TheProphet Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 i'd consider Tachyons to be in a new form, if they indeed do exist.. altough i belive we can se things indicating the possiblity atleast.
ydoaPs Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 i would consider tachyons to be matter, but tachyons usually mean something is wrong with a theory. anyway how could something have imaginary mass?
5614 Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 i'd consider Tachyons to be in a new form, if they indeed do exist.. altough i belive we can se things indicating the possiblity atleast. yes, interesting, possible, but at the moment, who knows? i think that photons are energy.
AtomicMX Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 Well thinking as the common knowledge that matter is highly concentrated energy and photons are the line between matter and energy, then i would say by the disyuntive silogism that they are energy.
TheProphet Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 yourdonapogos: Exaclty here is the big contradiction. but on the other hand there are some instances where informations seems to be traveling backwars in time.. and this in turn would be needing a particle that only travels backwards in time! If it does this then imaginary mass is not that stange.. altough im so bad at math so i have no real foundation on what imaginary really(out in the fingertips) means... 5614: Photons doesn't do much else than transport energy so this is rather viable to me. Tachs.. funny thinking but only time will tell!
Severian Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 Well I can think of an exmaple: when counting the mass in the universe photons are often included under the heading 'baryonic matter'; of course as well as not strictly being matter, they're not strictly baryonic either! A baryon is a particle made of 3 quarks (like the proton and neutron). Photons are in no way baryons. In the Standard Model, matter is defined as being quarks and leptons (and obviously anything made out of them). The force mediating particles (like the photon) are not matter.
ydoaPs Posted August 14, 2004 Posted August 14, 2004 i just posted this on http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=75162#post75162 . gravity may not be gravitons or gravity waves, it may be another form of matter/energy.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 Theoretical particles that exist only above the speed of light.
harsh Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 well matter is defined as anything that occupies space and has mass..... obviously now we can consider photons to be energy , it dont have mass , and it dont occupy any space so its energy......
harsh Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 well this as risen qustions in me.....obviously if energy can travel at the speed of light ...so can we say that when abody with mass gets closer tot he speed of light it changes inot energy namly the photon and this goes to the speed of light.....and if we stop this photon it will change back to the same body
pulkit Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 well matter is defined as anything that occupies space and has mass..... Read post#11 I am afraid you can't use as simple a definition as you give above, it is very ambiguous.
pulkit Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 if we stop this photon it will change back to the same body What do you mean by stopping it ? Its not a regular particle ! It has dual nature, as soon as you try to exploit its particle properties, the more wave like it will become (Heisenberg Principle). You can't stop a wave.
ydoaPs Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 well matter is defined as anything that occupies space and has mass..... obviously now we can consider photons to be energy ' date=' it dont have mass , and it dont occupy any space so its energy......[/quote'] that is not true. electrons are point particles (in the standard model). that means they are zero dimensional. they use no space.
fuhrerkeebs Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 Electrons are not point particles. Electrons are leptons, and leptons are considered to be fundamental in the standard model, yet they have definite size and mass.
fuhrerkeebs Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 We can measure the size and mass of electrons in labs...
Aeschylus Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 Yep, electrons are point particles in the fact that any radius that you assign to them will be arbitary.
fuhrerkeebs Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 It definitely has size...if an electron was a point particle but had mass, it would create a singularity at the position of the electron, and the massive gravitational field of the singularity would make the mass of the electron shoot up to infinity, contradicting the fact that an electron has a finite mass.
fuhrerkeebs Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 The only reason an electrons size would be arbitrary is because of the wave-particle duality of the electron. But the electron particle has a definite size.
ydoaPs Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 does it have mass? all i know is charge. damn, i left my notes at school.
fuhrerkeebs Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 The electron has a small mass of 5.486 x 10 -4 amu.
Aeschylus Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 It definitely has size...if an electron was a point particle but had mass, it would create a singularity at the position of the electron, and the massive gravitational field of the singularity would make the mass of the electron shoot up to infinity, contradicting the fact that an electron has a finite mass. No as I said before any attempt to define a radius for the electron is arbitary as it is so for any elemnatry particle. Classically you can assign the electron what is known as it's Compton radius, but there is no reason to think of that as it's true radius. We do not in general include gravity in fundmantal descriptions of the electron and we do not expect general relativty to work on this level anyway, besides which singularities such as those caused by a mass occupying aregion smaller than it's Schwarzchild radius do not have infinite mass.
Thales Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 The fact electrons have mass dictates they have radius, be it very very small. Keebs is correct. A dimensionless particle with a mass would create a singularity. The particles position however is what, to me, is more undefined. Even if it is moving at speed c or close too then it would increase its mass, meaning its rest mass may be much much smaller than we interpret it. Is it possible that the electron is more 'smeared' across the atom than in a stable 'orbit'. The idea of the majority of an atom being empty space still doesn't sit well with me, even after years of physics.
pulkit Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Even if it is moving at speed c or close too then it would increase its mass, meaning its rest mass may be much much smaller than we interpret it Though electrons fizz about at great speeds in the atom, classicaly their speeds are still less than 0.1c so there shouldn't be any appreciable difference in mass because of that. Is it possible that the electron is more 'smeared' across the atom than in a stable 'orbit' You look at electrons in "orbitals" and not "orbits". "Orbitals" are smeared across to quite a large extent.
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