The magical creation of the photon.

[Little Bang]

Craig, I have a very high regard for your opinions. I have a very high regard for all the scientists that have spent millions of man hours and trillions of dollars developing the standard model. Several have have said that we almost understand it all, we just need a little tweaking by finding the Higgs and the graviton. There have been millions of interpretations of observed phenomena that turned out to be wrong. Can you tell me with 100% certainty that the standard model is the correct path?

[Erasmus00]

There have been millions of interpretations of observed phenomena that turned out to be wrong. Can you tell me with 100% certainty that the standard model is the correct path?

 

Sorry about my on and off participation.

 

Of course no one can say that the standard model is the correct path. However, the standard model/quantum field theory is the only KNOWN model that is consistent with all known data all the way down to measurement precision. With only 18 tune-able parameters (masses, coupling constants, so forth), thousands (perhaps even millions) of experimental observations can be predicted to (so far) arbitrary accuracy.

 

Also, as to the standard model not including gravity- no experiment has ever been done that requires a theory of quantum gravity. As far as I'm aware, there are only two important places such a theory would be needed. 1. The inside of black holes. 2. the singularity at the beginning of the big bang. Unfortunately, neither of these areas is experimentally amenable, so scientists have no data with which to probe these effects. With no experimental data to work with, what are scientists to do? There hasn't even been a classical test of strong field gravity!

-Will

[Little Bang]

You are right, gravity is not part of the standard model but the graviton has been suggested as a way to unite gravity with the model.

There are one or two other problems, dark matter, the cosmological constant, the strong cp problem,hierarchy problem, gauge coupling unification, quark mass and mixings, and neutrino mass and mixings. String theory is the only thing more complicated. The standard model can handle all of these problems by renormalization. Yeah we just tweak everything to make it fit. Don't go poking around looking for something simpler thats a waste of time.

[Erasmus00]

You are right, gravity is not part of the standard model but the graviton has been suggested as a way to unite gravity with the model.

 

This is true- but my point is that we have no data that requires gravity AND particle physics. No experiment has been done that requires both! Hence, its very difficult to build new theories.

 

There are one or two other problems, dark matter, the cosmological constant, the strong cp problem,hierarchy problem, gauge coupling unification, quark mass and mixings, and neutrino mass and mixings.

 

Neutrino masses have been naturally added to the standard model of particle physics. As far as dark energy and dark matter go, we have no precise data on the properties of either of these!

 

Now, strong cp, hierarchy problems, etc. These are all highly technical problems that aren't "problems" so much as places where the theory isn't very elegant. They are aesthetic, rather than experimental concerns. They do suggest that something lies beyond the standard model (which is why we build the LHC). Particle physicists WANT data that the standard model can't explain. They want to build a new theory!

 

The standard model can handle all of these problems by renormalization. Yeah we just tweak everything to make it fit. Don't go poking around looking for something simpler thats a waste of time.

 

I would argue the standard model is surprisingly simple and highly predictive. However, like all of physics it represents a cumulative effort. You can't truly understand the structure of quantum mechanics without a deep understanding of classical Newtonian mechanics and classical Electricity/Magnetism. From these theories you can build the special relativistic extension to Newtonian mechanics.

 

Without a good grasp of special relativity AND quantum mechanics you cannot understand quantum field theory, without which you can't understand the standard model. Jumping right into the standard model without studying classical mechanics, Electricity/magnetism etc. is like reading only the last page of a long novel.

-Will

[Little Bang]

This may seem off topic but it's not. Can someone give a definition of relativistic kinematics in layman's terms?

[Erasmus00]

This may seem off topic but it's not. Can someone give a definition of relativistic kinematics in layman's terms?

 

The introduction to special relativity article is actually quite good,and no particularly technical ( the more technical article is at special relativity). Maybe it would be easier to read the introduction and ask specific questions when you have them?

-Will

[Little Bang]

The experiment at the Stanford linear accelerator generated enough energy to have created a proton and anti-proton. The gamma ray beam was ~ 10^25 Hz and the green laser beam 6X10^14 Hz. I wonder why there were no quarks and anti-quarks only the electron and positron? Any suggestions Eras?

[Erasmus00]

The experiment at the Stanford linear accelerator generated enough energy to have created a proton and anti-proton. The gamma ray beam was ~ 10^25 Hz and the green laser beam 6X10^14 Hz. I wonder why there were no quarks and anti-quarks only the electron and positron? Any suggestions Eras?

 

If you calculate the energy of the two beams (more technically, the energy of the beams in center of mass/momentum frame), you find that the beam energy is on the order of MeV (mega electronvolts). The mass of an electron is about half an MeV, quarks are a bit heavier. So, just on conservation of energy, electrons are all we can produce in this experiment.

-Will

[Little Bang]

If I use f=MC^2/h where M is two times the mass of the proton I get f=4.36X10^25Hz and since E=fh there is more than enough energy to create quarks.

[Erasmus00]

If I use f=MC^2/h where M is two times the mass of the proton I get f=4.36X10^25Hz and since E=fh there is more than enough energy to create quarks.

 

I apologize I seem to have made a powers of ten typing error when I put things into my calculator.

 

I would imagine quarks would be less likely to be produced (the strength of how things couple to photons is measured by charge. Quarks have fractions of electron charge, so couple less strongly), but should still be produced in the experiment. Perhaps they do get a few quark production events. I'll check the paper out.

-Will

[Little Bang]

The way an electron produces a photon when it changes energy levels makes logical sense. Does the standard model explain how this change in level creates a wave form that has both electric and magnetic components?

[Pyrotex]

Snoopy I appreciate your efforts and admire your obvious knowledge of the situation. I guess my point is that all the equations and diagrams make excellent predictions about this process, they do not describe the actual event. An example would be an automobile collision, we can visualize what actually transpires during this event, metal gets bent and mashed, passengers get hurt and things that we can use words to explain happen. I would like someone to give a verbal description like they were in front of a high school first year physics class.

I bet someone has already beat me to it, but I'll give it a shot.

 

Creation of an Infrared Photon in the Collission of Two Hydrogen Atoms

 

Think of a hydrogen atom as a marble surrounded by a small cloud of gnats that whirl around the marble so fast, you can hardly see them. Two hydrogen atoms are on a collission course. Let's call one the Red marble and the other the Blue marble.

 

Switch to slow-motion. The marbles are nearly touching. The two clouds of gnats ARE touching and beginning to overlap. The Red marble gnats and the Blue marble gnats hate each other and as they collide with each other, they push each other away as hard as they can. This causes the two marbles to repel each other, and the marbles slow down and turn away from each other.

 

But it also excites the gnats. They become furious and spin faster, rising to what we call, "higher energy states". It is the energy of the collision that has excited them to higher energy states.

 

The marbles are now going away from each other--the pushing and shoving of the gnats have prevented the marbles from actually touching. The two marbles started the collision with a certain amount of energy shared between them. Now, as they leave each other at high speed, they have less energy.

 

What happened to the missing energy? That missing energy is now stored in two very angry gnats--a Red marble gnat and a Blue marble gnat. They are the only two gnats that did not settle back into their normal orbits after the collision. They are still in higher energy states and can't calm down. What are they going to do?

 

They each fart a photon. The photon contains all the excess energy that the gnat picked up from the collision. For the hydrogen atom the difference in energy between the bottom gnat orbit and the second gnat orbit (which is the higher energy state) is precisely that required to fart an Infrared photon.

 

Each angry gnat is buzzing at a fast frequency. (This is how gnats display their anger.) When they fart a photon, it lets them buzz more slowly, in a calm manner. The farted photon takes away the excess buzz or energy.

 

Farted photons have no smell.

[Little Bang]

This explains my question, Relativistic electromagnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Now the next question, how do we explain charge?

[freeztar]

Think of a hydrogen atom as a marble surrounded by a small cloud of gnats that whirl around the marble so fast, you can hardly see them...

 

Farted photons have no smell.

 

;)

This is almost as good as your explanation of before the big bang.

Seriously, great analogy that helped, at least, me understand it a little better.

 

Infrared odor (should be a band name) :eek:

[ask]

I think everyone made a good effort at helping me out and I appreciate it. Those efforts have I think, illustrated my point. We do not have an understanding of the steps that produce a photon. The equations work beautifully but they do not paint (the picture is worth a thousand words). In my opinion we are missing an important piece of information about the relationship between the electron and proton. What that might be I don't know. I hope that someone somewhere will answer that question before I die.

 

 

Just a hypothesis, A hypothesis about gravity and magnetism

 

Maybe there is no photon at all, instead a tiny mass less charged thing fill up the space. If you knock an atom/matter, a presure/shock wave will travel with speed c in space. When it hit some conducting material, it will knock some electrons out. The votage depends on the shockwave's strength/frequency.

[CraigD]

Just a hypothesis, A hypothesis about gravity and magnetism…

I’ve replied to this post in the 14259 dedicated to discussing ask’s hypothesis.

[Little Bang]

I don't suppose anyone would hazard a guess as to how four photons whose wave fronts started at exactly the same time collides with the waveform of a gamma ray and produces an electron positron pair? What's really interesting here is that the answer to charge lies in this puzzle.