SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by BenTheMan, Aug 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    If you add the energy to a golf ball via a club you increase its momentum directly. Adding heat to it increases its mass, so if it is moving and everything must be; we're still in orbit I think; if it is moving its momentum increases.

    Poincare's contribution to SR is widely known. Why do you object to it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. flamethrower Junior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    75
    My 2 cents.

    Conservation laws. By abiding to the energy-mass conservation law, by converting photons into an electron, for example, we violate other conservation laws such as spin and charge.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. gluon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    512
    Not true.

    In some form or another conservation laws are running the show. Take the idea that two particles an electron and a positron come together, the conservation law of momentum states that at least two photons be created. So from ordinary matter, we can make photon energy, and we can make matter from photons as well. Everything is conserved, or this process would be lost.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    i have heard that a photon of sufficiently large energy (high frequency) can be converted into a matter particle and it's anti-particle using a clever trick. The trick is to fire it close to the nucleus so that the the particle and it's anti-particle seperate enough to exist independently
     
  8. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Ok. I promised myself that I wouldn't forget about this, then I did. Then I remembered, then I got busy.

    This thing was resolved in September, and I never made public the results.

    Congratulations Janus58, for your nice dimensional analysis argument.

    Feel free to continue the discussion, but the matter is settled.
     
  9. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Hi BenTheMan; your reference to the Fine Structure Constant sent me into a month- long study that concluded with how the fine structure constant relates to a photon-only universe. I had not thought of that before. I still think you are one of the few people in this universe who is capable of resolving Einstein's greatest dream. His unification of the forces.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hope I'm not causing you any grief.
     
  10. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    No argument from me here, although strictly speaking momentum is being transferred from the club to the ball, or you are transferring kinetic energy from the club to the ball. Energy and momentum are not interchangeable.

    Wrong. I assume you're thinking that increasing something's temperature increases the kinetic energy of the constituent particles and that means they get more relativistic mass. Well relativistic mass is an extremely poor concept because it's not really a mass, it's an energy so we could say that the internal energy of the body has increased, not the mass.

    In a bit more depth, mass cannot be velocity dependant because it is defined to be the invariant norm of the momentum four vector. Notice the word "invariant" in there. Mass as defined does not depend on velocity. If you want mass to depend on velocity then the theory becomes mathematically inconsistent, Poincare or not.

    Sorry, but this is gibberish.
     
  11. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    FYI here is the winning post linky

    Congrats Janus58!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    I thought momentum was mass times velocity, I think I remember someone using p = mv to determine the momentum p.

    Congrats to Janus58. However the diameter of the electron was assumed to be less than a certain value because that was the measuring limits and nothing was detected. There is another possibility, however. The other much more likely possibility is that there was nothing there to detect. The electron only exists at its electromagnetic diameter.
     
  13. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    Wrong again. In general \(p = \gamma mv\)
     
  14. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    Invariant norm of the momentum four vector means

    \( \eta^{\mu \nu} p_\mu p_\nu = \frac{E^2}{c^2}-\vec{p} .\vec{p}=m^2c^2 \)

    With a bit of rearranging you get

    \(E^2 = \left| \vec{p} \right|^2 c^2 + \left(m c^2\right)^2\)

    which clearly reduces to \(E = mc^2\) when \(\vec{p}=0\) or in the rest frame of the particle.
     
  15. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    You don't even have to do a trick. All you need is enough energy at the right frequency and photons become massive particles.

    prometheous: Your arithmetic is good, so I'll change my thinking. A photon is not mass. It is only potential mass. Any time it is confined such as bouncing around inside a mirrored box, or between atoms, it then becomes mass.
     
  16. gluon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    512
    Oh how wonderful of you to finally remember... months later...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh well Janus, you've won strictly on erreneous grounds, meaning the thread was giving out a false contest supposing matter could not be made of photons. Oh well, we live and learn.
     
  17. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    I think the Janus58 entry was a good choice since the OP asked for the BEST entry. Not necessarily one that could show the concept false.

    But let the record show, there was no entry that could qualify as a killer for the photon-only concept.
     
  18. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,791
    And here I am without an acceptance speech ready. I mean, who would have thought that the son of an iron miner, raised on a farm in the Mesabi range, would grow up to win this contest.

    So anyway, I'll just thank Ben for sponsoring and judging the contest. It was fun.
     
  19. gluon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    512
    The only one, that could ever teach me...

    ..was the son of a ...


    Sorry, got lost in the moment.
     
  20. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745

    congradulations on winning the 'physicists choice' award!

    that sentence

    Each photon would have to have a fraction of the energy equivalence of the electron, and as the energy of a photon decreases, its wavelength increases. is true (see radio vs gamma)

    did you have another point?
     
  21. gluon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    512
    I think the point was that the wavelength of matter is miniscule... almost vanishing.
     
  22. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    Probably true. Just that using the positively charged nucleus trick means that one can generate particles at smaller energies
     
  23. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Interesting; I had never seen that before. Do you have a reference as to where you came across this info?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page