Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Behold, the Earth orbits the sun because absolutely nothing forces the Earth to orbit the sun; at least when I take a picture of the sun and earth there is all black in between.

It's a very nice example of a positron and electron being created.

a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, Yes! Tell me how you make these....Positrons are they called?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Behold, the Earth orbits the sun because absolutely nothing forces the Earth to orbit the sun; at least when I take a picture of the sun and earth there is all black in between.

It's a very nice example of a positron and electron being created.

Electron = something

Positron = something

If, in reality; The electron and positron in question did not exist (to be clear, we do mean, did not exist at all, not did exist, out of the range of picture or something)

And then, The electron and positron in question are said, to after not existing, to exist;

If Electron = something

And if Positron = something

something, must have created the electron and positron.


If a photon existed, and it said the photon is the cause of electron and positron;

And the photon enters, and then that photon is said to no longer exist; but instead of the photon existing, now an electron and positron exists; then you have no idea what a photon is, or an electron or positron, and it stands eternally true, that something cannot come from nothing;

Now I would agree that things can change without matter being added... duh, the same mass piece of clay can be molded into a sphere or cube and I would say there is a difference between the two and no thing, no matter was added, only energy.

But you cannot have a quantity of clay, and shake it around in pure nothing, and result in another quantity of clay, without the first quantity of clay, losing some of its quantity to make the other.

a reply to: Bedlam

I took a picture of my lawn, the earths flat

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

I took a picture of my lawn, the earths flat

That's actually a nice summary of your process of thinking about new things.

try...

energy = something
charge gradient = something

they meet

electron is created

positron is created

energy is transformed into momentum and new previously nonexistent particles

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: dashen

You are incorrect, try again.

en.wikipedia.org...

According to your link we are both correct.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

I took a picture of my lawn, the earths flat

That's actually a nice summary of your process of thinking about new things.

try...

energy = something
charge gradient = something

they meet

electron is created

positron is created

energy is transformed into momentum and new previously nonexistent particles

In that above statement; Energy = something;

In that context, Energy = Photon, right

What is charge gradient in that context?

Photon collides with charge gradient?

Now we are getting somewhere.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Come on it was cute for a little while but
Now it's just trolling.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: ImaFungi

Come on it was cute for a little while but
Now it's just trolling.

Explain. Do not just say I am wrong. Give an exact example of what you think I said or am doing that is wrong, and I will prove you wrong, please.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Tje part about your lawn. It was funny, but cmon. The earth isnt flat. I mean not the whole planet. Like parts are flat.
U know what i mean

originally posted by: ImaFungi
In that above statement; Energy = something;

Eureka! Yes energy is something. The article dragonridr posted from 2014 suggested that an experiment would soon test pair production from two photons but it's already been done for a photon near a nucleus. As long as the photon energy in eV exceeds the mass of the electron/positron pair in eV/c^2 (per E=mc^2), and there is a second particle to allow momentum to be conserved, it can happen. As I said before this means that the photon originating the pair production must be over a million times more energetic than a visible light photon, and the experiment dragonridr cited was planning to use photons a billion times more energetic.

Another way to look at pair production is as the reverse of electron-positron annihilation which converts matter into energy. You can reverse that process though it's not as easy to do in reverse so far.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
As I said before this means that the photon originating the pair production must be over a million times more energetic than a visible light photon, and the experiment dragonridr cited was planning to use photons a billion times more energetic.

As I have asked before;

How can a single photon be a million times more energetic than a different single photon?

What does it mean?

They travel the same speed.

Bedlam said the photon does not wave or is not a wave.

So how can any single photon be different than any other single photon?

If a photon is precisely a wave, well first, you would suggest it is not an easy to understand wave, not like a 2d wiggly line, not like a snake.


I will simply start to stump you by asking; How is a photon created?

You will say; there exists 'these real things' electric and magnetic field, which are some how attached to one another, and some how also attached to charges;

You will say they exist at all points in space, and are very real, meaning very much not pure nothingness.

You will say the charge, and all that is not nothing, always moves amidst these ever present electric and magnetic fields, which are real objective objectives objects;

And when the electric charge is accelerated, the real electric and magnetic field which is somehow attached, is jostled, and this jostling, does not propagate in all directions like the jostling of air does; it only propagates in one pure direction or so might you say?

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: ImaFungi

Tje part about your lawn. It was funny, but cmon. The earth isnt flat. I mean not the whole planet. Like parts are flat.
U know what i mean

Its a principles analogy to ridicule his ridiculousness.

He looked at a picture and said; Something can come from nothing.

So I attempted to show all intelligences who might witness, the ridiculousness of his logic, by providing a ridiculous example of my own;

First; in the case of gravity, second in the case of the flatness of the earth.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
As I have asked before;

How can a single photon be a million times more energetic than a different single photon?

What does it mean?

They travel the same speed.

Bedlam said the photon does not wave or is not a wave.

He also said it was a wooden ball painted yellow, which I believe is the only description of a photon you haven't complained about that I can recall.

You will say; there exists 'these real things' electric and magnetic field, which are some how attached to one another, and some how also attached to charges;

You will say they exist at all points in space, and are very real, meaning very much not pure nothingness.

You will say the charge, and all that is not nothing, always moves amidst these ever present electric and magnetic fields, which are real objective objectives objects;

The photon has no charge that I know of.

And when the electric charge is accelerated, the real electric and magnetic field which is somehow attached, is jostled, and this jostling, does not propagate in all directions like the jostling of air does; it only propagates in one pure direction or so might you say?

Let's pick a topic, I thought we were discussing pair production from photons. The photon doesn't have an electric charge. You can read the details of the experiment dragonridr posted to find out how the experimentalists could make photons with energy a billion times that of visible light photons.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Let's pick a topic, I thought we were discussing pair production from photons. The photon doesn't have an electric charge. You can read the details of the experiment dragonridr posted to find out how the experimentalists could make photons with energy a billion times that of visible light photons.

It does not make much sense to talk about pair production form photons, when we do not have an agreement that we both comprehend what is meant by the term, photon.

So first, just give me the general notion behind the belief that;

A single photon (it seems I cannot stress enough, the desire to focus on a single photon) being a million times more energetic than a different single photon;

Explain the general concept behind how such thoughts make sense.

What is the physical difference between a single photon that is a million times energetic than another single photon?

These are the types of questions I have been asking for years now, and you have been running away from by attempting to ridicule me, please, attempt to answer the question honestly. Imagine a grand intelligence twice as great as the both of us was always watching our conversation, it certainly knows, as well as I, when you are being shiesty.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
As I said before this means that the photon originating the pair production must be over a million times more energetic than a visible light photon, and the experiment dragonridr cited was planning to use photons a billion times more energetic.

As I have asked before;

How can a single photon be a million times more energetic than a different single photon?

What does it mean?

It means that the quantum mechanical threshold for particle creation in electromagnetic fields is higher for high frequencies than for low frequencies.
Why? Just how QM works, no deeper explanation most likely unless you think that certain symmetry arguments are deeper, as opposed to dual.

Bedlam said the photon does not wave or is not a wave.

sort of, but it counts up something that does wave.

So how can any single photon be different than any other single photon?

it is going in a different direction, it is in a different place, it has a different frequency

The expansion of the EM fields into photons is a firmly mathematically established fact.
The 'photon' is the elementary building block of a combined expansion of wavefunction of the electromagnetic field.

If a photon is precisely a wave, well first, you would suggest it is not an easy to understand wave, not like a 2d wiggly line, not like a snake.


I will simply start to stump you by asking; How is a photon created?

By motion of charges.

You will say; there exists 'these real things' electric and magnetic field, which are some how attached to one another, and some how also attached to charges;

You will say they exist at all points in space, and are very real, meaning very much not pure nothingness.

You will say the charge, and all that is not nothing, always moves amidst these ever present electric and magnetic fields, which are real objective objectives objects;

And when the electric charge is accelerated, the real electric and magnetic field which is somehow attached, is jostled, and this jostling, does not propagate in all directions like the jostling of air does; it only propagates in one pure direction or so might you say?

in QM the probability density does propagate in many directions but upon observation/interaction the individual photon had taken only one.

Once again, you are trying to fit in your philosophy to naive linguistic terms which are not sufficient to really understand the physics.

The actual physics is the contents of quantum field theory, demonstrations of theoretical calculations and transformations, and some demonstrations how the theory is connected to results of concrete physical experiments. Linguistic descriptions can assist, but they are poor substitutes for the real thing. "truth" as it were, does not map easily to words and assuming it will is naive silliness. The further you get from classical physics, the less well words work.

originally posted by: mbkennel


It means that the quantum mechanical threshold for particle creation in electromagnetic fields is higher for high frequencies than for low frequencies.

You are attempting to evade the question.

Define a single photon. And then state how that definition of a single photon, can contain the concept of frequency?

Is a single photon a full crest and a full trough? Or half and half? And then what is the nature of the ends, are they frayed? Are they pointy? How thick are they?

Of course I am not thinking about it right when I say those things, because the photon is not a object like thing, like a rope, which can have troughs crests and edges.

But a photon is the result of things, electric field and magnetic field. As sound is the result of things, air molecule and air molecule. Photon is 'the in between'.

But then you have to describe the electric magnetic field, as if they were truly objective objects, real things.

Is the electric and magnetic field then made of particles and waves, you can not escape these questions.

How dense is the substance of electric and magnetic field, how is it connected to itself, and how strong is that binding energy?

You run in circles from these questions, ducking and diving, you are corned, and you try to dig.

When it is convenient for you, because you do not want to think, you say electric and magnetic field is not real, when its I go the other way and ignore it then because you say its not real, and try to focus on what photon might be totally, then you say no such thing as object like photon, only electric and magnetic field. Dishonesty of the intellect.

"I will simply start to stump you by asking; How is a photon created?"


By motion of charges.

Intelligence knows we have been attempting to speak about the most fundamental aspects of fundamentality, intelligence knows thats a cop out weak answer.

How is a ship built, by a ship builder. Great knowledge chief.

Whoops!

LOL. Guys, I just want to declare... I'm now addicted to this thread.
It is hilarious, you're all amazing.

But ok, can any of you recommend any good starting books about the fields, or particle physics, or both? If I can get it on my phone I'll buy it and read it.

a reply to: geezlouise

They can offer you some good books, or maybe even lectures on youtube;

Maybe here is at least some place to start:

en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

en.wikipedia.org...