Electron=Photon?

[Primarygun]

Electron microscope makes use of the collisions of electrons on the object to form the image.

It's quite similar to the way which photons hit the object and reflect to give us an image.

Moreover, photons form electric field , it is also similar to electrons.

Their masses are very small as well.

Is there any example/evidence to give the contradiction?

[swansont]

electron <> photon

 

both exhibit wave and particle properties, because lambda = h/p

 

But the photon has no rest mass, so the energy <-> momentum relationship scales differently, and an electron has a static electric field, which is not true of a photon.

[Primarygun]

Light wave can be attracted by gravity.

If we describe photons as electrons, it can be explained normally, isn't it?

Therefore, I think Electron=Photon arises.

[ecoli]

What do you mean by "electron = photon" Do you mean that they're actually the same thing or they have the same properties?

[Primarygun]

Perhaps they are the same thing

[[Tycho?]]

Maybe a car and an apple are the same thing. They are both effected by gravity, both can be red!

 

A photon can only move at c. An electon can move at any speed but c or above. An electron is hugely more massive. Plus they are created in totally different ways, and act in totally different ways. An electron has a charge, a photon does not. Etc etc.

 

They have little in common really.

[echo]

']Maybe a car and an apple are the same thing. They are both effected by gravity' date=' both can be red!

 

A photon can only move at c. An electon can move at any speed but c or above. An electron is hugely more massive. Plus they are created in totally different ways, and act in totally different ways. An electron has a charge, a photon does not. Etc etc.

 

They have little in common really.[/quote']

Let's examine the process of virtual pair production. In the vacuum of space quantum flutuations within the energy density will give rise to the electron-positron pair formation. As these to "particles-waves" propagate they spiral out of the vacuum to again reunite and form two photons.

 

The point is that they, that is the photon and the electron are not the same thing in the same respect that water and ice are not the same thing. Semmetry breaking gives us the variety of particles we see in the universe. However, reduced to the ultimate limit, everything we see in the universe is a different manifestation of a single thing. What name science gives to this substance has not been decided as yet because science doen't yet completely understand how it works and for that matter, where it comes from. At the first instant after the Big Bang, all matter and energy could be described as having no difference, everything looked exactly like everything else. As time progressed and the universe cooled slightly, semmetry breaking began and different aspects of the same substnce began to appear. Like water turning to ice, things began to look different and take on another appearance. So the electron is different from the photon in the same way that ice is different than water.

[DQW]

So the electron is different from the photon in the same way that ice is different than water.

That's nonsense !

[echo]

That's nonsense !

You evidently don't have a clue about symmetry breaking. And you also don't understand the use of a metaphorical example like the one I just used. I suggest you read up on the symmetry breaking that occured shortly after the Big Bang. But I did enjoy your avatar. Here is a little something for your reading pleasure.

cb5_2002[1].pdf

[NavajoEverclear]

That's nonsense !

for all i know it could be, i dont know either way, but if you are going to say something you aught to back it up. I do believe that's what science is about.

[DQW]

You evidently don't have a clue about symmetry breaking. And you also don't understand the use of a metaphorical example like the one I just used. I suggest you read up on the symmetry breaking that occured shortly after the Big Bang.

Thanks for the advice !

 

If you know so much about "symmetry breaking" why did you not state that the freezing transition in water is itself a spontaneous breaking of a continuous symmetry. Surely this would have bolstered your case. Yet you did not state it...and you instead resort to "metaphorical examples" to resolve a physical question.

[DQW]

Let's examine the process of virtual pair production. In the vacuum of space quantum flutuations within the energy density will give rise to the electron-positron pair formation. As these to "particles-waves" propagate they spiral out of the vacuum to again reunite and form two photons.

The path of an electron-positron pair in field-free vacuum is nothing like a spiral. You are likely picturing the spiral paths in a collider which result from the applied B-field and extending this picture to field-free space.

 

The point is that they, that is the photon and the electron are not the same thing in the same respect that water and ice are not the same thing.

Where have you made this "point". Your previous passage made no mention of a photon being similar to an electron. It merely spoke of spontaneous pair production and subsequent annihilation. If the idea is that an electron-positron pair becomes a pair of photons, then that is tantamount to saying that HCl is the same as water since HCl + NaOH becomes NaCl + water. Wait...any particle-antiparticle pair will annihilate to make photons, so how about "hydrogen atom = photon" ?

 

Semmetry breaking gives us the variety of particles we see in the universe.

Clearly, you seem to be talking about the Higgs field acting as the order parameter breaking the electroweak gauge symmetry during the early stages of evolution. It is possibly true (at least according to the current version of the standard model) that mass arises out of the interaction of a lepton or quark with the Higgs boson (which is yet to be detected). But could you please show me how a spinless boson mediates your proposed equality between a fermion (the electron) and a boson (the photon) ? And what does symmetry breaking have to do with particle-antiparticle annihilations ?

 

However, reduced to the ultimate limit, everything we see in the universe is a different manifestation of a single thing. What name science gives to this substance has not been decided as yet because science doen't yet completely understand how it works and for that matter, where it comes from. At the first instant after the Big Bang, all matter and energy could be described as having no difference, everything looked exactly like everything else. As time progressed and the universe cooled slightly, semmetry breaking began and different aspects of the same substnce began to appear. Like water turning to ice, things began to look different and take on another appearance. So the electron is different from the photon in the same way that ice is different than water.

And in fact, the electron is the same as a photon just as a cow is the same as a pencil - after all, they both are formed from the same stuff that emerged out of the big bang. But how is this relevant to the OP's ideas ?

 

And I can name (and describe in terms of an order parameter) a phase transition that will convert water to ice and vice-versa. Can you please do the same for the electron and photon ?

[echo]

 

And in fact' date=' the electron is the same as a photon just as a cow is the same as a pencil - after all, they both are formed from the same stuff that emerged out of the big bang. But how is this relevant to the OP's ideas ?

 

?[/quote']I stand corrected DQW, but only for using the wrong choice of words. It is certainly true that the photon and the electron are not the same thing but, my point was only made to illustrate the original source for both of these entities. Your comments are however quite valid and I may have possibly strayed of topic in an effort to make the point. It is however the present day quest that has physicists scurrying around trying to unite the forces of nature into one commonly defined attribute of nature. I will nevertheless concede to the points you've made and also congratulate you for having a very sound knowledge of the facts. What I'm a little disappointed with is, it is evident that you are intelligent enough to understand the point I was trying to make. And yet your response is directed in an adversaryial manner. Understand, I'm not interested in arguing with anyone, if however you choose to conduct yourself in a civil manner, that is more to my liking. Nobody likes to have their comments refered to as " nonsense . Wouldn't it have been more productive to just ask if you had not understood the point I was trying to make.

[DQW]

I apologise for my first post - it was uncalled for. I take back what I said.

[echo]

I apologise for my first post - it was uncalled for. I take back what I said.

 

I accept your apology, and with the same sense of humility I extend to you DQW my hand of co-operation. In the first place, maybe I shouldn't be so touchy when recieving criticism. I would also like to say that if I was somewhat curt with my display of displeasure, I also aplolgize.

 

You are certainly gifted with considerable knowledge about many of the facts in physics for which I have substantial interest. I look forward to sharing these facts with you and also anticipate learning much from the knowledge you possess. Have a good one DQW, BTW, I still enjoy gazing upon your avatar.

[DQW]

I still enjoy gazing upon your avatar.

As do I !

[echo]

As do I !

Gotzya