Photon Matter

[7DSUSYstrings]

This is a Strange Claim.

So was Fock space at one time. I suppose you are going to tell me that if we split a beam then reflect them back into themselves, one will magically reverse its direction of rotation?... or are you going to tell me there is no photon rotation?... or are you going to tell me that Fock space is two dimensional?... one dimensional? I suppose the photons simply freeze in mid air (or vacuum) and that the photoelectric effect works equally well at atmospheric pressure?

Imagine this as sound. The standing wave will progressively regenerate and increase in amplitude, but it doesn't simply cancel. If you think it does, I recommend attending a Van Halen concert...

I'm certain this discussion will become a comparison of how the "top down" approach to quantum physics views time as a single dimension, where the "bottom up" approach views it as nine.

[Qfwfq]

Read the rules about unsupported claims and try to make sense when you post.

Originally Posted by 7DSUSYstrings

If you think it does

I did not say the standing wave simply cancels, I recommend you to understand what folks say before you reply. Besides, if it did cancel to zero, there'd be no standing wave after all.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

QM's standard model says the proton is made of quarks. It has no explanation for the mass of the electron. A collision between two beams of photons will produce an electron anti-electron pair.

Since you mention electrons, let's consider them. We know the mass of the electron, and we also know the maximum size an electron can have. We also know how much energy the mass of the electron equates to. If you consider a photon of the same energy you will find that its wavelength (effective size) is about 10 times that of an electron.

[Little Bang]

The wavelength of a photon can be infinitely short.

E = fh and E = MC^2 so f = MC^2/h. You can calculate a frequency for the mass of the electron which will give a wavelength of a photon with the same frequency.

[Qfwfq]

Wavelength is not the "effective size" of the associated corpuscle. The energy is related to frequency, it's momentum that's related to wavelength.

Originally Posted by Janus

Since you mention electrons, let's consider them. We know the mass of the electron, and we also know the maximum size an electron can have. We also know how much energy the mass of the electron equates to. If you consider a photon of the same energy you will find that its wavelength (effective size) is about 10 times that of an electron.

I'm not sure what you are taking as the maximum size an electron can have, but the highest energy scattering experiments have shown no spatial extent; it is pointlike as far as we can tell. There is no upper limit on its wavelength. Only composite bodies are known to have a geometric extension, as expected by motion of their constituent parts. If it isn't enough that tiny atoms can emit and absorb in the visible range, in NMR the tiny tiny proton absorbs photons in the microwave range.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

The wavelength of a photon can be infinitely short.

Not for any energy of a photon.

E = fh and E = MC^2 so f = MC^2/h. You can calculate a frequency for the mass of the electron which will give a wavelength of a photon with the same frequency.

The wavelength of a photon is inversely proportional to its energy and has a fixed value for any photon of a given energy. For an photon of equal energy equivalnce to an electron, that wavelength is much larger than an electron. Dividing the electron into more photons would require photons of even longer wavelengths.

Electrons are not "made up" of photons.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Janus

Dividing the electron into more photons would require photons of even longer wavelengths.

As I said somewhat simultaneously to your post, this does not support the matter. Erasmus00 supplied an excellent point concerning the spin value of composite bodies. It can be expanded on, if anybody would like.