Photon And Mass, energy transfer

Can a photon transfer mass to an object even though it is mass less. How does that work with out violating the laws of mathematical physics where the real mass of a photon is Zero? Is it better to talk in terms of potential energy transfer? Does the microscopic scale of mass increase? see the quagmire?

The photon has momentum, no mass, and travels at the speed of light. Yes, that is a "quagmire"

When a photon is absorbed by an atom, the mass of the atom increases by m = e/(c^2)

A photon carries momentum, p=E/c When it collides with an object, momentum is transferred.

One can never pin down the exact position and momentum of a photon.

Want to get really "quagmired"? Read about Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory, and think of how a photon can "experience" time.

0 time at speed of light (undefined)
0 distance at speed of light (undefined)
0 mass, but has momentum
a particle, but has a wavelength

I had a problem with this, until I realized that what is happening here is man's limited understanding of how to transfer the real world into the mathematical world and have consistency. The problem happens when we arrive at consistency in the mathematical world before we have the duality of consistency in both worlds together.
Here is part of how I understand a photon. It is a cloud of energy that is substance but is it not in the state of mass. It, by man's mathematical definition has 0% state of mass and 100% state of energy and can therefore travel at or close to the speed of the gravitational wave. Now that cloud of energy still has stored potential energy which can be absorbed.
Once absorbed, the photon of energy can transfer that stored potential energy to its host atom and the host atom has the ability to count this stored energy as stored mass because it has changed form and degree of freedom. The speed of light is the key to understand the state of energy vs. the state of mass. When a substance is in the state of mass it cannot travel along the originating, propagating gravitational wave(space). Only when substance is in the state of energy with 0% state of mass can it achieve the speed of light. The solution lies in the understanding how mass and energy are form changes with degrees of freedom with respect to the speed of light.

I believe that everything has a mechanism that the problems we face are understandable, and it is our inability to conceptualize first, then put into the language of predictable math second that is the heart of our ability to jump to the next level.

Sometimes the limits are the definitions that we place on the universe, and not the universe. So when logic prevails, change the definitions to fit the reality.

Look at our concept of time, it changes do to relative acceleration. How does that fit any definition? Well is there an underlying clock in the universe that creates time as the function of a wave, like sound because the only clue we have is that sound can also change do to relative acceleration. The answer is yes. The Universe has a clock. The answer lies in your ability to place the puzzle pieces together to understand the relative and absolute aspects of what time is and how time works and why, including the exact mechanism that makes time as we see it to be change. What is the ultimate change? and how does that govern relative and absolute time?

The answers are easy once you see the overall picture.

Here is another one and let me say the answer is the same. What is nothing, does it exist? If nothing does not exist, then what is empty space? Something or nothing? and if it is something what did we miss on detecting it?

Can time and space be two actions of a completely misunderstood process that at the heart explains why a photon has no mass and yet energy and momentum?
The answer is yes, again. You see, we have all the puzzle pieces but until the truth gets out as to what the overall picture is, and then it is recognized as such everyone will argue over individual pieces and what they mean instead of piecing the puzzle together. All of the questions relating to this great physics forum are really great. It is isolating seeing the big picture and not getting other people to see it as easily as they could. I don't know how to take off the blinders. I can say this. Time and space are wave functions of a propagating gravitational wave that exists at the electromagnetic field level as a decay process of all substance, including photons, into the gravitational wave. It is gravitational wave synchronization that creates time and space to be relative because the basis of time and space are wave functions of rate density and volume density of the creation of the gravitational wave field from all substance into it uses up all of its potential energy.

So I got a little off tract and preachy, sorry but maybe one person will catch on and remove the blinders and see the whole picture. Private Message me if you are interested in the whole picture of if you think you have something that can stump me because I have been a little of a devils advocate myself........

insight,

>Private Message me if you are interested in the whole picture ....

Well it is a forum, So I don't see the need for privacy.
You started this thread and I presume that you want to discuss your take on this topic. It sounds to me that you may want someone to debate with you but, I can't do that. I will give it a read if you want to post more. If your like me just explaining something to someone else helps me to understand it myself better. Best I can do is toss you a question or two after reading what you have to say.
So go for it. I'm all eyes.
Read 'ya latter.

@insight
I see now that this was a phony question designed to allow you to propagate your numerous misunderstandings. Your post is full of them. You may have some correct concepts in there somewhere, but nearly all your descriptions and assumptions are totally off base.

Dumb me for answering it accurately.

If you ever want to learn, feel free to ask sincere questions. Until then I'll just let you continue on with your twisted babble.

Ouch! Now be nice or I will have to report you to yourself!

It is not a phony question but it is a question you, or anyone interested in seeing a different picture but one that grasps the real problems with our understanding of how everything works and relates. I may not speak in exactly the way you want me to conform to but I do know the reasons the Universe works.


The reason that you might think I am off base is really a total misunderstanding of the actual nature of matter by many people. Yes I do have to take on the current estab-oh be nice-lishment in order to get someone else to see the whole picture. Maybe 10 or so years ago I might have felt exactly the same way you express yourself now, hopefully I have matured.

So lets get to my point.

Everyone, I mean everyone, seems to have their own agenda which interferes with seeing the real picture. I doubt you would be involved with this forum if you also didn't have something to propose.

So let me suggest the following. So instead of putting you down and saying nothing of merit since you seem to be quite versed in that intellect, let me state the whole picture and then if you want each step of the way I will give examples.


The reason the Universe runs is because of the overlooked "mechanism of monopole wave synchronization"

A monopole wave is matter that escapes from other matter as a natural decay process, but cannot bind back. It is the lowest, least form of matter as far as potential energy, now I am not giving an exact anal definition but an introductory getting the feel definition.
I will live this now and get back latter but I will state this to think about.
The essence of time and space come from in all matter. The decay process, after the big bang is the process running the Universe. The gravitational wave and the way all matter release the wave and the wave the wave synchronizes actually creates the process of how the universe is evolving and changing. Space is the gravitational wave generated from all matter. Time is the rate of this process and time and space are wave density dependent.

insight,

http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?C...ew=&sb=&o=&vc=1

So does this link sum up what your saying or is this just you saying it somewhere else as 1111person.

Hi insight, meBigGuy, paul h et al,

I'll "bite"... I will attempt to sort this out to the satisfaction of a few but probably not for most since it is a theory. The photon does not have mass because mass is not an intrinsic property of our universe... It is a property that has evolved from spacetime curvature. Where there is no "self" spacetime curvature (and I actually mean positive spacetime curvature) then there is no mass there at that "source" where we are trying to locate the photon. Recall spacetime curvature is the result of mass in Einsteins theory. The next point I would like to draw attention to is the velocity of light (which is the velocity of photons ... by definition) and the velocity of propagation of mass influence, we call that gravitation. Most experiments and current theory show these two propagation rates are the same and they obey the same laws of composition except that the property of mass is not bipolar as the source of electromagnetism seems to be.

A short aside... I personally do not think that the universe would create bipolar charges while at the same time not producing magnetic monopoles... All experiments have failed, for several decades, to find the elusive magnetic monopoles... So no magnetic monopoles and by symmetry no electric dipoles either, Maxwell's Laws are capable of formulation without sources and I think that is the way it should be. I tend to think that nature would not have two separate ways to produce electric fields... one produced by stretching the "fabric of inertial spacetime" in electromagnetic photons which have no charge sources and by having "charges" as a separate method of generating electric fields. I would also suggest that the laws of the Universe should be formulated in such a way that it forms the simplest answer that does not violate experiment... Experiment does not contradict this interpretation.

Since light and gravity propagate at the same speed it would be a miracle that both phenomena were not arising from the same basis.

Indicating the possibility that de Broglie matter waves are simply related to internal photon waves. Recent studies have produced further results.

So matter charge and mass can convincingly be produced from only light which has no "native" mass... Matter from energy alone. So where did that mass come from? It has come from a symmetry operation. This is the CPT-Lorentz Symmetry where the charge, parity and time "cooperate" to form spin orthogonal particle couples that have sources of charge and all sources of charge seem to have mass even though in some cases it is an exceedingly small mass. A reasonable person may conclude that light creates mass and charge from its own "primary electromagnetic substance". So why does mass attract other mass? Answer: For the same reason that light is attracted to mass... and it is if it is allowed to "fall freely" near a massive body and was one of the first tests of Einstein Special and General Relativity. The experiment which has been done many times indicate that the attraction between matter and light exists "already"... even without any mass in the universe. what does this really mean? If photons attract mass with purely electromagnetic influences then why not photon on photon... Well this does happen too. All photons of the same wavelength on the same wavefront that are coherent (co-moving) attract each other with an "infinite influence" (in the transverse direction) and so all co-moving coherent photons all exist in the one inverse square law expanding boson state. Any such "attractive" influence acting on a "massless particle" will cause an infinite acceleration and very quickly any two separate photons will be one state and cohabiting the same space. Experiment support this fact and light obeys Bose-Einstein Statistics.

While matter particles attract each other they are limited in their attraction by their inertia (mass... which is their reluctance to move or to resist acceleration at an infinite rate). However why doesn't a photon accelerate toward another "particle with mass" with an infinite acceleration too? (it turns out it is the same acceleration that all "light particles" (photons) are attracted to a massive object). In a vacuum a rock a feather and a photon of light have the same acceleration toward a massive object, it is just their initial velocities that cause their obvious difference in properties.

Of course two massive objects have "mutual" influence on each other as well so this experiment can't be extended to all planets and stars because each particle of mass has mutual gravitational influences between their component resources. This influence between "mutual" masses is directly related to their individual curvature of spacetime that each one produces. Each mass source contributes to the overall mass of a "massive collection of particles" cumulatively. In the final analysis the mass is the measure of potential energy of a system. Two particles in a system can lower the overall potential energy by coalescing. This can only occur if the kinetic energy of the two systems remains zero. Usually this process will dissipate some kinetic energy.

Considering the internal and external relationship of a surface to it's space the external spacetime of any mass particle must be "positively curved" while the "internal spacetime" of the same particle could be considered as the internal surface which would be relatively negatively curved. If some relationship between these two surfaces exists as suggested above then Electromagnetism is a denizen of the two dimensional inner surface and Gravity is a denizen of the outer three dimensional space surface (ignoring time). It is clear that the two dimensional inner surface space of a "bubble" as a surface will not allow for the packing of three dimensional objects into it as does the external space of particles... or does it? The "conjecture is that the "apparent" two dimensional surface "appears" three dimensional to inhabitants of the surface, a kind of "flatland" as described by Abbott. The laws of packing in that surface are the laws of electromagnetism which relate to Bosons (Bose-Einstein Statistics) while the external spaces which are three dimensional relate to the laws of Fermions which obey a different packing relationship of Fermi-Dirac Statistics... The way billiard balls stack. This is the way we think our world "appears" to us... Three Dimensional with Time.

Now lets think of the Story ... Alice Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll.
The Looking Glass House
It is possible to conceive that as Alice is in her world the looking glass is to another world that is related to our world but very "flat"... To Alice the looking Glass House would appear Flat but it obeys all the rules of our world (Universe) with one exception... it is all reversed... It is an Anti-World. The next point of difference is light does not obey the laws of physics that matter obeys... What if the anti-world in the mirror was not a world of light "waves" but a world of matter "waves"... de Broglie Matter Waves. That "image in the mirror" would then be the result of material matter and not simply visible light. If it were so then these would behave like "Condo Phantoms" of our world and could in principle partake in the same physics that matter in our world can. It has been noted that such phantoms can exist and partake in chemical reactions with matter from our Universe. This experiment can only be partially performed with Quantum Corrals... the mirror is a not an optical mirror but a ring of encircling atoms and an atom is placed at one focus of an ellipse ad the phantom "appears" at the other foci. Because the "corral" is not perfect... it is more like a fence around a a flat paddock... rather than an all encompassing ellipsoid of revolution the "image" is actually at a lowered "amplitude" to the source amplitude... however for all intents and purposes the particle's image has all the attributes of the original particle which could be an atom. This phantom atom has been subjected to chemical reactions and will enter into molecules that are half phantom and half real. These are matter wave replicas of the original.

Getting back to Alice and her Looking Glass House... A "perfect" matter wave mirror may be capable of not only recreating the entire external universe "up to a point" the image would be capable of independent physics because it is not just an optical image but a matter wave image. If Alice "could" squeeze into that world she may be able to exist in that two dimensional surface as if it was a world of higher dimensions as if it was a matter wave world rather than a bosonic world. The physics of "our" normal three dimensions would become the physics of the apparent two dimensions through projection or a rotation into/onto the surface (hypersurface). Movement in the additional dimensions would be possible with a change of scale "in" the surface. Alice may find another Alice in there and also find some differences in the Physics if the Looking Glass House was a matter wave reproduction of her former Universe (world) instead of an optical "copy"... Just like Condo Phantoms in Quantum Corrals.

... Click to enlarge...
Extending this conjecture further... the Looking Glass World to us appears as a simple optical surface if it were curved it would cause a deformation like in a lens... the suggestion is what is the geometry of of a Christmas Ball world...

... Click to enlarge...
This is Dali's reflection in a crystal ball.... Actually it is a reflection in a silvered surface ball like a Christmas ball. Now modify this "ball" to image matter waves as a reciprocal space in the same way that de Broglie waves are the reciprocal of normal waves. This would mean that large objects would be small and small objects would be large and the entire Universe (world) would "fit" into this mapping... I would like to take this one step further it should conform with a Fourier mapping of the external space into that internal space. This maps distances in our world into reciprocal distances and time into frequencies. This is what happens with an optical fourier processor such as this one...

... Click to enlarge...
This is a simple optical device that processes transparent two dimensional images into the transform plane where it can be "filtered" to remove an artifact using a spatial filter (a mask placed in the transform plane). The image is recovered filtered and all at the image plane.

So we have two different views of the same world. One world is the familiar one in which everything is three dimensional and matter seems to be very real. The other world is one where from our frame of reference "can't be real" since it exists in a surface and yet apparently obeys all the laws that our three dimensional world exhibits in a flatspace. From the perspective of "something" in that flatspace it would "see" everything as if it were three dimensional. The conjecture is our Universe is this kind of flatspace with Universes "above" and "below" in which physics is progressing as entangled phenomena relative to events executing in parallel worlds at all scales. Everything is then "matter wave optics".

From our "external" perspective the "reflections" in Looking Glass Ball Worlds are embedded in a flatspace and exhibit some kind of "surface phenomena" physics.. a physics of scalar inner product ... a projection of the physics and "optics" of our world... while in our world these "similar" phenomena exhibit mass and gravity. There is also the enigmatic (bosonic) electromagnetic phenomena that are also responding to cavity resonant states in the same space as the mass and gravity we are seeing around us. The conjecture is this electromagnetism is propagation on the inside of a dimensionally closed cavity... very similar to the externally seen "flatspace" of a Christmas bauble. In the very same space we also see "external" Gravity and Mass states which result in some apparent forces of gravitational attraction.

So what we have is a flatspace for "bosonic" electromagnetism that we see as standing waves filling a space inside a cavity Universe that appears as actually a flatspace to observers that are external to our universe. At the same time we are external observers of the gravity and mass of external spacetime curvature in our three dimensional fermionic universe around us. At a higher perspective these mass and gravity fields are seen as flatspace events not of gravity and mass but of bosonic phenomena.

A symmetry which has a bosonic shadow of a fermionic universe followed by a fermionic shadow of a bosonic universe in successive layers of a matter wave "bubble". The inside of a bubble is bosonic and allows the propagation of electromagnetism and the outside of the bubble ... all the way to "infinity" we have the rest of our three dimensional Universe sharing 4 dimensions with these "shells". At the same time out mostly empty universe not only has matter in it it also has light indicating the internal surface (...or a matching flatspace of something).

We interpret this as light spreading through the inner cavity of a huge "flatspace" as far as we are concerned (electromagnetic propagation). That EM propagation is simply a global "exchange force" in this bubble universe. Around us (including us) there are matter particles sparsely occupying the "bosonic" space (planets and galaxies) which are the outside connection between these matter particles. The force in this Universe is Gravity and this arises through "mass". There really is no direct connection between the Gravity and the electromagnetic forces since one has no property of mass and propagates on the inner surface of "sub atomic particles" and the other is a property of de Broglie waves on the "opposite surface" of the Universe. The two surfaces are connected "reciprocally" through a transform... the two realms are particle and wave and have different descriptions depending on which side of the manifold is being described. The transition from one domain to another results in a change in geometry from standard geometry of ordinary space to reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency).

For each and every boson here is a fermion and for each and every fermion there is a matching boson. The fermions are sub-atomic particles (with mass) and their matching mirror world bosons (without the mass) hybridize in place as space filling waves and this influence fills space with unseen standing boson waves At the same time the nucleus also form hybridized matter waves in space. Boson hybridization are the shells of atoms and house electrons and clumping of sub-atomic fermion particles are all the nuclei of the atoms.

So the original question above is the massless boson photons do transfer mass since the mass is a property "seen" on the opposite side (surface) of the spatial curvature of the sub-atomic particles "bubble".

I know that is going to cause some ruckus by all those who are self appointed guardians of the morality of Physicists but I ask you all to think about the results of physics and see that this matches our current range of experiments without any direct contradictions. This interpretation will not change Quantum Electrodynamics since it is an optical theory and quantum gravity is no longer a problem since we will not be quantizing space anymore at small scale but will treat it as a continuum of reciprocal entities where what is big in our world is small in the "sub-atomic" world and visa versa. More energy simply "probes" the sub-atomic mirrors at smaller scale. This is what we actually see. Small physical size in sub-atomic systems means higher energy and large size means low energy, The Universe when it is all considered is really composed of sub-atomic particles and that means that the behavior of the Universe is the behavior of these sub-atomic particles when they clump together. No Planck Limit.

Cheers

Lost me here. Creation of an electron positrom pair. That is, a matter-anti matter pair.

So, the production of a huge electromagnetic field "breaks down" a vacuum and produces a matter anti-matter pair.

I think you distort the results slightly.

I think that is not reasonable.

This is where I stopped reading. Show me the experiment with no mass in the universe.

From what little I understand of "party line physics", Elf is not parting company with any legitimate lines of exploration. (But I cannot verify this in detail). They may be weird, but not crackpot.

Hi insight, meBigGuy,NoCleverName paul h et al,

Lost me here. Creation of an electron positrom pair. That is, a matter-anti matter pair.

So, the production of a huge electromagnetic field "breaks down" a vacuum and produces a matter anti-matter pair.

I think you distort the results slightly.

Good questions... Of course I did say this was a theory (though one with plenty of experimental support).

Indicating the possibility that de Broglie matter waves are simply related to internal photon waves. Recent studies have produced further results.

OK... then where did the mass come from when there was no mass originally and where did charge come from since light contains no "charge"? My point is light (photons) do not contain any charge or mass. There is no such thing as "anti-mass" to my knowledge, all mass or matter produced in "creation events" still falls "down" and not "up". To simply say that the vacuum "breaks down" is like saying pixies created them out of nothing. It's not so bad when you can believe in pixies but we elves just don't trust them at all. You tell me a mechanism in which "breaking down" is a reasonable process. My point of view is that you (or anyone) have not proposed a basic method in which this "creation" produces something tangible (matter) from something intangible (light). I realize that you could call on "chance" to provide a mechanism. This is unsatisfactory to me for many reasons. The day you show me a meter that measures the chance an event is about to occur with is the day I will agree with you. There are no probability meters and probability is not an expression of underlying physics. I would point out that all "probability" calculations must refer to the basic underlying "mechanism" without which there would be no way to calculate. It is unfortunate that some of these hypothetical mechanisms can't be measured directly.

Attempts to show a mechanism by which particle creation can occur seems to fall to Bohmian Mechanics
Trajectories and Particle Creation and Annihilation in Quantum Field Theory: Detlef D¨urr, Sheldon Goldstein,Roderich Tumulka, and Nino Zanghi
...and it also has a great problem with a causative solution for the process. This is not to say that any other approach works at all... because they don't. Coming to grips with this is difficult if you have been taught to "believe" so strongly that it must always be right. It is also no wonder that conventional theory is unable to supply a mechanism by which "by chance" our Universe has ended up with all matter and very little anti-matter. An unanswered but very important question. What I am saying here is I do not trust conventional physics to simply solve any problem in which the event can be hidden in some state collapse. I also believe that alternative solutions to the problem are closer to the mark than merely accepting "miraculous intervention". I have discussed why conventional Quantum Theory has failed in the past and does not provide answers to some important questions. I am not alone in this matter there are many famous names that distrust the conventional approach to certain problems. However IMHO there are always alternatives...

The Cramer event driven Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory provides a mechanism behind this state change. You must admit that the particle creation-annihilation sequence is entirely "reversible". This means that it is not simply a "breakdown event" in which something is "dissipated" like an extra neutrino or two. It's very symmetry suggests that it is very special. The two photons come together and produce two particles (mirror images), then the same two particles can come together and produce two photons of exactly the same energy... no "bangs" or "booms" no dramatic phenomena (provided the initial photons were chosen accurately).

Note: However this diagram comes with a caution since it requires two photons to create two particles and visa versa.

This is because in theory there is no additional energy "left over" for "drama". It is very "clean". The real problem is to generate photons of the required energy with the right "alignment". I think the best description of this event so far is a relativistic mirror operation on the vacuum. The photons have the total initial spin requirement to perform the operation. Now this breakdown of the vacuum itself would actually need additional energy for this process to occur... right? Where is that energy? After the "breakdown" has occurred where is that energy now? Show me a "reaction" in which the breakdown of the vacuum can be initiated without the forming of particles and antiparticles. It is the creation of "bright matter solitons" from the photons through mutual scattering acting within CPT-Lorentz Symmetry.

I think that is not reasonable.

Very cleaver reply but have you got a reason now for saying it other than you don't like it? It is very easy to criticize but not so easy to justify why you criticized... I would prefer to hear why!

This is where I stopped reading. Show me the experiment with no mass in the universe.

Quite right that is a typo. I meant no mass in the system. Typical closed systems without initial mass are bright matter soliton creation and also a closed system such as the one described above. Another system would be one in which separate co-moving photons "bind" in single boson states. I have referred to closed compact dimensional spaces as something like a Universe when the Lagrangian is applied wholly within the boundary. I withdraw "Universe" and substitute "closed system". You stopped reading because of one typo... Hmmm you must hardly ever finish a book. I mean to say you have several typo's in what you have written here... Is that to mean that I am supposed to stop reading after your 8th word.

I think this theory sounds weird because it is not how the subject is being taught in Schools and University. In order to gain a quick appreciation of various topics it is almost necessary to gloss over many points with the "shutup and calculate" imperative. It is most necessary to challenge fondly held beliefs since that is all they really are in order to get to the bottom of some of the issues to be found there. The mathematical techniques learned are very effective in solving certain problems but not all problems and little regard is given to explorations into the underlying ideas that lie beneath the glossy superficial class presentation. We can be awed by these demonstrations of technical adequacy and we are not informed that some of these techniques took decades to work out so they are not as "trivial" as the lecturer is attempting to demonstrate. The professors jealously guard this area for their own "pleasures" since these issues are indeed pleasurable. The "joy" of physics has been purged by the relentless efforts of the application of abstract mathematical physics. Quite often the underlying physics has been submerged by layers of abstraction in which there is no principle there at all. Of course the mathematical physicist will always say that really there are no principles to be found beneath quantum physics that it is pure random phenomena but if you believe that then there is really nothing new in the world... As a direct counter argument are the experimental physics where a lot of new things are actually being discovered and the mathematical physicists are struggling to catch up with some extraordinary stuff that even children could theoretically understand... take for instance all the recent developments in photonics. None of that was predicted by the theoretical physicists, they are mostly the outpourings of the experimental physics and some less complex analysis by physicists who are close to the experimental workbench. It remains to be seen that a purely mathematical approach without the underlying understanding is the correct approach in the final analysis.... Not just for Physics but for the Physicists.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 26 2007, 07:42 PM

1. A positron is anti-matter.
2. Positron plus electron = no mass, no charge.
3. Falling has nothing to do with it. Light has no mass, and "falls" as you say. It seems matter, ant-matter and no-matter all follow the distortion of space caused by matter.
4. I don't simply say the vacuum breaks down, the physicists do.

To me, the more dramatic concept of this experiment is light-light interaction, "inelastic light-by-light scattering".

This is the first lab demonstration of the multiphoton Breit-Wheeler reaction.

There are calculated levels (quantum electrodynamic (QED) critical field strength) where a static electric field would spontaneously break down into electron-positron pairs. That is what is happening. That it is two photons is not even a requirement.

Again, I have no argument with the observed physics. Just a problem with the conclusions you are drawing. But, that could easily be my inability.

Hardly a typo, rather a serious blunder. Accidental, I understand, but it reduced the sentence to nonsense for me. I didn't happen to guess what you really meant. I was also pretty much done because of issues with the preceeding, as I have mentioned.

I do have a tendency to only read up to where I seriously disagree, so taking things in small steps usually works better for me. In your last post I went about 1.5 paragraphs then started skimming. I see no need to get into Wheeler-Feynman yet (which I love). You've lost me WAY before that.

Hi insight, meBigGuy,NoCleverName paul h et al,

...Then you will miss out on a lot of good physics, even great people make typo's (no claims being made here only what I say must stand on the results of experiment alone)...

Here is another place where you are missing a very good point ... Feynman based QED on his Absorber Theory... Agreed that many people disagree with Feynman on this point but he has been right on very many other things. It is true that he stripped out the time symmetry from QED theory but Quantum Theory in general is still time symmetric nonetheless.

As to creation of matter from photons the absolute minimum you will need to produce solitons from them is indeed two and they must be at different energy. You can't get particle pair creation from just one photon.

1. A positron is anti-matter. It is the opposite symmetry but the "matter" is the same "stuff" and obeys all the same laws... it is not so different really... It has been said that the positron is simply an electron traveling backwards in time from the point in time when the electron and positron are both "annihilated". Does that "time travel" interpretation disturb you?
2. Positron plus electron = no mass, no charge.Thats easy you get your "deposit" back... that is the constituent photons... what about photon plus photon producing two particles one traveling forward in time and the same particle traveling back in time to meet itself through a temporal mirror?.Clearly a case for Cramer's Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory... what if our entire Universe is simply the result of forward moving time rather than backward moving particles in time. At the Big Bang half of every particle may have been traveling back in time when our Universe cane into being meaning that some place where "all this" has come from has been filled "retrospectively" with so called anti-matter. This long after the Big Bang perhaps the particles have nowhere to go now but pop back out of our Universe back to where that "one particle" originally came from. Wheeler -Feynman Absorber Theory has merit and could be used to solve some interesting asymmetry problems.
3. Falling has nothing to do with it. Light has no mass, and "falls" as you say. It seems matter, ant-matter and no-matter all follow the distortion of space caused by matter.What that means is they are all the same "stuff"... there really is nothing "anti" about it after all
4. I don't simply say the vacuum breaks down, the physicists do.No points for echoing other peoples ideas especially when they make no real sense... Doesn't that "bother you"?

Maybe we can all "weed out some bugs" in this idea...

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 27 2007, 01:25 PM

yes, yes and I am at 1111person. and by the way, that post got me kicked off that web forum.

Imagine that the Universe is made of only one substance and that substance goes through a process, a life. First, exploding into a hot liquid, second transitioning, expanding, cooling into a fluid Mosaic of solid (Mass and radiation) and this substance continues transitioning into a third, evaporate or decay stage of this substance still transitioning from potential to genetic energy.

Imagine that all mass is tr aped radiation and that all radiation, trapped or free, bound or unbound, decays into the gravitational wave/field and that this third overlooked process is the actual nature of space and time. And that space and times are actions of this process, and that there is a third action, constructive wave interference. Imagine that all matter creates its own time and space as it decays into the final transition from potential to kinetic energy, the monopole gravitational wave. Yet the gravitational wave has potential energy in relation to itself and creates constructive wave interference as its path of least resistance to its final end, the elongated and flattened universe.
Imagine a system of measurement that depends upon the amount of potential energy in a substance measured as the transfer of potential energy to kinetic energy. Also imagine that radiation of all light waves still has potential energy built in because the new definitions basis is gravitational attraction.

In this imaginary universe time and space are wave functions of the natural decay process of all matter (substance) and it is constructive wave interference that creates gravity. In this universe there is no such thing as space time because time and space are not warped by matter but created by matter. From 1111 person St. -insight