that neutrinos actually exist as theory suggests?
Yes there is reasoning there.Vern said:
It goes like this: ocean waves have no mass, therefore you can't make anything with them that has mass.
Photons have no mass (they're waves on a surface, or in a medium), you can't make anything out of waves, except other waves; unless you convert the wave energy somehow - ocean waves can entrain machines that convert some of the wave's momentum into electricity - which is electrons with momentum and electrons have mass.
Photon energy can be entrained much the same way (the photoelectric effect) to give electrons momentum.
In neither case is a massless wave transformed into matter, only the energy transforms existing matter - no new matter is created.
Much as ocean waves transform shorelines and erode solid cliffs - there is no conversion or direct 'use' of these waves as matter. You can't use momentum to build stuff.
Last edited:
''BenTheMan; an entry. In all of the photon theories I can find, not one of them can make a neutrino out of photons. Maybe it is not fair; you posted this yourself But I have known it for years.
Now; how sure are we that neutrinos actually exist as theory suggests?''
.......
I have an explanation. Neutrino's could be the by-product of matter that is the by-product of photons. Is the neutrino a tachyon?
We have all heard of the hypothetical particles called tachyons. They have a rest mass M that also has an imaginary value $$(M^{2}<0)$$. It turns out that $$(E=gM)$$, the observable mass-energy of these light weight particles, becomes ''real'' and ''positive''.
If a particle was able to defy the light-speed barrier so that v was greater than c $$(v>c)$$, then both g and E would become imaginary quantities, because ß would be larger than 1 and $$(1 - \beta^{2})$$ would be negative.
We can by theory create neutrinos from the decay of tritium. The basic underlining rule is through the relativistic relation between energy and momentum $$E^{2} = P^{2} + M^{2}$$... and we find out that it is mass squared that works out the neutrino mass from tritium decay... but this mass squared can be seen in light of either a positive result or a negative result, and if it is a tachyon, containing a very light weight amount of imaginary matter of about $$(i)(12) eV$$, there is the big problem that nothing fruitful will arise out of this... because the theorists do not believe its qualities would be observable or known.
So neutrino's could be a phenomena arising from matter that does come from a direct flux of photon energy.
Now; how sure are we that neutrinos actually exist as theory suggests?''
.......
I have an explanation. Neutrino's could be the by-product of matter that is the by-product of photons. Is the neutrino a tachyon?
We have all heard of the hypothetical particles called tachyons. They have a rest mass M that also has an imaginary value $$(M^{2}<0)$$. It turns out that $$(E=gM)$$, the observable mass-energy of these light weight particles, becomes ''real'' and ''positive''.
If a particle was able to defy the light-speed barrier so that v was greater than c $$(v>c)$$, then both g and E would become imaginary quantities, because ß would be larger than 1 and $$(1 - \beta^{2})$$ would be negative.
We can by theory create neutrinos from the decay of tritium. The basic underlining rule is through the relativistic relation between energy and momentum $$E^{2} = P^{2} + M^{2}$$... and we find out that it is mass squared that works out the neutrino mass from tritium decay... but this mass squared can be seen in light of either a positive result or a negative result, and if it is a tachyon, containing a very light weight amount of imaginary matter of about $$(i)(12) eV$$, there is the big problem that nothing fruitful will arise out of this... because the theorists do not believe its qualities would be observable or known.
So neutrino's could be a phenomena arising from matter that does come from a direct flux of photon energy.
So it's logical that ocean waves can be made into surfboards? I'd like to see one of those, wonder how they put ocean waves together into a surfboard shape - seeing how there's a bit of a size difference? Do they have to squish them together?Vern said:
How does it not have any implication when "extended to particle theory"? You lost me.
Aren't fundamental particles actually waves? Some of which have what we call "mass"?
Sorry, but the wave is most definitely a "real entity"; check out what a certain Louis deBroglie did with electrons. It is not a known fact of QM that real particles are not waves, or that electrons, neutrons, actually any particle you name, aren't waves, since they are. Just like photons are.Reiku said:
They're also waves that look like particles, isn't that confusing? And they're all "real entities" too.
- Status