Jump to content

QFT: Every particle is an excitation of it's own field?


Silvestru

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Gravity is curved spacetime and photons curve it, therefore, photons "create" gravity.

Yes but we were talking about gravity as a whole here. You are saying that the source of gravity as phenomenon is solely caused by light? 

Photons lose energy because they are interacting with the gravitational field.
Also can you please give an example of how photons "create gravity" ? 

It's like saying that you are the source of the oceans because you like to cry in them.

Edited by Silvestru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I'm still waiting for a source for this MarkE. :(

I'm still waiting on your reaction to the evidence/sources/laws I've provided, as a reaction to this remark:

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

So your source for saying that the combined energy in the universe is 1(which makes no sense) is a hypothesis that says it adds up to 0?

Do you still not support the zero-gravity Universe, and if so, what's the counter-argument?

Edited by MarkE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MarkE said:

I'm still waiting on your reaction to the evidence/sources/laws I've provided, as a reaction to this remark:

Do you still not support the zero-gravity Universe, and if so, why?

This is a strawman argument. I asked you to show me where it says that the total amount of energy in the universe is 1. Show me in the zero gravity Universe page where it says that?

37 minutes ago, MarkE said:

The combined energy must be 1, and can’t become more or less than 1, because otherwise the law of conservation of energy would be violated. It could only become 2 if they would both represent 1/2 and 1/2.

 

Also StringJunky "according to GR the source of gravity is the stress-energy tensor. There are 10 independent components in the stress-energy tensor. Energy is only one of those 10 components."
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

This is a strawman argument. I asked you to show me where it says that the total amount of energy in the universe is 1. Show me in the zero gravity Universe page where it says that?

This is not explained in that article, because this is due to the law of conservation of energy.

45 minutes ago, MarkE said:

The combined energy must be 1, and can’t become more or less than 1, because otherwise the law of conservation of energy would be violated. It could only become 2 if they would both represent 1/2 and 1/2.

 

Edited by MarkE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I asked you to show me where it says that the total amount of energy in the universe is 1. Show me in the zero gravity Universe page where it says that?

Show me in any page where it says that the total amount of energy in the universe is 1.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

The inflation theory, which came later, was able to explain how our Universe could inflate from a tiny particle.

Also can you show me the source for this? 

I'm sorry if I seem impolite but you can't just say things like this and avoid explaining. I have colleagues next to me and one just asked me from which particle did the universe inflate from.

Edited by Silvestru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Show me in any page where it says that the total amount of energy in the universe is 1.

Also can you show me the source for this?

I'm not saying it has the value 1, I'm only saying the Big Bang, a single point in space, must have started with the least possible value, which I'm giving the value of 1. I'm doing that. Scientists are doing that, because measurements indicate that the gravitational energy is also 1. This energy value of 1 could not have increased, because energy can't be created nor destroyed. Therefore all particles are indeed particles, because all energy/charge is conserved. This is supported by the inflation theory.

Edited by MarkE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Yes but we were talking about gravity as a whole here. You are saying that the source of gravity as phenomenon is solely caused by light? 

Photons lose energy because they are interacting with the gravitational field.
Also can you please give an example of how photons "create gravity" ? 

It's like saying that you are the source of the oceans because you like to cry in them.

Where did I say that? It one source.

Quote

Also can you please give an example of how photons "create gravity" ?

OK

Quote

Anything that carries energy, momentum and stresses is a source of a gravitational field, that is, a curvature of space-time.

.... electromagnetic fields themselves carry energy (and momentum and stresses). The energy density carried by an electromagnetic field can be computed by adding the square of the electric field intensity to the square of the magnetic field intensity. As another example, a beam of light (produced from, say, a laser) consists of an electromagnetic field, and it will exert a force on charged particles. Thus the electromagnetic field carries momentum. Because an electromagnetic field contains energy, momentum, and so on, it will produce a gravitational field of its own. This gravitational field is in addition to that produced by the matter of the charge or magnet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-electric-charges-and-m/

There is a caveat in the article that it is not experimentally verified yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not even understand the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe that you propose. I can't believe I am trying to explain to you the hypothesis (which I do not support btw, you like to think you do) that you proposed.

 "The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly ZERO." yes?  ok, let's go further:

29 minutes ago, MarkE said:

I'm not saying it has the value 1, I'm only saying the Big Bang, a single point in space, must have started with the least possible value, which I'm giving the value of 1. I'm doing that. Scientists are doing that, because measurements indicate that the gravitational energy is also 1. This energy value of 1 could not have increased, because energy can't be created nor destroyed. 

See how you keep saying 1? See how 1 does not equal zero? That's my problem here.

29 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Therefore all particles are indeed particles, because all energy/charge is conserved. This is supported by the inflation theory.

What does this have to do with the rest?

 

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Where did I say that? It one source.

 

This is the quote that I had a problem with StringJunky. Would you use this as the definition of Gravity?

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

Take also in account that the concept of general relativity doesn't view gravity as a force, rather as a curvature of spacetime, created by light (which is massless, but still attracted to it), just the way a field could be viewed as an excitation generated by a particle.

Also MarkE edited this section to add "just the way a field could be viewed as an excitation generated by a particle."

Even thought the very title of this thread is that Particles are excitations in a field.

Edited by Silvestru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

This is the quote that I had a problem with StringJunky. Would you use this as the definition of Gravity?

Also MarkE edited this section to add "just the way a field could be viewed as an excitation generated by a particle."

Even thought the very title of this thread is that Particles are excitations in a field.

No, that's not wholly correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swansont said:

1 what? 1 joule? 1 eV? Energy has units.

The Big Bang started out from 1 point, quite literally. Light preceded matter (the first atoms formed 400,000 years after the Big Bang), so the most probable candidate seems to be the photon itself, since the quantum fluctuations hypothesis is referring to pair particles, which is a characteristic of the photon (from 511 MeV a photon can pair produce). But, as I’ve already pointed out, if this hypothesis is indeed correct, then what could have happened after that event?

10 hours ago, MarkE said:

That being said, what I still don’t fully grasp is, if this is indeed the explanation of how our Universe came into being, and photons could have pair produced into + and – particles, then how did these newly created matter/antimatter particles further divide (because ‘adding’ energy is not allowed), and give rise to other particles, which lead to this Universe that is filled with photons and matter/antimatter particles?

They couldn’t, of course, because, as Sensei clearly remarked:

On 4/12/2018 at 2:02 PM, Sensei said:

Electron/positron can't decay anymore (at least according to current Standard Model knowledge..), but can e.g. annihilate with its anti-particle. And as a result, different set of particles (and eventually anti-particles) will appear instead.

Photons are able to divide (pair produce), but electrons/positrons can't.

Edited 9 hours ago by MarkE

If anybody has an idea what could have happened next, how to get from two charged particles, e+ and e-, to more than two charged particles, please share your thoughts. If we could conclude that this hypothesis can't be the right one, then that would also be interesting to know, so either way, share your thoughts :rolleyes:.

8 hours ago, Silvestru said:

See how you keep saying 1? See how 1 does not equal zero? That's my problem here.

Indeed, 1 does not equal 0, but if energy ("stuff") has the value of 1, then gravity (not "stuff") has the value of -1. Together they make up 0.

Just to be clear about this value of "1": numbers don't actually exist, humans made those up because they come in handy in abstract thinking, and making calculations. Proportions do exist, but numbers aren't created by nature, just like the concept of a "field" can be helpful in setting up equations, but there is no proof that all particles have their own actual existing field.

And lastly, about this zero-energy Universe, which you don't seem to support, there's more evidence that our Universe can be considered a spatially flat Euclidean space, which means that the angles of a triangle in space would add up to exactly 180 degrees. What hypothesis do you consider to be more probable?

Edited by MarkE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

The Big Bang started out from 1 point, quite literally. Light preceded matter (the first atoms formed 400,000 years after the Big Bang), so the most probable candidate seems to be the photon itself, since the quantum fluctuations hypothesis is referring to pair particles, which is a characteristic of the photon (from 511 MeV a photon can pair produce). But, as I’ve already pointed out, if this hypothesis is indeed correct, then what could have happened after that event?

That completely ignores the question. (and pair production requires 1.02 MeV. Pair annihilation is 511keV)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

That completely ignores the question. (and pair production requires 1.02 MeV. Pair annihilation is 511keV)

Your question was "1 what?". The answer is "1 photon".

(With an energy that makes pair production possible.) Thanks for pointing out the correct decimal point.

Edited by MarkE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you assigning energy ( or stuff, as you call it ) a value of 1, and gravity, a value of -1 ?
Both are mass-energy.

The fact that ,in the zero sum universe model, the mass-energy of the universe is exactly equal to the negative gravitational potential energy of the universe, means that the sum total is ZERO .

Either you are deliberately trying to confuse, or you don't understand what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

Indeed, 1 does not equal 0, but if energy ("stuff") has the value of 1, then gravity (not "stuff") has the value of -1. Together they make up 0.

Now it's -1? Good! We are making progress from yesterday:

17 hours ago, MarkE said:

We live in a flat Universe in which the value of the combined energy is 1, and that of gravity is 1

But before we can talk about the Zero-energy Universe, we need to get rid of this 1 and -1 terms.

I know what you mean but we cannot assign a numerical value with no unit. In this case we shouldn't assign any numerical value because we just don't know it.

So let's not complicate things and just say this hypothesis says (remember that there is no evidence for this) that  "the amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly cancelled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity."  Just like in the wiki.

 

 

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

Just to be clear about this value of "1": numbers don't actually exist, humans made those up because they come in handy in abstract thinking, and making calculations.

This confuses me a bit because you are the only one here quoting numbers and others are explaining that you shouldn't. Also numbers exist. You are using letters to express that numbers don't exist. Of course they are made by humans and are  not physical objects but neither is happiness, communism, lies or higher education. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MarkE said:

Your question was "1 what?". The answer is "1 photon".

(With an energy that makes pair production possible.) Thanks for pointing out the correct decimal point.

Producing one electron-positron pair doesn't get you very far. The early universe was full of a plasma of quarks and gluons. How do you explain that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Producing one electron-positron pair doesn't get you very far. The early universe was full of a plasma of quarks and gluons. How do you explain that?

The riddle is how to evolve from the Big Bang to this Universe, so that’s what I’m trying to find out. Not by discussing philosophy, but by taking scientific facts and laws in consideration when discussing already existing hypotheses, posed by scientists. The Big Bang itself asserts that it got from something to, well, more than something. This adding of energy is by definition not allowed by the law of conservation of energy, so either this conservation law turns out to be wrong (which I wouldn’t dare to suggest), or this initial form of energy has divided into more and more parts. I can’t see a third option here. If there is an option c, please let me know.

Let’s consider this possible division hypothesis. In the case of an initial photon, that would generate an electron/positron pair. But then what? If then nothing could have happened for that point on (from those two points on, that is), because it would mean that if these particles would annihilate each other, they could, at most, only have lead to the same unchanged initial photon energy, then this hypothesis can’t be the right one. That's what I'm trying to find out. But if after annihilation the photon radiation energy could somehow have increased, if there is scientific support for that, then this might be related to the inflation process Edward P. Tryon was referring to, which then gave rise to much more pair productions and pair annihilations, and eventually evolved to the plasma of quarks and gluons, and next to the Universe we have today.

If however all of this is impossible on scientific grounds, and the process I’m describing could only have been a back-and-forth event, without gaining more radiation energy in the process, and you all agree on that, then I would really like to know what the explanation behind that conclusion would be, because then the answer to the initial question about the Big Bang, the question of how to get from a single point in space to this vast Universe, must lie in acknowledging the possibility that the addition of “stuff” to that initial point must have played a role in how the Universe has changed over time. Once again, as far as I can see (but I could be wrong of course), there no option c here, because if you can't divide the energy that you possess (because it won't increase radiation energy), and you also can't add any energy (according to the law of conservation of energy), then we shouldn't be alive right now. So if there is a third option I haven't yet considered, please en"lighten" me.

Edited by MarkE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, MarkE said:

The riddle is how to evolve from the Big Bang to this Universe

The evolution from the early hot dense state is the (relatively) easy bit.

The unknown is what started the whole process.

57 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Not by discussing philosophy, but by taking scientific facts and laws in consideration when discussing already existing hypotheses, posed by scientists

Then you need to apply the physics that applied at those energy levels. For example, the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces were united. So particles such as photons and electrons would not have existed, at least, not as we know them now.

58 minutes ago, MarkE said:

The Big Bang itself asserts that it got from something to, well, more than something.

No. It describes the ongoing evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state.

59 minutes ago, MarkE said:

This adding of energy is by definition not allowed by the law of conservation of energy

The definition of energy in this context is not simple as we are not looking at a single frame of reference (because the universe is expanding).

And there are models where the total energy of the universe is zero.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

But then what? If then nothing could have happened for that point on (from those two points on, that is), because it would mean that if these particles would annihilate each other, they could, at most, only have lead to the same unchanged initial photon energy, then this hypothesis can’t be the right one.

There is an open question of why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe (in other words, why there is any matter at all). 

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

the question of how to get from a single point in space to this vast Universe

We have no theories that go back to a single point (other than a naive extrapolation of GR)so I don't think anyone considers that to be a realistic description. 

The universe could be infinitely old, in which case you wouldn't need to worry about "where it came from". (is that the option c you referred to?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2018 at 12:34 PM, Strange said:

The evolution from the early hot dense state is the (relatively) easy bit.

If this is the easy bit, could you tell a bit more about the first two or three chronological steps that sequentially occurred after this hot dense state?

On 4/20/2018 at 12:34 PM, Strange said:

The strong, weak and electromagnetic forces were united. So particles such as photons and electrons would not have existed

Are you implying that, during this hot dense state, there must have been a non-Standard Model particle which wasn’t involved with any of these three forces of nature whatsoever?

On 4/20/2018 at 12:34 PM, Strange said:

And there are models where the total energy of the universe is zero.

I know, that's what I've been trying to explain @Silvestru.

On 4/20/2018 at 12:34 PM, Strange said:

There is an open question of why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe (in other words, why there is any matter at all).

The only difference between matter and antimatter is charge. The fact that we live in a matter Universe doesn’t mean that there is more plus (+) charge than minus (-) charge around. So in terms of electromagnetism there's no C symmetry violation.

On 4/20/2018 at 12:34 PM, Strange said:

We have no theories that go back to a single point (other than a naive extrapolation of GR)so I don't think anyone considers that to be a realistic description. 

Are you suggesting that it's more probable that the Big Bang started out with already a multitude of energy particles being present, rather than to be preceded by the least possible amount of energy to start out with (which is 1)? 

Edited by MarkE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MarkE said:

If this is the easy bit, could you tell a bit more about the first two or three chronological steps that sequentially occurred after this hot dense state?

By "easy" I mean that we have good theories that can explain what happened from about 10-36 second: https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

19 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Are you implying that, during this hot dense state, there must have been a non-Standard Model particle which wasn’t involved with any of these three forces of nature whatsoever?

Not really. Just that in the grand unification epoch, the particles that existed would have behaved differently than they do now. This is not something I now much about but if the forces were unified, then perhaps the distinct particles we see now were not distinguished. But it probably needs someone like Mordred to comment further.

19 minutes ago, MarkE said:

The only difference between matter and antimatter is charge.

Not just electrical change, though. For example, antiquarks have anti-colour charge.

19 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Are you suggesting that it's more probable that the Big Bang started out with already a multitude of energy particles in existence, rather than to be preceded by the least possible amount of energy to start with (which is 1)? 

I'm saying we don't know. There are quite a few different models. In some, the universe "starts" with zero energy but in others the matter and energy has always existed.

(As has already pointed out, saying that the least amount of energy is "1" is meaningless. And the minimum is zero, anyway.)

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MarkE said:

I know, that's what I've been trying to explain @Silvestru.

Yeah mate, I just continually refuse to understand that 1=0. I'm a philistine really.

12 hours ago, MarkE said:

Are you suggesting that it's more probable that the Big Bang started out with already a multitude of energy particles being present, rather than to be preceded by the least possible amount of energy to start out with (which is 1)? 

Hey man, if you are trolling that's cool and you got me. But if you seriously don't understand that what you are saying is wrong and not even from a physics perspective but from a  kindergarten maths class level, where you keep saying Zero universe and then saying it's value is 1, then this is the day I realise that ego an ignorance are a more potent poison than cyanide sugar and those hot dogs that they sell in gas stations - combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2018 at 10:03 AM, Silvestru said:

Yeah mate, I just continually refuse to understand that 1=0. I'm a philistine really.

Hey man, if you are trolling that's cool and you got me. But if you seriously don't understand that what you are saying is wrong and not even from a physics perspective but from a  kindergarten maths class level, where you keep saying Zero universe and then saying it's value is 1, then this is the day I realise that ego an ignorance are a more potent poison than cyanide sugar and those hot dogs that they sell in gas stations - combined.

A value of 1 doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a positive integer. Between -4 and -3 lies the value of 1 as well.

I don’t see why I’ve deserved your tone of voice. I’m trying to understand the physical world (just like you, I presume), and I’m doing the best I can to explain how I'm interpreting certain scientific laws and observations, in order to compare them with members on this forum, and possibly adjust my interpretations.

If however disagreeing with you generates negative emotions, rather than generating a scientific discussion about these contrasting arguments, and why they are different, in which at least one of us obtains a different perspective on the matter, it might be better to not have those discussions anymore (which would be unfortunate, because I can remember higher quality discussions we’ve had in the past, and we really should have more of those, don't you think?). 

You're right that I wasn't very clear about this value of 1, and what I meant by it, so please excuse me for that, but I really don't think I deserve to be compared to poison and cyanide sugar because of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MarkE said:

A value of 1 doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a positive integer.

A value of 1 does mean a positive integer. One more than zero.

Quote

Between -4 and -3 lies the value of 1 as well.

No, between those values lie an infinite number of values such as -3.141, -3.6, -3.9999. The value of 1 is not between those values (in any number system I am aware of).

And it is still not clear how you think a zero energy universe (that's zero energy) can have an energy of one. (And 1 what? 1 Joule,  1 calorie, 1 eV, 1 Planck unit, or ... ?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

A value of 1 does mean a positive integer. One more than zero.

Indeed, but the space between -1 and 0 has the exact same value as the space between +1 and 0. That's what I meant (but failed to convey clearly). In the zero-energy Universe, energy has the value of +1, and gravity has the value of -1. Therefore, they both have the exact same value, when compared to 0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.