Understanding Size & Energy & Matter

[winkle]

If Planck's Constant tells us the minimum amount of transferable energy does this mean also the smallest size thing, or smallest area of space?

 

Is a photon the same size as a neutrino? Or does it have less energy then a photon?

 

---

 

It strikes me that if one can speak of this quantum in terms of area, that there are smaller bits in a state of useless entropy that are bellow the threshold of what can be agglomerated in such a way so as to do effectual work.

Edited June 6, 2012 by winkle

[mathematic]

There is something called a Planck length. It is much smaller than any length associate with particle (electron, etc.) processes that are considered under quantum theory.

 

Photons are completely different from neutrinoes. There are (as far as it is known) exactly 3 kinds of neutrinoes. Photons come in all sizes (energies) radio waves to gamma rays and everything in between.

[winkle]

Thanks, I knew nothing of Planck length or the consequent unit value, Planck unit. Can anyone enrich this, above, explanation?

 

---

 

A photon is a quantum of light and it can do work, be absorbed and emitted, and exist without mass, is that correct? Is there a plank unit size of 1 for 1 photon?

 

To say these several neutrinos, which have some small mass, are totally different from photons, signals what?

Edited June 6, 2012 by winkle

[mathematic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

 

I suggest you do a Wikipedia search for your questions to get a better understanding of neutrinos, photons, etc.

[timo]

If Planck's Constant tells us the minimum amount of transferable energy ...

It doesn't even have the units of an energy.

[imatfaal]

Thanks, I knew nothing of Planck length or the consequent unit value, Planck unit. Can anyone enrich this, above, explanation?

...

 

You could start here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34790-hands-on-planck-units-tutorial/

[Aethelwulf]

There is something called a Planck length. It is much smaller than any length associate with particle

 

That's only partially true. In physics, we have something called a Planck Particle, whose Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are equal, and is roughly the size of a planck length. So theoretically speaking, we can have particles which may be equal to a planck length.

[mathematic]

That's only partially true. In physics, we have something called a Planck Particle, whose Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are equal, and is roughly the size of a planck length. So theoretically speaking, we can have particles which may be equal to a planck length.

 

Is there any evidence that it exists?

[swansont]

That's only partially true. In physics, we have something called a Planck Particle, whose Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are equal, and is roughly the size of a planck length. So theoretically speaking, we can have particles which may be equal to a planck length.

 

When you say "we have" it implies that this is something that's been detected. Planck particles are entirely hypothetical. What "we have" is a concept.

[Aethelwulf]

When you say "we have" it implies that this is something that's been detected. Planck particles are entirely hypothetical. What "we have" is a concept.

 

I said theoretically-speaking.

 

Is there any evidence that it exists?

 

I just don't want the audience to think it is not theoretically possible.

[mathematic]

I said theoretically-speaking.

 

 

 

I just don't want the audience to think it is not theoretically possible.

 

Anything that goes on at Planck length is "theoretically possible", since we have no idea.

[winkle]

Can anyone make clear what the sense is, if any, in saying that a photon and a neutrino, two elementary particles, are incomparable? Here I am especially inquiring about their existence as measurable entities.

 

Can anyone clarify the assertion that there is no unit value for the minimum transferable quantum of energy, which I take to be a photon? It would stand to ordinary reason that the minimum would be greater then zero and so expressible as a unit value.

Edited June 11, 2012 by winkle

[timo]

Can anyone make clear what the sense is, if any, in saying that a photon and a neutrino, two elementary particles, are incomparable? Here I am especially inquiring about their existence as measurable entities.

I do not understand what you are trying to say/ask here.

 

Can anyone clarify the assertion that there is no unit value for the minimum transferable quantum of energy,...

There is no minimum amount of transferable energy.

... which I take to be a photon?

A photon is a physical object, not a unit of energy.

 

It would stand to ordinary reason that the minimum would be greater then zero and so expressible as a unit value.

Not sure what you are saying there. Certainly, there is no smallest real number greater than zero.

[swansont]

Can anyone make clear what the sense is, if any, in saying that a photon and a neutrino, two elementary particles, are incomparable? Here I am especially inquiring about their existence as measurable entities.

A photon interacts via the electromagnetic force (and is also the EM force carrier). The neutrino interacts via the weak force. The photon is a Boson, the neutrino is a Fermion and also a Lepton and thus conserves Lepton number. Photon number is not a conserved quantity.

[Aethelwulf]

Can anyone make clear what the sense is, if any, in saying that a photon and a neutrino, two elementary particles, are incomparable? Here I am especially inquiring about their existence as measurable entities.

 

 

Incomparable? Do you mean, is there anything about a neutrino that can be similar to a photon? Actually there is... something called the Weyl Limit.

 

I'll write out the maths if you want, but its not nice for anyone whose not adapt to quantum mechanics... The neutrino is found to be almost massless... It has therefore a very very very miniscule mass. You can take the Dirac Equation and rewrite it as a set of decoupled equations. They are only coupled up to a limit, and that is when the mass equals zero [math]M=0[/math].

 

Now, from what I can understand of the Weyl Limit, is that the nuetrino mass is so small that it may as well just act like a massless particle. So in your case, a photon and a neutrino has a little something in common, at least from the perspective of the limit just mentioned.

 

 

 

 

But as other posters have shown, there are plenty differences between the two, measurably.

[alpha2cen]

Neutrino can pass through the Earth. Are neutrinos not affected by Earth underground material? But neutron can not penetrate through the Earth. What is the difference? Stability?

[Aethelwulf]

Neutrino can pass through the Earth. Are neutrinos not affected by Earth underground material? But neutron can not penetrate through the Earth. What is the difference? Stability?

 

Nuetrino's are barely effected by anything because they don't couple to ordinary materials very well. Neutrino's pass through your body every second with ease.

[alpha2cen]

Nuetrino's are barely effected by anything because they don't couple to ordinary materials very well. Neutrino's pass through your body every second with ease.

 

But anti-neutrino comes from the neutron decay process.

Matter makes neutrino (for example, fusion reaction), but it has no interaction with matter.

Do we have anything wrong?

[swansont]

Neutrino can pass through the Earth. Are neutrinos not affected by Earth underground material? But neutron can not penetrate through the Earth. What is the difference? Stability?

 

The neutrino only interacts via the weak force. Neutrons have, in addition, the strong and electromagnetic interactions.

[Aethelwulf]

But anti-neutrino comes from the neutron decay process.

Matter makes neutrino (for example, fusion reaction), but it has no interaction with matter.

Do we have anything wrong?

 

Nothing is wrong. Decay processes does not mean that it interacts with matter, only that neutrino's are a by-product of certain decay processes.

[alpha2cen]

Nothing is wrong. Decay processes does not mean that it interacts with matter, only that neutrino's are a by-product of certain decay processes.

Neutrinos are not easily destroyed with matter. So, there will be much neutrinos in the space. Are there any place where neutrinos disappearing in the space?

[winkle]

Do others approve of the following answers? Perhaps they are merely elliptical. Correct but not explicit.

 

Can anyone clarify the assertion that there is no unit value for the minimum transferable quantum of energy,...?

There is no minimum amount of transferable energy.

 

(here, it seems to me, that this "amount" is set by Planck's constant and is the photon's innate value, which, however, perhaps can never be taken as a single object counted up alongside other objects, I suppose here there is some recondite attack on the word "energy")

 

... which I take to be a photon?

A photon is a physical object, not a unit of energy.

 

(here I wonder if this answer implies an assertion as to an understanding of the nature of the photon that is not generally admitted [the Gauge boson page on Wikipedia speaks of a virtual particle)

 

---

 

My understanding is that the quantum, the quantum of light and so the photon, was the consequent value of the black body, and so the black-body radiation analysis of Planck, experiment as it arrives to answer for the ultra violet catastrophe (for the distribution of what I will call, perhaps arbitrarily, pure energy, within kinetic heat or motion, within the spectrum at its higher levels). It is the minimum amount of work doing energy that can be absorbed and emitted. Wiktionary gives this definition of Energy. (physics) A quantity that denotes the ability to do work and is measured in a unit dimensioned in mass × distance²/time² (ML²/T²) or the equivalent.

 

If the photon is without mass it seems to be sensible to call it pure energy, as pure as can be. Einstein thought that nobody understood the photon and so he said "those who think they understand it are actually mistaken." Is it that people consider it meaningful & proper to, unproblematically, class the so called photon as a "physical object?" I understand physicists to think light, without defining it as matter, in terms of probability packets, so that as is often said, the formulas work but at the level of common sense there is no real intelligibility concerning the light quantum or, as it were, light itself.

 

--

 

Also in regard to my original statement, at the top of the thread "It strikes me that if one can speak of this quantum in terms of area, that there are smaller bits in a state of useless entropy that are bellow the threshold of what can be agglomerated in such a way so as to do effectual work." Can anyone point me to good information about the notion of what is going on bellow the threshold of Plank's constant? The best information I have been able to garner so far (thanks to"mathematic's" helpful response) regarding this inquiry, is found here @ http://en.wikipedia..../Planck_length. Of course it is a Wikipedia article and so not fully trustworthy and also somewhat scanted. The most important lead seems to come from the statement that "the Planck length is the length scale at which the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects" and so signals the importance of the quantum effect which brings one to, amongst other things, the popular realm of quantum teleportation and the the 'delayed choice' experiments - but so far my fundamental question about quantum entropy remains quite obscure.

Edited June 13, 2012 by winkle

[swansont]

Can anyone clarify the assertion that there is no unit value for the minimum transferable quantum of energy,...?

There is no minimum amount of transferable energy.

 

(here, it seems to me, that this "amount" is set by Planck's constant and is the photon's innate value, which, however, perhaps can never be taken as a single object counted up alongside other objects, I suppose here there is some recondite attack on the word "energy")

 

 

But it is not the case that E=h. h has units of energy*time (or, more accurately, angular momentum). There is a minimum tranferrable angular momentum. But for energy you must multiply by the frequency. So the energy can be as small as the frequency will allow it to be.

 

If the photon is without mass it seems to be sensible to call it pure energy, as pure as can be.

 

On could argue that it's pure angular momentum as well, using this approach. How can it be two "pure things"? A: it isn't. Energy, like angular momentum, is a property. To call it pure energy is like saying something is pure loud or pure tall.

[timo]

Do others approve of the following answers? Perhaps they are merely elliptical. Correct but not explicit.

1) There is no minimum amount of transferable energy.

2) A photon is a physical object, not a unit of energy.

I think the two statements of mine are very explicit. No idea what "elliptical" is supposed to mean (googling for it I found the explanation "characterized by extreme economy of expression or omission of superfluous elements" - is that what you meant?).

Edited June 13, 2012 by timo

[Alan McDougall]

If Planck's Constant tells us the minimum amount of transferable energy does this mean also the smallest size thing, or smallest area of space?

 

Is a photon the same size as a neutrino? Or does it have less energy then a photon?

 

---

 

It strikes me that if one can speak of this quantum in terms of area, that there are smaller bits in a state of useless entropy that are bellow the threshold of what can be agglomerated in such a way so as to do effectual work.

 

Maybe at the moment of the big bang the Singularity was the largest thing in existence!