Jump to content

What Do You Think, Are Photons Matter Or Energy??


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i'd consider Tachyons to be in a new form, if they indeed do exist.. altough i belive we can se things indicating the possiblity atleast.

 

yes, interesting, possible, but at the moment, who knows?

 

i think that photons are energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yourdonapogos: Exaclty here is the big contradiction. but on the other hand there are some instances where informations seems to be traveling backwars in time.. and this in turn would be needing a particle that only travels backwards in time! If it does this then imaginary mass is not that stange.. altough im so bad at math so i have no real foundation on what imaginary really(out in the fingertips) means...

 

5614: Photons doesn't do much else than transport energy so this is rather viable to me. Tachs.. funny thinking but only time will tell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I can think of an exmaple: when counting the mass in the universe photons are often included under the heading 'baryonic matter'; of course as well as not strictly being matter, they're not strictly baryonic either!

 

A baryon is a particle made of 3 quarks (like the proton and neutron). Photons are in no way baryons.

 

In the Standard Model, matter is defined as being quarks and leptons (and obviously anything made out of them). The force mediating particles (like the photon) are not matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well this as risen qustions in me.....obviously if energy can travel at the speed of light ...so can we say that when abody with mass gets closer tot he speed of light it changes inot energy namly the photon and this goes to the speed of light.....and if we stop this photon it will change back to the same body

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we stop this photon it will change back to the same body

 

What do you mean by stopping it ?

Its not a regular particle ! It has dual nature, as soon as you try to exploit its particle properties, the more wave like it will become (Heisenberg Principle). You can't stop a wave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well matter is defined as anything that occupies space and has mass.....

 

obviously now we can consider photons to be energy ' date=' it dont have mass , and it dont occupy any space so its energy......[/quote']

 

that is not true. electrons are point particles (in the standard model). that means they are zero dimensional. they use no space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It definitely has size...if an electron was a point particle but had mass, it would create a singularity at the position of the electron, and the massive gravitational field of the singularity would make the mass of the electron shoot up to infinity, contradicting the fact that an electron has a finite mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It definitely has size...if an electron was a point particle but had mass, it would create a singularity at the position of the electron, and the massive gravitational field of the singularity would make the mass of the electron shoot up to infinity, contradicting the fact that an electron has a finite mass.

 

No as I said before any attempt to define a radius for the electron is arbitary as it is so for any elemnatry particle.

 

Classically you can assign the electron what is known as it's Compton radius, but there is no reason to think of that as it's true radius.

 

We do not in general include gravity in fundmantal descriptions of the electron and we do not expect general relativty to work on this level anyway, besides which singularities such as those caused by a mass occupying aregion smaller than it's Schwarzchild radius do not have infinite mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact electrons have mass dictates they have radius, be it very very small. Keebs is correct. A dimensionless particle with a mass would create a singularity.

 

The particles position however is what, to me, is more undefined. Even if it is moving at speed c or close too then it would increase its mass, meaning its rest mass may be much much smaller than we interpret it. Is it possible that the electron is more 'smeared' across the atom than in a stable 'orbit'.

 

The idea of the majority of an atom being empty space still doesn't sit well with me, even after years of physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it is moving at speed c or close too then it would increase its mass, meaning its rest mass may be much much smaller than we interpret it

Though electrons fizz about at great speeds in the atom, classicaly their speeds are still less than 0.1c so there shouldn't be any appreciable difference in mass because of that.

 

Is it possible that the electron is more 'smeared' across the atom than in a stable 'orbit'

You look at electrons in "orbitals" and not "orbits". "Orbitals" are smeared across to quite a large extent.

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.