Solid Light?

[DaVince]

Can a concentrated amount of photons turn solid somehow?

 

Photons are known to have a wave particle duality, so if they behave more like particles, would this be possible? Is it physically possible?

[CraigD]

Can a concentrated amount of photons turn solid somehow?

No.

 

Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma are states of matter defined by how the atom in a material interact with one another, and the electrons in the atoms with their nuclei. You can’t make atomic nuclei or electrons out of photons, photons can’t have a material state, such as solid – it simply doesn’t make sense to ascribe a state of matter to light.

 

Ignoring strict word use conventions here and asking if there’s any way photons can be in some way analogous to atoms in some state of matter, there’s a deep, wonderful principle that tells us photons alone simply can’t behave like ordinary bulk matter. From the Standard Model, which classifies and describes all the fundamental particles such as the photon, we can draw this beautiful diagram of which particles can interact with one another and themselves:

Since states of matter are defined by how the entities in them interact, any particle that doesn’t have a loop back to itself in this diagram can’t be “bulk matter like”, because a collection of only these particles can’t interact with one another.

 

In the diagram, the photon doesn’t have a loop back, which tells us photons can’t interact with one another. This tells us some important things. One is that we don’t need to worry that the light in precisely focused mirrors and lenses that cause wide beams of light to converge, then diverge, to nearly a single point, won’t get messed up (put some other particles at this convergence point, and it’s a whole other story). With light, we can pass an unlimited about of information through an arbitrarily small hole. As anyone who’s ever been in a traffic jam can attest, there’s nothing analogous to this capacity in the world of ordinary bulk matter.

 

Having said it doesn’t make sense to ascribe states of matter to light, I’ll now contradict myself (this happens a lot when talking about science – you just have to get used to, and if you’re lucky, take wonder in it): because the ideal gas state is defined as one where the entities don’t interact with one another, and photons don’t interact with one another, we could reasonable say light is a gas – although a very weird and hard-to-contain one.

 

Speaking of wonder, try this:

We all know that electrons interact with atomic nuclei and one another – this essential principle that explains all chemistry, and the behavior of all ordinary materials.

 

Looking at the SM interaction diagram (ignore the pesky W and Z bosons in the middle), explain how electrons interact with one another, or with the quarks and gluons that make the major part of the protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei.

[maddog]

Can a concentrated amount of photons turn solid somehow?

Photons are known to have a wave particle duality, so if they behave more like particles, would this be possible? Is it physically possible?

No. ... photons can’t interact with one another.

I don't need to emphasize all that CraigD said though true.

It is this statement of Craig's that I emphasize. It is for this very reason

why any "state" for light would not exist because as Craig said, "light is

not matter" and it is matter that can change state.

 

Now it is true and experiment (or series of) where light was "frozen".

This does Not mean it became solid. It means the degrees of freedom

became bottled and contained. Thus energy was "robbed" from the

photons. They were still photons.

 

maddog

[Guest MacPhee]

No.

 

Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma are states of matter defined by how the atom in a material interact with one another, and the electrons in the atoms with their nuclei. You can’t make atomic nuclei or electrons out of photons, photons can’t have a material state, such as solid – it simply doesn’t make sense to ascribe a state of matter to light.

 

Ignoring strict word use conventions here and asking if there’s any way photons can be in some way analogous to atoms in some state of matter, there’s a deep, wonderful principle that tells us photons alone simply can’t behave like ordinary bulk matter. From the Standard Model, which classifies and describes all the fundamental particles such as the photon, we can draw this beautiful diagram of which particles can interact with one another and themselves:

Since states of matter are defined by how the entities in them interact, any particle that doesn’t have a loop back to itself in this diagram can’t be “bulk matter like”, because a collection of only these particles can’t interact with one another.

 

In the diagram, the photon doesn’t have a loop back, which tells us photons can’t interact with one another. This tells us some important things. One is that we don’t need to worry that the light in precisely focused mirrors and lenses that cause wide beams of light to converge, then diverge, to nearly a single point, won’t get messed up (put some other particles at this convergence point, and it’s a whole other story). With light, we can pass an unlimited about of information through an arbitrarily small hole. As anyone who’s ever been in a traffic jam can attest, there’s nothing analogous to this capacity in the world of ordinary bulk matter.

 

Having said it doesn’t make sense to ascribe states of matter to light, I’ll now contradict myself (this happens a lot when talking about science – you just have to get used to, and if you’re lucky, take wonder in it): because the ideal gas state is defined as one where the entities don’t interact with one another, and photons don’t interact with one another, we could reasonable say light is a gas – although a very weird and hard-to-contain one.

 

Speaking of wonder, try this:

We all know that electrons interact with atomic nuclei and one another – this essential principle that explains all chemistry, and the behavior of all ordinary materials.

 

Looking at the SM interaction diagram (ignore the pesky W and Z bosons in the middle), explain how electrons interact with one another, or with the quarks and gluons that make the major part of the protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei.

That's an amazing diagram. It certainly gives rise to a sense of wonderment, to put it politely. The diagram seems to rely quite heavily on the Higgs Boson at the bottom left.

What if the Higgs turns out to be a figment of imagination, and there's actually no such thing? Please could you supply a revised version of the diagram sans Higgs - thanks.