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

[Vern]

What do you think of my explanation then?

I'm not sure which explanation you mean; much of what you say is right on track; I can't quite follow some of your reasoning though.

 

[temur]

Have somebody already said spin? Photon has spin 1, and you cannot make particles with spin 1/2 with this.

 

[Vkothii]

The FACT that ocean waves can not be made into surfboards does not in any way extend to particle physics. There is no connection. It is not a valid argument.

But I thought you implied that waves can be made into surfboards? This would imply that photon waves can be made into something with mass too, surely?

There is a connection; it is a valid argument - waves are waves, right?

 

[Vern]

Have somebody already said spin? Photon has spin 1, and you cannot make particles with spin 1/2 with this.

Sure you can; just trap a photon into a stable pattern. Each half cycle is observed as an amplitude peak as the pattern completes. Two half cycles equal spin 1/2.

And how do we measure the spin 1 of the photon. We don't. It is theory.

 

[Mike Honcho]

Why matter can not be made up of photons.

Argument:

The radius of the Electron is less than 10^-13 m
The mass of the Electron is 9.1e-31 kg
The energy equivalence of the mass of an electron is 8.14e-14 joules
The wavelength of a single photon with the energy equivalence of the mass of an electron is 2.43e-12 m, about 10 times the diameter of the electron.

Ergo, for an electron to be made up of a single photon, it would have to be made up of something larger than its own diameter.

Trying to have the electron being made up of more than one photon makes the problem worse. Each photon would have to have a fraction of the energy equivalence of the electron, and as the energy of a photon decreases, its wavelength increases.

Electrons can absorb and emit photons as they jump orbitals. So either photons do not have size as we know it or electrons can strech.

 

[Vkothii]

...trap a photon into a stable pattern

How do you do that? What's a stable pattern and why would it "trap" a photon?

 

[temur]

Sure you can; just trap a photon into a stable pattern. Each half cycle is observed as an amplitude peak as the pattern completes. Two half cycles equal spin 1/2.

And how do we measure the spin 1 of the photon. We don't. It is theory.

How do you trap them, you need a lot of energy to do that.

What do you mean it is a theory; light has polarisations.

 

[Reiku]

Have somebody already said spin? Photon has spin 1, and you cannot make particles with spin 1/2 with this.

Yes, i mentioned spin a while back and gave an example, which mirrored Verns answer.

 

[Vern]

There is a connection; it is a valid argument - waves are waves, right?

You're very persistent; but it is not a valid logical argument; I almost wish it was since you're so hooked on it

 

[Reiku]

''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.

This Vern

 

[Vkothii]

it is not a valid logical argument

You can keep saying it isn't a valid logical argument; I can keep saying it is both valid and logical.

What can you provide to back up your contention though? Seeing as how I've backed mine up with the odd example - like how you can't make anything with momentum, or even waves of momentum (which is all a wave is, travelling momentum because of surface tension).

 

[BenTheMan]

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?

See seminal papers by Pauli, and the following body of work.

 

[Vern]

How do you trap them, you need a lot of energy to do that.
What do you mean it is a theory; light has polarisations.

You need just as much energy as it takes; as is observed all the time in particle accelerators. And I have never seen an experiment that can measure the spin properties of light. We know it is spin 1 because it needs to be that to satisfy theory.

 

[Vkothii]

You can make something with ocean waves... its called sand.

Almost, but waves don't make sand - sand is the result of wave action on rocks and stuff.

Waves don't "make" anything - the sand exists already, in rocks that wave momentum converts; no new matter is created, right?

 

[BenTheMan]

Have somebody already said spin? Photon has spin 1, and you cannot make particles with spin 1/2 with this.

Entry #8, by temur. Good answer!

 

[Reiku]

How do you trap them, you need a lot of energy to do that.

What do you mean it is a theory; light has polarisations.

The trapping can be seen intuitively. Take this as an example.

A strange situation can arise if light is trapped inside a container. If light is trapped inside of a box with mirrors inside of it, so that it cannot escape, (now the mirrors would need to be cold enough so that the mirrors do not absorb the light-energy), the total momentum is said to be zero, but the energy is not - thus, the light can contribute a very small amount of mass to the box! Now, one can say that the light in the box must have mass to even add any mass to begin with - but actually, it is more accurate to say it contributes to the mass - but do not use this as some kind of justification that light indeed has mass. That is simply not true. A photon can decrease the invariant mass value of E/c^2 each time a system emits a photon... likewise, a system can increase its invariant mass by a value of E/c^2, if it absorbs a photon particle.

Now replace this box with rest mass, with a particle with rest mass, and you have the perfect example.

 

[Vern]

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?

Well I don't know. One speculation is as good as another I guess. But there just needs to be some good solid way to make a neutrino out of a photon. I can't find one.

 

[BenTheMan]

Let's recap:

Entry #1: from ashura

Layman entry: Matter has mass. Photons are massless. Ergo, matter can't be made of photons.

CptBork pointed out that ashura REALLY means rest mass.

Entry #2: from Diode - Man

Photons are products of excited (heated) atomic matter. The wave frequency (beats or waves per second) of the photons of white light are so high that it can reach 400 to 790,000,000,000,000 waves per second! (Tera-hertz frequency)

With such erratic motions it would be impossible for a photon to become a solid or permanent piece of any molecular or atomic configuration. If in a laboratory, one attempted to forcibly make a photon join in with say a particle of Earth dirt, the photon would just bounce away unable to be joined with the solid matter. It may be the case because the photon cannot be contained in a magnetic field.

Ultimately however, like electricity, we can only know what a photon DOES and not what constructs it, it is I believe, what I'm going to term a "base unit" of the Universe.

(I am a "layman"... have I come close on my statements? )

Entry #3: from Steve100

If two particles with the same mass are made of photons, they must be made of the same amount of photons.
This would make the 2 particles have identical properties, and we already know that we can have particles with different properties and the same mass.
Therefore the particles cannot be made of photons.

mass = relativistic mass

Entry #4: from QuarkHead (in limerick form)

A physicist (mad as a hatter)
Once pondered the nature of matter.
He concluded "it's light";
But we know that's not right,
Since the absence of forces
Would take less than two horses
To cause all matter to shatter.

Entry #5: from melodicbard

Photon does not have charge.
Matter can carry positive or negative charge.

Entry #6: from Vkothii. I think I missed this one before.

Photons are perturbations in the EM field and don't couple to the putative Higgs field.
Like waves on the surface of a liquid are perturbations of the surface, and don't displace (carry) any liquid, except as part of the momentum-wave's [vertical] time-displacement. Ocean waves don't have mass either.

Particles like electrons, can 'surf' a wave, like a bit of wood or a surfer can surf an ocean wave. That's an interaction with the wavefront - a charged electron is affected by the electric wave component of a coherent group of photons.

Fundamental particles with 'rest' mass [can] couple to both fields.
A photon doesn't generally interact with another photon, except at the extreme of the frequency range, where two 'extreme' photons with sufficient momentum have a greater probability (the uncertainty principle) of massive (gamma-gamma) interaction when they encounter each other, and interact as massive particle-antiparticle pairs, but not as photons.

Something like that.

Entry #7: from Cyperium

Why can't mass be made of photons?

Photons are the result of the energy released when mass converts or when something of higher energy enters a lower state (then the energy difference is released as photons to preserve the energy total)

So photons preserves the energy, so then there is no need for preservation in the form of photons, if the energy is already preserved in mass.

You can convert photons to mass, or mass to photons. But photons cannot be mass.

Entry #8: from Janus

Why matter can not be made up of photons.

Argument:

The radius of the Electron is less than 10^-13 m
The mass of the Electron is 9.1e-31 kg
The energy equivalence of the mass of an electron is 8.14e-14 joules
The wavelength of a single photon with the energy equivalence of the mass of an electron is 2.43e-12 m, about 10 times the diameter of the electron.

Ergo, for an electron to be made up of a single photon, it would have to be made up of something larger than its own diameter.

Trying to have the electron being made up of more than one photon makes the problem worse. Each photon would have to have a fraction of the energy equivalence of the electron, and as the energy of a photon decreases, its wavelength increases.

Entry #9: from...Vern?

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?

Entry #10: from temur

Have somebody already said spin? Photon has spin 1, and you cannot make particles with spin 1/2 with this.

 

[Reiku]

Well I don't know. One speculation is as good as another I guess. But there just needs to be some good solid way to make a neutrino out of a photon. I can't find one.

There might be. We could argue that the photon energy is carried on from one state to another, like a quantum DNA. It could be answerable, by saying that neutrino's are created from tritium, and that the trituim itself comes from particles that are directly made from photon energy. I like it, because it does not beg the question you are asking.

 

[Vern]

What can you provide to back up your contention though? Seeing as how I've backed mine up with the odd example - like how you can't make anything with momentum, or even waves of momentum (which is all a wave is, travelling momentum because of surface tension).

Back in the days of Emanual Kent, Karl Popper, David Hume, and the like, we made rules of logic that when applied, could determine whether an argument could be valid. All I am saying is that your reasoning does not pass their tests of validity.

You can't extend ocean waves and surfboards to photons and electrons. It don't work. There's no logical connection.