John T. Nordberg's theory...

[danshawen]

It is an excellent post, and I do not discount it.

A photon probably isn't energy in its purest form either. It does have spin (polarization), and it carries inertia in a single direction if it is not polarized. But it does travel faster than anything else in a vacuum because it has zero mass.

Protons are made of two up and one down quarks, partons, aces, or whatever, gluons as bosoms of the strong nuclear force exchanging color charge between them, various mesons, possessing a positive charge that exactly counterbalances that of an electron. Because of this last characteristic, and if you believe as I do in the Standard Model, photons are the EM bosons that bind the nucleus to the electron shell. It isn't all photons then, right?

When a proton meets an antiproton, you decompose a proton into an electron, a neutron, and an electron anti neutrino. James R already covered what happens when an electron meets a positron. The atom of positronium quickly decays into a pair of gamma photons. Sorry guys, but that looks like the whole of atomic structure is made of energy to me.

Then we discovered that the Higgs boson, a chunk of the vacuum, also sometimes rapidly decomposed into gluons, or sometimes into a pair of electrons, or sometimes into electroweak bosons. Every component of atomic structure.

And we also just discovered evidence of a previously missed fifth force in atomic structure that doesn't even have its own term in the Lagrangian yet. Even the Higgs had a placeholder for that before July 2012.

If you tell me that you don't believe that at its most fundamental level, E=mc^2 doesn't mean exactly what it says, I say someone simply isn't paying very much attention. That relationship was derived of the inertia of a photon. I suppose 1905 was a very long time ago. That is a very long life for a theory whose time to be extended is now upon us.

 

[origin]

It is an excellent post, and I do not discount it.

Good!

When a proton meets an antiproton, you decompose a proton into an electron, a neutron, and an electron anti neutrino. James R already covered what happens when an electron meets a positron. The atom of positronium quickly decays into a pair of gamma photons. Sorry guys, but that looks like the whole of atomic structure is made of energy to me.

Uh, you just discounted James post.

 

[The God]

danshawen:

Regarding $$E=mc^2$$: You'll often read that this equation tells us that "energy and mass are equivalent" or even that "mass is a form of energy". Both of those statements aren't really correct. What the equation says is that the existence of mass has an energy associated with it, which we can "get out" by converting part or all of the mass to something else. The energy isn't photons. Photons are just another type of particle, and energy isn't a particle. Energy isn't a substance. Energy is an accounting system. At bottom, energy is just a number, useful in physics because it happens to be a conserved quantity in many situations.

If you have a proton, say, it is not in any sense "made of photons", or "made of energy". There is energy associated with its constituents and their interactions, but that doesn't make it a form of energy.

Take another example: if a positron and an electron collide, the result is usually two photons. Does that mean the electron and positron are made of photons, which somehow get released when the particles collide? No. What happens is that the interaction process in which the positron collides with the electron destroys those particles and creates two new ones (the photons). In the process energy - a number - remains the same.

Just the musings.
No, energy is not an accounting system.
This does not even qualify as sound philosophy, leave aside the science.

 

[Kittamaru]

Mod Hat:

Okay all... the personal attacks and spitting vitriol have got to stop. I would also state that disregarding evidence needs to cease as well. If you can't discuss this like mature adults, leveraging actual evidence, good ethical practices, and even the most basic of common courtesy and debate strategy, then perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.

Several posts that were nothing more than uncouth personal attacks contributing nothing of value to the thread have been struck already, and I've only gone back two pages. Lets keep it civil, shall we?

 

[danshawen]

Just the musings.
No, energy is not an accounting system.
This does not even qualify as sound philosophy, leave aside the science.

James R is correct inasmuch as if you are going to have a law of the conservation of energy, then you will be needing an accounting system for energy.

Pretty certain I mucked up the accounting of the proton decay. Sorry.

There is nothing wrong with accounting. One of the finest engineers I ever met began his career like that. I believe Princeton's famed Edward Witten had a similar background. Nothing is wrong with that, either.

PhysBang; I apologize.

 

[danshawen]

Good!


Uh, you just discounted James post.

Inertia, like energy, is a similar story. About 2% of atomic structure, it is reckoned, gets its inertia from the Higgs mechanism. Then we see that it is possible, even likely, that the Higgs force carrier most often decays into two gluons with an anti top quark intermediary. Gluons are the bosons associated with the strong nuclear force. Something about that kind of accounting bothers me. Cooking the books to get any answer you want in accounting is a bad thing, right?

There are still issues with proton spin. I can begin to see why that might be the case. I don't even understand why someone with a lot of expertise in the physics of the strong nuclear force would even be interested in obfuscating the roles of other kinds of bosons that are evidently more integrated into atomic structure than researchers in physics are.

Bad accounting usually means you should hire a new accountant, folks. Otherwise, who knows where the money will go?

 

[danshawen]

Protons may take more than 10^32 years to decay as determined by hyper kamiokande, and one of the components is likely to be a positron. Figure out on your own how two up quarks and one down quark and a bunch of gluons can decay into one of those. Probably a top quark or something massive in there too, but obviously, more is going on inside a proton than anyone here knows about.

All of the above particles are distinguished from each other by comparing their energies. There is good reason to think, energy is the most important thing about a particle. Below that threshold energy, you cannot create them out of photons, but that"s just the beginning of this journey of discovery.

 

[James R]

Just the musings.
No, energy is not an accounting system.
This does not even qualify as sound philosophy, leave aside the science.

A worthless post from you, The God.

If you're going to dispute my claim, you need to refute my claim. That is, explain why I am wrong, and post what you consider to be right.

Otherwise, you're just engaged pointless opinion-mongering.

 

[The God]

A worthless post from you, The God.

If you're going to dispute my claim, you need to refute my claim. That is, explain why I am wrong, and post what you consider to be right.

Otherwise, you're just engaged pointless opinion-mongering.

First thing first. I was infracted by Kittamaru, you are a superMod, please discuss with him and see if his action is justified or not. I could not invite you on a PM Reply to him.

On the topic, I find your argument that energy is accounting system, quite amusing. If energy is accounting system, then momentum, angular momentum, charge...all become accounting system.

Simple example, currency (say USD) also becomes an accounting system.

Pl note they are physical quantities and their study may be under some kind of accounting system, but they are not.

 

[origin]

First thing first. I was infracted by Kittamaru, you are a superMod, please discuss with him and see if his action is justified or not. I could not invite you on a PM Reply to him.

Please try to stay on topic, I doubt anyone wants to hear your whinning.

 

[Farsight]

ll of the above particles are distinguished from each other by comparing their energies. There is good reason to think, energy is the most important thing about a particle. Below that threshold energy, you cannot create them out of photons, but that"s just the beginning of this journey of discovery.

Note what Einstein said in his E=mc² paper: If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². Radiation is a form of energy. A photon is energy. It has energy E=hf because it has a wave nature. When you take all the energy out of a wave it isn't there any more.

 

[danshawen]

Note what Einstein said in his E=mc² paper: If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². Radiation is a form of energy. A photon is energy. It has energy E=hf because it has a wave nature. When you take all the energy out of a wave it isn't there any more.

100% solid science fact, by any measure that is important. Thanks, Farsight.

 

[Farsight]

Regarding $$E=mc^2$$: You'll often read that this equation tells us that "energy and mass are equivalent" or even that "mass is a form of energy". Both of those statements aren't really correct. What the equation says is that the existence of mass has an energy associated with it, which we can "get out" by converting part or all of the mass to something else. The energy isn't photons. Photons are just another type of particle, and energy isn't a particle. Energy isn't a substance. Energy is an accounting system. At bottom, energy is just a number, useful in physics because it happens to be a conserved quantity in many situations.

This is totally incorrect.

If you have a proton, say, it is not in any sense "made of photons", or "made of energy". There is energy associated with its constituents and their interactions, but that doesn't make it a form of energy.

Low energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons along with what Einstein said, says you're wrong.

Take another example: if a positron and an electron collide, the result is usually two photons. Does that mean the electron and positron are made of photons, which somehow get released when the particles collide? No.

I'm afraid it does.

What happens is that the interaction process in which the positron collides with the electron destroys those particles and creates two new ones (the photons). In the process energy - a number - remains the same.

Particles do not get spontaneously created and destroyed by some juju magic. You do not understand that interaction process. I do.

 

[Farsight]

100% solid science fact, by any measure that is important. Thanks, Farsight.

My pleasure Dan. I'm afraid some people on some sites will tell you some things that totally contradict "Einstein and the evidence".

 

[danshawen]

My pleasure Dan. I'm afraid some people on some sites will tell you some things that totally contradict "Einstein and the evidence".

If I expected that everyone would agree with everything I ever said here (or anywhere else), the potential for learning would be much less. James R is still a gem worth never ignoring, as are you.

 

[Farsight]

When you learn more, you'll know who to ignore.

 

[James R]

The God:

On the topic, I find your argument that energy is accounting system, quite amusing. If energy is accounting system, then momentum, angular momentum, charge...all become accounting system.

That's right.

You can't pick up a lump of momentum and carry it around with you. Nor can you pick up a lump of charge. You can pick up things that have momentum or charge, but those things don't exist as substances in and of themselves. And energy is the same. You can't pick up a lump of energy. Energy isn't a substance. Neither is momentum or charge.

 

[James R]

Farsight:

Your contradicting me doesn't make me wrong.

It's not my fault you don't have a good grasp of physics. I hope you'll study up and learn something on your own. You can apologise to me later.

 

[Farsight]

You can't pick up a lump of momentum and carry it around with you. Nor can you pick up a lump of charge. You can pick up things that have momentum or charge, but those things don't exist as substances in and of themselves. And energy is the same. You can't pick up a lump of energy.

You can't pick up a wave either. But it can pick up you. Because it is energy. Because when you take away the energy from the wave, the wave doesn't exist any more.

Your contradicting me doesn't make me wrong.

No, you contradicting Einstein and the evidence and the wave nature of matter makes you wrong.

It's not my fault you don't have a good grasp of physics.

But I do.

I hope you'll study up and learn something on your own.

I have. That's why I'm correcting you.

You can apologise to me later.

Ditto.

 

[James R]

Keep digging that hole, Farsight.

You can't pick up a wave either. But it can pick up you. Because it is energy.

You're conflating two separate ideas about waves here, namely: (1) the notion that whatever it is that is "waving" can exert a force on other objects, and (2) the fact that we can associate energy transport with a wave.

If you're swimming in the ocean and a water wave "picks you up", it is not energy that is picking you up - it's water molecules exerting forces on you. You continue to confuse substance with energy and are, apparently, unteachable.

Because when you take away the energy from the wave, the wave doesn't exist any more.

Either you're being careless in how you use the term "wave", or you're being deliberately obfuscatory here.

True, when there is no "wave energy" in a body of water, then there are no waves. But taking away wave energy does not destroy the body of water.

No, you contradicting Einstein and the evidence and the wave nature of matter makes you wrong.

As I said previously, your telling me that I am contradicting Einstein does not mean that I am. And that comes long before we even getting to discussing whether Einstein was or was not an infallible guru of physics.

But I do.

If you did, you would have demonstrated it by now.

Enough said.