Massless Energy & Nothing.

[OmegaX7]

:) Well, Has this thread about run it's course? I've been reading along quite intrested in everything. My education was limited, which must show. My conceptual skills are very good though. I've read everything I can from the local libray for several years now but you all are still far ahead of me. Please bear with me. When I began this my thoughts took me to think in reverse, timewise I mean. If one extrapolates back to the expotential expansion of the early universe we hit a roadblock where all matter/mass is converted back into pure energy. Would not the clock of time cease when the very last particle ceased to exist?? :xx:

L8R

"After all is said and done, Gravitry Rules."

[OmegaX7]

:xx: I have one more quirie for now. Can anyone provide as simple of an explaination as possible, or perhaps some analogy, of why gravity cannot be unified? Mabey one or two conflicting experiments or theorys?? Gravity obviously can't be caused by "an object" but must be generated by every particle of the object, right? Wouldn't the gravitational force simply become part of electromagneticly existant state without the presence of matter/mass?, as viewed in time reversal back thru and before expotential expansion epoc?? I understand this is all "what if" in context. Do any of you wonder what was before our dimension?? Is it fair to extrapolate this far back?

L8R

[Qfwfq]

When m = 0

 

E = c

Uhmmm, make it E = p.

 

Conservation of energy...

Conservation of mass...

Conservation of energy, yes. Energy can change between mass and other forms. Of course, it can even be, simultaneously, one or the other for different points of view. Remember, at least some of a body's rest energy is kinetic & potential energy of the same body's several parts.

[Damo2600]

Hi Qwfwq and everyone else,

 

Thanks for taking time out to discuss this with me.

 

Josephine

[Damo2600]

Hi

 

Does anyone know how fast an electron spins? I have been told an electron spins at c. Is this true?

 

Josie

[lindagarrette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damo2600

When m = 0 E = c

Uhmmm, make it E = p.

 

I'm probably confused since this is not my area but I think the nonrelativistic energy is expressed as E = mc^2 + pc^2 with p varying with velocity.At m at rest = zero,, E = 0, But m in motion would be greater than zero so how does that figure?

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damo2600

When m = 0 E = c

I'm probably confused since this is not my area but I think the nonrelativistic energy is expressed as E = mc^2 + pc^2 with p varying with velocity.At m at rest = zero,, E = 0, But m in motion would be greater than zero so how does that figure?

CALLING UNCLE AL !!!

http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/PhysicsIsTheAnswerLOL.htm

love and peace,

and,

peace and love,

(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai

http://KirkGregoryCzuhai.WS

p.s.

John 8:46-47--> "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." :hihi:

[paultrr]

In 1925, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered that each electron has a quality that has been called "spin" and an associated magnetic moment. Since that time, successful theories have been put forward (Dirac and Kusch) which give rules for it. By definition, angular momentum is the rotational momentum of a spinning object where its mass times its rotational velocity about a center multiplied by a distance (radius) from that center yields that angular momentum value. Electrons are fermions, having half-integer spin. Particles of integer spin obey Bose-Einstein statistics, whereas those of half-integer spin behave according to Fermi-Dirac statistics. The property called electron spin must be considered to be a quantum concept without detailed classical equal. So we have a breakdown when it comes to using the normal mass times rotational velocity. Since the electron displays an intrinsic angular momentum, one might expect a magnetic moment which follows the form of that for an electron orbit. The z-component of magnetic moment associated with the electron spin would then be expected to be

 

u_z=1/2u_b

 

but the measured value turns out to be about twice that. The measured value is written

 

u_z=1/2 gu_b

 

where g is called the gyromagnetic ratio and the electron spin g-factor has the value g = 2.00232 and g=1 for orbital angular momentum. The precise value of g was predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics in the Dirac equation and was measured in the Lamb shift experiment. The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense, even though, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a spinning sphere. High energy scattering from electrons shows no "size" of the electron down to a resolution of about 10-3 fermis, and at that size a preposterously high spin rate of some 1032 radian/s would be required to match the observed angular momentum. Thus, trying to use conventional mechanics to yield a value for spin velocity will not work.

[Damo2600]

Hey Paultr,

 

Helpful as usual, I was told that the electron was not a singularity and attempts to find it as such had failed.

 

Let me see if I've got the information from various posters in this thread right?

 

So here we have an electron with, a currently unobservable 'size', displaying mass. A photon having no mass whilst two photons collectively posses mass. An electron and positron annihilate and become a pair of photons. The electron appearing to be rest energy despite the fact that it is anything but stationary. Quite the contrary the electron moves in orbitals at high speeds does it not.

 

Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows the electron's ability to move without appearing to have moved at all. As if the electron teleports from place to place. There is also an UP relating to the photon as it moves from a lower level energy to a higher level energy. The point before a photon exists and begins moving at c there is a jump. A photon can be considered a particle and wave. An electron can be considered a particle and a wave.

 

So pretty much an electron and photon are the same thing (Remember what I told you Webfeet> 'You are correct in a round about way'). When an electron is anihilated all the energy that existed within the electron now exists within the photon. Now whether the photon has mass is not 'entirely' relevant because when the photon is absorbed, within another particle, this particle increases in mass (would I be correct?). A black hole increases in mass when a photon infinitely red-shifts. So the photon travelling at c is said to have no mass. It IS relevant however because if the photon has mass it goes against Einstien's equation. We can weigh a photon and it has mass. However to keep Einstein's theory in neat little package let's just say it does not have mass.

 

Someone, whom shall remain nameless*, told me that at c Einstien's theories don't seem to work. That somehow relativity is broken at c. He also said that when he comes on mainstream forums to state this error he has found that the 'high priests of scientism' (his words not mine) scorn him agressively. He laughs terribly about it but I think it breaks his heart a bit that he's been studying this stuff for so long and he can't even openly state his theories. If he doesn't want to be ostracised that is.

 

*(This person accepts relativity as empirically tested and has chastised me repeatedly for suggesting that relativity is wrong - so don't get any ideas guys!)

 

I've been instructed not to make comments as I am not exactly learned on such stuff. Imagine I were to make a comment I'm assuming you guys know approximately what it would be.

 

"The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense, even though, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a spinning sphere."

 

This part is interesting. Kind of like a spinning planet or star or black hole. So a planet in a way is very much like a magnet. Of course except for the gravitrons. Have gravitrons even been found yet? I am aware that gravitational forces produce a electromagnetic wave which has been measured. Gravity is starting to more and more resemble an electromagnetic field. Guess I wasn't that far off.

 

Thanks Guys

Josephine

[lindagarrette]

 

So here we have an electron with, a currently unobservable 'size', displaying mass. A photon having no mass whilst two photons collectively posses mass. An electron and positron annihilate and become a pair of photons. The electron appearing to be rest energy despite the fact that it is anything but stationary. Quite the contrary the electron moves in orbitals at high speeds does it not.

 

Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows the electron's ability to move without appearing to have moved at all. As if the electron teleports from place to place. There is also an UP relating to the photon as it moves from a lower level energy to a higher level energy. The point before a photon exists and begins moving at c there is a jump. A photon can be considered a particle and wave. An electron can be considered a particle and a wave.

 

So pretty much an electron and photon are the same thing (Remember what I told you Webfeet> 'You are correct in a round about way'). When an electron is anihilated all the energy that existed within the electron now exists within the photon. Now whether the photon has mass is not 'entirely' relevant because when the photon is absorbed, within another particle, this particle increases in mass (would I be correct?). A black hole increases in mass when a photon infinitely red-shifts. So the photon travelling at c is said to have no mass. It IS relevant however because if the photon has mass it goes against Einstien's equation. We can weigh a photon and it has mass. However to keep Einstein's theory in neat little package let's just say it does not have mass.

 

Very good explanation of why QM is so confusing. Feynmann even admitted he didn't understand it and he was the most knowledgeable at the time. It all seems counterintuitive and impossible to conceptualize in any material form.

[WebFeet]

Gravity is starting to more and more resemble an electromagnetic field. Guess I wasn't that far off.

If you consider gravity and electromagnetic force to be the same thing, then you should also consider the Strong force. Come up with the common factor and you have the Unified Theory.

 

Consider the following assumption.

 

Strong force: Minimum pressure required to create suitable particles : approx 10x10^10 atm's - Sun's core.

Electromagnetic force: Minimum pressure required to create suitable charged particles : somewhat less than the pressure at the Sun's core, a guess would be somewhere in the region of 1/137. Jupiter's core may provide enough pressure.

Gravitational force: Using energy rather than mass - Minimum pressure required - vacuum.

 

I know the correlation is somewhat rough, but the extreme range does create a ball park figure which is intriguingly similar to those of the relationships between the strength of the forces.

 

I'm sure somebody will point out the error of my ways.

[paultrr]

If you consider gravity and electromagnetic force to be the same thing, then you should also consider the Strong force. Come up with the common factor and you have the Unified Theory.

 

Consider the following assumption.

 

Strong force: Minimum pressure required to create suitable particles : approx 10x10^10 atm's - Sun's core.

Electromagnetic force: Minimum pressure required to create suitable charged particles : somewhat less than the pressure at the Sun's core, a guess would be somewhere in the region of 1/137. Jupiter's core may provide enough pressure.

Gravitational force: Using energy rather than mass - Minimum pressure required - vacuum.

 

I know the correlation is somewhat rough, but the extreme range does create a ball park figure which is intriguingly similar to those of the relationships between the strength of the forces.

 

I'm sure somebody will point out the error of my ways.

 

The idea that photons, electrons, etc could all be energy taking different forms is not new. Even in string theory one has the spin two graviton as the most fundamental vibration state of a string, almost as if the common string can morph into many different manifestations.

 

I might also add that one can play a bit with the strength of the forces and with a small error range find all the masses right on down to those of the neutrino. As to the electron being a singularity that one is a bit odd sounding. Let's just say its one particle that whiloe under modern string theory would be an extended object that seems to defy pinpointing any real per say center of mass. I rather think I know where the general statement made before this was going. But I might add there are some odd ball theories out there already trying to explain everything in simular termsand they have not met with any success to date.

[paultrr]

If you consider gravity and electromagnetic force to be the same thing, then you should also consider the Strong force. Come up with the common factor and you have the Unified Theory.

 

Consider the following assumption.

 

Strong force: Minimum pressure required to create suitable particles : approx 10x10^10 atm's - Sun's core.

Electromagnetic force: Minimum pressure required to create suitable charged particles : somewhat less than the pressure at the Sun's core, a guess would be somewhere in the region of 1/137. Jupiter's core may provide enough pressure.

Gravitational force: Using energy rather than mass - Minimum pressure required - vacuum.

 

I know the correlation is somewhat rough, but the extreme range does create a ball park figure which is intriguingly similar to those of the relationships between the strength of the forces.

 

I'm sure somebody will point out the error of my ways.

 

The idea that photons, electrons, etc could all be energy taking different forms is not new. Even in string theory one has the spin two graviton as the most fundamental vibration state of a string, almost as if the common string can morph into many different manifestations.

 

I might also add that one can play a bit with the strength of the forces and with a small error range find all the masses right on down to those of the neutrino. As to the electron being a singularity that one is a bit odd sounding. Let's just say its one particle that whiloe under modern string theory would be an extended object that seems to defy pinpointing any real per say center of mass. I rather think I know where the general statement made before this was going. But I might add there are some odd ball theories out there already trying to explain everything in simular terms and they have not met with any success to date.

[Little Bang]

If you can imagine the atoms in the flame of a match, and one of those atoms has a race of beings living on it and time running billions of times faster than our time. That race of beings would never be able to understand the universe outside the flame. How do we know that we are not in a simular situation?

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

The idea that photons, electrons, etc could all be energy taking different forms is not new. Even in string theory one has the spin two graviton as the most fundamental vibration state of a string, almost as if the common string can morph into many different manifestations.

 

I might also add that one can play a bit with the strength of the forces and with a small error range find all the masses right on down to those of the neutrino. As to the electron being a singularity that one is a bit odd sounding. Let's just say its one particle that whiloe under modern string theory would be an extended object that seems to defy pinpointing any real per say center of mass. I rather think I know where the general statement made before this was going. But I might add there are some odd ball theories out there already trying to explain everything in simular termsand they have not met with any success to date.

 

BY the OLD Standard Model:

 

 

This material cut and pasted from here.

- Are electrons

pointlike/structureless? -------------------------------------- Both

electrons and neutrinos are considered to be pointlike as bare particles,

because of the way they appear in the standard model. But physical,

relativistic particles are not pointlike. An intuitive argument for this is

the fact that their localization to a region siognificantly smaller than the

de Broglie wavelength would need energies larger than that needed to create

particle-antiparticle pairs, which changes the nature of the system.

 

On a more formal, quantitative level, the physical, dressed particles have

nontrivial form factors, due to the renormalization necessary to give finite

results in QFT (Quantum Field Theory).

 

Nontrivial form factors give rise leading to a positive

charge radius. In his book S. Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields, Vol.

I, Cambridge University Press, 1995, Weinberg defines and explicitly

computes in (11.3.33) the 'charge radius' of a physical electron. But his

formula is not fully satisfying since it is not fully renormalized (infrared

divergence: the expression contains a ficticious photon mass, and diverges

if this goes to zero).

 

(28) in hep-ph/0002158 = Physics Reports 342, 63-26

(2001) handles this using a binding energy dependent cutoff, which makes the

electron charge radius depend on its surrounding. The paper L.L. Foldy,

Neutron-electron interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys. 30, 471-481 (1958). discusses

the extendedness of the electron in a phenomenological way. On the numerical

side, I only found values for the charge radius of the neutrinos, computed

from the standard model to 1 loop order. The values are about 4-6 10^-14 cm

for the three neutrino species. See (7.12) in Phys. Rev. D 62, 113012 (2000)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...PhDT.......130L gives in

an abstract of a 1982 thesis of Anzhi Lai an electron charge radius of ~

10^{-16} cm (But I haven't seen the thesis.) The "form" of an elementary

particle is described by its form factor, which is a well-defined physical

function (though at present computable only in perturbation theory)

describing how the (spin 0, 1/2, or 1) particle's response to an external

classical electromagnetic field deviates from the Klein-Gordon, Dirac, or

Maxwell equations, respectively.

 

In Foldy's paper, the form factors are encoded in the infinite sum in (16). The sum is usually considered in the momentum domain; then one simply gets two k-dependent form factors, where k represents the 4-momentum transferred in the interaction. These form factors can be calculated in a good approximation perturbatively from QFT, see for

example Peskin and Schroeder's book. An extensive discussion of form factors

of Dirac particles and their relation to the radial density function is in

D. R. Yennie, M. M. Levy and D. G. Ravenhall, Electromagnetic Structure of

Nucleons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 144-157 (1957). and R. G. Sachs High-Energy

Behavior of Nucleon Electromagnetic Form Factors Phys. Rev. 126, 2256-2260

(1962) For proton and neutron form factors, see hep-ph/0204239 and

hep-ph/0303054

 

---------------------------------------- What are 'bare' and

'dressed' particles? ---------------------------------------- A bare

electron is the formal entity discussed in textbooks when they do

perturbative quantum electrodynamics. The intuitive picture generally given

is that a bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons and

virtual electron-positron pairs to make up a physical, 'dressed' electron.

Only the latter is real and observable. The former is a formal caricature of

the latter, with paradoxical properties (infinite mass, etc.). On a more

substantial level, the observable electrons are produced from the bare

electrons by a process called renormalization, which modifies the

propagators by self-energy terms and the currents by form factors. As the

name says, the latter define the 'form' of a particle. (In the above

picture, it would correspond to the shape of the virtual cloud, though it is

better to avoid giving the virtual particles too much of meaning.) The

dressed object is the renormalized, physical object, described

perturbatively as the bare object 'clothed' by the cloud of virtual

particles. The dressed interaction is the 'screened' physical interaction

between these dress objects. To draw an analogy in nonrelativistic QM think

of nuclei as bare atoms, electrons as virtual particles, atoms as dressed

nuclei and the residual interaction between atoms, computed in the

Born-Oppenheimer approximation, as the dressed interaction.

 

Thus, for Argon atoms, the dressed interaction is something close to a Lennard-Jones

potential, while the bare interaction is Coulomb repulsion. This is the

situation physicists had in mind when they invented the notions of bare and

dressed particles. Of course, it is only an analogy, and should not be taken

very seriously. It just explains the intuition about the terminology used.

The electrons in QM are real, physical electrons that can be isolated. The

reason is that they are good eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. On the other

hand, virtual particles don't have this nice attribute since the

relativistic Hamiltonian H from field theory contains creation and

annihilation operators which mess things up. The bare particles correspond

to 1-particle states in the Hilbert space (though that is not quite true

since there is no good Hilbert space picture in conventional interacting

QFT). Multiplying them with H introduces terms with other particle numbers,

hence a bare particle can never be an eigenstate of H, and thus never be

observable in the way a nonrelativistic particle is.

 

The eigenstates of the relativistic Hamiltonian are, instead, complicated multibody states

consisting of a superposition of states with any number of particles and

antiparticles, just subject to the restriction that the total quantum

numbers come out right. These are the dressed particles.

 

Now that is sooo nice! :friday:

 

Now, I would sure like to have described how easy the mathematics is for describing

the electron and neutrinos with "String Theories" !!! Any body want to describe how this

so-called "form factor" takes "form" to do this?

[Damo2600]

Very good explanation of why QM is so confusing. Feynmann even admitted he didn't understand it and he was the most knowledgeable at the time. It all seems counterintuitive and impossible to conceptualize in any material form.

 

Thanks.

 

So the photon could have mass?

[C1ay]

BY the OLD Standard Model:

----Cut & pasted plagiarized content

Couldn't you have at least credited the FAQ you cut and pasted this from?