A Meaningful Questions about Photons and Matter.

[J.Merrill]

 Before we start.

I need to come forward and say from here forward I want to try and correct some negative out look on My topics and responses I post here.

I realize I have not be choice with my words and I only want to learn, that is why I post I want others opinions.

So with that being said.

 

I don't quite understand Photons, or at least there might be some form of confusion here please read the entire thing so you  have a good understanding of my perception and why I posted this.

 

Matter is anything that occupies space (having volume) and has mass Correct?

If something physically exist it has Dimensions, things with Dimension are matter?

Matter is anything that takes up space correct? 

Matter has three main forms: solid, liquid, and gas correct?

Matter can change from one form to another correct?

Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. It includes molecules, atoms, fundamental particles, and any substance that these particles make up. 

Matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. 

For example, water can be boiled, which turns it into a gas. 

But the water is not just disappearing only changing from one form to another. 

The same amount of matter exists before and after the change—none is created or destroyed. This concept is called the Law of Conservation of Mass.

 

So in the anhelation resulting in two Photons,  positron and an electron collide, they are annihilated  and two gamma photons of equal energy are emitted. 

Is this not just a conversion? 

Do photons have mass?  According to physics the answer is No, and since they have no mass are not considered matter. (something is wrong here)

Do photons take up space?

The answer is YES.

 But Photons are bosons and therefore do not really have a meaning of "personal space", (more than one can occupy the same space) Correct me if I am wrong.

How ever the the accumulation of the photon's energy causes another very interesting thing to happen - the spontaneous creation of new particles"

Photons of different frequencies will have the amount different - so it's not that photons "occupy space".

Indeed, if you think about photons as packets with size increasing with wavelength, you'd expect lower frequency photons to "occupy" more space. In reality, it's the opposite - so lower frequencies allow you to fit more photons in the same volume.

For something to occupy volume it must take up space correct? I'm just curious how this is not a direct contradiction no matter how you look at it.

Photons exist, they take up space, but have no mass, matter takes up space but photons are not matter there for have no mass? So how does this even make sense.

What am I missing here, or are laws of physics we define flawed?

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by J.Merrill
typo

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

For example, water can be boiled, which turns it into a gas. 

But the water is not just disappearing only changing from one form to another. 

The same amount of matter exists before and after the change—none is created or destroyed. This concept is called the Law of Conservation of Mass.

 

So in the anhelation resulting in two Photons,  positron and an electron collide, they are annihilated  and two gamma photons of equal energy are emitted. 

Is this not just a conversion? 

Water boiling is changing phase, but it’s still comprised of water molecules, the number of which remains the same.

Quote

Photons exist, they take up space, but have no mass, matter takes up space but photons are not matter there for have no mass? So how does this even make sense

“photons are not matter there for have no mass” has the reasoning backwards. They have no mass, therefore they are not matter.

[sethoflagos]

42 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

For something to occupy volume it must take up space correct? I'm just curious how this is not a direct contradiction no matter how you look at it.

You seem to be equating the physical size of a particle with the sphere of influence it may exert on a field.

What would you say was the physical size of a soprano's high C?

Is it the size of a large concert hall? ... The sound of a strong soprano can certainly fill one.

Or is it just the air molecules inside the Albert Hall jiggling around in a slightly more ordered pattern than normal?

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

What am I missing here, or are laws of physics we define flawed?

I'm glad you added this bit at the end.

Otherwise your opening post could be taken as yet another attempt to challenge conventional wisdom in quite an aggressive way.

Anyway a few comments on your many posts.

1.  Photons may not have mass, but they have measurable momentum.
    
2.  Physicists, as I said to you before, recognise at lease four states of matter, solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Most of the matter in the solar system is made of plasma.
    
3.  Yes you are missing something. Several things in fact.
   But you are not alone in that. Here is a short true story about reasoning from too little information.
   When things burn, they loose mass right ?
   Surely this is obvious since if I burn a piece of paper or wood or whatever there is little or nothing left behind.
   But this is false reasoning which misled scientists for several centuries.
   It was not until lavoisier collected all the products of combustion and weighed them before and after that it was realised that in fact mass is gained by combustion!

 

So less of the 'Physics must be wrong because My point of view is right', please.

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by studiot

[MigL]

A lot of this depends on your definition of 'matter'.

Standard matter, like your desktop, while solid and of physical extension, is actually made up of fields, and the quantum mechanical exitations of said fields, otherwise known as quantum particles, which are, at best, probability distribution 'clouds', ccording to our best theories QED/QCD.
These 'clouds' don't have a definite size, as Heisenberg's Uncertainty does not allow exact, and may, in fact be dimensionless, in which case your 'matter' is simply fields with nothing of physcal extent.

You may state the conservation law as conservation of mass/energy, since those two properties are conserved in one way or another, but there is no conservation of matter, as any reaction which liberates energy ( chemical, nuclear ) will get rid of some ( miniscule ) matter, but its mass is preserved/conserved as energy of the system.

Photons have no rest mass because they can never be at rest; they can only travel at c .
Their energy is a property of their frequency ( classical wave nature ) and because of mass-energy equivalence we can asign a momentum to such a wave.
The quantum mechanical momentum of a photon, while equivalent, is arrived at differently.
Don't mix up quantum mechanical models with classical wave models.

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

It was not until lavoisier collected all the products of combustion and weighed them before and after that it was realised that in fact mass is gained by combustion!

I watched a short video of this over the weekend! Someone had taken a wad of steel wool, placed it on a kitchen scale, then touched the steel wool with a 9V battery to start it burning. The scale drops until iron oxides start forming, at which point the scale starts registering a gain.

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

You seem to be equating the physical size of a particle with the sphere of influence it may exert on a field.

What would you say was the physical size of a soprano's high C?

Is it the size of a large concert hall? ... The sound of a strong soprano can certainly fill one.

Or is it just the air molecules inside the Albert Hall jiggling around in a slightly more ordered pattern than normal?

 

Vibrations need something to be heard Sound is a direct  result of vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium like air, or water, and even solids like my desk. So if forms of matter did not exist sound cant be heard? But the next questions arises if there is nothing to vibrate do the sound waves still exist?

I would say no.

But I am acknowledging existence of anything requires something physical to be present.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I'm glad you added this bit at the end.

Otherwise your opening post could be taken as yet another attempt to challenge conventional wisdom in quite an aggressive way.

 

I would agree with this had I not added this bit in the start.

I don't quite understand Photons, or at least there might be some form of confusion here please read the entire thing so you  have a good understanding of my perception and why I posted this.

I clearly stated I didn't understand, and there was obvious confusion. Like I said I only want to learn, asking questions should not be taken aggressively i see no reason to suggest I was challenging anything.

But on that note, questioning conventional wisdom is yet another reason why we have brilliant theories like GR. 

[sethoflagos]

40 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Vibrations need something to be heard Sound is a direct  result of vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium like air, or water, and even solids like my desk. So if forms of matter did not exist sound cant be heard? But the next questions arises if there is nothing to vibrate do the sound waves still exist?

I would say no.

But I am acknowledging existence of anything requires something physical to be present.

I put quite a bit of thought into asking you a question that I thought might help you break free of a misleading mental picture (trap) that I was also (and occasionally still am) prone to falling into.

It is a bit disappointing therefore that instead of answering my question after due consideration, you treated me to a spontaneous party political broadcast on behalf of the solipsist party. Good luck with that one. Planet Narcissus can be a pretty lonely place to inhabit.

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I put quite a bit of thought into asking you a question that I thought might help you break free of a misleading mental picture (trap) that I was also (and occasionally still am) prone to falling into.

It is a bit disappointing therefore that instead of answering my question after due consideration, you treated me to a spontaneous party political broadcast on behalf of the solipsist party. Good luck with that one. Planet Narcissus can be a pretty lonely place to inhabit.

Excuse me? Nothing that I said was remotely Narcissistic. 

Let me ask you something, can you have a bottle of sound?

The answer is no. 

Just like you can't have a bottle of height or weight. 

There needs to be physical things present for us to apply them to reality. 

Nothing about this is Narcissistic, and you completely misused it to directly insult me on a personal level. I thought we were past these things, when having a meaningful discussion.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Narcissus

Narcissus- this is a flower.....

 

* Narcissist

And its mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. 

Example: If My best friend tells me her mom just died, and I say OMG my mom died last year. And I start crying over it and take the much needed attention from My friend and place the center of attention on me that is a Narcissist.

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by J.Merrill

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Do photons have mass? 

"Photons have no rest-mass because there is no valid reference system in which the photon is at rest..." So says the science.

2 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

(something is wrong here)

Do you know the reference system in which the photon is at rest?

 

Particles with rest-mass can be accelerated and decelerated i.e. their FoR can be changed.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Sensei

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

Do you know the reference system in which the photon is at rest?

 

Relativity tell us that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all reference frames.

In a reference frame in which a photon would be at rest, the vacuum speed of light would be zero.

Its a direct contradiction , thus we then conclude that in the context of the theory there is no reference frame in which a photon is at rest.

Frames of reference are for the observer, and time moves relative to them and there frame of reference. 

I think I got that right, I left some things out in more specific details.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

I would agree with this had I not added this bit in the start.

I don't quite understand Photons, or at least there might be some form of confusion here please read the entire thing so you  have a good understanding of my perception and why I posted this.

I clearly stated I didn't understand, and there was obvious confusion. Like I said I only want to learn, asking questions should not be taken aggressively i see no reason to suggest I was challenging anything.

But on that note, questioning conventional wisdom is yet another reason why we have brilliant theories like GR. 

 

So what was this then, if not My Version v Physics ?

3 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Do photons have mass?  According to physics the answer is No, and since they have no mass are not considered matter. (something is wrong here)

Do photons take up space?

The answer is YES.

or this

20 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Relativity tell us that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all reference frames.

In a reference frame in which a photon would be at rest, the vacuum speed of light would be zero.

Its a direct contradiction , thus we then conclude that in the context of the theory there is no reference frame in which a photon is at rest.

Frames of reference are for the observer, and time moves relative to them and there frame of reference. 

I think I got that right, I left some things out in more specific details.

 

 

As a matter of intrest I suggest you should be careful distinguishing between c, which is indeed a constant,  and 'the speed of light' which varies according to the environment.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I watched a short video of this over the weekend! Someone had taken a wad of steel wool, placed it on a kitchen scale, then touched the steel wool with a 9V battery to start it burning. The scale drops until iron oxides start forming, at which point the scale starts registering a gain.

Nice one Phi.

Edited June 20, 2022 by studiot

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

So what was this then, if not My Version v Physics ?

or this

 

 

As a matter of intrest I suggest you should be careful distinguishing between c, which is indeed a constant,  and 'the speed of light' which varies according to the environment.

Nice one Phi.

Its become very clear that you have not read the entire post, it was questions I was hoping to get answers to so I may have a better understanding of what it is I'm learning about currently. And you somehow took it as a challenge, guess students that ask teachers to explain things because they compare and contrast and something doesn't add up. I guess they just aggressively challenge.

In this context how can one learn?

If you don't ask questions how can you be certain you understand what it is you are learning about. 

Edited June 20, 2022 by J.Merrill

[studiot]

37 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Its become very clear that you have not read the entire post, it was questions I was hoping to get answers to so I may have a better understanding of what it is I'm learning about currently. And you somehow took it as a challenge, guess students that ask teachers to explain things because they compare and contrast and something doesn't add up. I guess they just aggressively challenge.

In this context how can one learn?

If you don't ask questions how can you be certain you understand what it is you are learning about. 

Yes, I read what you wrote.

The question is did you read what you actually wrote and I quoted ?

I ask this because not only did you ask questions, but you answered them as well also saying that physics is wrong.

 

Asking questions is really good and should be welcomed by all good teachers.

However repeatedly challenging the veracity of what the teacher is saying is not asking questions.

Sometimes even good teachers make mistakes (even sometimes to keep the class awake) so they should be challenged but there are considerate ways to do this, just as there are considerate ways to ask questions, since they may after all be right and know something you do not.
Your aim should be to learn whatever it is they know before you make any judgement as to the correctness of their statements.

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by studiot

[sethoflagos]

58 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Excuse me? Nothing that I said was remotely Narcissistic. 

Your post evaded answering my question by introducing diversionary anthropocentric observer dependent contingencies. Ideas like these (Schrodinger's Cat is a typical example) strike me as being solipsistic, which I see as leading the unwary towards... well, I've already told you where I believe that bus terminates. No more than a friendly warning.

So no, I wasn't insulting you. 

However, even if the ears are deaf, the bottle is still full of sound. 

[J.Merrill]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

2 hours ago, studiot said:

The question is did you read what you actually wrote and I quoted ?

I ask this because not only did you ask questions, but you answered them as well also saying that physics is wrong.

Asking questions is really good and should be welcomed by all good teachers.

 

 

 I don't ever remember saying physics is wrong.

 I asked what I missed and what it was i didn't quite understand. 

 I never challenged anything that's just how you took it.

But lets assume I made that claim indefinably that physics is wrong, or at least the part we are talking about here.

When is that something that's hasn't happened before? There have been plenty of mistakes made in the past that were corrected, and giving us a better understand of the world around us.

There are things in this world that are stupid to question now because we have proof, like the earth is not flat. And the sun does not orbit the earth but rather we orbit the sun.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Your post evaded answering my question by introducing diversionary anthropocentric observer dependent contingencies. Ideas like these (Schrodinger's Cat is a typical example) strike me as being solipsistic, which I see as leading the unwary towards... well, I've already told you where I believe that bus terminates. No more than a friendly warning.

So no, I wasn't insulting you. 

However, even if the ears are deaf, the bottle is still full of sound. 

You seem to be equating the physical size of a particle with the sphere of influence it may exert on a field.

What would you say was the physical size of a soprano's high C?

Is it the size of a large concert hall? ... The sound of a strong soprano can certainly fill one.

Or is it just the air molecules inside the Albert Hall jiggling around in a slightly more ordered pattern than normal?

 

And I did answer, you just didn't catch it there is no physical size to a HIGH C note.

Just like there is no Physical size of height, these only apply to the observer.

Sound can exist if one is def, but you cant put sound in a bottle, its not a thing like that. It can not exist with out matter.

sound originates from matter or occur as a result of the interactions and movements of matter. 

So if there is no matter there is no sound.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

Let me ask you something, can you have a bottle of sound?

The answer is no. 

Just like you can't have a bottle of height or weight.

Your answer to your question is correct, but the last sentence is off by a little. You can't have a bottle of height or weight, but NOT "just like" you can't have a bottle of sound. Height and weight are measurements in this instance, but sound is always an event. Like lightning or fire, sound requires the right conditions before it happens, and when the conditions are right, it's practically inevitable.

[studiot]

40 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Sound can exist if one is def, but you cant put sound in a bottle, its not a thing like that. It can not exist with out matter.

I hate to contradict such a learned soul but of course you can put sound in a bottle or even the Albert Hall.

I agree there is no transmitted sound in a vacuum, but objects like the vacuum bottle wall can still vibrate so I also agree that sound require matter.

But of course the Albert Hall does not contain a vacuum.

So all my courses about architectural acoustics and the measurments I made of reverberation times tell me that sound can exist in a container for a very long time.

Far longer than the existence of many sub atomic matter particles.

The decay is exponential so mathematically at least a sound never actually dies away completely.

This last sentence shows what you might deem 'a flaw in the theory' and others would simply say it is going beyond the bounds of applicability.

Edited June 20, 2022 by studiot

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Your answer to your question is correct, but the last sentence is off by a little. You can't have a bottle of height or weight, but NOT "just like" you can't have a bottle of sound. Height and weight are measurements in this instance, but sound is always an event. Like lightning or fire, sound requires the right conditions before it happens, and when the conditions are right, it's practically inevitable.

Okay I can agree to this, but these conditions are matter, so my I'm stuck to my original answer. That for something to exist in the least sense. There must be a physical presence of something, even if we are not aware of what it is. Because if there is Nothing then existence is 0. You could not even begin to describe nothing, because that requires knowledge of what it is and that's impossible but definition.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I hate to contradict such a learned soul but of course you can put sound in a bottle or even the Albert Hall.

I agree there is no transmitted sound in a vacuum, but objects like the vacuum bottle wall can still vibrate so I also agree that sound require matter.

But of course the Albert Hall does not contain a vacuum.

So all my courses about architectural acoustics and the measurments I made of reverberation times tell me that sound can exist in a container for a very long time.

Far longer than the existence of many sub atomic matter particles.

The decay is exponential so mathematically at least a sound never actually dies away completely.

This last sentence shows what you might deem 'a flaw in the theory' and others would simply say it is going beyond the bounds of applicability.

I like this a lot actually I enjoyed this perspective thoroughly so thank you! 

But sound is what we hear as a result of conditions being met. Sure you can put conditions in that bottle and the bottle exist so do the other conditions so the Vibrations we call sound can exist if the right events take place.

But  we don't really fill a room with sound all though you can describe this as such, just like you cant run like the wind.

But you can fill a room with conditions that when met with certain events, produce sound. 

And the sound is vibrations traveling through any one of many mediums and back to our ears.

Air and objects in the room, and the walls them self's are these mediums.

I think this has turned more philosophical at this point.

Edited June 20, 2022 by J.Merrill

[studiot]

28 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Okay I can agree to this, but these conditions are matter, so my I'm stuck to my original answer. That for something to exist in the least sense. There must be a physical presence of something, even if we are not aware of what it is. Because if there is Nothing then existence is 0. You could not even begin to describe nothing, because that requires knowledge of what it is and that's impossible but definition.

I like this a lot actually I enjoyed this perspective thoroughly so thank you! 

But sound is what we hear as a result of conditions being met. Sure you can put conditions in that bottle and the bottle exist so do the other conditions so the Vibrations we call sound can exist if the right events take place.

But  we don't really fill a room with sound all though you can describe this as such, just like you cant run like the wind.

But you can fill a room with conditions that when met with certain events, produce sound. 

And the sound is vibrations traveling through any one of many mediums and back to our ears.

Air and objects in the room, and the walls them self's are these mediums.

I think this has turned more philosophical at this point.

 

Well you have the opportunity here to do what you said you came here for, to learn.

I don't know what you know about reverberation time, or even if you have ever hear of it, but basically it is the time for burst of sound to spread throughout a container and bounce back (reverberate) off the far walls.
The sound then bounces back and fore (reverberates) between the walls growing ever weaker all the while until it becomes inaudible.
So yes we really do fill a room with sound until it dies away.
And by fill I mean fill. Sound, being a wave phenomenon, goes over, under and around obstacles like tables and chairs and people.

The technique I remember using involved bursting a balloon and recording the sound of the pop as it died away over several seconds.
The Albert Hall apparantly has a reverberation time of 3.4 seconds, though I have personally not measured it.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/revlow.html#c3

Edited June 20, 2022 by studiot

[sethoflagos]

23 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

there is no physical size to a HIGH C note.

Good!

Now compare and contrast with your assertion in the OP

4 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

 ... Indeed, if you think about photons as packets with size increasing with wavelength, you'd expect lower frequency photons to "occupy" more space. In reality, it's the opposite - so lower frequencies allow you to fit more photons in the same volume.

So why are you assigning a physical size to photons?

Forget the transmission medium, that's irrelevant to the topic.

Both light and sound propagate outward as expanding spherical disturbances in their respective fields.

At this level, they have no meaningful physical size, but they carry a certain amount of energy that extends over a certain sphere of influence.

Where apparent conflicts begin is when we consider the transfer of an individual packet of light energy between an emitting particle and an absorbing particle.

How does a specific accurately directed packet of energy 'condense' from a diffuse spherical wave?

This is one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics.

The quantum world is a strange one and most of its workings seem to play out not in our observable material universe, but in a complex space we can never directly observe. 

All we can say with any certainty is that the transfer is observed to occur. The image we see maybe of an emitter firing a 'billiard ball' of energy at an absorber. But is this really a full and true reflection of actual events? I wouldn't put money on it.

 

 

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Good!

Now compare and contrast with your assertion in the OP

So why are you assigning a physical size to photons?

Forget the transmission medium, that's irrelevant to the topic.

Both light and sound propagate outward as expanding spherical disturbances in their respective fields.

At this level, they have no meaningful physical size, but they carry a certain amount of energy that extends over a certain sphere of influence.

Where apparent conflicts begin is when we consider the transfer of an individual packet of light energy between an emitting particle and an absorbing particle.

How does a specific accurately directed packet of energy 'condense' from a diffuse spherical wave?

This is one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics.

The quantum world is a strange one and most of its workings seem to play out not in our observable material universe, but in a complex space we can never directly observe. 

All we can say with any certainty is that the transfer is observed to occur. The image we see maybe of an emitter firing a 'billiard ball' of energy at an absorber. But is this really a full and true reflection of actual events? I wouldn't put money on it.

 

 

"I said if you think" and photons are often described this way, containing both particle and wave like behaviors. And I am not arguing that , I am concluding light can not be possible with out the Physical presence of something much like sound. We cant Directly observe photons, they are theoretical constructs that reveal to us matter they interact with. Like your screen for example. What is  registered there is a direct result  of an interaction of the electromagnetic field or ( "PHOTONS" ) on Matter. 

 

 

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

I am concluding light can not be possible with out the Physical presence of something ... 

Then how would light manage to traverse deep space where it's interactions with matter particles are exceedingly rare?

Are you proposing the resurrection of the luminiferous aether?

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Then how would light manage to traverse deep space where it's interactions with matter particles are exceedingly rare?

Are you proposing the resurrection of the luminiferous aether?

Well waves are disturbances traveling through a medium, so if the medium does not exist and the Propagation of the waves do, then what is it that allows this?

Maybe a step toward proving the existence of dark matter perhaps?

[sethoflagos]

52 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Well waves are disturbances traveling through a medium, so if the medium does not exist and the Propagation of the waves do, then what is it that allows this?

The Maxwell Equations I believe. But I'll have to leave it to someone else to guide you through the niceties of those.

Edited June 21, 2022 by sethoflagos