Mystery111 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 ! Moderator Note Split from the "is everything just photons" thread And here is another thing that comes to mind. Photons have no mass. Matter particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks) do have mass. So how can particles which have no mass make up particles that do have mass? So it appears from this that photons cannot build up to make matter particles. Actually matter can be made from light. Using the mass example can be overcome. Other examples such as charge can also be overcome.Some scientists have suggested all matter is made from light, and there being experimental evidence when a particle and an antiparticle of the same family comes together ''somehow'' knocks the photons out of what ever substructure they create.It certainly is not a stupid question to ask. Obviously not many physicists believe in the idea, but it is still a valid question.“Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?”, p.9, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997).http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I literally JUST read something about scientists creating matter particles from light like 10 years ago, or something. so a supernova releases radiation, releasing photons & matter can be created... right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystery111 Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 I literally JUST read something about scientists creating matter particles from light like 10 years ago, or something. so a supernova releases radiation, releasing photons & matter can be created... right? Hmmm yes.. I think I know which information you are talking about... Would it be this by any chance? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Haha yes, I was keyword searching based on a bizarre concoction of theories I've acquired and came across that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystery111 Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Haha yes, I was keyword searching based on a bizarre concoction of theories I've acquired and came across that. Yes... I was almost positive that was the link you were referring to... It's been circulating for a while now I think it has already been said that the argument with the mass is not entirely convincing. But it is funny that all what you said is completely correct except for the word "mass". Had you said "electrical charge" or "half-integer spin" then your statement would have been a great argument. Yes. Spin would have been a better arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Well, I would say about 99% of the things that have been established or disproven in the world of science are absolutely groundbreaking news to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystery111 Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 well we r just photons in the big bang only energy came out ( photons ) witch , using the formula E=mc2 , turned into pairs of matter and antimatter those two anihalated with each other , but a breaking of simetry ( 1 bilion antimatter to 1bilion and 1 matter ) caused us to be here today According to some theories this is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystery111 Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) It is possible that a single photon could be caught up in a toroidal knot. This creates charge. So this toroidal knot causing charge removes the problem of charge as an arguement matter can not be made from light. Spin is also called into question, but if the spin corresponds to angular momentum but since the toroid causes charge, then spin can be easily found to be related to the spin-magnetic moment which could easily account for deformations (contractions or increases) in spin signs. It must be said, that it is an interesting coincidence that there seems to be a symmetry in nature where particles and antiparticles of the same family can come together and convert back to photon energy. This is the main question though, at least I believe ... that being ''is it merely a coincidence, or is the symmetry for all particles to do this indicates that photons are somehow involved in a sub-structure motion which makes the electron? Indeed all particels?'' I don't even know if we can test this yet. It should be within the dimensional range of string theory as closed strings. It would also mean the photon becmes an extended object in multidimensional space when it gets caught into the knot configuration. Edited October 19, 2011 by Mystery111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Wait, if matter and energy are equivalent, couldn't I say everything is made out of matter? So wait, is everything made out of matter or photons? Edited October 20, 2011 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystery111 Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 Wait, if matter and energy are equivalent, couldn't I say everything is made out of matter? So wait, is everything made out of matter or photons? hahaha... nice one... Anyway.... .... the question of what makes something, is the same as saying what came first, ''the chicken or the egg.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) hahaha... nice one... Anyway.... .... the question of what makes something, is the same as saying what came first, ''the chicken or the egg.'' Well Stephan Hawking said paradoxes don't exist, so obviously the egg, because it came from a more primitive species. The chicken is the result of a slightly different animal laying a mutated egg (which contained the chicken). But, what came first: The photons or the matter? Edited October 20, 2011 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 surely everything is just energy.Energy can either be in the fabric of space therefore potential energy,in a wave therefore virtual,or trapped in mass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 surely everything is just energy.Energy can either be in the fabric of space therefore potential energy,in a wave therefore virtual,or trapped in mass? Has anyone proved that "photons" actually exist? I mean, exist in the same way that electrons do. We can't doubt the existence of electrons, because they can be individually counted. For example, in an oxygen atom, there are precisely 8 individual electrons. And each electron seems to a be point-like thing. A thing that could be imaged, if we had a camera with an ultra hi-res lens. This lens would produce an image of a sharp point. Which we could say is a picture of an electron. So proving it physically exists. But is there any way to take a picture of a so-called photon? I suspect not. Doesn't that prove that there isn't really any such thing as a "photon". It's just a word we've made up. Like we've made up the word "beauty". Can anyone show a picture of an individual "beauty"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Has anyone proved that "photons" actually exist? I mean, exist in the same way that electrons do. We can't doubt the existence of electrons, because they can be individually counted. For example, in an oxygen atom, there are precisely 8 individual electrons. And each electron seems to a be point-like thing. A thing that could be imaged, if we had a camera with an ultra hi-res lens. This lens would produce an image of a sharp point. Which we could say is a picture of an electron. So proving it physically exists. But is there any way to take a picture of a so-called photon? I suspect not. Doesn't that prove that there isn't really any such thing as a "photon". It's just a word we've made up. Like we've made up the word "beauty". Can anyone show a picture of an individual "beauty"? It's maybe the sensible way of defining something infinite, and indescribable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Surely photons travel as a wave and have no mass just energy,therefore are virtual.They can give up their energy to particles thereby increasing the mass of the particle they interact with.Sounds plausible that if you concentrate enough waves of energy inward to single point in space could you create particles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 You seem to start quite a few statements with "surely ..." that are contradicting mainstream physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Sorry!But what am I misunderstanding,if a photon has no mass and travels at speed of light,why should I think of it as a particle?What is the definition of a particle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystery111 Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 A particle can be many things which may not be classed as fundamental. An atom for instance, is often called a particle. However, to answer your question, a particle is a ''bit'' of matter. The most fundamental ''bits'' of matter are also particles, so this would include a photon which is simply the smallest known unit of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Sorry! But what am I misunderstanding,if a photon has no mass and travels at speed of light,why should I think of it as a particle? What you seem to be misunderstanding is that your personal feelings about what the terms used in physics could mean do not necessarily equate with what the terms actually mean in physics (note that this section of this "science forum" is called "physics"). "Everything is just energy" is a prominent layman expression, but technically it is plain dead wrong as actually said in previous posts of this thread (if "energy" and e.g. "electron" are supposed to have the meaning they have in physics). I am not objecting to what you think about photons (I do not particularly care about that), I am objecting to your style of writing that sounds as if it was an informed opinion while from what you write it is obvious that you have never attended a quantum field theory or particle physics lecture. Just write "I think" rather than "surely". No offense meant - I just believe that such subtleties are important for other readers of this thread that cannot tell someone's personal view from mainstream physics' view. What is the definition of a particle? In the context in which one speaks about photons a particle can be considered a minimum excitation of the field with respect to the vacuum. Not sure if that can be considered a "definition", though. But it's really not been my point that I think that your ideas about particles are wrong (see above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Ok. I will rephrase and say a photon is a force carrying particle.If an electro-magnetic wave is emitted from a source and expands outward,its integrity as a wave will eventually become unstable and the wave will split into photons which gives us a wave of photons expanding outward.Am I on the right track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I have a question does the venturi effect apply to the photon,venturi effect says the higher the velocity of a fluid the lower its static pressure.Does this mean that if a photon travels at speed of light there is no static pressure to radiate outwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Ok. I will rephrase and say a photon is a force carrying particle.If an electro-magnetic wave is emitted from a source and expands outward,its integrity as a wave will eventually become unstable and the wave will split into photons which gives us a wave of photons expanding outward.Am I on the right track? No, not really. I have a question does the venturi effect apply to the photon,venturi effect says the higher the velocity of a fluid the lower its static pressure.Does this mean that if a photon travels at speed of light there is no static pressure to radiate outwards. The venturi effect is from fluid dynamics, which assumes an incompressible fluid. Photons are bosons and generally don't interact with each other, so I doubt they qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Has anyone proved that "photons" actually exist? Yes. His name was Albert Einstein. It that work that was cited when he received the Nobel Prize. Google "photoelectric effect". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) does quantum theory and super fluid vacuum theory have a common approach where space is viewed as a super fluid or quantum foam?That's why the venturi effect came to mind,I was trying to understand why a massless photon,that must be just energy does not radiate outwards. Edited November 13, 2011 by derek w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystery111 Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 does quantum theory and super fluid vacuum theory have a common approach where space is viewed as a super fluid or quantum foam? There are certainly approaches. Quantum field theory is often said to design the vacuum like a grainy, bubbling couldren of quantum particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now