Electrons From Photons

The thread above has an interesting discussion on electrons from photons

__________________
When the chips are down; put them in a bowl and share them around!

Thank you for the interesting link. The paper on photon topology is a good example of science at work. Much has been learned by back engineering the particles and thinking about what makes them do what they do and obviously there is still much to be found.

I can’t contribute to that process, and really very few of us are in a position of knowledge, understanding, and financing to work productively with real particles and high energy physics.

But I can use my talents to think about what we have discovered and imagine new explanations for how they to do what they do. Mine is a self appointed role as participant in an open brainstorming session in which there is no bad idea, only new and old ideas to be sorted out.

My idea is that there is a source of energy in space, independent of matter.

As far as I know, all energy that we know of is matter dependent.

But we know that if there was a big bang, there was a huge amount of energy that accompanied it. And yet there was no matter as we know it at that instant (only condensed soup ). And even if there was no literal big bang but instead a release of the same huge amount of energy from pre-existing conditions like a big crunch, the matter independent energy seems to be indicated.

The energy to matter to energy process seems to be at work, whether we talk big bang or big crunch/burst.

I know about the theory of big bang nucleosynthesis, the expansion and cooling of the primordial soup from which protons and electrons condensed. When atoms formed from those condensed particles they absorbed photons from the soup and emitted those photons to create the CMBR (photon decoupling). But the theory says that these particles all existed. It does not say that they formed from energy itself because no one has ever seen energy that wasn’t matter dependent.

Everything from there seems to follow an understandable path of slight anisotropy, star formation, nucleosynthesis, galaxies, black holes, large structure, and progressively energetic particles occupying “our” universe in the form of cosmic rays that finally evolved from the original soup.

I see all of this as part of the energy to matter to energy process that is natural. The limits within which the process works are big bang capacities, i.e. all of the matter and energy that go into making a small entity like our universe. Our universe exists within a greater universe that has an infinite number of such small entities forming and un-forming across infinite space.

This may seem like a huge and unnecessary leap. But, no it isn’t. There has to be a stage on which “our” universe plays out. And it can’t be a one night stand that would come and go and never return. Oh, it could be, but what are the chances of that? The chances are near zero in my estimation. There is way too much intricacy involved in what we know exists for it to be a passing sequence of amazing coincidences. No, the universe has always existed and it demonstrates it’s eternity in endless processes of energy to matter to energy playing out on a “stage” of physics that can never fail.

I know; flowery word salad. It means nothing for me to say it. But those that wave off such thought are destined to remain trapped in our tiny and passing “little” universe; never appreciating the potential that infinity has to defeat entropy (more word salad, geesh).

But why would it be important, even if it was true?

It is important because the mechanisms of the universe require such a cycle and its resulting waves of energy density to provide the stage where universes like ours can play out. And they play out through expansion and distribution of matter into future distant crunches that burst and expand and form matter that is again distributed out into the greater universe to contribute to the formation of still future and distant crunches. Matter is being made and un-made in each of those occurrences of burst, crunch, burst. Energy is at the heart of it all, and so I say that the universe is composed of energy, and there is an “energy to matter to energy process” that plays out in “universes of our size” everywhere across infinite space.

Sorry, apparently I missed that... (?)

So T1 energy can not be used for work, if I understand you correctly?


IIRC, I addressed this somewhere in a post long ago.....


If I understand all of this correctly, the answer to my question if T1 energy is quantized is "no" (since there can be packets which are smaller than a "quantum").


There is no problem with a soup of bosons being infinitely dense. Apparently you are envisioning elementary particles (like electrons, quarks etc.) as little billard balls with a hard surface. But they aren't. They have no problem at all with overlapping each other, and it is even not yet clear if they have any size at all.


Well, simply use this lay description, then everyone will understand you!


This description seems to imply that every energy (of the type which can "have meaningful impact on the universe") is indeed quantized, in the meaning which I used for that term.


So an "energy environment" is a spatial region in which energy and pressure is constant??? Or did I again misunderstand you?


No, I am saying that not every singularity is a point of infinite density and zero volume.


But the fact that both are fruits does not make them the same.



What I meant was: usually, one does not develop a whole complicated framework of ideas at once. Instead, one develops only some ideas and tests these extensively before going on.

Obviously, that was not the case for most of the scientific revolutions (e. g. GR). But even these new theories were developed in strong connection to actual evidence, not out of thin air. I. e. people developing these new theories always looked if they contradict known evidence, and looked for ways how one can test their new ideas.

To me, it looks as if this strong connection to evidence is missing in your theoretical framework. Don't get me wrong: obviously that does not imply that your ideas are wrong. I merely want to point out that you should perhaps be a bit more cautious in developing your ideas. No offense intended...


Thanks. "cosmic rays" probably includes photons, neutrinos, muons and tauons? And "particles you get if you break any of those particles into smaller particles" probably includes u- and d-quarks and gluons?

But what about W- and Z-bosons, and the other four quarks? These are neither contained in cosmic rays nor appear if you break any of these particles into smaller particles.


Thanks. But why was this not noticed in all the studies done with photons? E. g. have you ever heard of the "structure function of the photon"?



That depends on if we talk about rest mass or relativistic mass. I come from the side of Quantum Field Theory, where the first meaning is used - and then photons are massless. I've been told that people working in GR often use the second meaning - and then photons have mass. The article you cite addresses this - at least partly.


Okay. When I say "matter", I mean the elementary fermions (this usage of the word "matter" may not be conventional, but I know of no better), i. e. the six quarks, the electron, the muon, the tauon, and the three neutrinos.

Photons, W- and Z-bosons, and gluons are not included when I say "matter". And as pointed out, I know of no physicist who would include those.


As I already pointed out, that's in general not true. The two are only proportional to each other; in general, one writes P = w times E/V. E. g. for radiation, we have w = 1/3.


If you replace this with "the pressure will be equal to w times the energy in that merged environment, divided by the volume of the merged environment", I have no problem with that.


Thanks, now it is clearer what you meant.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

I'd say that at least Steinhardt's ideas use such a "greater universe". Or take the idea that universes can "bud off" other universe - that also implies such a "greater universe" (and is even closer to your ideas, I'd say).

But both of these ideas don't use "merging energy environments".


IIRC, I already told you that in two of the three possible models for our universe, its volume is infinite, and hence "all matter" was never "cramped into an unimaginably small space".

Further, AFAIK none of thel new (so far speculative) ideas on the origin of the universe contains a state with infinite density.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjoern Sorry, apparently I missed that... (?)

Interesting conclusion from what I said. Actually I would put it this way. T1 energy is doing work that allows matter to form. Once matter has formed it contains matter dependent energy of the various kinds I listed, and therefore matter stores energy that can be put to work.
That is more like what I was thinking. But no, I wasn’t envisioning hard surfaces like billiard balls. I was just going on the impression that every particle that exits was supposed to have had a counterpart in the primordial soup.

This idea differs from mine because in my idea no particle survives the transition from energy to matter to energy, i.e. all information is lost. The T1 energy has no structure that “seeds” the matter that forms; it forms matter from the seething and jostling energy background; new matter that has never exited, but made from the energy that has always been processing from energy to matter to energy via big crunches and big bursts.

It is how an infinite universe that has always existed deals with the entropy problem.

Each crunch/burst plays out through expansion and distribution of matter into future distant crunches that burst and expand and form matter that is again distributed out into the greater universe to contribute to the formation of still future and distant crunches. Matter is being made and un-made in each of those occurrences of burst, crunch, burst. Energy is at the heart of it all, and so I say that the universe is composed of energy, and there is an “energy to matter to energy process” that plays out in “universes of our size” everywhere across infinite space.
Once matter has formed, it is composed of energy in the form of EEPs. When energy does work, these EEPs are involved. How they are involved depends of the kind of energy that is being put to work. Lift a book from the table, EEPs are transferred from the muscles of your arm and hand to the books kinetic energy. Let the book fall and EEPs are transferred to the commotion of the air through which the book drops and to the table, and the table and book combine to transfer EEPs to the sound waves that occur.
You didn’t fully understand. The pressure of an energy environment is not constant; it is ever changing as it is in a continuous process of equalizing itself with surrounding energy environments.

An example from both ends of the spectrum: Energy emerging from a big crunch is equivalent to all of the energy contained in the matter and the energy of “our” universe. It is immediately involved in equalizing its pressure with the surrounding space that is much lower in energy density.

And on the infinitesimal end of the spectrum, this emerging energy is a seething and jostling energy background with pulsing energy packets that have the potential to form matter. The pulsing packets continually overlap each other forming the tiniest of energy environments, the energy packet overlap. Each overlap is in a constant state of change as overlaps proceed.
Lol, why would I take offense? The truth is the truth. I have no evidence. I am building the universe from the bottom up. Baby steps. There seems to be an expansion going on of “our” universe. The cosmological principle says that the expansion is proportional so that we can’t detect a center of expansion, and so that things look similar in all directions. This requires an inflationary scenario. Pressure environments, when they merge, do so proportionally and so I imagine an energy background where energy environments merge proportionately. So an energy environment emerges and merges with the surrounding low energy environment.

Here is the key that relates to the evidence that you say is missing. The expansion indicates that matter did not form until there was a vast expanse for it to form in. Matter formed abundantly and almost simultaneously. An energy density component to matter formation explains that period of abundant matter formation in “our” little universe within a greater universe. The resulting expansion of the matter was subject to the expansion of T1 energy and the resistance to expansion due to gravity. I put these two components together and get accelerating expansion after matter formation because all of that matter has a center of gravity that does not overcome the expansion on a large scale. Locally and due to slight anisotropy we get galaxies and large structure, but on a large scale gravity does not yet overcome expansion.
I don’t know and I haven’t tried to figure it out. You are getting into quantum mechanics and I don’t know enough to say they are on the right track or if they have falsified the EEP concept or not. If so, good, I’ll work in the yard. If they are particles they are made of EEPs as far as I’m concerned.
EEPs are very small and I don’t think the can be detected yet. I haven’t heard of the “structure function of the photon” that I recall.
If they are particles they are made of EEPs as far as I’m concerned.
OK, I am ready to learn. Are you saying that you can envision the energy environments that I am talking about and there is a proportional relationship between them?

I have been saying that right along, but didn’t know enough to put the relationship into the formula. I do know that as the volume of a sphere increases the pressure decreases. When calculating the pressure of gas in a container there are what I think are called Iso-tensors (don’t hold me to that term) that represent the force parallel to the surface of the container. Energy environments in T1 space have no Iso-tensor. Maybe that would change the “w” to 1/4? I just don’t know.
When calculating the pressure of gas in a container there are what I think are called Iso-tensors (don’t hold me to that term) that represent the force parallel to the surface of the container. Energy environments in T1 space have no Iso-tensor. Maybe that would change the “w” to 1/4? I just don’t know.
My idea is that the greater universe has always existed and has always been generating “little” universes like ours. At any point in time, the entire infinite expanse is filled with these “little” universes in one stage or another of the crunch/burst process. There is no new space, and energy is being processed through the energy to matter to energy process all of the time by way of these crunch/burst “little” universes.
You are probably better informed than the people who blindly defend the ridiculous, but those people are out there. Maybe I subconsciously pointed my comments toward that segment of the population.

You wrote (in two different posts):
The obvious conclusion from this, using the usual rules of logic, is what I wrote above: T1 energy can not be used for work.

Please tell me if either of these two statements are wrong, or where I went wrong in using logic to arrive at this conclusion.


I suppose you don't use the term "work" with its usual physical meaning here? Otherwise, the sentence does not make sense to me.

Composite particles like protons and neutrons didn't exist in that "soup".

What has this to do with a loss of information?

Sorry, I don't see how this solves the entropy problem.



Hence work is quantized - every work which can be done has to be an integer multiple of the EEP. This sounds like a testable idea. The only thing we need to know now is what value the EEP have (how many Joules, or electron volts).


I meant "constant throughout space" (spatially constant), not "never changing" (temporally constant). I. e. I meant that the pressure has the same value at every point inside such a region. Is that right?


What I'm pointing out that in these "baby steps", you should look for support after every step (i. e. compare your ideas to evidence), instead of walking on without support - and risking a painful fall.


Proportional to what? Saying that something is proportional without saying to what makes no sense!


Err, no, the proportionality between redshift and distance (I just suppose you mean that), and the fact that we can't define (or "detect") a center of expansion, do not require inflation. (one could argue that "things look similar in all directions" require inflation, in a sense - but that would be an awkward way to put this).


What does it mean to "merge proportionally"???


I don't know what exactly you mean with a "vast expanse". But the BBT, as I know it, says that matter existed essentially right from the start, not that it did form only later.


Unless you are talking about the formation of nuclei or atoms, I have no clue what you mean here.


But as far as I can see, you just made up this period. This didn't happen ever, according to the usual BBT (again, unless you mean the formation of nuclei or atoms - but that is already explained very nicely by the BBT).


Sorry, I don't understand at all how you arrive at an accelerating expansion here.

BTW, how do you address the observations that during the first few billion years, the expansion was decelarating, not accelerating?


"not yet"? Do you think this will happen someday in the future?


No, this is not quantum mechanics, this is elementary particle physics. But why haven't you tried to figure this out yet? After all, you claim that all matter consists of EEPs. In order to claim that, shouldn't you first look what particles are actually known to exist, and figure out if (and how) these are composed of EEPs?


In order to be able to make such a statement, you should have an idea about how small they actually are. Could you please provide a number?


You probably have heard of "pair creation"? That's a process where one (or several) photons form a pair of a fermion (e. g. an electron) and the corresponding anti-fermion (e. g. a positron). Usually, these pairs annihilate each other very fast again; this is also called "vacuum polarization". But since this happens all the time, one could say that a photon really is composed of pairs of fermions and anti-fermions. And the structure function of the photon (a measurable thing) tells us essentially how many of the different types of pairs there are.


If you mean with energy environment "a region of space throughout which energy density and pressure have the same value at every point", then yes. If you mean something different, then I still don't understand what you mean, sorry.

Here again, I don't understand at all what you mean.


That's right for a sphere filled with gas (matter) or radiation, but not for one filled with dark energy. For dark energy, when the volume of the sphere increases, the pressure also increases.


Sorry, I don't know that term. And I also know of know "tensor" that would represent a force parallel to the surface.

There is something called the "stress tensor" in hydrodynamics - did you perhaps mean that??? But IIRC, that has nothing to do with forces parallel to the surface...


Is the 1/4 just a wild guess, or did you have a reason for proposing that number?


I already mentioned the idea of a greater universe from which new universes "bud off". That sounds rather similar.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

OK, I will. But I would like to point out that I think your line of questioning wrt energy and work has been asked and answered and should be behind us.

Why haven’t you answered my question about the types of energy and your additions to the list that I have given you twice?


Now to answer your question. In the past, maybe four or five messages back we went through the “definition” game with the words “energy” and “work”.

When you brought it up again I responded with my answers. When you brought it up again and asked "what is matter dependent energy" I responded, “Matter dependent energy is energy that can be used for work .”

It was a facetious answer playing on the fact that we had been around and around about the terms “energy” and “work” twice already and that is why I tried to be funny. I put a funny face after that particular response. You could have laughed and gone on but you somehow saw a serious enough problem with my usage again that you brought it up again. You can go back and verify what I am saying, and you can tell that I consider the question answered, and trivial.

Energy in T1 space seethes and jostles and pops out EEPs under the right conditions. If you don’t call that work, call it anything you like. That is what my idea says it does and I am talking about that being “work”. The distinction is between T1 energy not being matter dependent, while all of the other forms of energy are, as we have already discussed.


My idea says that there is T1 energy, and that EEPs come from T1 energy.

You may not think the idea has any merit but the idea is straight forward.

Once EEPs come from T1 energy they form matter. All energy except T1 energy is matter dependant.

Is that good enough?

If you ask what “pops out” means I will know your agenda . Notice the smiley face. That is a joke. You don't need to respond to the joke.