michel123456 Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Mass is a property of matter. Answer from the Sphinx... A photon has mass (no rest mass but never at rest): is photon considered as matter?
ajb Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 is photon considered as matter? No. The photon is a fundamental boson, so it is a "force" and not "matter".
michel123456 Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 No. The photon is a fundamental boson, so it is a "force" and not "matter". But it exerts gravitational attraction & is affected by gravity, exactly as if it had mass. Can we then state that mass is a property of matter?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 But it exerts gravitational attraction & is affected by gravity, exactly as if it had mass. Can we then state that mass is a property of matter? In general relativity, gravity is a consequence of warped spacetime, so photons do not need mass to be affected by gravity. Everything that moves through spacetime is. I don't know if photons exert gravitational attraction, but I don't think they do.
michel123456 Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 In general relativity, gravity is a consequence of warped spacetime, so photons do not need mass to be affected by gravity. Everything that moves through spacetime is. I don't know if photons exert gravitational attraction, but I don't think they do. Emphasis mine. from wiki photon "Since photons contribute to the stress-energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound-Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[85]"
swansont Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Photons have energy, thus they contribute to the stress-energy tensor.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 So your saying mass can be turned into energy, but not that matter can be turned into energy? So if mass can be turned into energy, then both energy and matter must share something that gives mass, like a higgs boson or something which changes into something else in energy, only I don't know why light beams don't distort the fabric of space severely then. Mass is a property of matter. When you convert that mass into energy, I suppose you can't call it "matter" any more, because it has no mass. Also, if matter can be created and destroyed just like that, whats wrong with thinking all matter in the universe just spontaneously came into existence of out shear improbability? And if matter can literally be destroyed and made not to exist, why hasn't anyone actually weaponized that? Because you need energy to make mass. You need mass to create energy. And so on. One way or another, something has to be created. Also when matter and antimatter combine, do they both cease to exist because the waves combined and equal 0? No. Wavefunctions don't behave that way. A better way of thinking of wavefunctions is that they merely represent the probability that a particle exists in a certain place. They do not represent the particle itself. Destructive interference can occur with wavefunctions, as in the double-slit experiment, but it does not annihilate the particle or release energy; destructive interference just makes it less likely to find the particle in that location.
steevey Posted April 22, 2011 Author Posted April 22, 2011 Mass is a property of matter. When you convert that mass into energy, I suppose you can't call it "matter" any more, because it has no mass. Because you need energy to make mass. You need mass to create energy. And so on. One way or another, something has to be created. No. Wavefunctions don't behave that way. A better way of thinking of wavefunctions is that they merely represent the probability that a particle exists in a certain place. They do not represent the particle itself. Destructive interference can occur with wavefunctions, as in the double-slit experiment, but it does not annihilate the particle or release energy; destructive interference just makes it less likely to find the particle in that location. Well I was looking at some graphs of the wave-functions or probability fields of matter and anti matter, and they were reversed in antimatter. Also, since antimatter do have some type of opposite wave oscillation, how do you know its not that, which gives antimatter its properties that are different from normal matter? It would make complete sense, but otherwise, why else would a positive particle running into a negative particle cause such raucous? The matter disappears, so there's nothing holding the energy it contained within it, so that gets released as gamma rays?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Well I was looking at some graphs of the wave-functions or probability fields of matter and anti matter, and they were reversed in antimatter. Also, since antimatter do have some type of opposite wave oscillation, how do you know its not that, which gives antimatter its properties that are different from normal matter? Antimatter don't have some type of opposite wave oscillation. You'll have to show me these graphs if you want me to know what you're talking about, because it makes no sense.
steevey Posted April 23, 2011 Author Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Antimatter don't have some type of opposite wave oscillation. You'll have to show me these graphs if you want me to know what you're talking about, because it makes no sense. I don't remember it specifically, but I think it was something like this http://quantumartand...light-form.html http://www.quantumar...y.blogspot.com/ I don't know if the site itself is credible, but I do remember specifically hearing at some lectures about anti matter having some kind of opposite space-time or opposite wave property. http://press.web.cer...ern/antimatter/ I can't quite figure it out because all these sites seem inaccurate in some way, but I know I'm stating some specific scientific properties of antimatter. Edited April 23, 2011 by steevey
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 I don't know if the site itself is credible, It isn't. but I do remember specifically hearing at some lectures about anti matter having some kind of opposite space-time or opposite wave property. Antiparticles have opposite charges. Protons are positive, antiprotons are negative. That's it, though. I can't quite figure it out because all these sites seem inaccurate in some way, but I know I'm stating some specific scientific properties of antimatter. Not really.
steevey Posted April 23, 2011 Author Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Antiparticles have opposite charges. Protons are positive, antiprotons are negative. That's it, though. So how does simply having opposite EM charges of the same locations cause the matter/antimatter to cease to exist when combined? Unless that opposite charge is caused by something else which is opposite, like maybe the wave oscillation or something... Edited April 23, 2011 by steevey
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 So how does simply having opposite EM charges of the same locations cause the matter/antimatter to cease to exist when combined? Unless that opposite charge is caused by something else which is opposite, like maybe the wave oscillation or something... Saying "the wave oscillation is opposite" does not make sense. A particle's wavefunction depends on the surroundings and boundary conditions, and can change as a result of interactions with other particles. Also, every wavefunction calculation I've done so far has nothing to do with whether the particle in question is a particle or antiparticle. The math doesn't care. Perhaps I haven't learned enough QM yet, though. Perhaps you should consider holding off on the speculation until you understand the subject more. I don't know why annihilation works and I'm midway through a course that covers basic quantum physics, and I'm not going to speculate.
steevey Posted April 23, 2011 Author Posted April 23, 2011 Saying "the wave oscillation is opposite" does not make sense. A particle's wavefunction depends on the surroundings and boundary conditions, and can change as a result of interactions with other particles. Also, every wavefunction calculation I've done so far has nothing to do with whether the particle in question is a particle or antiparticle. The math doesn't care. Perhaps I haven't learned enough QM yet, though. Perhaps you should consider holding off on the speculation until you understand the subject more. I don't know why annihilation works and I'm midway through a course that covers basic quantum physics, and I'm not going to speculate. But the way particles act are do to actual oscillations, like this http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/D_orbital. Look in the middle.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 But the way particles act are do to actual oscillations, like this http://medlibrary.or...dwiki/D_orbital. Look in the middle. Yes, I know. I have calculated wavefunctions. My point still stands.
steevey Posted April 23, 2011 Author Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Yes, I know. I have calculated wavefunctions. My point still stands. But it does make complete sense though. Waves of normal matter oscillate with a specific pattern, and waves of antimatter oscillate with an opposite manner which would be why when they combine, they cease to exist. I really don't see how else two different materials could combine to not exist anymore. On that note, is there anything proven to exist that is an opposite of mass? Because when matter and anti-matter combine, there's still mass left over in the form of photons, so matter and anti-matter don't have opposite whatever that causes mass. Edited April 23, 2011 by steevey
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 Waves of normal matter oscillate with a specific pattern, No, they don't. Wavefunctions don't behave that way. A better way of thinking of wavefunctions is that they represent the probability that a particle exists in a certain place. They do not represent the particle itself. Destructive interference can occur with wavefunctions, as in the double-slit experiment, but it does not annihilate the particle or release energy; interference just alters the probability of finding the particle at that location. On that note, is there anything proven to exist that is an opposite of mass? Because when matter and anti-matter combine, there's still mass left over in the form of photons, so matter and anti-matter don't have opposite whatever that causes mass. Negative mass has not been observed. Photons do not have mass. They have energy.
steevey Posted April 23, 2011 Author Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) No, they don't. Wavefunctions don't behave that way. A better way of thinking of wavefunctions is that they represent the probability that a particle exists in a certain place. They do not represent the particle itself. Destructive interference can occur with wavefunctions, as in the double-slit experiment, but it does not annihilate the particle or release energy; interference just alters the probability of finding the particle at that location. I'm not talking about the wave function probability, I'm talking about the particle itself actually waving and the actual 3 dimensions that it waves in. Photons do not have mass. They have energy. What about E=mc^2? Isn't energy just another form of mass? Or was that matter? Wait, I thought energy couldn't be converted into matter...Guess it has to be mass. Edited April 23, 2011 by steevey
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 I'm not talking about the wave function probability, I'm talking about the particle itself actually waving and the actual 3 dimensions that it waves in. Then you're talking about something which does not exist in physics. Wavefunctions are the representation of the wavelike properties of particles. What about E=mc^2? Isn't energy just another form of mass? Or was that matter? Wait, I thought energy couldn't be converted into matter...Guess it has to be mass. Energy doesn't have mass. It can, however, be transformed into something that does. Generally we call things that have mass "matter."
steevey Posted April 23, 2011 Author Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Then you're talking about something which does not exist in physics. Wavefunctions are the representation of the wavelike properties of particles. Ok, I want you to image something. You have a piece of paper and you take a finger and periodically poke up at it from underneath it. It should form a protrusion like a paraboloid. Now, push down on it from the upper part, you should see the same thing, but on the opposite surface. Now, push in both directions at once, and what happens? No protrusion, and all thats happening is the energy your putting into the process is escaping. That seems to perfectly fit whats happening with matter and antimatter, and I could have swore you can describe wave properties with things other than "Oh look, its most likely to exist there when its localized". After all, e+e- mass is converted to photon energy. Energy is not created. So if it wasn't created, it was there all along, and it got released because the matter disappeared which fits perfectly with my analogy. Energy doesn't have mass. It can, however, be transformed into something that does. Generally we call things that have mass "matter." But I thought energy couldn't actually be transformed into matter? and one can interpret mass as being equivalent to energy through [imath]E=mc^2[/imath] and other well-known equations. Thus, saying "matter is converted to energy" is nonsensical. Seems pretty confusing. Just in class today we were discussing an experiment in which two protons with a large kinetic energy were smashed together. Their kinetic energies were converted into a proton-antiproton pair, which has significant mass. But I thought when two photons collided, they got entangled, not created matter...Since you can do experiments where photons become entangled by colliding which is what they are using in new quantum computers to process more information since silicon chips won't work at a certain level due to the uncertainty principal. Edited April 23, 2011 by steevey
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 Ok, I want you to image something. You have a piece of paper and you take a finger and periodically poke up at it from underneath it. It should form a protrusion like a paraboloid. Now, push down on it from the upper part, you should see the same thing, but on the opposite surface. Now, push in both directions at once, and what happens? No protrusion, and all thats happening is the energy your putting into the process is escaping. That seems to perfectly fit whats happening with matter and antimatter, and I could have swore you can describe wave properties with things other than "Oh look, its most likely to exist there when its localized". After all, So if it wasn't created, it was there all along, and it got released because the matter disappeared which fits perfectly with my analogy. No. I've already told you that wavefunctions do not work this way. When they interfere, they do not release energy. Particles and antiparticles do not have opposite wavefunctions. Read an introductory quantum mechanics textbook. There is no other kind of wave thingy that they have opposites of. Not in quantum mechanics, at least. Seems pretty confusing. But I thought when two photons collided, they got entangled, not created matter...Since you can do experiments where photons become entangled by colliding which is what they are using in new quantum computers to process more information since silicon chips won't work at a certain level due to the uncertainty principal. Protons, not photons. As far as I know, there's very few collisions or interactions that produce entangled particles. Most collisions result in particles bouncing off each other. Also, it doesn't make sense to say photons "collide," because they're bosons. They can occupy the same space at the same time if they want to.
keelanz Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 Saying "the wave oscillation is opposite" does not make sense. A particle's wavefunction depends on the surroundings and boundary conditions, and can change as a result of interactions with other particles. Also, every wavefunction calculation I've done so far has nothing to do with whether the particle in question is a particle or antiparticle. The math doesn't care. Perhaps I haven't learned enough QM yet, though. Perhaps you should consider holding off on the speculation until you understand the subject more. I don't know why annihilation works and I'm midway through a course that covers basic quantum physics, and I'm not going to speculate. midways fits....
steevey Posted April 23, 2011 Author Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Also, it doesn't make sense to say photons "collide," because they're bosons. They can occupy the same space at the same time if they want to. Well they don't collide, but by occupying the same space at the same time, they interact in a way so that they become entangled. Also, would you have any other idea on what makes an anti particle become the opposite of matter? When they create anti-matter in a lab, what are they doing that causes normal matter to all of a sudden have opposite charges and opposite other things? Edited April 23, 2011 by steevey
Recommended Posts