Talk:Matter creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WOW, this article is in dire need of cleanup. I suppose that I will do it. As for references, I will use data from Wiki itself, so...--HantaVirus 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass vs Matter[edit]

To my knowledge Matter can not be created, because matter is not identical to mass. We do not yet have an understanding of what matter is. It is possible for a high energy photon to interact with a nucleus with the products being a particle-antiparticle pair (eg electron-positron) at the minimum. A very high energy photon interacting with a nucleus can generate other more massive particles.

No lab has ever claimed that a photon by itself can convert by itself or by interaction with other photons into matter. We do not yet have a definition of matter is. We do have a definition of mass is, but not matter. Please check for yourself. Bvcrist 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just semantics. In physics, the word "matter" is usually not used, but when it is, it means "particles have have mass."
"No lab has ever claimed that a photon [...] can convert [...] by interaction with other photons into matter." False. [1]
--Strait 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Lawl! Strait is on my side, wtf!? --HantaVirus 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The results of E144 at SLAC do NOT prove or even suggest that photons can be converted into matter. E144 only demonstrates that high powered lasers can convert electrons into positrons.
This is obvious after you read that the number of positrons produced is only 15 in comparison to the "normal background" of the usual 14 positrons that exist in an electron beam. Pray tell me why are there any positrons at all in an electron beam that produce a "normal background" of positrons?
The hype printed in the Science, Nature etc is just Hype to promote adddition funding. The data speak for themselves just as the included drawing speaks of the process. The Feynman diagrams clearing show that the use of electrons. Despite your wishful thinking, there are still no experiements that show that high powered lasers by themselves can produce particles when the lasers are mixed in UHV or XHV in the effective absence of all kinds of particles. Trace gases are trace gases in SLAC, CERN everywhere, and they offer beams the chance to produce other particles.
File:False mc.gif
Bvcrist 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
(Did the quality of this image just drop dramatically? --HantaVirus 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Yes, it did. --Strait 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC))
Yes, the two most reputable scientific journals in the world are saying that something is true just to generate hype. Please. You clearly don't understand Feynman diagrams or any of the principles surrounding them. Nor do you understand the principles of experimental physics. --Strait 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not suggest that those two journals generated the hype or the wrongful interpretation of the raw data. I'm saying someone in the lab who reported the story to those journals did so in a way that the reporters lept to the wrong conclusions and was allowed to go to press. There is no evidence that matter was created from pure photons in the total absence of matter. Please recall electrons are a form of matter.
If the babel speaking nepotistic groups at the various labs can pull the wool over the US government's eyes to get funding, why do you think two journals would fare any better?
OK. I'll bite. Since I seem ignorant of how to read Feynman's diagram. Why don't you spend a moment of time to write the complete and proper Feynman sequence and share it with us. Please be sure to refer to the diagrams that are in the PhD thesis and the articles that summed up E144 which you refered me to.
As for the principles of experimental physics: you'll have to be a bit less vague. What principle or principles of expt physics, do you think I can not fathom?
And please do me the honor of responding to the all topics under discussion, not just the one(s) that suites your mood. Responding to all topics in a discussion is called professional courtesy and is a proper form of scientific debate. Selective discussive is the tact of the would-be lawyer types. Is this your modus operandum?
If you'd like to know more about me and some of what I know, then, if you've not already done so, visit my Userpage. I've read the very scant info you've provided about yourself, but it seems there is little to tell or you are fearful and tell little. Which is it?
[[User:Bvcrist|Bvcrist] 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you guys would log in and sign your comments then this argument might start to be something we could try to make sense of. Bvcrist, are you the IP address guy? Are you suggesting that you don't believe matter creative can happen, that is, if you remove the electron event to far away and just look at photons interacting, that you can't get pair creation? Are you suggesting that physical law is not time reversible in this case, or that electron-positron anihilation is not as simple as it looks? Dicklyon 20:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is Bvcrist. No, Bvcrist, is not the IP address guy in this instance as far I can tell. I have in the past accidently edited other articles and forgot to sign in, but not in this case. The message before yours is mine, if that's your question. Based on what I've read so far, my answer to your first query is: Yes. "Strait" steered me back to E144, which I'd not looked at for a while, and I quickly gleaned the Feynman diagrams from the available Thesis and journal papers. NONE of those 3-4 items supported the current claim that high energy photon-photon collisions can produce matter in the total absence of matter such as the electron shown in the picture above.
What I am saying is that many people have NOT read enough to learn that gamma ray photons do NOT convert into positron-electron pairs in the ABSENCE of a nearby nucleus. To my knowledge, a nearby nucleus is absolutely essential for the production of a positron-electron pair. (Correct me if I've missed some new results.) The literature shows that a positron-electron pair results when a gamma ray photon interacts with a nearby nucleus, but that does NOT mean that the gamma ray photon was converted into either the positron or the electron. I suspect, but have no proof, that the gamma ray photon causes the nearby nucleus to emit both the electron and the positron. I also suspect, but have no proof, that the source of the electron-positron pair is due mainly to the interaction of the gamma ray with at least one neutron if not more and with or without proton interaction. That is the nature of my debate with Strait over in the EP Pair-Production article.
As for "time reversal" ... well, let's just say I'm still thinking and learning about that subject.
Bvcrist 05:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't follow all of it.But from what a read Bvcrist you didn't understand the E144 experiment.They didn't show that ,they can convert e to positrons.The e beem and laser are just physicist hand waving ,in order to produce gamma photons of sufishient energy for the experiment.The electron beem is irelevent with the final result.--Pixel ;-) 10:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Pixel! The Feynman Diagrams (FDs) and the image shown above clearly reveal the components of the experiment. If the electrons were not present in the "reaction zone" then I would not say anything. I understand the Ginzburg method for upping the energy of the photon beam. Unfortunately, the electrons are still present in the reaction zone when the high energy photons collide. As a result, the reaction zone includes not only high energy photons but also the electrons used to produce the high energy photons. I'm suggesting that the interpretation of the results (ie the production of positrons) is not complete or is wrong. I'm saying that the electron beam is 100% relevant despite the wishful thinking or biased imagination of some of the experimenters or those who wrote the papers.
If my view is wrong, then show my some experimental results that produce matter in the total absence of any form of matter other than that of the photons.
Bvcrist 19:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That was the point of my edit ,such an "explicit" experiment would be too dificult(and expensive) to do,and don't exist (yet?), not because it's physicaly impossible.By usual extrapolation, we can accept within resonable doubt ,that the near by stuf(by comparing different experiments) are not relevant, ther isn't one experiment that explicit.You have too make a guess with what you can get.The physicist are guessing(they have a mathematical model that makes predictions) that the photons can on ther won produce a pair of particules.Your view is wrong in the sens that your demands on the charpness of the experimental results are not resonable.--Pixel ;-) 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your answer suggests that you are not so familiar with the extremely large amount of money that goes into the budgets of the labs around the world.
Because the conversion of photons into matter would be a phenomenal and fantasticly amazing result, if it has indeed happened by mans doing, then wouldn't you expect many many more experiments and papers to follow the E144 experiments which are now 10 years old. And further more, wouldn't everyone want to rule out the possibility that I suggest.
Lastly, why should anyone with an established reputation, take the chance to extrapolate the conclusion of matter creation when there is such a such a strong variable in the reaction. I suggest that only people who are at the beginning or end of their careers or some cowboy-type physicist would take the chance to extrapolate the conclusion of matter creation from the E144 results.
Bvcrist 01:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

presisly, despite all the many,it stil not enouft.The chalenge to concentrate 1.022 MeV in a confined enouft space is to much.phenomenal and fantasticly amazing result i don't think so ,it still an extrimly expansive way of producing extrapolate the conclusion of matter creation they alredy done this.Like i said ,your mistake is to ask "explicite proof" wich is out of price.--Pixel ;-) 05:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The following quote by me was shared with Strait on his userpage. Please read the original Hubbell publication to learn what I'm trying to explain: i.e. there is insufficient experimental evidence to suggest that pair production occurs in the absence of matter.
"That "pair production, electron field" curve (ref 47) is actually a curve called "incoherent pair production - Triplet Production" as defined by J.H.Hubbell etal in their original 1980 NIST publication (125 page PDF) which is available free from the NIST site. On p.1036 of that article they mention "free electrons" in the opening sentence of that paragraph, but soon reveal that they are writing about Atomic Electrons which from their point of view act as free electrons. This reveals that the PDG figure is due to calculated estimates of potential cross sections if the Bethe-Heitler or Wheeler-Lamb calculation are reliable. They show charts for H, He, Li, Be, B, C all the way up to Z=100. This set of charts also shows that the Triple Production Curves are calculated from the total Photo-Ionization Cross Section chart you know as 27.14 in the PDG PDF file. Another set of derived set of curves (all elements) for "incoherent pair prodiction - Triple Production" is available from the NIST XCOM database via link:
[2]. Do these charts and info confirm or deny my contention?"
Bvcrist 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You are confusing the issue. In the case you are talking about, the pair production did happen in the presence of matter, namely an electron. The reaction was e- γ → e- e+ e-. The reaction that E114 did was γ γ → e+ e-. --Strait 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. I just dug up a paper "Electron Triplet Production by High-Energy Photons in Hydrogen" by Gates etal in Phys Rev Vol 125 p 1310 (1962). They had no trouble setting up a 323 MeV photon beam from their UC Berkeley synchrotron and shining through a 4 inch diameter bubble chamber of liquid hydrogen. To Pixel: Since this was done in 1962, I guess it nearly broke their budget.
The E144 reaction was γ γ e- → e+ e-, not as you suggest. This is obvious from the image above and the complete set of Feynman diagrams. The Triplet Production reaction was γ H2(p+ e-) → e+ e- e-, which surprises me because I thought it was the neutron that produced the positron, but none the less, the facts are now laid out for all to review. Based on an unbiased scientific point of view most scientists would not exclude the proton from the reaction that occurs when photons hit molecular hydrogen, which is contrary to your expectation that the nucleus does not play a role in the creation of matter in the presence of cyclohexane or benzene.
Bvcrist 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
From the E144 Page itself [3] :
An electron enters the laser beam from the left, and collides with a laser photon to produce a high-energy gamma ray. e- + γ → γ
The electron is deflected downwards. e-, γγ
The gamma ray then collides with four or more laser photons to produce an electron-positron pair. γ + γ() → e+ e-
And, a .gif of the event. I hope that this clears up whats happening --HantaVirus 13:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice Gif, but what happens in the reaction zone is never Known and we can not tell how or when the positron was produced. Wishful imagination will never replace hard scientific evidence. I'd love to know what happens in the reaction zone, but we do not, so we can not know what produces the positron unless we minimize the variables.
Bvcrist 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The full anser is, that acording to the best available models, it did that.In physics you are forst to make extrapolations all the time,thats what a model is.Refrazed, our curent extrapolations, are saying that it did.If you prefer, physicists, are making gesses based on ther experiences.--Pixel ;-) 09:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "The implication was that the universe started with only photons..."[edit]

"The implication was that the universe started with only photons. This is not known and probably false" 19:12, 3 August 2006 Strait

You were so smug about discrediting my claim (Conditions of the early universe were ideal for matter creation, and [this period] is the source of most of fermionic matter in the current universe), that I assumed that I must have been wrong. Then I stumbled onto this: [4]. So Steve Weinberg is wrong, too? --HantaVirus 13:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't read smugness into my comments. I'm not putting you down, I'm just calling it like I see it.
The first entry in Weinberg's chart (as shown on hyperphysics) says that at 0.02s "the universe is mostly light". But 0.02 seconds is a long time after the beginning of the universe. At this time, for instance, the temperature has already fallen far below the mass of the W and Z bosons and far far below the GUT hypothesized super-heavy X bosons, so none of these are in abundance. Quite possibly photons were created from these latter particles and not the other way around. Or both were created from some other process. In any case, what happened at these early times is almost pure speculation. --Strait 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
A few questions on the Big Bang: From where did the material come to produce the big bang? For how many eons did it exist in a pre-big bang state? What triggered the big bang? Was the big bang from a mathematical point in space or another dimension? Was the big bang actually a change in a limited volume of pre-space and if so, what was the size of that volume? Is it possible that the so-called expansion of the universe is just a local effect in a closed, fixed size universe where another section is shrinking in response to the local expansion, and, if so, then doesn't that indicate that the Big Bang may have never happened?
Bvcrist 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Your questions require complex answers and are way the hell outside the scope of this discussion. There are plenty of books on this topic. I suggest you read them. --Strait 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
/agree. Alright, I guess that answers my issue. --HantaVirus 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that, but it seemed appropriate based on the quote "...universe started with only photons" that I see at the very start of this discussion. Guess I'll move it over to the Big Bang article.
Bvcrist 02:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Answer on your question is far more simplier than one could guess. The Big Bang - theory build on eternal matter. The main idea is taken from oriental pantheism where world flows through cyclic calps. One calp is mass explosion -> formation, then it ends with deflation and it unites together. This is end of one calp. And so it goes forever without any goal or begining of creation/intervention. Also it mentions that God is immanent to matter.

But therefore could we ask, what is the number of calp we live in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the smallest unit of existence could be possibility.
A unit of nothing more than the possibility of an alternative to not being. At first there could be nothing, but then simply the possibility of something could manifest an incomprehensibly small unit that is, yet isn't.
Possibilities would use incredibly simple rules, but eventually a type of possibility allows them to converge. Those that don't combine to create more possibilities pop back into nothing, those that do combine in a way to further more possibilities remain. The ultimate 'sweet spot' would eventually cause an explosion of possibilities and a massive expansion. An expansion into something so densely layered it appears real. XD -- (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

need Photon Jet (Photon-Particle Jet) article[edit]

This article refers to a Photon Jet reaction which is probably the interaction of a high energy photon with a system that produces various particle jets. Is anyone up to start this one. Bvcrist 02:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ever more Grass and Dirt[edit]

  Don't bother reading this.  Someone convinced me that dirt build-up is due to carbon being transferred (long-term) from the air to the earth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 
    In Maine, I laid flat stones on my lawn for a walkway, burying them to half their thickness.  I was not diligent about trimming the grass around the stones, so grass next to them tended to arch over the stones in search of space and light.  Each autumn the grass would die back.  The grass over the stones lay in place on the stlones.  After several years, the grass had overgrown half of the stones' areas, and some small stones had entirely disappeared under the grass.  I cut the intruder grass away, and underneath I found lots of dead grass, and soil under that -- still on top of the stones.  I dug the stones out, and found that they no longer were buried to half their thickness, but three-quarters.
    Not much dust blows around in Maine, we did not fertilize the lawn, but we usually left clippings on it.   Most of the lawn was too far from the street and sidewalk to be affected by vehicles splashing particles onto it.  As for the lawn not near to the stones, it "seemed" to be higher.  (I know that farmers of past centuries believed that stones grew where they lay, and felt certain that boulders on their property were bigger than in previous decades.)  
    In retrospect, I wish that I had laid, let's say, aluminum nails with their heads cut off at precise locations back among the trees, where people very rarely walked, to see if the all disappeared under the falling leaves over the years.  I could accept, for argument's sake, that the mass of a tree above the ground is close to that which is below the ground, and assume that the roots occupied space that used to hold matter equal to that had been absorbed by the tree.  But, meanwhile, there is matter above the ground in the visible tree that was not there when the seed hit the ground.  So below the ground the mass is "the same" (for the argument), and above the ground there is more.  And falling leaves lay a decaying carpet of ever more mass.
    My theory is that plants create matter through photosynthesis. The earth is getting bigger. I have mentioned this to three college-educated people.  A female college administrator just laughed.  A manager of the fish part of Maine's Fish and Game Department agreed with me.  An engineer asked questions, revealing a skeptical attitude.  He never told me yes or no.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)