Is the smallest particle light

[psyence]

i have heard of something called the particle wave duality. Now energy shouldn't technically be classified as a particle. Energy is what we get as a bi-product of mass being converted. So, in my opinion, if what people call the particle wave duality exists, then the smallest particle i could think of should be light. Oh well, this isn't my area, but its my true opinion

[swansont]

Now energy shouldn't technically be classified as a particle.

And it isn't. Energy is a property.

[Dekan]

And it isn't. Energy is a property.

 

What is it a property of?

[swansont]

What is it a property of?

Of the particles we're discussing.

[Dekan]

Of the particles we're discussing.

 

If energy isn't a "thing in itself", but just a "property", then couldn't there be just one kind of basic particle. With different amounts of energy,

Which make the particle look like different things. As for example, ice, water, and steam, look quite different. But they're really only frozen, tepid or hot dihydrogen oxide.

 

This example is banal. But I'm a bit confused by your claim that energy is a "property".

[swansont]

If energy isn't a "thing in itself", but just a "property", then couldn't there be just one kind of basic particle. With different amounts of energy,

Which make the particle look like different things. As for example, ice, water, and steam, look quite different. But they're really only frozen, tepid or hot dihydrogen oxide.

 

This example is banal. But I'm a bit confused by your claim that energy is a "property".

The energy of a particle is not inherent to the particle — it's frame dependent. And they have other properties, too, like spin angular momentum. If you have a particle that is energy, how do you account for that? How about charge?

 

The phases of water don't apply; there is no way to turn e.g. a single photon or electron into something else. A photon is uncharged. There's no way to give it charge. It's spin-1. There's no way to turn it into a spin-1/2 particle.

[Dekan]

The energy of a particle is not inherent to the particle — it's frame dependent. And they have other properties, too, like spin angular momentum. If you have a particle that is energy, how do you account for that? How about charge?

 

The phases of water don't apply; there is no way to turn e.g. a single photon or electron into something else. A photon is uncharged. There's no way to give it charge. It's spin-1. There's no way to turn it into a spin-1/2 particle.

 

Thanks Swansont - this is worse than Medieval Theology! Couldn't we just stay with Newton, and tweak the equations a bit?

[Royston]

But I'm a bit confused by your claim that energy is a "property".

 

In the same way that velocity or momentum is a property.

 

It's hardly surprising that energy is confusing, when you hear terms such as 'pure energy' on Discovery and Horizon et.c (it's not a substance). I think this term arises because it is quite an abstract way of book keeping in physics. Have you ever heard the term 'pure velocity' ?

 

Couldn't we just stay with Newton, and tweak the equations a bit?

 

Why ? Quantum theory is without doubt the most successful theory in physics to date, in any case, in certain circumstances it reduces down to Newtonian mechanics.

[Dekan]

In the same way that velocity or momentum is a property.

 

It's hardly surprising that energy is confusing, when you hear terms such as 'pure energy' on Discovery and Horizon et.c (it's not a substance). I think this term arises because it is quite an abstract way of book keeping in physics. Have you ever heard the term 'pure velocity' ?

 

 

 

Why ? Quantum theory is without doubt the most successful theory in physics to date, in any case, in certain circumstances it reduces down to Newtonian mechanics.

 

Thanks Royston. Your mention of the term "Pure Velocity" gets at what I was thinking of earlier. "Velocity" isn't a physical thing, it's just a fancy word for "speed"".

Just as "space" is a fancy word for the separation, or "gap" between objects.

 

So instead of saying -

 

1. "The Galaxies are moving further apart, because the space between them is expanding"

 

Couldn't we say :

 

2. "The Galaxies are moving further apart, because the gap between them is expanding"

 

Would this result in earnest discussions on the properties of "gap"?

 

On your point aboint about QM working, in the sense of giving the right answers, do you espouse the view: "Never mind whether it makes sense, just shut up and calculate!"

[Royston]

Thanks Royston. Your mention of the term "Pure Velocity" gets at what I was thinking of earlier. "Velocity" isn't a physical thing, it's just a fancy word for "speed"".

 

Velocity is described by a vector (speed isn't), as for the rest of your post, it's not really chemistry based. If you want to discuss cosmology, then start another thread.

[ajb]

In the same way that velocity or momentum is a property.

 

 

Linear momentum is a great example here. (Not so much velocity)

 

Spacial translations are to linear momentum as temporal translations are to energy

[derek w]

 

 

The phases of water don't apply; there is no way to turn e.g. a single photon or electron into something else. A photon is uncharged. There's no way to give it charge. It's spin-1. There's no way to turn it into a spin-1/2 particle.

 

 

 

 

Except that spin-1 photons can collide and become electron/positron pair with spin-1/2.

And visa versa electron and positron with spin-1/2 can annihilate to produce photons spin -1.

[swansont]

Except that spin-1 photons can collide and become electron/positron pair with spin-1/2.

And visa versa electron and positron with spin-1/2 can annihilate to produce photons spin -1.

The net spin of an electron/positron pair is 1 or 0, and it requires a pair. All it means is that you can create composite Bosons. It doesn't mean that electrons are made of photons.

[juanrga]

i have heard of something called the particle wave duality.

 

Yes, but it is a misnomer

 

Now energy shouldn't technically be classified as a particle.

 

Never was classified as such. Energy is one property of particles.

 

Energy is what we get as a bi-product of mass being converted.

 

Energy can be obtained in situations where mass is constant.

 

So, in my opinion, if what people call the particle wave duality exists, then the smallest particle i could think of should be light.

 

Ligth is made of particles named photons. Photons are massless particles.