BenTheMan

Especially when I read things like what Jack said in the New York Times, by a ``science'' reporter who reads blogs to stay on top of trends in science. So it goes I guess. Maybe I'll take one for the team and go into science journalism. There's so much bad reporting going on that it should make people sick. But they don't even realize it.

The proof is simple---electron positron anihilation. Photons are massless, and electrons aren't. Two electrons annihilate into two photons.

Farsight, it's hard to find any actual content in your post. You give a shitty argument, then spend four paragraphs talking about how well you explained things. Most interesting is this, from a previous post: And, of course, here: I don't even think you know what you're talking about. You specifically said that neutrinos get annihilated into photons and I explicitly proved you wrong. Now it appears you have abandoned that position when I showed you how wrong you were. Are neutrinos ``made of photons'' (God I get sick even THINKING this), or are they to be put in a separate box? Spin is conserved. The electron and positron add up to spin zero (one is left polarized, one in right polarized), and the resulting photons also add up to spin zero (two different transverse modes---one is right handed and one is left handed). But this depends on whether or not the electron-positron form a bound state (positronium). If this is the case, then there is added angular momentum, which gets radiated away as a photon, as the positronium decays into the ground state. Note that in THIS case, positronium to MANY electrons is possible: http://www.int.washington.edu/talks/WorkShops/int_02_3/People/Vetter_P/pstalk.pdf Even more rare processes have electron positron anihilating (via s or u channel reactions, I think) into 3 photons, as per here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114283022/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 I wasn't aware of this untill I looked, but it seems that if the electron and positron don't have spins which are opposite, they can also anihilate directly (as opposed to forming a bound state) into three photons. +1 + -1 = 0. You completely ignored my point about pions, which was meant to address this. If this is the case, then why is it that we can see (in experiments) that pions decay into 2, 3, or 4 photons? Why is it that sometimes electron positron anihilation gives two photons, and sometimes it gives three photons? And sometimes it even gives more photons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations total time: 12 seconds. How can you explain the reason for Lorentz Invariance if you don't even understand its consequences? The spinor and the vector are two different representations of the Lorentz Group. This means that the photon and the electron transform differently under the Lorentz Symmetry. (You will confuse this statement again, saying that I don't understand Lorentz Transformations. Aside from being far from true, it belies your ignorance about the group theoretical structure of space-time.) But I've shown you so many times that this is wrong. (Now, I know the counter arguments that you COULD give, if you were intelligent enough---I know the faults with my own arguments. And if you happen to give one of those arguments, then I will have to find a stronger example.) I'm not worried about making a fool of myself because I have done the calculations. You refuse to answer simple questions about your ideas, which tells me you know that I am right, or you don't fully understand your own ideas. If I show you gaps in your theories you should thank me, because I have shown you the things you need to explain. I think you're seeing a shitpile of mesons, but I could be wrong. What usually happens in these things is you end up with something called jets---this is because the strong force is, well, strong. Think of a cut-open rubber band. You can stretch it back and forth pretty easily, no problem. But if you stretch it too much it breaks. This is exactly what happens in the QGP. There is a quark soup that expands. As it expands, the strong force tries to pull it back together. But if the expansion is too fast, there is enough energy in the vacuum to create a quark anti-quark pair. The relevant process is [math]G\rightarrow q \overline{q}[/math].

The analogy between gravity and EM isn't perfect. But the calcualtion (using an anologue of Gauss' law) is more or less the same.

The mass becomes infinite because the Lorentz transform of mass has a 1-v^2/c^2 in the denominator. So you are dividing by zero. What does this have to do with anyhting?

Great. I'm glad that we can have such well-informed and expert opinions as yours, jack.

a better way to think about ``transforming'' is in terms of interractions with photons. So the j/psi is made of a charm and anti charm quark. They can annihilate to form a photon, which can then give an electron and a positron, or a muon and anti-muon, or even another j/psi particle:)

This is ANOTHER problem with Farsight's ideas that we haven't gotten to yet---specifically spin. Of course, if he wants bound states of photons, then he also has to explain orbital angular momentum of these states as well. But spin alone is enough to kill it---there's just no way that any number of photons can make an electron. The Lorentz group tells us as much---the spinor and the vector of SO(4) are DIFFERENT representations, which means that bosons and fermions are DIFFERENT particles. But Farsight doesn't understand Lorentz Invariance at a rudimentary level, so what's the use of using these arguments?

Ah but neutrinos don't couple to photons, so it is impossible for them to annihilate into photons. If you doubt me, check the Standard Model Lagrangian yourself: http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml.pdf Try again:) I've never hidden the fact that I am demanding this. And if your theory is correct, then you shouldn't be scared of explaining an experiment with it. They annihilate into photons. But what about the eight gluons? Farsight is wrong in so many ways that I lose count.

Please do so. Don't you know that some chemical reactions produce heat?

Ohhh that's dirty. Honestly, though---what man HASN'T tried it on his own? Either way---I'm not a fan of working upside down.

I don't think you actually looked at the link which I posted, so I'll let you review it. The link you posted only lists the dominant decay mode, and mine lists ALL of the observed decay modes. If you have a theory, you have to explain ALL of the data. As a genius scientist, however, you no doubt already know this, so forgive me for reminding you. swansont is right in the fact that you didn't address the question, you just waved your hands and put photons in bins. What I conclude from this is that you didn't understand the question, or you chose to answer another question. So I'll repeat my first point (which has nothing to do with Lorentz Invariance OR time travel, the intelligent undergraduate will find painfully evident). Also, I will add, that we're talking about pions and not neutrons, which is another point. It was you who bitched about answering single points, and this is me trying to keep you from crying about it. So we shall limit this critique to pions. The neutral pion has several different decay modes. These are all predicted by the Standard Model, and observed in experiment. The key point here, is of course, they are observed in experiment. While some of these decay modes DO have photons as a final state, not all of them do. Final states of the decay include 2, 3, and 4 photon states, as well as electron/positron, 2 electron/2 positron, muon/anti-muon, and neutrinos, which you can see from the link that I posted. The aparent contradiction is that there is no way to tell how many photons make up matter. Further, by your reasoning, I should conclude that matter is also made of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. Is this true? Please explain these decay channels, vis a vis your idea that all of matter is made of photons.

It's only magic untill you try to pull it off, then you find out it doesn't really work.

Farsight--- Any model (even a toy model) is based on a set of principles. So we can discuss the principles on which your model is based. I have already listed my critiques of your ideas in another thread: I will readdress you point by point here. The first issue---standard model decay modes. Listed here, on pg. 2: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/tables/mxxx.pdf How can you explain that the neutral pion decays into things OTHER than photons---i.e. neutrinos, electrons, and different numbers of photons? If pions are made of photons, how many photons are they made of? To elas. This is certainly true---all we ever measure is an effective field theory. But the effective theory picture is measured very accurately, and Farsight's ideas violate that. He has yet to show where one experiment proves that the standard model is wrong. This is spoken like someone who truly doesn't know what they're talking about. No. A photon is massless because it is a good representation of the Lorentz group. It is massless because of Lorentz invariance. elas---this is the thread where we roast Farsight. I don't want to have to figure out your crackpot theories too.

I'm not so worried about going off topic, because the question of time travel and worm holes has been answered, by me and others, already. If the moderators want to start a ``Why Farsight is Wrong Thread'', then they can do so. Of course we would. I know you are new to this, but this is how science works. I tell you that you're wrong. You show me how you're not wrong, I agree and move on, or disagree and demand a better explanation. If only... The pion cannot be made of photons because it decays into other things, too. It decays into muons and neutrinos as well. I was just showing you that, if the pion is made of photons like you say, it is made of an indeterminant number of photons. (Hint) Now you have to explain how it can be made of 2, 3, OR 4 photons. I can draw pictures very well. I can even compute the cross sections to one loop, which I doubt you even understand. The point (I should make my points more clearly, because you miss them so often) is that there is no way for electrons (which are spin 1/2) to be made of photons, which are spin 1. Electron-positron anihilation only works because the electron positron system (called positronium) can combine to form a spin 1 ``particle'', kind of like a hydrogen atom only 2000 times less massive. The bound state can then decay. Alternatively, if the incident energies of the fermions are large, the anihilation procedes along one of two channels (at tree level), I believe. You continue to ignore the precision tests of QED, which says, quite definitely, that electromagnetism is a force. I can send you the papers, if you like. And it can't be explained in terms of geometry like Einstein was trying to do. This idea is shit, at it was realized as shit by everybody except Einstein. Yes yes, and monkeys, as we speak, are flying from my ass. If your theory only has photons in it, there is no charge. I've juse shown you how it does. You continue to dismiss my expertise as flawed reasoning, substituting your own ideas where it is convenient to you. Anomalous magnetic moment experiments, for one. This is where the precision tests of QED happen. Do you know of these experiments? And the dance continues...

That's actually not much time at all---people just refused to take things on faith (as they should). Once GR was confirmed (by doctored experiments, mind you), many people accepted it.

You're not hiring particle phenomenologists, are you?

Is that a government job?

For some reason, I think that pioneer doesn't read my posts. I've answered questions of his in other threads, and I never get a response.

I'm sure there are a few. How would this ``blog system'' work?

Here we go again... In this, you are right. This is the simplest way to understand Lorentz Invariance. Again, no complaints. You've obviously done your homework on Wikipedia. And here we have it. This is wrong, depending on the scale. What about the weak force? What about the strong force? The interactions of atoms are goverened by electromagnetic phenomena, outside the neucleus. Inside the neuclus, things are different. If what you said were true, we'd HAVE no neuclei, except for (possibly) hydrogen. The reason is simple---how do a bunch of positive protons and neutral neutrons stick together via electromagnetic interactions? This is something a slightly above average student in American high school knows. Again, this cannot be correct. I could point out so many problems with this, it's not even funny. But here's a few for giggles: =>Standard Model decay modes. See my earlier post. Neutral pions decay into two, three, or four photons. =>Spins. How can two spin 1 particles (photons) combine to form a spin 1/2 particle? =>Mass. Photons are massless. Electrons are not. =>Charge. Photons are not charged under any force (strong, weak, or em), but electrons and quarks are. =>Electroweak physics. The electromagnetic force doesn't even exist in our universe for a finite time. This means photons don't exist. But quarks do. So how can quarks in the early universe be made of something that doesn't exist yet? This statement is seriously flawed. You don't ``observe Lorentz Invariance''. You test locally the speed of light and find it to be the same always. This tells me that you don't understand special relativity. Time dialation happens when you are comparing things between two frames, not within the same frame. So if you are doing the experiment in the lab, there is no time dialation. It's only if you observe the experiment from outside the lab, with a velocity different from the lab's. Farsight---you will brush off these accusations, no doubt. Or you will address them in a half-assed manner---I will hold out hope though. Physics is very intricate, and if you change one little thing by just a bit, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The idea that we are made of photons is just not right. Experiments prove it wrong. Mathematical consistency proves it wrong. But most of all, what insight have you added? What do you know that Einstein didn't know, when he was trying (and failing) to do the same thing at Princeton? What great intellect you must have to succeed where he has failed! Einstein failed for a very good reason, he was completely wrong, and for some of the reasons I showed you above.

pioneer--- The point severian made is that there is no such thing as negative mass---a suitable field redefinition always gets rid of it. On the other hand, people have thought about tachyons, which have (effectively) an imaginary mass.

It's an abstract thing, indeed, but time is a dimension---a direction in space-time. No, not really. If that were true, then you would never even know you went back in time, because your memory would also be travelling back in time.

NO! There is no field inside the hollow sphere. http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_efield/EField_Gauss_Text.html How many times do we have to say this before you believe us?

Severian---perhaps he meant a tachyon?