Can someone explain this quantum physics concepts to me?

matthayzon89
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I don't understand how matter can be transformed to light and light can be transformed into matter?

Also, how exactly does this happen when something happens to one particle and something equivalent happens to another particle of the same type on the other end of the Earth instantaneously?

I was trying to look up "Quantum Physics" definition of 'world' but I was unable to find anything. Can someone give me a brief explanation of the definition of 'world' in quantum physics?


How do quantum physicist explain our existence?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
light is one type of matter
 
anyone?
 
matthayzon89 said:
anyone?

light is a type of matter, photons
 
okay, I appreciate your comment but those 6 words are near worthless... I was hoping to get something more informative, if someone had the time...

thanks though
 
Here and elsewhere your questions are so far from the truth as to make them impossible to answer. How would one answer "what's the name for the longest side of a circle?" You are asking for quantum mechanics to support some sort of mystical mumbo-jumbo. It doesn't.
 
matthayzon89 said:
okay, I appreciate your comment but those 6 words are near worthless... I was hoping to get something more informative, if someone had the time...

thanks though

What I am saying, just as Vanadium is pointing out, is that the question is wrong already from the beginning so there is nothing to be answered.
 
I'm not sure why you guys think the OP's questions are so outrageous. "Light is one type of matter" you say? I was under the impression that the term "matter" is generally used to refer to particles with mass (or nonzero rest mass if you prefer). It's pretty dismissive to act as if light and matter are so obviously the same thing that no sensible person should wonder how they interconvert. Einstein proved that matter and energy can be converted into one another and share many basic properties (gravitational interaction, etc...), but to say that they're the same thing seems to be missing almost the whole point.

In my opinion, the first question is actually a very good one, although I'm not sure it belongs in the quantum physics section, and I don't actually have a satisfactory answer.

The second question does seem a bit more confused, but it's pretty clear you're talking about entanglement, which is a very specific quantum phenomenon that is distinct from energy/mass equivalency. Here is the wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

As for the use of the term "worlds" in physics, I guess it depends on context. Maybe you mean Everett's "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds). If so, then "world" is actually shorthand for "the entire universe."

I certainly can't claim to know how every quantum physicist would explain existence. Many wouldn't even try to, and would be happy to leave that one to philosophy and metaphysics.

Your questions don't seem nonsensical to me, but they are somewhat vague and badly formed. I suggest you look at those wikipedia articles and come back with any further questions you have. Try to ask something a little more specific, and you'll probably get less grief.

Hope that helps.
 
ansgar said:
light is one type of matter

Shouldn't it be the other way around: matter is a type of light? Matter is made of "tangled up" waves, tangled up light essentially (see string theory). Matter is light that cannot explode--it is energy that is "stored". When there is a nucluar explosion (such as in the Sun), that energy is unleashed.

Note that the equation E=mc^2 doesn't say that where there is energy, there is matter. It's the other way around: it says that where there is matter, there is energy.

Did I answer the matthayzon89's question?

Jean
 
  • #10
Jean Paul said:
Note that the equation E=mc^2 doesn't say that where there is energy, there is matter. It's the other way around: it says that where there is matter, there is energy.
Jean

Equal signs are commutative, there is no precedence of energy over matter or vice-versa ... they are both different forms of the same thing.
 
  • #11
"In my opinion, the first question is actually a very good one"

cdbfarley is right, surely. This chap is asking a reasonable question with the first one. Is it just language, is potential energy really equivalent to temperature, for example?

Of course they are, one can be changed into the other. But what is changing into what? A position (of mass) within a gravitational field is changing into sound and heat and deformation of mass. Most of it - in normal life - disappears as a Newtonian impulse on a body so large it may as well be infinite in mass.

This hides the real question. Why do we see mass as containing so much more energy than weightless particles, why do weightless particles always travel at the same speed, and what does the speed of light have to do with the energy contained in 'stationary' matter?

Does anyone understand this?
 
  • #12
SpectraCat said:
Equal signs are commutative, there is no precedence of energy over matter or vice-versa ... they are both different forms of the same thing.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Thanks for all the replies guys! I'll be sure to read from the links.
 
  • #13
SpectraCat said:
Equal signs are commutative, there is no precedence of energy over matter or vice-versa ... they are both different forms of the same thing.

What you say is mathematically correct. But physics is not mathematics. What I meant is that the equation *doesn't* say that if there is energy, there is matter. For instance light is not matter (although, given favorable circumstances, light can be transformed into matter). However where there is matter, there is always energy because matter is a form of energy.

Jean
 
  • #14
  • #15
Jean Paul said:
What you say is mathematically correct. But physics is not mathematics. What I meant is that the equation *doesn't* say that if there is energy, there is matter. For instance light is not matter (although, given favorable circumstances, light can be transformed into matter). However where there is matter, there is always energy because matter is a form of energy.

Jean


what is matter then? define matter

light = photons, clearly a building block for matter...
 
  • #16
Dmitry67 said:
Physics IS mathematics (Mathematical Universe Hypotesis by Max Tegmark)

Do you know what Eta prime meson consists of?
Check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons
I support your point with all my authority.
 
  • #17
matthayzon89 said:
Also, how exactly does this happen when something happens to one particle and something equivalent happens to another particle of the same type on the other end of the Earth instantaneously?

This is known as Quantum Pairing. In a nutshell two particles are made to vibrate in sync with each other using lasers. It takes about 40 million attempts to get 1 success. Once they are in sync information travels between them instantaneously. So basically when you alter ones state you instantly alter the others state no matter the distance between them.

So far I don't think there is an explanation behind it, yet. It just is.

That's the layman's example anyhow.
 
  • #18
haael said:
I support your point with all my authority.

Hmm I would only say that a big part of physics is math, there are clearly elements in physics which are not math...
 
  • #19
ansgar said:
Hmm I would only say that a big part of physics is math, there are clearly elements in physics which are not math...

For example? (pure physical axioms, which can not be expressed in math terms are always interesting)
 
  • #20
Simple answer.

Matter is particles that can't share space with each other. They maintain their exact force resistance properties uniquely.

Bosons can share space and their properties can be combined.
 
  • #21
LostConjugate said:
Simple answer.

Matter is particles that can't share space with each other. They maintain their exact force resistance properties uniquely.

Bosons can share space and their properties can be combined.

This is a result of the math, not an axiom
 
  • #22
Dmitry67 said:
This is a result of the math, not an axiom

an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived
 
  • #23
LostConjugate said:
an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived

Yes, so what?
Apparent properties on fermions and bosons are defined by the math which describe them.
 
  • #24
Math is the best language we have for describing physics. We know that fermions and bosons have different properties. I guess what the first question in the OP is asking is how can two bosons with high energy become fermions unless fermions are made of bosons in which case fermions would not be considered a independent entity.
 
  • #25
of course it is probably a matter of semantics,
but looks like OP believed that matter = fermions
why? what's about the gluons? do they play any role? yes or no?
if answer is yes, then photons, responsible for the EM interaction, form mateer as well.
 
  • #26
Dmitry67 said:
of course it is probably a matter of semantics,
but looks like OP believed that matter = fermions
why? what's about the gluons? do they play any role? yes or no?
if answer is yes, then photons, responsible for the EM interaction, form mateer as well.

fermions are usually associated with matter

gluons are bosons which are associated with force carriers
 
  • #27
"fermions are usually associated with matter" - I know
My question, is it correct?
Can we say that a house is made of wood, and nails are not part of the house because they are just holding it together?
 
  • #28
There are plenty of examples of bosons which we normally call matter. Half of the atoms on an atomic chart are bosons. Half of the posters here are bosons.
 
  • #29
Phrak said:
There are plenty of examples of bosons which we normally call matter. Half of the atoms on an atomic chart are bosons. Half of the posters here are bosons.

Pardon, but that's "Boatswain" in my case. I have the whistle to prove it! Nah... I'm not... :cries:
---

Anyway, if Fermions ALWAYS = Matter, why bother with such distinctions as "Fermionic matter" verusus the general "Baryonic Matter"? I think it's pretty cut and dry, especially, as you say half of what forms our atomic structure is the interaction of bosons... well... that's a constituent of matter. Anything else seems to be a semantic dodge, but maybe not "wrong".
 
  • #30
also, what's about pi-mesons?
They have rest mass, they consist of quarks, and at the same time they are 'force carriers'.
 
  • #31
ok let's have this as definition of matter:

matter is anything that can contribute to the energy-momentum tensor
 
  • #32
Dmitry67 said:
For example? (pure physical axioms, which can not be expressed in math terms are always interesting)

The axiom that one should try as much as possible to falsify a postulated/derived theory.

Thus physics has also elements which belongs to empirical science.

Math has no such element that it should be consistent with experiments/measurements - thus physics IS not math, but physics CONTAIN math.
 
  • #33
ansgar said:
Math has no such element that it should be consistent with experiments/measurements - thus physics IS not math, but physics CONTAIN math.

Perfectly emulated exisence is REAL for the being 'inside' the virtual world, even they make any experimens they want. So experiments per se, self-consistency of physical reality, and agreement between measurements and theories can not in principle, provde that there is something "real", not "emulated"
 
  • #34
Dmitry67 said:
Perfectly emulated exisence is REAL for the being 'inside' the virtual world, even they make any experimens they want. So experiments per se, self-consistency of physical reality, and agreement between measurements and theories can not in principle, provde that there is something "real", not "emulated"

I do not follow you totally now, do you for the first agree upon that physics also has science as one of its building blocks?
 
  • #35
Physics IS science.
What you are saying is Physics is built using science + something more.
That "something more" (called 'word baggage' by Max Tegmark) shrinks to 0 when we move towards more and more fundamental concepts. In TOE it should be 0 (no word baggage, just equations)
 
  • #36
Dmitry67 said:
Physics IS science.
What you are saying is Physics is built using science + something more.
That "something more" (called 'word baggage' by Max Tegmark) shrinks to 0 when we move towards more and more fundamental concepts. In TOE it should be 0 (no word baggage, just equations)

I meant empirical science, math is science but not an empirical science.

You have non mathematical axoims in physics, which is that one should also falsify it by doing experiments and observations. This is the main difference between math and physics.

2 minutes ago, you said that Physics is Math.. now it is science ;)
 
  • #37
Yes, Physics=Math, Physics=Science -> Math=Science :)
 
  • #38
Dmitry67 said:
Yes, Physics=Math, Physics=Science -> Math=Science :)


So physics is only science since MATH is science? ;)

Does math have the falsification axiom so that physics inherit that as well or do we have to add that axiom to physics?

I say we have to add that, since math "only" have to be self consistent.

By the way, are you a working physicists? Myself is doctoral student in theoretical particle physics.
 
  • #39
ansgar said:
1 Does math have the falsification axiom so that physics inherit that as well or do we have to add that axiom to physics?

2 I say we have to add that, since math "only" have to be self consistent.

3 By the way, are you a working physicists? Myself is doctoral student in theoretical particle physics.

1 Falsifiability had been abandoned by modern physics a long time ago.
People are talking about things going on inside the black holes, beyond the horizon... Cosmology claims that universe is the same even beyond the cosmological horizon (that it is almost flat) etc... Yes, it is abandoned or replaced with some weaker version. But it is not bad.

2 Max Tegmark gets rid of that difficulty claiming that ALL mathematical worlds exist.

3 Yes, and even more: I got a Nobel Prize... but... unfortunately, it all happened in an alternative branch of our MWI-Universe. In this branch I am just CTO of one software company, always re-examining the choice made 20+ years ago (computers/business vs physics) and thinking about gains and losses of both options (I had a chance to see the world, to live in the US an France, to be in control of my own life, vs being very poor (20y ago scientist in Russia were not paid well… now it is better, but don’t know to what extent).
 
  • #40
I know of Tegmark, but it he is just "one" guy, and even a bad philosopher...
 
  • #41
Somebody has pushed the "what is matter" question hard enough to land in the philosophy forum. Just don't overdo it as it can potentially cross over into religion.

I don't think we have grown to a level where we have the fundamental knowledge to push our concepts and axioms that far. Even the reality is math theory is a bit of a stretch and speaks more of religion to me(i.e. some ultimate truth about reality), than of physics or philosophy. I don't think philosophy has answers, though it has propositions and a lot of skepticism.

So "what is matter" only makes sense within the framework of a specific theory - QM, GR, ST. We have to first define according to what theory we are stating the definition what matter is.
 
  • #42
Dmitry67 said:
Perfectly emulated exisence is REAL for the being 'inside' the virtual world, even they make any experimens they want. So experiments per se, self-consistency of physical reality, and agreement between measurements and theories can not in principle, provde that there is something "real", not "emulated"



I agree that math is a true description of reality(as far as we know it now), but how come the certainty that matter and space are not made of something else, unaccounted for yet(the underlying reality, as some like to call it), and math be just a true description of that underlying reality?

What if reality is made of 1-D strings?
 
  • #43
In any case at some point the process stops.
And you get some entities which are defined only based on the relationships with the other entities.
 
  • #44
Dmitry67 said:
In any case at some point the process stops.
And you get some entities which are defined only based on the relationships with the other entities.



I am not disagreeing with you, just not sharing the certainty. Otherwise you are certainly correct in doubting the existence of matter and space the way we experience them. I guess it must have been 10 years ago or so, when i first read that a giant black hole with an immense gravity pull could swallow a whole galaxy of 100 million stars and turn its volume to zero, or very close to zero. At that time i knew we had a partial view of space, matter and reality.

At any rate it's hard to see the connection between personal experience and a mathematical reality unless you postulate a matrix style scenario. At the level where you postulate that nothing is real, you have to apply the Occam's razor. And if i apply the occam's razor and get rid of unnecessary assumptions, i have to conclude that it's all about me and everyone else is fake(if reality is fake, why assume people to be real after all?). I guess i am not that egocentrical. Or maybe you like the Boltzmann brain theory?
 
  • #45
Dmitry67 said:
Physics IS mathematics (Mathematical Universe Hypotesis by Max Tegmark)

Do you know what Eta prime meson consists of?
Check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons




Just thought of something that could strengthen your position. I assume you have heard/seen about fractal mathematics and the endless level of complexity that can arise out of a fairly simple mathematical forumala like the Mandelbrot set:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_GBwuYuOOs&feature=fvst



There is inherent beauty and complexity in the Mandelbrot set(a really short equation) and it seems to me your mathematical TOE must be resembling a Mandelbrot set. Are the mathematical objects in the above video close to what you think of reality?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Yes, but the formulas which define mandelbrot set are very simple.
 
  • #47
Dmitry67 said:
Yes, but the formulas which define mandelbrot set are very simple.


Sure, but it's still good enough to somewhat resemble traveling through outer space in the above video.
 

Similar threads

B Frequency of an EM wave in Classical and Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
I How to understand quantum computers?
Replies
9
Views
2K
B Quantum Physics Can Explain Earth’s Weather
Replies
20
Views
2K
I Understanding Randomness in Brownian Matter
Replies
4
Views
1K
I What is the Definition of Quantum Physics?
Replies
41
Views
5K
B QM concept of photon.... still a bit of a mystery today?
Replies
32
Views
3K
I Frequency of EM waves in classical and quantum physics
Replies
26
Views
3K
B Quantum entanglement and simultaneity
Replies
4
Views
3K
B Quantum entanglement and hidden variables
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Feedback on Educational Script: What's a particle in QFT?
Replies
5
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top