is everything just photons? redux

[derek w]

If I take a quantity of bar magnets and stand half of them at one end of a table with there negative poles upwards,and the take the other half and stand them at the other end of table with there positive poles standing upwards.Take an extra bar magnet on a spindle which goes through the centre between it's two poles.Can I compare this to a w boson,a force carrying particle,when I pass it over the negative area of magnets it will flip and show me it's negative pole w- boson.Then take w- boson to positive area of magnets my force carrying particle will flip back and show me its positive side w+ boson.Is there sense in this?

[Mystery111]

If I take a quantity of bar magnets and stand half of them at one end of a table with there negative poles upwards,and the take the other half and stand them at the other end of table with there positive poles standing upwards.Take an extra bar magnet on a spindle which goes through the centre between it's two poles.Can I compare this to a w boson,a force carrying particle,when I pass it over the negative area of magnets it will flip and show me it's negative pole w- boson.Then take w- boson to positive area of magnets my force carrying particle will flip back and show me its positive side w+ boson.Is there sense in this?

 

No. Sense maybe, physically, no, that ain't a W boson.

[derek w]

you do not sound to sure "mystery111".In the above analogy the w boson would circulate between electron and proton,and back to electron, creating a magnetic field?

Edited November 14, 2011 by derek w

[Mystery111]

you do not sound to sure "mystery111".In the above analogy the w boson would circulate between electron and proton creating a magnetic field?

 

I am sure. I might not have sounded sure.

 

 

Some systems simply require media, such as a W boson. A good example is a longitudinal boson. They are bosons (or photons if you like) in the least energy state possible before a spontaneous symmetry-breaking occurs. Other examples requires new understanding. Your example, I am afraid does not require a W-Boson. Their existences are required in weak interaction... basically saying that it is involved in the decay of objects.

 

I understood what you meant and you are on the right lines for identifying new particles. It was just applied wrongly. This is why I did not sound very confident, because you are on the right lines, just a wrong application my friend.

[derek w]

ok.thanks I will read up on w boson a bit more to see if I can get a better understanding.

[Mystery111]

Good. I did my good for today

[Mystery111]

http://www.stardrive.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5777:physicists-create-light-from-nothingness&catid=43:science&Itemid=82

 

This might have implications for a theory of matter made from light. To believe that all matter converted/decayed from light requires that photons can come out of the vacuum nothingness. The idea is that the radiation period in Cosmology gave rise to all fundamental particles of nature. We have been able to create matter from light, now we have coaxed it from the vacuum itself.

[derek w]

So we should stop thinking of space as a vacuum,its not,its a quantum foam it has structure?Gluons would be highly dense quantum foam?

The idea of the hypothetical mirror spinning at speed of light,is that it would focus quantum fluctuations into a single point?

Is this the thread of thought you are going down?I like it.

Edited November 20, 2011 by derek w

[swansont]

http://www.stardrive.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5777:physicists-create-light-from-nothingness&catid=43:science&Itemid=82

 

This might have implications for a theory of matter made from light. To believe that all matter converted/decayed from light requires that photons can come out of the vacuum nothingness. The idea is that the radiation period in Cosmology gave rise to all fundamental particles of nature. We have been able to create matter from light, now we have coaxed it from the vacuum itself.

 

The point od stories like these is that the vacuum is not nothingness.

 

Forbes is not a technical source. This is an issue when you summarize from a story reporting on another story reporting on a paper. Things get mangled. Nobody has claimed that the "coaxing" did not require an energy input.

 

A particle can be many things which may not be classed as fundamental. An atom for instance, is often called a particle. However, to answer your question, a particle is a ''bit'' of matter. The most fundamental ''bits'' of matter are also particles, so this would include a photon which is simply the smallest known unit of energy.

 

A photon is not considered matter under most definitions, and the photon is not the smallest known unit of energy. Energy has units of joules or ergs, etc. A photon has energy.

 

We refer to things as particles when they interact in a localized fashion, like a particle does, as opposed to a wave. As in the wave-particle duality that is used in introductions to QM ideas.

[derek w]

A photon is a packet of energy surrounded by nothingness,Its energy cannot radiate outwards into nothing so its energy is trapped in its own bubble.But you can have a wave of bubbles radiating outwards,each bubble interacts with other bubbles it collides with.As you say a photon is not the smallest unit of energy,there can be smaller amounts of energy trapped in their own bubbles surrounded by nothingness.

"Coaxing" photons out of a vacuum,would be a case of energy being input to smaller bubbles to increase their energy levels.An imploding wave of small bubbles colliding at a focal point interact to form a larger bubble of energy.

Edited November 20, 2011 by derek w

[swansont]

A photon is a packet of energy surrounded by nothingness,Its energy cannot radiate outwards into nothing so its energy is trapped in its own bubble.But you can have a wave of bubbles radiating outwards,each bubble interacts with other bubbles it collides with.As you say a photon is not the smallest unit of energy,there can be smaller amounts of energy trapped in their own bubbles surrounded by nothingness.

"Coaxing" photons out of a vacuum,would be a case of energy being input to smaller bubbles to increase their energy levels.An imploding wave of small bubbles colliding at a focal point interact to form a larger bubble of energy.

 

No.

 

A photon is a quantum of an electromagnetic oscillation (i.e. a wave), which means it has energy.

[derek w]

In an atom positive energy seems to congregate at the centre,while negative energy congregates in outer shells.If a photon of sufficient energy can produce an electron and positron,does a photon consist of energy oscillating from positive at centre to negative in an outer shell.When a photon produces an electron and positron pair,are they still entangled with the energy oscillating from positive(positron) to negative(electron).

I had a fish pond once with a fountain in the centre of it, water use to get pumped out of it,then flow back to the drain and get recirculated,the pump had a revolving propeller that revolved at a certain frequency.

Edited November 20, 2011 by derek w

[Mystery111]

A photon is not considered matter under most definitions, and the photon is not the smallest known unit of energy. Energy has units of joules or ergs, etc. A photon has energy.

 

We refer to things as particles when they interact in a localized fashion, like a particle does, as opposed to a wave. As in the wave-particle duality that is used in introductions to QM ideas.

 

I am quite aware a photon has no mass. Give me some credit please.

 

Anyway, what is the smallest unit of energy. I thought it was a photon. Do you know of a smaller unit?

 

I take it by saying ''a photon has energy'' you mean this E=pc?

 

A photon is energy though. Can you divide the system into parts and say that the photon has an energy?

 

Mass to me is different however. Mass can have an energy, but when the mass is removed, why continue saying an energy has an energy? What is a photon if not a unit of energy?

 

No.

 

A photon is a quantum of an electromagnetic oscillation (i.e. a wave), which means it has energy.

 

mmmm... it is both a particle and a wave.

 

Fascinating issues of definition could come out of these discussions. Let's see if we can come to any agreement.

 

The point od stories like these is that the vacuum is not nothingness.

 

Forbes is not a technical source. This is an issue when you summarize from a story reporting on another story reporting on a paper. Things get mangled. Nobody has claimed that the "coaxing" did not require an energy input.

 

 

 

I actually agree. A vacuum is not nothingness, and even when you remove all the matter, there still remains some definition of energy in the form of virtual particles.

 

But a vacuum if we are to believe big bang, did come from nothingness.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Mystery111

[derek w]

You need a fourth dimension,so you can have waves of energy pulsing in at centre,flowing outward and back into fourth dimension.Frequency of wave pulses determines how much energy photon has.That's just an idea,wonder if there is an existing theory?I will have to see if i can find one.

[Mystery111]

Swansont, I can't help but feel you might be being a bit pedantic. I won't fully know what you meant until you answer my questions.

 

I know what was meant when I said, ''the photon is the smallest unit of energy'' - I am not talking about units where we might talk in terms of joules or electronvolts.

 

''The photon is the quantum (the smallest possible unit) of electromagnetic''

 

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electromagnetic+radiation

 

Saying that, I know no smaller possible unit. I haven't bothered looking either, however, I thought this anyway, so I assume I thought it for good reason.

 

 

[DrRocket]

does quantum theory and super fluid vacuum theory have a common approach where space is viewed as a super fluid or quantum foam?That's why the venturi effect came to mind,I was trying to understand why a massless photon, that must be just energy does not radiate outwards.

 

"Quantum foam" was proposed by John Archibald Wheeler as part of an approach to quantum gravity. The idea, among other things is that spacetime may be multiply-connected (a mathematical condition related to having "holes") at a very small scale. It seems to have a role in tentative theories of quantum loop gravity, but thus far no one really has a clear ideawhat "quantum foam" really is or if the idea has any merit.

 

A photon IS electromagnetic radiation. It does not itself radiate because it carries no charge and does not "feel" the electrmagnetic force.

 

A photon is NOT "the smallest unit of electromagnetic energy". Rather in bound quantum systems, energetic states are discrete, and when electromagnetic energy is emitted it must be emitted in corresponding units. That means that individual photons that are emitted have energies corresponding to those units. But a photon without further qualification or reference to a particular bound quantum system is possible with ANY positive value of energy, and the energy is tied to the "color" or frequency of the photon by Planck's constant. [math]E=h \nu[/math]

 

What Swansont has told you is correct. What Mystery111 has told you is somewhere between confused and just plain wrong.

[swansont]

Swansont, I can't help but feel you might be being a bit pedantic. I won't fully know what you meant until you answer my questions.

 

I know what was meant when I said, ''the photon is the smallest unit of energy'' - I am not talking about units where we might talk in terms of joules or electronvolts.

 

''The photon is the quantum (the smallest possible unit) of electromagnetic''

 

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electromagnetic+radiation

 

Saying that, I know no smaller possible unit. I haven't bothered looking either, however, I thought this anyway, so I assume I thought it for good reason.

 

OK, then, what's the biggest unit of electromagnetic radiation?

[derek w]

photons can have varying energy levels.A photon with insufficient energy cannot produce an electron positron pair.A photon with exactly enough energy can produce electron positron pair but would not be able to impart any kinetic energy,therefore they cannot separate.But a higher energy photon can produce electron positron pair,and impart kinetic energy into them.Does the energy levels of the photon go up or down in discrete values dependant on their source?Ah,think I already know the answer,atoms emit photons of different frequency.

[swansont]

photons can have varying energy levels.A photon with insufficient energy cannot produce an electron positron pair.A photon with exactly enough energy can produce electron positron pair but would not be able to impart any kinetic energy,therefore they cannot separate.But a higher energy photon can produce electron positron pair,and impart kinetic energy into them.Does the energy levels of the photon go up or down in discrete values dependant on their source?Ah,think I already know the answer,atoms emit photons of different frequency.

 

Some processes produce discrete-energy photons Others produce a continuum.

[derek w]

I am sticking with the need for a 4th dimension.A 4th dimension would have the geometry of a n-torus(mobius strip).

Energy would have positive flow from 4th dimension to central point of positive particle in 3rd dimensions,the energy would have to come in pulses so as to produce a frequency.The energy would then radiate outwards,while permeating back to 4th dimension as negative flow.Torus geometry creates a negative flow to central point of negative anti-particle,in pulses,radiates outwards and permeates back as positive flow to 4th dimension,back round to central point of positive particle.particles that interact would be entangled.

n- torus,double n- torus and triple n- torus,producing quarks,mesons and baryons.Doughnut torus has an aspect ratio of 2/3.

 

ratio of charges:-

 

........up quark(+1-1/3) = +2/3

down quark(+3/6-5/6) = -1/3

 

n-torus geometry produces:-

 

........anti-up(-1+1/3) = -2/3

anti-down(-3/6+5/6) = +1/3

 

Not that I understand the maths of n-torus geometry.So the question is would it work?

 

 

When I say permeating back to 4th dimension I am thinking of Dr Rocket's quote(a mathematical condition related to having holes) at a very small scale.And I think 4 dimensional space might have geometry of a clifford sphere(which gives me a headache just looking at it).

Edited November 21, 2011 by derek w

[DrRocket]

OK, then, what's the biggest unit of electromagnetic radiation?

 

PHOTON ??

[Appolinaria]

gamma rayz u idi0ts

[swansont]

gamma rayz u idi0ts

 

Gammas are photons.

[derek w]

Yes their the ones that produce electron positron pairs.There are some really weird video animations of fly through 4-D torus on the internet.And "Dirac operator zero-modes on a torus" is there a simple explanation?

Edited November 22, 2011 by derek w

[Appolinaria]

Gammas are photons.

 

Yeah, I know, Swanson

 

Isn't planck's constant proof that a photon has energy independent of it's frequency...

 

do photons interact with electromagnetic radiation or are they electromagnetic radiation?*

 

Edited November 22, 2011 by Appolinaria