Trapped Light

[Klaynos]

Massive particles are particles which have mass. So not gluons and not photons.

 

OK, so that is true but why would that mean they're trapped photons?

 

neutrino-antineutrino interactions are amazingly rare, esspecially when you consider how many neutrinos there are around, they have an interaction cross section so mall that it takes a few ly of lead for them to have a decent chance of interacting!

[Graviphoton]

Massive particles are particles which have mass. So not gluons and not photons.

 

OK, so that is true but why would that mean they're trapped photons?

 

neutrino-antineutrino interactions are amazingly rare, esspecially when you consider how many neutrinos there are around, they have an interaction cross section so mall that it takes a few ly of lead for them to have a decent chance of interacting!

 

Well, the hypothesis right now, is that you can make any type of matter (in your words, massive particles) from light. It is by no coincidence nature made two types of matter, normal and anti. It was there so that these fluctuations could reduce back into light, for whatever reason nature wished, and the audasity of God.

 

There is no sane scientist i know, who would deny that light cannot potentially create all matter with rest mass. Why? Because it is more logical to assume that this is where these types of particles came from, and evolved, because again, it is by no accident all these known particles do in fact mathematically reduce back into photons. There is an evident pattern, and you are refusing to accept it.

[Klaynos]

Nature didn't wish anything. Nature doesn't do wishing....

 

There is no sane scientist i know, who would deny that light cannot potentially create all matter with rest mass.

 

OK, finding a sane scientist might be a challenge but that seems ok.

 

Why? Because it is more logical to assume that this is where these types of particles came from, and evolved, because again, it is by no accident all these known particles do in fact mathematically reduce back into photons. There is an evident pattern, and you are refusing to accept it.

 

There is no evidence that massive particles are made of trapped photons, there IS evidence that massless particles can have their energy converted into mass and create massive particles.

[Graviphoton]

Maybe it is terminology. How do you see it? That light decays into other particles, witha rest mass, because if that was the case, the original energy hasn't dissappeared, so what guise it is taking on now?

 

Logic, and commonsense, would indicate that either the energy is trapped in the particle, (or if you wish, to be more scientific), is the particle in general, or, there is none of that original energy within its structure.

 

Trapped photons, is just another terminology i use for, perhaps, a flux in frequency.

 

Bottom line.

 

All Tardyons are Luxons.

[iNow]

Logic and commonsense have no place on quantum scales.

[Klaynos]

Maybe it is terminology. How do you see it? That light decays into other particles, witha rest mass,

 

Yep.

 

because if that was the case, the original energy hasn't dissappeared, so what guise it is taking on now?

 

The energy is converted into mass. Energy is not conserved mass-energy is.

 

Logic, and commonsense, would indicate that either the energy is trapped in the particle,

 

Physics doesn't care much for commonsense.

 

(or if you wish, to be more scientific), is the particle in general, or, there is none of that original energy within its structure.

 

"Original energy" how can you tell if a particle has xmass-energy whether later on you measure another x mass-energy if it's the 'Original energy' or not? The concept seems meaningless to me.

 

Trapped photons, is just another terminology i use for, perhaps, a flux in frequency.

 

Again meaningless....

 

Bottom line.

 

All Tardyons are Luxons.

 

There is no logical path to this conclusion let alone a mathematical one!

 

Logic and commonsense have no place on quantum scales.

 

I'd disagree, if you follow the maths through it's all perfectly logical... it doesn't make any sense but it's logical

[Graviphoton]

Well, conversion is just a word we use. But since the energy can never be lost, the particle has energy within it; photon energy.

 

Right, for once answer me a question, and lets see if we can follow this through.

 

Which came first, the chicken/energy, or the egg/matter?

[Klaynos]

Well, conversion is just a word we use. But since the energy can never be lost, the particle has energy within it; photon energy.

 

No, the mass-energy can not be lost, the energy can be.

 

Right, for once answer me a question, and lets see if we can follow this through.

 

Which came first, the chicken/energy, or the egg/matter?

 

Photons came first. Which is a massless particle with energy. It is not itself energy.

 

The cooling universe then cooled enough for massive particles to exist, this happened very quickly.

[Graviphoton]

Energy has an energy. One rule.

 

Information can never be lost, only transferred. In this case, the energy can not be lost. Second rule.

 

In conclusion, photon is an energy. If it isn't, then why is it defined as so?

[Klaynos]

That's not really a rule...

 

It's like saying

 

Turnips have turnips....

 

Energy can be converted into mass, mass energy is conserved NOT energy.

 

Photons are NOT defined as energies.

 

Photons have energy.

[Graviphoton]

Photons are defined as energy. Strange you would say they aren't? Why is it that we talk about a system loosing energy through electradiation? In some manner, we must believe that the photon is a unit of energy, or E=Mc^2 is meaningless when describing a photon to lets say, a protino.

[Klaynos]

Photons are defined as energy. Strange you would say they aren't?

 

It's a common mistake that people think photons are "pure energy" or defined as energy, when they're not.

 

Why is it that we talk about a system loosing energy through electradiation?

 

Because the photons have energy and leave the system, we talk about systems losing energy in many many ways when they're not radiating.

 

In some manner, we must believe that the photon is a unit of energy,

 

No we musn't we must conisder that in some way a photon has energy.

 

or E=Mc^2 is meaningless when describing a photon to lets say, a protino.

 

That equation is meaningless when discussing photons.

 

Oh dear, protino?

[Graviphoton]

It is said that photons would need to be pure energy, because there is nothing more fundamental than them. How do you define pure energy then, and more importantly, how do you remove the energy of a photon, without removing the entire photon itself?

[iNow]

Don't forget that E=mc^2 is a simplified version of the equation. It is actually:

 

[math]E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4[/math]

[ydoaPs]

So, when I kick a ball, I give it more photons?

[Klaynos]

It is said that photons would need to be pure energy, because there is nothing more fundamental than them.

 

By whom? And when?

 

How do you define pure energy then,

 

I don't, energy is a property of stuff.

 

and more importantly, how do you remove the energy of a photon, without removing the entire photon itself?

 

You convert the energy into mass, you do in fact remove the entire photon, you have to to change anything about the photon as photons are timeless.

[Graviphoton]

Your Dad

 

was that to me?

 

INow

 

Yes..

 

Klaynos

 

Bad answer, it in fact never answered my question at all. My question was, again,

 

''If the photon is a system with an energy, how do you remove the energy from the system?''

 

If you cannot, then the photon is the energy it makes up.

 

And, you do realize the photon is the simplest and smallest known unit of energy?

[Klaynos]

Bad answer, it in fact never answered my question at all. My question was, again,

 

''If the photon is a system with an energy, how do you remove the energy from the system?''

 

If you cannot, then the photon is the energy it makes up.

 

And, you do realize the photon is the simplest and smallest known unit of energy?

 

You convert the energy into mass, you do in fact remove the entire photon, you have to to change anything about the photon as photons are timeless.

 

It explains it fine, it's due to the fact the photon is timeless....

 

A photon is not a unit of energy. And simplest? define "simplest".

[swansont]

For me, i think about neutrinos as an example. It is within current understanding among physicists that even neutrino-antineutrino combo reduced into photon energy...

 

Cite?

 

Neutrinos interact via the weak force, not electromagnetic, so AFAIK this could only happen above the energy where they are unified.

[Klaynos]

And you never answered:

 

By whom? And when?

[Graviphoton]

Citation. Don't have one. Its been in my teachings, that where we consider a particle and their antipartner, they will most probably return to photon energy.

[swansont]

I don't appreciate your sarcasm. My methods work fine for me. It's other people that it doesn't work well with them. Big difference.

 

And thanks, i guess.

 

You don't get to have your own scientific methods. You have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

[Graviphoton]

Klaynos

 

I know the photon is timeless... but how does this relate? Elaborate please, also be cautionary, that the freezing of time is only significant to its frame of reference.

 

Swanson

 

Meh

[swansont]

Citation. Don't have one. Its been in my teachings, that where we consider a particle and their antipartner, they will most probably return to photon energy.

 

I'm guessing you are misunderstanding your teachings, or they have been vague about some of the more advanced concepts.

[Graviphoton]

Klaynos

 

Who and when? try reading, ''Spiritual Universe,'' By no other than Dr. Wolf. He explains we now believe that matter, all forms of matter with rest mass are forms of trapped light. He also goes onto inform the reader that the photon is the simplest unit of energy there is.