Light Radiation to Matter Conversion: Exploring the Theory of E=Mc2

[p-brane]

Are there any records or experiments that have shown light radiation transforming or converting into matter? (Eg: E=Mc2)

(Any answers to this question may help develop a theory about it)[edit]

 

[mathman]

Electromagnetic radiation of sufficiently high energy can and does transform into matter. The lowest energy example is a gamma ray of energy greater than 1.022 Mev transforming (in the presence of an atomic nucleus) into a positron and an electron.

The big bang theory has all matter that we know of being created by radiation to matter processes involving much more energetic photons.

 

[Janitor]

p-brane

As you probably know, for reasons of momentum conservation, a photon requires something to scatter off of in order for it to convert to matter. In mathman's example, a nucleus provides the needed object.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by mathman
Electromagnetic radiation of sufficiently high energy can and does transform into matter. The lowest energy example is a gamma ray of energy greater than 1.022 Mev transforming (in the presence of an atomic nucleus) into a positron and an electron.

The big bang theory has all matter that we know of being created by radiation to matter processes involving much more energetic photons.

This helps tremendously! Thanks mathman.

If what Janitor says is true, what process provides a nucleus (edit) for the photon to split on?

 

[Terry Giblin]

Light into matter, we already know the reverse is possible.

What are the two most abundant ‘particles’ in the known universe?

Photons and electrons!

Which came first in the universe, immediately after the big bang, photons, electrons or quarks (matter)?

It can be shown that the kinetic energy of an electron at rest, can transform into multiple wavelengths superimposed.

Can the reverse process be performed, using only photons, to reach the critical ‘mass’, sufficient to reform the electron at rest? – The reversal of the YDSE.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle”

Scientist obverse experiments, report results and interrupt them with an open mind.

I too am very interested in any experiment which has attempted to create an electron from photons.

photon, polarization, laser, electron...all within a class room.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Terry Giblin
Light into matter, we already know the reverse is possible.

What are the two most abundant ‘particles’ in the known universe?

Photons and electrons!

Which came first in the universe, immediately after the big bang, photons, electrons or quarks (matter)?

It can be shown that the kinetic energy of an electron at rest, can transform into multiple wavelengths superimposed.

Can the reverse process be performed, using only photons, to reach the critical ‘mass’, sufficient to reform the electron at rest? – The reversal of the YDSE.

Here's an article with some importance to this topic:

Energy becomes matter
By Pedro Gomes
InfoSatellite.com
November 07, 2002


Accelerate your car or invite your friends to a nice weekend barbecue: it's matter becoming energy before your very eyes. An article in EurekAlert describes the other side of the process: energy becoming matter.

"Albert Einstein figured it out by 1905, as he was formulating his special theory of relativity: while you can't exactly get something from nothing, you can come close. His famous formula, E=MC2, works both ways. Just as matter can be converted into energy, so too can energy become matter".

That's just what five dozen researchers were counting on with a Jefferson Lab experiment in Hall A that used the Lab's electron beam and a liquid hydrogen target to bring to life an unusual particle known as a kaon. The kaon's unique structure could prove of great help to cosmologists, who should be able to use the results of experiments like the Hall A effort to develop structural models of stellar objects made up of exotic, or "strange" matter, matter that includes kaons as part of their own subatomic architectures.

Preliminary findings indicate that kaon production results from the interactions of the particles of light known as photons. The photons create more than just kaons, however. They also produce other particles, known as lambda and sigma, with their own distinctive quark structure. All arise from a constantly churning sea of "virtual" particles that can't exist until bumped by a jolt of energy such as that provided by the Lab's accelerator.

Pete Markowitz, associate professor of physics at Florida International University in Miami comments that when kaons could be continually produced the scientists will try to understand how they're made, and asks: "What do they look like? We're trying to come up with a detailed picture of how quarks 'live' in the nucleus."

EurekAlert's article says that the first challenge confronting the Hall A researchers in their experimental run that concluded this past March was to actually make enough of the rare, fleeting particles. The task was a difficult one, considering that kaons contain a matter-antimatter pair of an "anti-strange" quark and one "up" quark (quarks are thought by many scientists to be the basic building blocks of matter). Should a particle of antimatter collide with one of normal matter, both particles are instantly converted to energy, a process that doesn't lend itself to easy observation.

Planning for the first kaon experiment began in 1993 when Markowitz first conceived the idea. A follow-on investigation that will study another strange-matter particle, known as a hyperon, is scheduled for 2004 and will involve a team of up to 80 researchers, most of whom worked on the kaon experiment. "[The hyperon study] will be the first time in history that people will be able to see what's going on, and at high resolution," Markowitz says. "We'll be creating a new form of matter. I'm really excited about this experiment."

 

[mathman]

If what Janitor says is true, what process provides a neutron for the photon to split on?

Although a single photon requires a nucleus present to allow splitting, there is an alternative, which accounts for what happened at the big bang. Specifically, photon-photon collisions can also result in matter creation.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by mathman
Although a single photon requires a nucleus present to allow splitting, there is an alternative, which accounts for what happened at the big bang. Specifically, photon-photon collisions can also result in matter creation.

I see. So, when two photons collide they dance the lambda then kaon relax and have a sigma on the balcony.

 

[Terry Giblin]

The question is gentlemen, if you were me, would you be, or would it be worth spending the next several years trying to prove that exact point?

Can we turn two photons into an electron in the class room or is the process only one direction. - Is there is a simple direct reverse experiment to the YDSE?

To cause a rain drop to fall out of the sky does not take much effort, to return to the cloud is far more difficult.

 

[p-brane]

To cause a rain drop to fall out of the sky does not take much effort, to return to the cloud is far more difficult.

I've always thought evaporation was pretty effortless. Water travels in every direction and collects in many forms.

The analogy of up and down, etc doesn't seem to apply to the idea of generating matter from light and light from matter. These actions are not restricted by gravity but are probably the cause of gravity.

 

[Terry Giblin]

p-brane - your absolutely correct, but my initial idea, whilst thinking of a potential well for an electron - was that of a waterfall, "to cause a water droplet to fall off a water fall does not ...", but decided to keep to my theme about the 10 or 11 Dimensional Super Cloud of photons, electrons and quarks. I replaced well with waterfall with cloud...

 

[Terry Giblin]

Gentlemen,

What does the photon - electron phase diagram or cycle or process, look like?

How can I convert a bag of photons into electrons, directly or indirectly, without contaminate the experiment by involve any other form of matter, ie using a target already containing 'particle' electrons?

 

[p-brane]

Gentlemen,

What does the photon - electron phase diagram or cycle or process, look like?

How can I convert a bag of photons into electrons, directly or indirectly, without contaminate the experiment by involve any other form of matter, ie using a target already containing 'particle' electrons?

Mathman said

Electromagnetic radiation of sufficiently high energy can and does transform into matter. The lowest energy example is a gamma ray of energy greater than 1.022 Mev transforming (in the presence of an atomic nucleus) into a positron and an electron.

The big bang theory has all matter that we know of being created by radiation to matter processes involving much more energetic photons.

The conditions during the big bang and the nano seconds that came afterwards truly would be slightly difficult to reproduce now... in a class room.

But you could take the class room to the lab mentioned in the article I used to reply to your first post: ie:

Preliminary findings indicate that kaon production results from the interactions of the particles of light known as photons. The photons create more than just kaons, however. They also produce other particles, known as lambda and sigma, with their own distinctive quark structure. All arise from a constantly churning sea of "virtual" particles that can't exist until bumped by a jolt of energy such as that provided by the Lab's accelerator.

(edit)

Planning for the first kaon experiment began in 1993 when Markowitz first conceived the idea. A follow-on investigation that will study another strange-matter particle, known as a hyperon, is scheduled for 2004 and will involve a team of up to 80 researchers, most of whom worked on the kaon experiment. "[The hyperon study] will be the first time in history that people will be able to see what's going on, and at high resolution," Markowitz says. "We'll be creating a new form of matter. I'm really excited about this experiment."

(edit) Free electrons do not matter make. The subatomic particles mentioned in the article are some of the quarks required to construct an atom or "particle of matter". Light is documented to have created these quarks, in laboratory settings. I'm not sure how well protected the experiment was from the contamination of existing quarks. It is a fascinating study, in general.

 

[munky99999]

actually I think they got close as technology allowed for them to create matter from light. But they couldn't focus enough energy into the lasers to create the enough energy.

something like 1/10th of the energy needed.

and clearly if you look at E=mc^2 It will take ALOT of energy.

 

[Terry Giblin]

I agree the chances of creating electrons from photons in the classroom, is very optimistic.

However I was still very interested in the alternative forms of generation of electrons and photons, I knew I had already researched, this before, so I read one my old math’s papers, which I wrote in 1988.

One chapter discusses and analyses the various theories put forward by Penrose 1969, Harrison 1976, Lovelace 1976, Blandford and Znajek 1977, Lovelace 1979, Kafatos 1980 and Phinney 1983. Of converting up to 29% of a rest-mass energy, into either electrons or photons, from various electrified, dynamo processes, without requiring the services of the big bang.

I know the big bang was big, but big enough to make all the electrons, photons and quarks in the universe, we see today?

The big question is are we running away or running towards, - how far can you walk into a circular forest? – half way then your walking out.

I would strongly recommend you read the reference I mentioned, you might get a shock.

 

[AWolf]

Here's a link that was provided by Organic in another post that may be of interest.

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Antimatter/20020818020153.htm

 

[p-brane]

Here's a link that was provided by Organic in another post that may be of interest.

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Antimatter/20020818020153.htm

Way interesting AWolf! Thanks for that link. I'm posting a bit of the relevant stuff from the piece.

For low-energy photons (like visible light, radio waves, x-rays and just about anything outside of a high-energy physics laboratory), photons for the most part just go right past each other. This is because the equations of electricity and magnetism are "linear" -- the local field strentgths of two electromagnetic waves colliding is just the sum of the two, with no interaction. It works just like waves on a pond -- they will pass through each other without interacting. There is a very tiny effect, called "light-on-light scattering", where, with a very low probability, a photon will "bounce off" of another one. This proceeds by exchanging a virtual electron around in a loop. The resulting photons are massless just like the incoming ones. So if you ask if photons when they collide make massive or massless particles, the answer is: they can make either, but the mass of the whole system (that is, the total energy in a frame in which the total momentum is zero) is the same before and after the collision.

Back to high-energy collisions: There are ideas floating around the high-energy physics community to build a "photon collider" out of an electron-positron collider. This can be done by focusing laser light head on on a beam of very high-energy electrons. The photons which bounce backwards from the electrons will have very high energies, taking a large fraction of the electron's energy. The same can be done pointing in the opposite direction, and the beams of high-energy photons can be brought into collision. This is proposed to study the production of, for example, Higgs bosons, which can be made in this way via loops of W bosons and top quarks.

You can do a search on Google for "photon collider" -- there is quite a lot of information available. You can ask us more questions about anything that sounds weird.

Tom

Thanks to the Tom guy.

 

[pallidin]

"The photons which bounce backwards from the electrons will have very high energies, taking a large fraction of the electron's energy."

UUmmm... Photons bouncing off electrons? I thought that photons are absorbed by electrons, then emmited. Or is that what he is saying?

 

[Janitor]

Pallidin,

You are probably thinking of electrons in a bound state, such as an atomic electron. A " beam of very high-energy electrons" is definitely not a bound state, so the behavior is different.

 

[AWolf]

If a quantity of photons interacted to become a particle, what could the properties of the particle be.

Firstly, the total energy would be equal to the energy of the photons.

Although the photons would still be traveling at the speed of light, and interacting as fast, the new particle could have zero momentum if perfectly balanced.
The mass of the particle would be volume taken up by the overall interaction of the photons, even though the photons themselves are massless.

The interaction, to maintain a stable particle would presumably have to be circular, this could be seen as spin. The length and axis of the spin provides charge and polarity.

The final particle comprises actual particles and logical particles.
The actual particles :

Photons​

The logical particles :

The force maintaining the structure - also provides the particles mass
The direction of rotation - provides the charge​

When the particle is destroyed all that is left is the actual particles - photons. The logical particles decay and are gone.

All systems are greater than the sum of their components.
Is it possible that some particles are only ever logical/virtual, and any attempt to isolate them will always fail.

 

[Janitor]

AWolf,

You say, "The direction of rotation - provides the charge"

Clockwise rotation looks counterclockwise when seen from the opposite direction, but a positive charge still looks like a positive charge when seen from the opposite direction. Would you kindly provide additional explanation of your idea?

 

[AWolf]

Janitor,

just as the electron has an intrinsic property of spin = 1/2
That spin can be either up or down.

The rotation of the particle is relative to your view point, as you say, from the opposite direction clockwise becomes counterclockwise.

 

[Janitor]

AAwolf,

Consider an electron and a positron in a magnetic field, both measured to have spin "down." How does your rotation idea make one of them have a negative electric charge and the other have a positive electric charge?

 

[AWolf]

The rotation of the interaction provides the level of charge, but it does provide the sign of it.

The difference between the electron and the positron is where the energy is interacting. This can happen is three distinct positions the particle. Interior, Exterior or both.

The interior interaction is where the energy exists at the horizon of the particle with the forces of interaction contained within it. Exterior is the opposite, where the forces of interaction occur on the horizon encircling the energy. And both is where the energy and forces of interaction coexist at the horizon.
Exterior would give a negative charge, Interior a positive charge and both would give a particle with a neutral charge.

Essentially the difference with the positron with respect to the electron is that it is inside out. This allows each particle to possesses essentially the same properties of energy, mass and spin but to have opposite charge.

The electron, with exterior interaction, will not interact with another electron because neither has external energy to interact with. However a positron does have exterior energy, so the two will interact causing their mutual annihilation.

Look at it as low pressure (exterior interaction) and high pressure (interior interaction).

Following these rules of interaction, the proton would have interior interaction, hence why it is attracted to the electron.

 

[p-brane]

The rotation of the interaction provides the level of charge, but it does provide the sign of it.

The difference between the electron and the positron is where the energy is interacting. This can happen is three distinct positions the particle. Interior, Exterior or both.

The interior interaction is where the energy exists at the horizon of the particle with the forces of interaction contained within it. Exterior is the opposite, where the forces of interaction occur on the horizon encircling the energy. And both is where the energy and forces of interaction coexist at the horizon.
Exterior would give a negative charge, Interior a positive charge and both would give a particle with a neutral charge.

Essentially the difference with the positron with respect to the electron is that it is inside out. This allows each particle to possesses essentially the same properties of energy, mass and spin but to have opposite charge.

The electron, with exterior interaction, will not interact with another electron because neither has external energy to interact with. However a positron does have exterior energy, so the two will interact causing their mutual annihilation.

Look at it as low pressure (exterior interaction) and high pressure (interior interaction).

Following these rules of interaction, the proton would have interior interaction, hence why it is attracted to the electron.

Fascinating stuff!

Do photons have a spin?

Does the attribute of having a spin (+ or -) automatically make something a particle?

Thanks geniuses!

 

[AWolf]

Does the attribute of having a spin (+ or -) automatically make something a particle?

Do photons have a spin?

I assume you are referring to spin in terms of rotational symmetry and not the rotational interaction of energy that I'm proposing.

If you're asking do all complex particles that consist of energies interacting, rotate ? The answer would be yes, but with the caveat that if the particle is unstable and does not complete one revolution, that this is seen as rotation, even if only partial.

 

[AWolf]

Electron - Positron Annihilation

Both the electron and the positron have a mass of 9 x 10^-31 kg and their energy = 0.51 MeV
Both have spin = 1/2

When the two particles collide, the result is two massless photons each with a energy of 0.51 MeV.

The mass of both particles along with their positive or negative charge has gone. Instantly decayed to nothing. All that is left is energy.

 

[Janitor]

AWolf,

Kindly calculate the half life of positronium in its ground state. Let me know the answer you get, and I will check to see how well it matches experimental data.

 

[AWolf]

Kindly calculate the half life of positronium in its ground state. Let me know the answer you get, and I will check to see how well it matches experimental data.

So I take it that the concept of a positron being the complete inverse of an electron does not create any problems for you.

 

[Janitor]

There is a certain sense in which an antiparticle can in fact be treated as a particle going backward in time. Are you familiar with Feynman diagrams? But when quantum physicists do this, I don't believe they picture the elementary particle having some interior parts revolving one another such that the time reversal operation reverses directions of some hypothetical constituent parts.

For your theory to be taken seriously by mainstream physicists, it needs to be at least as good as mainstream theories in predicting phenomena. Since mainstream physics can calculate positronium half life and get a result that matches experiment quite well, you have a tough row to hoe.

 

[p-brane]

Electron - Positron Annihilation

Both the electron and the positron have a mass of 9 x 10^-31 kg and their energy = 0.51 MeV
Both have spin = 1/2

When the two particles collide, the result is two massless photons each with a energy of 0.51 MeV.

The mass of both particles along with their positive or negative charge has gone. Instantly decayed to nothing. All that is left is energy.

"All that is left is energy".

I imagine that's all there was in the first place. So that, nothing is lost and nothing is gained. Is this true? Is it simply that the energy is transformed and redistributed? "Neither created nor destroyed".

 

[AWolf]

"All that is left is energy".

I imagine that's all there was in the first place. So that, nothing is lost and nothing is gained. Is this true? Is it simply that the energy is transformed and redistributed? "Neither created nor destroyed".

Conservation of energy states, as you put it, Neither created nor destroyed. So the only option available is to manipulate it. Transform it from one thing into another.

The electron and the positron have the same energy, but their other properties provide each particle with its own identity. After the collision, the two particles that result have different identities from the electron and positron. For one, they have no mass and no charge.

According to the conservation of energy, the energy before the collision must equal the energy after. So if we've accounted for all the energy, what happened to the mass and charge of the electron or positron ?

The configuration of the energy of the electron and that of the positron, must have canceled out the other, leaving plain energy behind, with no complex configuration.