lemur Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 This is basically a question to be answered by standard physics but it seems like a speculative enough scenario to be put in speculations. Anyway, my thought was that EM waves (photons) can be of different amplitudes with the same wavelength. So as they move away from their source, they must stretch out in their area while getting thinner in their amplitude. So what happens if their amplitude is so great and the frequency so high that the amount of energy in a given volume of radiation exceeded the density of a particle of matter, like an electron? Would they then have to exert gravitation equivalent to that of a particle of matter of the same energy-quantity and volume? If so, would you have basically an electron traveling at C or would the energy condense on itself under the force of its own gravity to form an actual particle of matter (electron)?
swansont Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 This is basically a question to be answered by standard physics but it seems like a speculative enough scenario to be put in speculations. Anyway, my thought was that EM waves (photons) can be of different amplitudes with the same wavelength. EM waves yes, photons no. The energy of a photon is [math]\hbar\omega = \frac{hc}{\lambda}[/math]. Higher amplitude means more photons.
lemur Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 EM waves yes, photons no. The energy of a photon is [math]\hbar\omega = \frac{hc}{\lambda}[/math]. Higher amplitude means more photons. Ok, thanks for clarifying that photons are fixed-sized particles. Now what about the energy-density of a high-energy, high-frequency EM wave? What would happen if it contained as much energy in the area of an electron as an electron does? Or is that even physically possible?
swansont Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Ok, thanks for clarifying that photons are fixed-sized particles. Now what about the energy-density of a high-energy, high-frequency EM wave? What would happen if it contained as much energy in the area of an electron as an electron does? Or is that even physically possible? Sure it's possible. Photons with enough energy will split into matter-antimatter pairs if there is a particle nearby to conserve momentum, or do so intermittently in free spaces as virtual particles. Without an interaction, though, nothing will happen.
lemur Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 Sure it's possible. Photons with enough energy will split into matter-antimatter pairs if there is a particle nearby to conserve momentum, or do so intermittently in free spaces as virtual particles. Without an interaction, though, nothing will happen. So is the matter-side of a "matter-antimatter pair" a particle of regular matter if/once the antimatter is removed from it? If so, what causes it to remain bound instead of continuing to dissipate as a photon array?
swansont Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 So is the matter-side of a "matter-antimatter pair" a particle of regular matter if/once the antimatter is removed from it? If it's not virtual, it's regular matter. If so, what causes it to remain bound instead of continuing to dissipate as a photon array? I have no idea what this means.
lemur Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 If it's not virtual, it's regular matter. So are there as many different possible particle/masses of matter as there are amounts of radiation that can be lumped together? I have no idea what this means. The premise of the OP was that you would have EM radiation of a high frequency and high amplitude such that the amount of energy per unit volume would be comparable to a particle with mass, say an electron. Now you say that density of energy could form into a matter/antimatter pair and I'm wondering why it would stay "bound" as a particle of matter (e.g. electron) instead of just continuing to move at C and disperse as an array of separate photons.
swansont Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 So are there as many different possible particle/masses of matter as there are amounts of radiation that can be lumped together? The premise of the OP was that you would have EM radiation of a high frequency and high amplitude such that the amount of energy per unit volume would be comparable to a particle with mass, say an electron. Now you say that density of energy could form into a matter/antimatter pair and I'm wondering why it would stay "bound" as a particle of matter (e.g. electron) instead of just continuing to move at C and disperse as an array of separate photons. The premise of the OP, as I pointed out, is not correct. High amplitude and high frequency does not imply you have multiple photons, since energy depends on frequency. You have to reformulate your scenario. I said a photon can interact this way, not a group of photons.
lemur Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 The premise of the OP, as I pointed out, is not correct. High amplitude and high frequency does not imply you have multiple photons, since energy depends on frequency. You have to reformulate your scenario. I said a photon can interact this way, not a group of photons. The basic premise of the OP is that there is a high density of EM energy (i.e. a great deal of energy - as much as constitutes an electron - concentrated in the volume of an electron, whatever that volume would be). Since you said this couldn't be achieved with just one photon, it becomes a multitude, but it doesn't make much difference to the issue of expansion. If it was multiple photons, they disperse. If it was a single photon, it would expand right? Either way, my main question is why/how it becomes a particle with mass and can suddenly decelerate below C.
swansont Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 The basic premise of the OP is that there is a high density of EM energy (i.e. a great deal of energy - as much as constitutes an electron - concentrated in the volume of an electron, whatever that volume would be). Since you said this couldn't be achieved with just one photon, it becomes a multitude, but it doesn't make much difference to the issue of expansion. If it was multiple photons, they disperse. If it was a single photon, it would expand right? Either way, my main question is why/how it becomes a particle with mass and can suddenly decelerate below C. I didn't say that. I said a different amplitudes of a single photon could not be achieved with the same wavelength, since wavelength and energy are directly tied to each other. Achieving a high energy with a single photon is a matter of having a short enough wavelength. Achieving a high energy with a large wavelength is a matter of having a lot of photons. A photon does not expand.
lemur Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) I didn't say that. I said a different amplitudes of a single photon could not be achieved with the same wavelength, since wavelength and energy are directly tied to each other. Achieving a high energy with a single photon is a matter of having a short enough wavelength. Achieving a high energy with a large wavelength is a matter of having a lot of photons. A photon does not expand. Right, I'm talking about high frequency, gamma-rays or something like that. If I said "high wavelength" I must have mixed up terms - sorry. I guess light expands by the photon density of the array decreasing with distance from the source then. I also understand that a particular frequency of light has a particular photon-energy. That's what Max Planck discovered to establish quantized energy as the basis for understanding electromagnetism. So the issue for this thread is still in regards to why/how a particularly high density of EM energy can create a particle of matter (+ antimatter?). Why does/would it suddenly have mass and be able to decelerate below C? I guess the next question should be what phenomenon could be capable of generating such high frequency EM energy and how. Edited March 22, 2011 by lemur
swansont Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 So the issue for this thread is still in regards to why/how a particularly high density of EM energy can create a particle of matter (+ antimatter?). Why does/would it suddenly have mass and be able to decelerate below C? I guess the next question should be what phenomenon could be capable of generating such high frequency EM energy and how. The photon doesn't decelerate. There is no more photon. Its energy is converted into the mass of the pair and any kinetic energy they might have. Such photons can be created in radioactive decays.
lemur Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 The photon doesn't decelerate. There is no more photon. Its energy is converted into the mass of the pair and any kinetic energy they might have. Such photons can be created in radioactive decays. I know the photon doesn't decelerate. You really like to respond to me as if I don't know basic things. What I asked is what is it that changes within the photon(s) that causes them (or at least one) to gain inertia/mass (I guess the antimatter particle would have inertia/mass too but I don't understand those well enough to know). Do you see what I'm getting at though? Something changes between the photon being a photon that travels at C without mass and it becoming two particles with mass and sub-C velocity, but what is it that changes?
swansont Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 I know the photon doesn't decelerate. You really like to respond to me as if I don't know basic things. Meanwhile, just a few posts back, So the issue for this thread is still in regards to why/how a particularly high density of EM energy can create a particle of matter (+ antimatter?). Why does/would it suddenly have mass and be able to decelerate below C? (emphasis added) "It" is ambiguous at best; I suspected you already knew that massive particles don't travel at c, so they don't have to decelerate below it. But I guess that I was wrong. So thanks for taking me to task for not being able to telepathically divine what you don't understand.
lemur Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 "It" is ambiguous at best; I suspected you already knew that massive particles don't travel at c, so they don't have to decelerate below it. But I guess that I was wrong. So thanks for taking me to task for not being able to telepathically divine what you don't understand. Will it help if I accept responsibility for vagueness in my language? What I meant was that during the transition from photon to mass-particle, the energy has to go from being C-imperative to being sub-C-imperative. So something must change about the particle that is responsible for this change in its behavior, right?
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