Matter made of space not energy?

[Tormod]

Free electrons do not absorb or emit photons unlike their counterparts in the atomic structure. After all there's no higher energy level to reach once outside the atom. But the free electron does produce an electromagnetic field - photons.

 

First of all, free electrons emit photons when they are acellerated or exited. This is apparent in plasma, for example, which consists only of electrons.

 

Second, I dont' see the difference of emitting a photon and producing an electromagnetic field - if a photon is created it will instantly leave the electron at the speed of light.

 

Free electrons are the basis of how superconductors (or all conductive materials for that matter) work. They flow fron negative to positive nodes due their negative charge. Their electric charge is innate in the electron - without it they would not be electrons at all.

[Tormod]

If it asorbs the photon then it's total energy increases (also it's charge increases but in a +1-1=0 manner). you keep adding Photons all you'll get is higher and higher energy Electron because only it's energy increases (it's net photons) now if you remove photons (remove energy) you'll get lower and lower energy electrons till the electron is no longer stable? and breaks down into something eles?

 

I think someone forgot to read the rest of this thread. :D

[WebFeet]

Second, I dont' see the difference of emitting a photon and producing an electromagnetic field - if a photon is created it will instantly leave the electron at the speed of light.

Wouldn't an electromagnetic field require a constant emission of photons, rather than a one-off

 

 

As a conjecture that the electron is not a fundamental particle (pointlike as thought in Std Model), I would agree with you. It is your claim that electrons are composed of photons that I challange and feel you do not have sufficient "proof" to corroborate it.

 

You do not properly account for spin period. You not really account for (rest) mass either unless in some supersymmetric way you do not mention.

 

How does something without mass, aquire mass?

A photon has no mass and as such the only method of pin pointing its position is by way of a coordinate.

Two or more photons will provide a series of coordinates. The overall system containing these photons will have as its mass, the combination of these coordinates.

Draw three dots on a piece of paper. Do any of the dots have mass? No. Join the dots to create a triangle. Does the overall system/triangle of dots have mass? Yes.

 

If you break up the system, all you have are individual coordinates.

Where's the mass gone ? The mass was one of the properties of the system, when the system ceased to exist, so did the mass.

Electron/Positron annihilation/creation - no need for anything other than photons with enough energy.

 

I gather you are claiming they are all photons and that

no other force really exists... Maddog

 

How many different types of particles make up the foundation of our Universe? Ten, twenty, thirty and if so where did they all come from?

Or maybe there is just 1. A bit like binary, but instead of being interpreted in a single direction - left to right along a line, it is 3 dimensional and can be read in any direction.

 

Albert Einstein : I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be simple.

 

Murray Gell-Mann : Every complex system can be reduced to a simple set of rules

[IDMclean]

I did read a good deal of the post. I'm mainly concerned with Webfeet's words of wisdom. The concept that the photon is the fundemental of the universe Supports Many of my hypothesis. I now have a clue as to how to prove the photon is the fundemental.

 

Point for earlier: Charge is the fundemental Quality. Mass-Energy are resultant of Charge Attraction-Repulsion. the photon has no rest mass but fifteen photon rotating around each other in a small sphere could be mistaken for a mass at rest. the m in E=mc^2 becomes the quantum number. How many Photons in the system. The other canidate is the Neutrino but my knowledge of it are measily.

 

(I apoligize for my scatter ramblings. I just may have something which could very well make or break every theory I have to date.

 

Note: the properties of a photon is Magnetic Field along the y-axis and Electric field along the z-axis. Direction and Anti-direction (which I think translates to spin). Frequency and Wavelength. From it using simple binary mathematics you'll find the number of possible combinations for this single particle is amazing.

[Tormod]

Murray Gell-Mann : Every complex system can be reduced to a simple set of rules

 

Yes. But nobody said that every simple idea is the rule.

[WebFeet]

I did read a good deal of the post. I'm mainly concerned with Webfeet's words of wisdom. The concept that the photon is the fundemental of the universe Supports Many of my hypothesis.

 

My words have been called alot of things, never before wisdom.

Thanks.:o

 

I now have a clue as to how to prove the photon is the fundemental.

 

I'd be interested in the direction you intend to take to prove it.

[Tormod]

WebFeet, please don't dodge my questions. I realize by now that this discussion may be fruitless. It seems you have decided that your theory must be true, so it has transcended from an idea to a Trush, which makes it hard to stary rational. For me it is still a hypothesis with no basis in the current models, so I am still waiting for answers to these:

 

1) How is the electron's electric charge produced if the photon is the only building block?

 

2) What predictions are you able to make about anything with your photon theory?

 

I have a third one, as well:

 

3) Where does the neutrino fit into your model? It is a particle with no charge and an extremely small mass if any. It has a spin of 1/2. If the photon is the only fundamental particle then you need to explain how neutrinos are produced from photons.

[WebFeet]

WebFeet, please don't dodge my questions. I realize by now that this discussion may be fruitless. It seems you have decided that your theory must be true, so it has transcended from an idea to a Trush, which makes it hard to stary rational. For me it is still a hypothesis with no basis in the current models, so I am still waiting for answers to these:

Tormod, I'm not trying to dodge your questions. Not deliberately anyway.

 

 

1) How is the electron's electric charge produced if the photon is the only building block?

The interaction of an electromagnetic field with an electron's charge is actually the result of the interaction of this field with the quantum field of the electron.

The charge of an electron is a direct result of the electron having an electromagnetic field. As the electromagnetic field comprises photons, and as I'm saying that the electron is a construction of photons, then the charge is produced by the electron emitting its components in the form of an electromagnetic field.

 

 

2) What predictions are you able to make about anything with your photon theory?

The main aim of this Photon Theory, is that everything in the Universe can be simplified to a straight forward relationship based on energy.

One prediction is that there is no such particle as the Graviton. It does not exist.

 

 

I have a third one, as well:

 

3) Where does the neutrino fit into your model? It is a particle with no charge and an extremely small mass if any. It has a spin of 1/2. If the photon is the only fundamental particle then you need to explain how neutrinos are produced from photons.

I don't know very much about the neutrino, but from what I've read the neutrino is essentially a tiny electron with no charge. Whatever structure is in place within the electron to give it the property of charge, is obviously missing from the neutrino, along with a great deal of mass.

Maybe there is a mimimum mass required before a particle can produce an electromagnetic field, some sort of threshold beyond which fields are possible ? I would imagine that for any particle to produce a constant field, it would require a minimum amount of energy.

[Tormod]

The charge of an electron is a direct result of the electron having an electromagnetic field. As the electromagnetic field comprises photons, and as I'm saying that the electron is a construction of photons, then the charge is produced by the electron emitting its components in the form of an electromagnetic field.

 

I don't see any evidence that there is an electromagnetic field around electrons. Do you have any evidence for this? I tried to google it but was unable to find any sources which could explain this to me. What I have learned is that when an electron emits energy (ie, radiates) , it happens in the form of a photon emission. This photon escapes at the speed of light. A constant field around the electron is a contradiction in terms for me.

 

The main aim of this Photon Theory, is that everything in the Universe can be simplified to a straight forward relationship based on energy. One prediction is that there is no such particle as the Graviton. It does not exist.

 

Thanks. Predictions are always helpful to understand *why* a theory has any purpose. It shows that the photon theory of yours would make string theory obsolete.

 

I don't see how your theory predicts the absence of gravitons, though. What is it that makes this prediction? And how is gravity explained in your theory?

 

As for neutrinos. Must not the neutrino then either be an alternative to the photon (another fundamental particle) or another complex union of photons? How come then, in light of your theory, we can easily detect photons but not neutrons? (I'm curious!) :o

[WebFeet]

I don't see any evidence that there is an electromagnetic field around electrons. Do you have any evidence for this? I tried to google it but was unable to find any sources which could explain this to me. What I have learned is that when an electron emits energy (ie, radiates) , it happens in the form of a photon emission. This photon escapes at the speed of light. A constant field around the electron is a contradiction in terms for me.

I'll try to find the source I used, so I'll get back to you on that one.

 

Thanks. Predictions are always helpful to understand *why* a theory has any purpose. It shows that the photon theory of yours would make string theory obsolete.

I always felt that there are certain similarities between what I'm offering and string theory. A common thread you could say.

 

I don't see how your theory predicts the absence of gravitons, though. What is it that makes this prediction? And how is gravity explained in your theory?

Of all the bosons, there is only one that has been directly detected, the photon.

If the interaction of photons, in sufficient numbers, can create a self sustaining structure, such as an electron, then there is no reason why under different constraints they couldn't provide the other forces. After all, they're already the force carriers for electromagnetic force.

 

Whenever an atom is smashed in an accelerator, there are a great number of pieces that fly off. Are these actually particles from within the structure of the atom or is what is being tracked merely shrapnel. The moment the structure of the atom is broken, it ceases to be an atom. The only way to determine what an atom actually made of is whilst the atom is intact, which with currently technology is a little tricky. Whatever the debrit is, none of it hangs around very long before it decays. What's left ? Energy, pure energy - photons. If there were any other fundemental particles in there, such as the gluons, they should be there afterwards. Gluons, though, never exist in isolation. If this is the case, then do they really exist at all?

 

As for neutrinos. Must not the neutrino then either be an alternative to the photon (another fundamental particle) or another complex union of photons? How come then, in light of your theory, we can easily detect photons but not neutrons? (I'm curious!) :o

The neutrino has mass, albeit not much, so this would put it at a more complex level than the photon, the photon has no mass.

As for detecting them, the mean free path of a neutrino in water would be on the order of 10x the distance from the Earth to the Sun. On this basis, any detector would have difficulty finding them. As to why we can detect photons more easily; the free path of a photon in water would have to be a factor greater than that of the neutrino, so it could be down to weight of numbers, there being far more photons than neutrinos. This would tend to contradict predictions as to the neutrinos abundance.

I suppose one possibility could be down to structural integrity. A structure containing a small number of photons would be more susceptable to external influences than a large one, such as an electron. The external influence could have a number of outcomes. The structure may fail, or be added to the structure changing its complexity. So it may be that either the neutrino no longer exists, or that when you look for it, it's no longer a neutrino.

The structure may simply decay.

 

You'll have to let me know if this fits with what is known about neutrinos, as I said before I've not read much about them.

 

 

Webfeet.

[Tormod]

. As to why we can detect photons more easily; the free path of a photon in water would have to be a factor greater than that of the neutrino, so it could be down to weight of numbers, there being far more photons than neutrinos.

 

Just a quickie before I have to go :o :

 

The opposite is in fact the case. There are far more neutrinos in the universe than there are photons. If you hold out your hand, trillions of them pass through it every second. In fact, neutrinos are so abundant that they were candidates for "dark matter", but they are too "normal" for that, no matter how elusive they are.

 

So the sun emits endlessly many more neutrinos than photons.

 

Here is an easy read on neutrinos for now:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s4.htm

[WebFeet]

So the sun emits endlessly many more neutrinos than photons.

 

Here is an easy read on neutrinos for now:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s4.htm

 

Thanks for the link.

I'll have a read and see if it is my photon theory's Achilles Heal

 

Webfeet.

[maddog]

Of all the bosons, there is only one that has been directly detected, the photon.

If the interaction of photons, in sufficient numbers, can create a self sustaining structure, such as an electron, then there is no reason why under different constraints they couldn't provide the other forces. After all, they're already the force carriers for electromagnetic force.

Wrong. CERN has found in the 90s direct evidence of Z0, W+, W- resonances. These

are the Bosons that cary the Weak Force. Yes, a Graviton as such has not been at the

moment been detected. We are still many orders of magnitude off from doing so.

However, to agree with String Theory (especially E8xE8 in 11 dimensions) you must

have a Graviton as a spin = 2 particle, again massless Boson. So your theory for the

most part throws out String Theory.

Whenever an atom is smashed in an accelerator, there are a great number of pieces that fly off. Are these actually particles from within the structure of the atom or is what is being tracked merely shrapnel. The moment the structure of the atom is broken, it ceases to be an atom. The only way to determine what an atom actually made of is whilst the atom is intact, which with currently technology is a little tricky. Whatever the debrit is, none of it hangs around very long before it decays. What's left ? Energy, pure energy - photons. If there were any other fundemental particles in there, such as the gluons, they should be there afterwards. Gluons, though, never exist in isolation. If this is the case, then do they really exist at all?

Without Gluons and Strong Force, you lose the ability to observe the similarity between

Protons and Neutrons and why these enormous collisions create the debris you mention

composed of Mesons which behave as composed of a quark and antiquark pair. Why

the only difference between a Proton and Neutron is their constituent quark distribution.

Proton = [uud], Nuetron = [udd] which is why one has charge and one does not. How

could Photons account for that. The symmetry group that opperates the EM Force is

U(1), Weak Force is SU(2), Strong Force SU(3). If you understood Group Theory, you

would know you Cannot make SU(2) and SU(3) from U(1). You need to do the math.

The neutrino has mass, albeit not much, so this would put it at a more complex level than the photon, the photon has no mass.

You'll have to let me know if this fits with what is known about neutrinos, as I said before I've not read much about them.

Tormod said well about the Neutrino except for a few items. There are three types of

Neutrinos: Electron, Muon, Tao. The first is the one ya'll hear about. As Tormod says,

each Thermonuclear process within a star produces neutrinos (lots of them). That we

have not detected is totally fallacious. Since the early 70s we have been deep within

mines. It has not been yet proved whether neutrinos do or do not have mass. Most

models now predict the do (estimates at upper limit as less and 10^ -5 of mass of an

electron (real small). Massless neutrinos have been deprecated since the early 80s. So

how the lowly photon is going agree with the Standard Model and compose all that is in

it is beyond me. :D :) :xx: :o

 

Maddog

[WebFeet]

There are far more neutrinos in the universe than there are photons. If you hold out your hand, trillions of them pass through it every second. In fact, neutrinos are so abundant that they were candidates for "dark matter", but they are too "normal" for that, no matter how elusive they are.

So the sun emits endlessly many more neutrinos than photons.

 

Tricky little things these neutrinos.

 

Tormod, rather than just spitting out a reason why a neutrino behaves the way it does, let me detail the thought process, that way you can see the reasoning behind the answer.

 

Why does a neutrino behave so differently from a photon?

 

First assumption, based on what I've read, is that the neutrino has mass.

So far so good. If the neutrino has mass then we are dealing with a structure of multiple photons.

 

If its a normal structure, then why doesn't it react with all other structures such as electrons? It has no charge/field so there's no inputs or outputs. It is completely self contained.

 

What does it react with? The nucleus of an atom. The interaction with electrons is more of a impact than a reaction.

Where are neutrinos created? The nucleus of an atom.

 

Here's the common factor.

Whatever properties neutrinos have they are only relevant to the nucleus of an atom.

What's the primary difference between an electron structure and a neutrino one. Extreme Pressure.

 

The structures may have the same components, but the way those components combine to create the structure is defined by the environment they were in when the structure was created. The extreme pressure will have created closer ties between the photons. If the electron can be compared to the gas of the particle world, then the neutrino is the solid.

 

The structure of the neutrino, although following the same rules as the electron, imparts a far stronger force binding its components together.

Only objects with a similar structure can influence it, such the nucleus of an atom.

 

So the answer to why so few are detected is down to what the neutrino react with, the nucleus of an atom and since that is only a tiny fraction of the whole atom, the odds of it making contact are small.

Why do we detect so many more photons? Because photons, as the only component, will react with almosts everything.

[maddog]

Why does a neutrino behave so differently from a photon?

 

First assumption, based on what I've read, is that the neutrino has mass.

So far so good. If the neutrino has mass then we are dealing with a structure of multiple photons.

Why does a particle having mass imply that your theory would have it be composed of

multiple photons. You can have a beam of laser light (oodles of photons). This beam

would not have mass. There would be energy. If one photon has no mass then two

have no mass. Then by induction if n photons have no mass, n+1 photons have no mass.

If its a normal structure, then why doesn't it react with all other structures such as electrons? It has no charge/field so there's no inputs or outputs. It is completely self contained.

It does react with other structures. It does in thermonuclear processes and in QED it

can be shown to interact with carriers of the Weak Force and quarks. This is all normal.

What does it react with? The nucleus of an atom. The interaction with electrons is more of a impact than a reaction.

Where are neutrinos created? The nucleus of an atom.Here's the common factor.

Whatever properties neutrinos have they are only relevant to the nucleus of an atom.

What's the primary difference between an electron structure and a neutrino one. Extreme Pressure.

Yes, as I said above. Are you saying the nucleus of atom does not adhere to your

theory ? Then why do you say a photon would be the building block of the universe. If it

does then how ? You have completely skirted this question (avoidance I would add).

Why do we detect so many more photons? Because photons, as the only component, will react with almosts everything.

Photons are the quantized expression of the EM field which interacts naturally with

electrons.

 

I have not got a response on what are mesons to you "photon theory". Also, how do

antiparticles fit in. You have no Gravitons as you said earlier, so how would gravity work.

Gravitation is not the EM field as one is a Central field and the other is not. :o

 

Maddog

[WebFeet]

Why does a particle having mass imply that your theory would have it be composed of

multiple photons. You can have a beam of laser light (oodles of photons). This beam

would not have mass. There would be energy. If one photon has no mass then two

have no mass. Then by induction if n photons have no mass, n+1 photons have no mass.

A photon has no mass and as such the only method of pin pointing its position is by way of a coordinate. Two or more photons will provide a series of coordinates. The overall system containing these photons will have as its mass, the combination of these coordinates.

What is the separation of the photons in the beam?

To form a composite structure the photons would have to be in close proximatey to each other. In the case of the electron structure, the overall system is less than 10E-18 m and would conceivably contain a large number of photons.

If you had two beams and pointed them at each other, then you would be guaranteed som interaction. Gamma rays would provide you with electrons and positrons.

 

It does react with other structures. It does in thermonuclear processes and in QED it

can be shown to interact with carriers of the Weak Force and quarks. This is all normal.

 

Yes, as I said above. Are you saying the nucleus of atom does not adhere to your

theory ? Then why do you say a photon would be the building block of the universe. If it

does then how ? You have completely skirted this question (avoidance I would add).

Whatever properties neutrinos have they are only relevant to the nucleus of an atom.

What's the primary difference between an electron structure and a neutrino one. Extreme Pressure.

Wouldn't extreme pressure be present in thermonuclear processes?

 

 

I have not got a response on what are mesons to you "photon theory". Also, how do

antiparticles fit in. You have no Gravitons as you said earlier, so how would gravity work.

Gravitation is not the EM field as one is a Central field and the other is not. :o

Maddog

 

In the Photon Theory gravitons do not exist, at least not in the classical sense. Gravitons are generally described as massless particles that travel at the speed of light and are the force carrier for gravity.

 

In the Photon Theory gravitons do have mass and they don't travel anywhere.

They are a transient particle created in the instance when two photons interact and destroyed just as quickly when the photons separate.

The velocity attributed to gravitational force is entirely dependant on the velocity of the photons creating the transient particles, the speed of light.

 

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules concerning the spin of bosons dictates that their values be added. This being the case then two photons each with a spin of 1 when added together would create a particle with a spin of 2, as proposed by String Theory.

 

 

Webfeet

[lindagarrette]

Can either of you or anyone explain what is a virtual photon. I understand that photons only exist after they have been emitted from an electron as it changes energy levels (orbits) and until it is absorbed by another electron going through the same process. So when is it virtual?