Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by John J. Bannan, Aug 11, 2008.
Is Vern right? See http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No. If Vern were right he would have linked to an article in a peer reviewed journal.
O.K. AN says that the universe will eventually end up as "Neutrinos, photons, electrons and possibly the lightest supersymmetric particle, if R symmetry exists." Does this tell us anything about how the universe began?
No follow up questions?
John I'm disappointed.
I'll give you a bit more of an honest answer. (Or several!)
Photons only interract with particles which are electrically charged, so they can't explain neutrinos, or the color force, or nuclear decays.
Photons are massless, so they can't explain mass.
Finally, if everything WERE made of photons, then everything would decay into photons. This is the second law---things always decay into predominantly the lightest decay products that they're allowed to decay into. Because we have electrons and quarks hanging around, it doesn't seem very likely that electrons and quarks could decay into photons---otherwise they already would have.
If anyone can think of other reasons why the idea of "everything is made of photons" is wrong, I'd love to hear them.
Hmmm maybe we'll have a contest...
No, because the universe began as a highly energetic dense slew of particles, not a very thinly spread low density haze of low energy particles.
Grasp the difference?
Physicists are so smitten by Quantumania that they can no longer even think of an alternative. It was Shrodinger who said "I hate Quantum Mechanics; I wish I had never had anything to do with it."
I myself suspect that QM was foisted upon us by little green space-men who want to keep us from ever realizing the true nature of the universe.
Because they are stable, they don't spontaneously decay. Smack them hard enough and they will show you their photons.
Well if m=hv/cc then mass is electromagnetic change. So photons are just another state of mass.
Ben? Waiting.... and have to admit Verns arguements are winning.
BenTheMan you hit upon the only problem I have ever found with the idea that photons comprise all mass. It is very difficult to get a neutrino out of that. About the only way would be to consider it a spin polarized photon doing some kind of dance. That's the one big problem with the notion. There's no problem with nuclear decays, the color force is part of QED which is an opposing theory; if photons comprise all mass, QED goes out the window. Of course all the observations remain. They are just explained differently.
If you throw a bit of mass into a pond, it makes waves on the surface. The waves are massless, the mass remains a bit of mass...
If you displace an electron or a proton, it makes massless waves in a surface too.
True, but that's not what happens when the universe has spread out, cooled and all particles which can decay have decays.
A proton, if GUTs are right, will spontaneously decay without being hit by anything. That's what 'unstable' means. Without interactions they spontaneously turn into something else. Photons, particular quark combinations, electrons and neutrinos don't spontaneously decay.
But it isn't.
There's no such working theory.
They are 'smitten' because it works.
Except that QM is experimentally verified. Are you on drugs or are you just psychotic?
It proves very well that the rules of statistical probability work. But it is the reason that no great advancements have been made in physics during its dominance.
Oh alphanumeric is a string theorist. He would hate the idea that anything other than the hypothetical string is primal.
''True, but that's not what happens when the universe has spread out, cooled and all particles which can decay have decays.''
Well, that may not be entirely true. Since we have never observed the decay of matter into photons spontaneously, may suggest the process cannot decay spontaneously. Simple.
Hence, we have observed matter being reduced to photon energy. If matter is not but trapped light, then explain how matter can indeed reduce back into this photon energy?
I think if you look back over your whole post you will see that it does not make sense. Whenever QM does not agree with reality, there's something wrong with reality. And if anybody tries to even think of anything converse with QM theory they are automatically crackpots.
That is what's wrong with Quantum Mechanics. It is the same thing that is wrong with any dictatorship; no opposing views are allowed.
All you have to do to make string theory work is to show how a photon is made of a string. From there on you have the facts that all add up to a probability very close to certain.
I tend not to theorize about string theory. I don't really understand it, nor do i like the idea of having several extra dimensions. I find it, overdone as a theory.
I always thought of it as a kind of mathematical masterbation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I just read the link now. Ben says he is not right. I argue everything he says is observationally, and experiementally sound. I don't see why Ben would think it wasn't.
Separate names with a comma.