Lattices and Lorentz invariance

You like keeping distinctions vague, don't you? We can make electrons out of photons in the sense that we can do an experiment where photons go in and electrons go out. That's not being contested. But this doesn't show that electrons are actually made out of photons in the sense of the electron literally being a bound state of one or more photons. Pair production is only evidence for that in the same way heat conduction is evidence for caloric fluid theory.

There is nothing extraordinary about this at all. The idea of electrons being made from photons really is in conflict with mainstream physical theories, for a number of reasons I and others have detailed in this thread. That's what makes the "electrons are made of photons" idea an extraordinary assertion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. I'm very precise. You said:

"The idea of electrons being made from photons is in direct conflict with very well supported and established mainstream physical theories, notably QED and quantum physics in general. That makes the idea an extraordinary assertion...”

And I said:

"No it doesn't. Pair production is the scientific evidence that demonstrates that we really can make electrons from photons. So it isn't an extraordinary assertion at all. The extraordinary assertion is the idea of electrons being made from photons is in direct conflict with very well supported and established mainstream physical theories".

We can make electrons from photons, przyk. It isn't in direct conflict with mainstream physics theories. It is mainstream physics.

You said made from, and I am very precise. Pair production shows that electrons can be made from photons. That's it.

No, the Einstein-de Haas effect, magnetic dipole moment, Stern-Gerlach, and electron diffraction show that. But you won't accept the evidence, so we're going round and round on this getting nowhere.

Oh pryzk, we understand heat. We know there's not really a fluid sloshing around in there.

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but we're getting absolutely nowhere, we're not making any progress on any of the points, even those that are spectacularly patent. Prometheus, who effectively started this thread by challenging my passing comment, has absented himself. Other posters are carping instead of contributing, and I take note of your comment in the post #188:

"If you think it's so easy, why don't you do it yourself? If you can't do it yourself, I don't think you have any business insinuating it is easy".

That's the post I haven't completely replied to yet. Sorry. But your comment strikes a chord. I should focus on doing productive work instead of spending time here, because it's proving to be unproductive in every way. I feel as if I could hold your head and make you look at pair production happening right in front of your nose, and show you electrons being made from photons, but you'll just say no, electrons aren't made from photons. I'm sorry, I just can't get past that. So at that juncture, I'll take my leave. I've got work to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not precise, because "made from" can mean two different things in the context I used it. It could mean that:

1. Starting out with photons, you can do a process and get electrons out of it.
2. Electrons are composed of photons. They're bound states of one or more photons in the same way atoms are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons.

#1 is experimental fact. #2 is the idea that doesn't fit with mainstream physics and is the one I was calling an extraordinary assertion. Clear?

No they don't. The Einstein-de Haas effect shows that spin is a type of angular momentum, in the sense I explained at length earlier, and does nothing to show that electrons are made of photons (in sense #2 above). Electron diffraction only shows that electrons have the wavelike nature that quantum physics has ascribed to them since the 1920s, and does nothing to show that electrons are made of photons (again in sense #2 above). And with our current understanding of spin and angular momentum in quantum physics, the Stern-Gerlach if anything contradicts the idea that all matter can be made (sense #2) of photons in showing that half integer spin states exist. And I had to say "all matter" because the standard way the Stern-Gerlach experiment is performed doesn't work for electrons (due to their overall charge). It's typically done with uncharged atoms (the original version of the experiment used silver atoms).

But you've grossly exaggerated what those experiments show. Two of them are unrelated to the idea of electrons being made (sense #2) of photons. The third arguably even contadicts it.

Good. I was counting on that. So you understood the point I was making then? Because heat flow really is evidence for caloric fluid theory.

This isn't accurate. I didn't just say electrons aren't made (sense #2) of photons. I and others have explained many times why that idea is in conflict with mainstream physics. We're at a juncture because you have done nothing to address that. That is why this thread is going nowhere. You have advocated an idea that there are serious obstacles to incorporating into mainstream physics - to the point that most of us would consider it impossible - and given no indication whatsoever as to how you expect those obstacles to be overcome. That's not my fault.

 

All points noted pryzk. It's been nice talking to you.

Prometheus I hope you've found the thread to be of some value rather than a total waste of time.