Matter made of space not energy?

[maddog]

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?

Sure. In QED a Feyman diagram can be constructed such that two particles proceed in

time interact with the same particle. I am not saying simultaneous here. Just the time

reference is to similar to measure. This in between particle is virtual. Not seen by any

observer. It can be a photon. Depending on the diagram it can be any particle. The

particle behaves spacelike and not timelike.

 

Maddog

[maddog]

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.

You can collaminate the beam as tight you like. 10E-18 or smaller. Photons are not

prohibited existing in the same phase space as electrons by Dirac. Their mass is still 0.

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.

This is a creation event the photons would be replaced with the electron & positron.

Wouldn't extreme pressure be present in thermonuclear processes?

Pressure in your way of thinking is Thermodynamics which doesn't fully work in

thermonuclear processes. These are driven by QM.

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.

I am going to leave this be for the moment. How would Mesons, Quarks, Gluons, and

antiparticles behave in this Photon Theory of yours ? :(

 

Maddog

[WebFeet]

You can collaminate the beam as tight you like.

But isn't it correct that this collimation can only be maintained over a finite distance.

Pressure in your way of thinking is Thermodynamics which doesn't fully work in thermonuclear processes. These are driven by QM.

The thermonuclear process involves the nucleus of the atom, a structure created under extreme pressure.

 

It's similar to the allotropes of carbon. The electron could be compared to graphite, whereas the neutrino could be compared to diamond. Both are made of exactly the same raw materials, yet have a vastly different set of properties. One is soft, the other is the hardest material we know. The difference being the structure created by the carbon atoms.

I am going to leave this be for the moment.

I look forward to your response.

 

How would Mesons, Quarks, Gluons, and antiparticles behave in this Photon Theory of yours ?

The structure of an antiparticle would be, for want of a better word, opposite to that of its particle. The way in which the components are bound could essentially be inside-out.

 

As far as Quarks and Gluons, why do they have to exist at all ?

 

What if the sun didn't go round the earth? What if the earth wasn't flat and what if the Standard Model was wrong? After all, it's only a model based on a theory.

 

The Standard Model is based largely upon the shrapnel produced from smashing atoms. There is no conclusive proof that those particles exist inside of an intact atom.

 

I smashed the glass on my watch a couple of weeks ago. The result was lots of small pieces. I'm sure if I took a watch glass which was a precise duplicate and hit it with exactly the force, in exactly the same place, the chances are that I would end up with exactly the same collection of pieces. From that I could calculate, with a lot of effort, that if I hit another watch glass with a different force, that I would get different results.

I should have hung on to the pieces, I could have given them names.

 

Incidentally, your Meson. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the D Meson decays into 2 photons.

[maddog]

But isn't it correct that this collimation can only be maintained over a finite distance.

Yes, a finite distance. From here to the moon is a finite distance. A tight beam can be made from here

to there. No mass for the beam for that distance.

The thermonuclear process involves the nucleus of the atom, a structure created under extreme pressure.

There is no pressure in the nucleus. Since from Thermodynamics, Pressure is defined as a measure of the

mean free path for a gas or generically as the resistance to Van der Waal's forces between atoms. This

makes no sense for a nucleus. Were pressure to exist, the nucleus would fly apart. What holds it

together is the Strong Force mitigated by the Weak Force (Weak part of the Electroweak Force).

It's similar to the allotropes of carbon.

About as similar as a door is to a window. They are both openings. :cup:

As far as Quarks and Gluons, why do they have to exist at all ?

How do you propose to have protons and neutrons bind together where there so similar upto the charge

differential ? If no Quarks, how come Mesons aren't quite like proton or neutron ? What are all the other

particles and why do their resonnances exist near Regge Poles ? (like their mass) Why is their some

appearance of a relationship ?

What if the sun didn't go round the earth? What if the earth wasn't flat and what if the Standard Model was wrong? After all, it's only a model based on a theory.

Meaningless... :(

The Standard Model is based largely upon the shrapnel produced from smashing atoms. There is no conclusive proof that those particles exist inside of an intact atom.

I doubt you "Photon Theory" could withstand such scrutiny. There are a lot of holes within the Standard

Model. The resonnances of energy where all the particles exist is very self consistent to such high order.

Incidentally, your Meson. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the D Meson decays into 2 photons.

It is not My Meson as their a whole bunch of them. They are created from those Quarks you so

disapprove; a quark and antiquark pair. I will have to look the D Meson up (depends which quarks it is

made up of).

 

I suppose maybe what you are driving at is the only force in the universe is EM as nothing else exists.

Is that right ??? :xx: :cup: ;) :hihi:

 

Maddog

[WebFeet]

There is no pressure in the nucleus.

Let me lay it out clearly, and then you can tell me which bits I've got wrong.

 

1. All non zero mass particles possess a structure.

2. Some particles are only created in those conditions similar to the core of a star.

3. Those particles created in 2, have a different structure to those not created in the core of a star.

 

Meaningless...

I suppose at least you didn't say Heretic.

Why is it meaningless to propose that the Standard Model may be wrong?

 

There are a lot of holes within the Standard Model.

See above.

 

I suppose maybe what you are driving at is the only force in the universe is EM as nothing else exists. Is that right ???

No, that's not what I've said at all.

I've said that there is a single component from which everything is constructed. The manner of the construction and the environment in which the construction takes place will determine its properties and consequently how it will interact.

 

By way of example I gave you the case of carbon, where a common component can be constructed into vastly different materials.

You dismissed this.

Do you not accept that a single component can be used to create materials with vastly different properties?

 

As for the graviton, I'm still looking forward to your response.

 

 

Webfeet.

[maddog]

Let me lay it out clearly, and then you can tell me which bits I've got wrong.

1. All non zero mass particles possess a structure.

2. Some particles are only created in those conditions similar to the core of a star.

3. Those particles created in 2, have a different structure to those not created in the core of a star.

1. Depends. SM assumes Elementary Particles to have Point-mass (volume of 0). String Theory

(all types) assumes all particles to be made of strings.

2. So.

3. Electron/Positron can be created elsewhere than the core of a star. Point ?

I suppose at least you didn't say Heretic.

Why is it meaningless to propose that the Standard Model may be wrong?

Was that your point. I missed it. Something about the sun not going round the earth or earth not being

flat, etc.

No, that's not what I've said at all.

I've said that there is a single component from which everything is constructed. The manner of the construction and the environment in which the construction takes place will determine its properties and consequently how it will interact.

Then how do Photons make a nucleus without a Strong Force (no Quarks or Gluons) ?

By way of example I gave you the case of carbon, where a common component can be constructed into vastly different materials. You dismissed this.

Do you not accept that a single component can be used to create materials with vastly different properties?

Depends on material. Using QCD (which you deny) I can make very different particles by subtle changes

in only one quark, etc.

As for the graviton, I'm still looking forward to your response.

You already denied the existence. I am still attempting to understand this theory. It doesn't seem very

complete, let alone consistent. :hihi: :cup:

 

Maddog

[WebFeet]

1. Depends. SM assumes Elementary Particles to have Point-mass (volume of 0). String Theory

(all types) assumes all particles to be made of strings.

2. So.

3. Electron/Positron can be created elsewhere than the core of a star. Point ?

Maddog, read the text properly.

SOME particles are ONLY created in those conditions similar to the core of a star.

Since when do Electrons and Positrons fall into this category?

 

Was that your point. I missed it. Something about the sun not going round the earth or earth not being flat, etc.

Some theories, accepted by the vast majority of scholars, are subsequently found to be wrong.

 

Then how do Photons make a nucleus without a Strong Force (no Quarks or Gluons) ?

I've never said that there wasn't a Strong Force holding the nucleus together.

You are assuming that because the standard model has particles that act as glue to hold everything together that these are also needed to hold the photons together.

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.

Let's go back to the example of graphite and diamond. Diamond has an extremely strong structure, far stronger than graphite. Does it need stronger glue to hold it all together - No. Same glue, different configuration.

 

Depends on material. Using QCD (which you deny) I can make very different particles by subtle changes in only one quark, etc.

I didn't mention any changes in the component, subtle or otherwise.

 

You already denied the existence. I am still attempting to understand this theory. It doesn't seem very

complete, let alone consistent.

I denied the existance of the graviton in its classical desciption. I didn't deny that there was something producing a gravitational force. Maybe I should give it a different name.

Consistancy, let me see.

1. There is a single component in the Universe - the photon.

2. These components interact to form all the matter in the Universe.

3. The environment when the components become composite systems will determine the properties of the system.

 

It seems fairly consistant to me.

[paultrr]

Photons in general have the wrong spin for a gravity carrier and the wrong field configuration also. As for the Standard model, its valid as far as we can at present test it. But, it does have known problems. One example is renormalization. In general a more accurate theory should renormalize itself. Another is the fact that under the standard model predictions we should have already discovered the Higg's particle in our best accelerators and have not at present. These are all known problems with the SM. Its the most accurate model we have to date. But that's also why the search for a Unified Theory continues.

 

There are four known forces in nature: Gravity, EM, the Weak Force, and the Strong force. Three of these forces has a carrier particle, all bosons, simular to the Photon, but some possess mass/charge making for a difference in range. Its suspected by theory that gravity has a carrier, also a boson. Its spin should be 2 and like EM it should have a strength that follows the 1/r^2 rule. However, an EM field and a gravity field are different. One is bipolar and one is quadrapole. You cannot produce a gravity field from photons alone even though there is a little discussed electro-gravitic aspect to any gravity field. In general, if enough EM energy exists in a given region there would be a gravity field there simply because any energy curves spacetime. But the EM field is not the carrier of the gravity field. That requires its own seperate carrier. Most of that has been known since the time of Einstein himself. The carrier of the forces was something that arose out of quantum theory after Einstein's time.

[maddog]

Maddog, read the text properly.

I did.

Since when do Electrons and Positrons fall into this category?

They do.

Some theories, accepted by the vast majority of scholars, are subsequently found to be wrong.

So because some theories in past have proven to be wrong gives you credibility to

wily-nily throw out the Standard Model ?

I've never said that there wasn't a Strong Force holding the nucleus together.

You are assuming that because the standard model has particles that act as glue to hold everything together that these are also needed to hold the photons together.

So you're saying the nucleus made up of protons and neutrons are really photons held by a "strong force"

of unknow origin ?

Let's go back to the example of graphite and diamond. Diamond has an extremely strong structure, far stronger than graphite. Does it need stronger glue to hold it all together - No. Same glue, different configuration.

This metaphore of atoms interacting does not work for the structure inside an atom. This interaction is

driven by EM that within the atom is driven by the strong force which you accept. Different.

I denied the existance of the graviton in its classical desciption. I didn't deny that there was something producing a gravitational force. Maybe I should give it a different name.

Consistancy, let me see.

The notion of a Graviton is NOT Classical at all. Some form of gravity is an obvious fact, how is theory.

To emulate gravity with EM is beyond me other than they are both inverse square laws.

1. There is a single component in the Universe - the photon.

2. These components interact to form all the matter in the Universe.

3. The environment when the components become composite systems will determine the properties of the system.

It seems fairly consistant to me.

What seems consistent to you is odd. You throw out what you don't understand, deny what evidence

there is and care little for what symmetries that are symptomatic in the universe.

A Photon is a Boson (integral spin) particle whereas matter (with mass) are Fermions (half spin). This is

a fundamental difference.

To have only one fundamental elementary particle be the photon means there is only one force EM. It

means that either photons can change their spin arbitrarily or your throwing out half spin as well. In

you universe there is not matter in essence, only force. This makes no sense. Claim what you wish, you

haven't given example of how this interaction process could work and how it is better than SM. You have

also not considered what phenominae you could use to corroborate you theory over SM. Kind of a weak

arguement, if you ask me.

 

I could do as you have and predict that the universe is made of "pink elephants". I don't have to prove

it. :( :xx:

 

Maddog

[paultrr]

The usual, and I take this quote from other physics sites, sign of a crackpot theory is one cannot test the theory or disprove it. Problem is the SM does work too a point. One can use the SM to predict the mass of every major particle once one accepts renormlization. That tells most of us out here that there are very correct aspects to the SM. As such, any further theory development is more than likely to include the SM with certain modifications. Given that there really is no reason to suggest we scrap the SM in the first place. Find a more precise theory is what most of the valid current research is all about. Problem there is we have some different theories in the running:

 

String Theory-based upon hidden or compacted multiple dimensions. The only solid aspect of this that backed up something derived from the SM was Hawking's prediction on Blackholes radiating. Might add, while supersymmetry makes sence there actually is no discovered thus far evidence for it.

 

Loop Quantum Gravity-Smolin's brain child. So far its made no solid prediction that can even approach the SM's level. But, it does have interesting aspects that I myself like. For one, its possible that Smolin's loops are another way of looking at those compacted extra dimensions. Smolin himself mentions this in his own book. I also like the fact that its simular to ideas Tony Smith once proposed which he based upon the SM in the first place.

 

Super Gravity-This actually predates String Theory. Problem is no one has ever found a solution that seems to work except the very same one they derived string theory from. Also, they all tend to point to something akin to string theory where one particle can change into another as far as carriers go.

 

Certain offshoots to normal quantum theory- In general almost everyone has their own quantum interpretation. These generally fit certain mainline views like Bell,Bohm,etc in one way or another. But given we do have some unexplained aspects one is trying to account for its safe to say that there is some modification to quantum theory out there we could use. However, I think the first three mentioned approaches can be considered the mainline approach at the present.

 

At the present, and I can say this safely, the SM is here to stay in one form or another. Photons are not the answer, at least those that produce an EM field. Photon like carries as already established by the SM is the only proven out way to go.

[maddog]

paultr,

 

I liked Smolin's Loop Quantum Gravity as well. I have after reading his book "Three Roads to Quantum

Gravity", been thinking possibly in some context that M-Theory (latest rendition) could be another way

to describe Loop Quantum Gravity from a different angle.

 

You didn't add Roger Penrose's Twistor Theory (I agree it isn't thought popular). I like the idea of using

Complex coordinates.

 

As much as I have distate for the ad hoc way the Standard Model is patched together. It is the best

picture we have that matches the evidence to date. I have studied Kaluza-Klein Model of unifying EM

with Gravity. I have not yet burrowed into the details of the Electroweak theory except what Steven

Weinberg wrote about once.

 

I can not see how a single particle (especially a Boson) can be made to become all the particles of

nature. I would need this spelled out. :cup:

 

Maddog

[paultrr]

You're right about Twistor Theory. Its simular to some of Tony's ideas which I have tended to adapt myself. Real early on in some of my own research I had come to simular conclusions to those of twistor theory and ended up with something close to M-theory when it all worked out.

[paultrr]

In string theory they rather morph in a sence via changes in vibration. The fundamental vibrational state is the graviton. One thing often overlooked in a lot of the simplified explinations of String theory is M-theory incoporates all the other versions of String Theory. While the Strings themselves under M-Theory have an added dimension. Its the different vibrational states via higher dimensions that make for the differences between particles. A boson in one set of dimensions can be altered into a fermion in another set of dimensions.

[WebFeet]

The usual, and I take this quote from other physics sites, sign of a crackpot theory is one cannot test the theory or disprove it.

 

 

That's the real $64,000 question, isn't it.

 

To come up with a test that no other theory has already provided, and predict the results, which can be verified.

 

Here goes.

 

As I've stated before, the force of gravity is not down to an individual particle, but due to the interaction of photons.

If this is the case, then as light is bent due to gravitational forces, then so should the force of gravity be bent also, seeing as the two are directly related.

 

The predicted result will be small variations in the gravitational field in direct proportion to the mass of the object and the field in which it is located. The effect of these variations in our solar system would be very small, but measurable.

 

 

 

There is an argument that would state that if photons are energy and are bent in a gravitational field, then anything consisting on energy would also be bent, but I've not seen anybody mention gravity, so as far as I'm aware this is original.

[paultrr]

Gravity exists even at microscopic scales. The problem is the masses involved are so small that we simply have no way to actual measure the curvature of say a light beam in the vecinity of say an electron. For one, on earth for example the earth's gravity basically swamps everything. The bending of light near the sun has been accurately predicted and checked many times over. I do not believe, after a point anyone has ever bothered to check say the bending of light around any other body in this system with the exception of some interrelated work done dealing with Jupter that was utilized a bit back to try and varify the speed of gravity itself. Basically, to get a curve in space we can actually measure one needs a mass large enough to produce a measurable curvature in the first place which rather limits us to macroscale bodies. But, in theory everything that actually has mass/energy warps spacetime.

[maddog]

You're right about Twistor Theory. Its simular to some of Tony's ideas which I have tended to adapt myself. Real early on in some of my own research I had come to simular conclusions to those of twistor theory and ended up with something close to M-theory when it all worked out.

paultrr,

 

Would you recommend some books covering Twistor theory. I see Penrose has written a new book and

was wondering if he bring up his theory at all. I would like to dig into Twistor theory again.

 

Maddog

[lindagarrette]

Gravity exists even at microscopic scales. The problem is the masses involved are so small that we simply have no way to actual measure the curvature of say a light beam in the vecinity of say an electron..

Are you sure? A photon is either absorbed or emitted from an electron. That happens with no time lapse so there can be no "curvature"