If waves don't collide, how come we can collide two photons togheter??
gu...@hotmail.com
When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
overlap each other like waves)?
Eric Gisse
Nothing ever does.
[snip remaining, unread]
gu...@hotmail.com
When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
gu...@hotmail.com
When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
Tom Roberts
> It doesn't make sense to me:
That's because you refuse to STUDY PHYSICS. Nobody ever learned anything
with their mouth open, and yours is always flapping around here. Stop
wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and STUDY -- you just
might learn something.
> When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> overlap each other like waves)?
Photons are not waves. They are not particles. They are QUANTUM OBJECTS,
and such objects behave differently from your naive expectations.
Hint: compare the energy of light photons to the energy of photons
capable of producing e+e- pairs.
Tom Roberts
Surfer
wrote:
Photons are wave packets of electromagnetic energy with oscillating
electric and magnetic fields.
If two high energy wave packets (eg gamma ray photons) pass through
each other, the amplitude of the waves can add together so as to
temporarily make the fields much stronger.
I guess if these fields are sufficiently strong, they can pull a
virtual electron/position pair permanently apart.
So its perhaps not so much "collision" as a violent overlapping.
-- Surfer
Tom Roberts
> Photons are wave packets of electromagnetic energy with oscillating
> electric and magnetic fields.
That is an incredibly bad description of photons. So bad it's downright
wrong. Photons "implement" electric and magnetic fields, they don't
"contain" them as you imply.
Of course all your statements are excessively ambiguous
and full of puns....
> If two high energy wave packets (eg gamma ray photons) pass through
> each other, the amplitude of the waves can add together so as to
> temporarily make the fields much stronger.
More confusion. Photons are not really "wave packets" in the sense you
use the term (superposing as classical waves).
The term "wave packet" is sometimes applied to photons,
especially in older books. But the wave is a _probability_
_amplitude_, not "electric and magnetic fields" as you
seem to think.
> I guess if these fields are sufficiently strong, they can pull a
> virtual electron/position pair permanently apart.
"Strength" (in the sense of intensity) has nothing to do with it. What
matters is whether or not the conservation laws can be obeyed -- if
4-momentum and the discrete selection rules can be obeyed, then a pair
can be produced; if not, not.
> So its perhaps not so much "collision" as a violent overlapping.
That's a great big PUN on "overlapping", if you mean it in the way you
imply above.
I repeat: photons are neither particles nor waves, they are QUANTUM
OBJECTS, and they do not behave according to your naive expectations. To
even begin to understand what photons are, you must STUDY. For starters
I suggest:
Feynman, _QED_.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
They behave according to YOUR expectations, Roberts Roberts, because
you are the Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer
etc.):
Pentcho Valev asked on sci.physics.relativity: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT
EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? Tom Roberts answered:
"Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
Minkowski spacetime)." Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Pentcho Valev
Eric Gisse
[snip idiocy]
Get a life, you sad little man.
Barry
> Hint: compare the energy of light photons to the energy of photons
> capable of producing e+e- pairs.
>
Energy (in the sense you're trying to use the word) isn't an intrinsic
property of photons.
Hence all photons are capable of producing e+e- pairs, regardless of
their energy in a particular observer's frame.
Why do you think that "light photons" aren't capable of producing e+e-
pairs?
Hint: If you move towards the "light photon" source, might you observe
e+e- production?
Barry
gu...@hotmail.com
> wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and STUDY
You will have to be honest with yourself on this one to notice you are
pre-judging and pre-labeling people.
You will notice it is not nonsense and quintuple pages to study to
answer this one, many in this post have replied that it is a complex
answer.
>
> > When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> > and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> > overlap each other like waves)?
>
> Photons are not waves. They are not particles. They are QUANTUM OBJECTS,
> and such objects behave differently from your naive expectations.
>
naive = pre-labeling people. They, not me, say that all EM WAVES are
photons.
You have so much pre-labeled me, that your "behave differently" is
propostorous since when they speak of wave superposition then 99% of
the time it is in relation to em waves (there is no other form of
waves) and these em waves are photons.
So when you say that photons "behave differently" (and your Quantum
blah blah) is ridiculous because they say that all em waves are
photons and thus your quantum objects and em waves superposition, they
don't collide.
> Hint: compare the energy of light photons to the energy of photons
> capable of producing e+e- pairs.
>
> Tom Roberts
You told Surfer that intensity has nothing to do with it, higher
intensity = higher energy (which you spoke of above here)....(as well
high frequency also = higher energy.
****************************************
In brief, the answer is complex, not definitive and has been debated
by many in this post therefore your insult to my naivety is of
insufficient foundation.
Eric Gisse
> On May 23, 11:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > g...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > It doesn't make sense to me:
>
> > Stop
> > wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and STUDY
>
> You will have to be honest with yourself on this one to notice you are
> pre-judging and pre-labeling people.
He is being kind, idiot. Take the hint and go away.
[....]
Tom Roberts
> On May 23, 10:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote.
>> Hint: compare the energy of light photons to the energy of photons
>> capable of producing e+e- pairs.
>
> Energy (in the sense you're trying to use the word) isn't an intrinsic
> property of photons.
Yes, of course. But in the case being discussed there is implicitly an
inertial frame in which the discussion takes place, and the energy of
the photons is definite in such a frame.
> Hence all photons are capable of producing e+e- pairs, regardless of
> their energy in a particular observer's frame.
Sure, but this depends on what they interact with, not in which frame
one considers them. That is, the relevant quantity is not their energy,
but rather the Mandelstamm variable s for the interaction (s is the
energy^2 measured in the center of momentum frame of the interaction). s
is an invariant, and therefore capable of representing some physical
quantity related to the interaction (energy is not invariant, and
therefore cannot represent any physical quantity, surprising as this may
be to some people).
> Why do you think that "light photons" aren't capable of producing e+e-
> pairs?
Remember that it takes two, but two light photons (i.e. photons that are
each the energy of visible light in the inertial frame mentioned above)
do not have s > (2 Me)^2, which is the threshold for pair production (Me
= rest mass of an electron or positron).
If, however, one takes one "light photon" and one gamma ray with energy
> 1 MeV, the two can interact and produce a pair. This is kinematically
allowed, but is quite rare (i.e. has a small cross-section).
> Hint: If you move towards the "light photon" source, might you observe
> e+e- production?
No. See above. What matters is not how you look at the photons, but what
they interact with. It should be clear that whether or not a given
interaction occurs MUST be independent of frame or observer.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On May 23, 11:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> g...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Photons are not waves. They are not particles. They are QUANTUM OBJECTS,
>> and such objects behave differently from your naive expectations.
>
> naive = pre-labeling people.
I am NOT "pre-labeling" you, I am labeling you based on your many naive
posts around here. <shrug>
> They, not me, say that all EM WAVES are
> photons. [...]
You are referring to people as clueless as yourself. And you got it
backwards -- while EM waves are comprised of photons, the issue was the
claim that photons "contain" EM field or waves. In any case, no
knowledgeable person has posted anything in this thread that contradicts
what I have said in this thread, but you are obviously incapable of
understanding what they or I say, because you have not STUDIED this. <shrug>
[Here "knowledgeable" means having studied QED beyond the
comic-book level.]
> You have so much pre-labeled me, [...]
I repeat: this is POST-labeling. And the only way for you to move on is
to STUDY. In particular, posting nonsense to the net is useless, as is
your "twenty questions" style. This is complicated and subtle, and only
STUDY will do. <shrug>
> higher
> intensity = higher energy (which you spoke of above here)....(as well
> high frequency also = higher energy.
You write with too many PUNs, and quite clearly do not understand this
at all.
Consider two counter-propagating photon beams. Higher intensity means
higher BEAM energy, but does not affect the energy of the individual
photons; it means more photons in the beam. But pair production is TWO
photons (here one from each beam) interacting, and requires that s > (2
Me)^2. That is completely independent of the intensity of the beams, and
depends only on the energies of the individual photons in the beams.
Higher intensity means more photons in the beam, and that implies that
IF the photons are above threshold then MORE pairs can be produced.
Tom Roberts
PD
A couple of comments.
1. First of all, photons do not collide to produce electron/positron
pairs. Photons do not interact with photons directly. There is a 2-
vertex process by which this can happen, however. One of the initial
state photons radiates a positron and a *virtual* electron, and the
second photon interacts with the *virtual* electron to produce a real
electron. There are two photons in the initial state and a positron
and electron in the final state, but there was no direct photon-photon
interaction.
2. It is incorrect to say in an absolute sense that light waves
overlap but do not interact. Light waves do produce electron-positron
pairs when they collide, but usually the frequency of the light is too
low to produce any significant number of them.
Your mistake is in assuming *absolute* behavior one way or the other,
when it is *always* a little of both.
PD
PD
> On May 23, 11:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > g...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > It doesn't make sense to me:
>
> > Stop
> > wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and STUDY
>
> You will have to be honest with yourself on this one to notice you are
> pre-judging and pre-labeling people.
>
> You will notice it is not nonsense and quintuple pages to study to
> answer this one, many in this post have replied that it is a complex
> answer.
>
>
>
> > > When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> > > and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> > > overlap each other like waves)?
>
> > Photons are not waves. They are not particles. They are QUANTUM OBJECTS,
> > and such objects behave differently from your naive expectations.
>
> naive = pre-labeling people. They, not me, say that all EM WAVES are
> photons.
However, this is an oversimplification compounded by a careless use of
terminology. Tom's advice is better.
What is correct is to say that LIGHT is what it is, and LIGHT can be
described as electromagnetic waves and it can be described as photons.
This does NOT mean that electromagnetic waves are photons. The subtle
distinction is important.
The US quarter can be described as having the head of a president. It
can also be described as having wings and talons. This does not mean
that presidents have wings and talons, nor that an eagle has ever been
a president.
If "they" say that em waves are made of photons, then "they" are
misleading you, and more care should be taken in describing light more
precisely, and this is what Tom was trying to do.
PD
gu...@hotmail.com
I'm sure you know about Tom Roberts' Mandelstamm variable s zit
popping boy. If not then you go away and keep reading your nerdy books
while your Mama pops your college zits for you.
bullnut
> > It doesn't make sense to me:
>
> That's because you refuse to STUDY PHYSICS. Nobody ever learned anything
> with their mouth open, and yours is always flapping around here. Stop
> wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and STUDY -- you just
> might learn something.
>
> > When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> > and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> > overlap each other like waves)?
>
> Photons are not waves. They are not particles. They are QUANTUM OBJECTS,
> and such objects behave differently from your naive expectations.
fine, then explain their "differently behavior" when
they annihilate each other
gu...@hotmail.com
>
> Sure, but this depends on what they interact with, not in which frame
> one considers them. That is, the relevant quantity is not their energy,
> but rather the Mandelstamm variable s
Mandelstamm is very rarely found in web searches, most likely not so
important. All that wikipedia mentions is that sufficient energy is
required during the collision.
> do not have s > (2 Me)^2, which is the threshold for pair production
Incorrect according to Wikipedia yet you call "me" naive. According to
Wikipedia pair production occrus 2Me x c^2 and not (2Me)^2.
Obviously you will cut-off my words on the very first mistake I write
= pre-judgement...and yet the error above is from you not me.
>
> Tom Roberts
bullnut
> g...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On May 23, 11:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> g...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Photons are not waves. They are not particles. They are QUANTUM OBJECTS,
> >> and such objects behave differently from your naive expectations.
>
> > naive = pre-labeling people.
>
> I am NOT "pre-labeling" you, I am labeling you based on your many naive
> posts around here. <shrug>
>
> > They, not me, say that all EM WAVES are
> > photons. [...]
>
> You are referring to people as clueless as yourself. And you got it
> backwards -- while EM waves are comprised of photons, the issue was the
> claim that photons "contain" EM field or waves. In any case, no
> knowledgeable person has posted anything in this thread that contradicts
> what I have said in this thread, but you are obviously incapable of
> understanding what they or I say, because you have not STUDIED this. <shrug>
>
> [Here "knowledgeable" means having studied QED beyond the
> comic-book level.]
>
> > You have so much pre-labeled me, [...]
>
> I repeat: this is POST-labeling. And the only way for you to move on is
> to STUDY. In particular, posting nonsense to the net is useless, as is
> your "twenty questions" style. This is complicated and subtle, and only
> STUDY will do. <shrug>
is <shrug> a HTML tag?
i never saw you also use a </shrug>
this is not good practice
only for <img> tag for instance doesnt require a </img> tag
>
> > higher
> > intensity = higher energy (which you spoke of above here)....(as well
> > high frequency also = higher energy.
>
> You write with too many PUNs, and quite clearly do not understand this
> at all.
>
> Consider two counter-propagating photon beams. Higher intensity means
> higher BEAM energy, but does not affect the energy of the individual
> photons; it means more photons in the beam. But pair production is TWO
> photons (here one from each beam) interacting, and requires that s > (2
> Me)^2. That is completely independent of the intensity of the beams, and
> depends only on the energies of the individual photons in the beams.
> Higher intensity means more photons in the beam, and that implies
consequently more waves?
consider a 5 photons wave period
if you send 10 photons then you have 2 waves, am i cool?
Tom Roberts
> On May 24, 8:11 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Sure, but this depends on what they interact with, not in which frame
>> one considers them. That is, the relevant quantity is not their energy,
>> but rather the Mandelstamm variable s
>
> Mandelstamm is very rarely found in web searches, most likely not so
> important. All that wikipedia mentions is that sufficient energy is
> required during the collision.
160k hits is not "rare" (fixing my misspelling), but of course the web
is not a scholarly work. The standard textbooks on collisions and
interactions discuss the Mandelstam variables. This pair production is
known as "s channel", from the relevant Mandelstam variable.
>> do not have s > (2 Me)^2, which is the threshold for pair production
>
> Incorrect according to Wikipedia yet you call "me" naive. According to
> Wikipedia pair production occrus 2Me x c^2 and not (2Me)^2.
They are equivalent. s is (energy)^2 in the center-of-momentum frame,
and wikipedia is discussing energy, not s. I'm using the usual units
with c=1.
I repeat: the only way you will ever learn to understand this is to
STUDY. The web is woefully inadequate, you need real physics textbooks.
Tom Roberts
gu...@hotmail.com
> On May 23, 3:13 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't make sense to me:
>
> > When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> > and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> > overlap each other like waves)?
>
> A couple of comments.
> 1. First of all, photons do not collide to produce electron/positron
> pairs.
They specifically call it a collision, not me.
Eric Gisse
Knowledge is scary. Avoid it at all costs.
gu...@hotmail.com
Hint: You have been so far incapable of explaining when em waves
(gamma ray photon) collide and when they supperposition instead.
You cling too much to quantum entanglement(Quantum objects) without
having the intelligence to notice that macroscopic objects bigger than
you: Planets also adhere to quantum entanglement behaviors. So much so
that perhaps you deserve such a faith (but not me), someone should
move the Sun around and see if Planet Earth with Tom Roberts taking a
sun tan won't also be perturbed (hence your quantum object/
entanglement theory)
PD
> On May 25, 10:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 3:13 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't make sense to me:
>
> > > When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> > > and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> > > overlap each other like waves)?
>
> > A couple of comments.
> > 1. First of all, photons do not collide to produce electron/positron
> > pairs.
>
> They specifically call it a collision, not me.
Who is "they", specifically? Wikipedia article authors?
gu...@hotmail.com
> On May 26, 3:21 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 10:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 3:13 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It doesn't make sense to me:
>
> > > > When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> > > > and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> > > > overlap each other like waves)?
>
> > > A couple of comments.
> > > 1. First of all, photons do not collide to produce electron/positron
> > > pairs.
>
> > They specifically call it a collision, not me.
>
> Who is "they", specifically? Wikipedia article authors?
>
Quote: "A photon-photon collision can occur when the electron and the
positron both emit one photon. If the transverse momentum transfer is
large, one or both electrons can be deflected enough to be detected,
this is called tagging."
What do they mean by sufficient momentum ...since I believe a photon's
momentum is always constant since it's mass(if any or zero) and
velocity are constant????
They speak of momentum as the requirement while Tom Roberts (and Eric
Gisse the Heckler) ridicules it (ridicules any particle/wave described
behavior towards the photon) and prefers to refer to them as a
behavior of quantum objects (which I believe this refers to the terms
of probability and quantum entanglement).
>
>
>
>
> > >Photons do not interact with photons directly. There is a 2-
> > > vertex process by which this can happen, however. One of the initial
> > > state photons radiates a positron and a *virtual* electron, and the
> > > second photon interacts with the *virtual* electron to produce a real
> > > electron. There are two photons in the initial state and a positron
> > > and electron in the final state, but there was no direct photon-photon
> > > interaction.
> > > 2. It is incorrect to say in an absolute sense that light waves
> > > overlap but do not interact. Light waves do produce electron-positron
> > > pairs when they collide, but usually the frequency of the light is too
> > > low to produce any significant number of them.
>
> > > Your mistake is in assuming *absolute* behavior one way or the other,
> > > when it is *always* a little of both.
>
> > > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's a Miracle
have ya hoid of it?
Hang up
Maybe light is different?
I would say black and white are harmonic for sure because frcatls like
snowflakes create optical illusions.Jaguar paint has a strange purple
hue and volkswagen mica does also.I owould say jaguar is floaty anti
harmonic and nica is depth harmonic and tinty.
--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_2_Death_/Kaleidoscope/
Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/
It's a Miracle
have ya hoid of it?
Hang up
Maybe light is different?
I would say black and white are harmonic for sure because frcatls like
snowflakes create optical illusions.Jaguar paint has a strange purple
hue and volkswagen mica does also.I owould say jaguar is floaty anti
harmonic and nica is depth harmonic and tinty.
You can get auto paint chip books anywhere.
It's a Miracle
have ya hoid of it?
--
It's a Miracle
powdere thats wet and you clear coat it but cant see the depth of the
mettallic and there is a rock group METALLICA
It's a Miracle
white paint whiter
It's a Miracle
powdere thats wet and you clear coat it but cant see the depth of the
mettallic and there is a rock group METALLICA
I was going to say a powder that looks dry must be wet somehow and
somehow that came up but maybe mr drowsey did it himself and my memorie
of doing things is different because I evolved just what I thought at
the time.
It's a Miracle
and Jaguar seems like that and Jaguar is related to this purple glass
The opposite color to white is fuzzy pink maybe and Islanf island fizz
at dennys? Looks like the color and thats whats hidden in whites shadow
and whites dark energy
It's a Miracle
It's a Miracle
powdere thats wet and you clear coat it but cant see the depth of the
mettallic and there is a rock group METALLICA
I was going to say a powder that looks dry must be wet somehow and
somehow that came up but maybe mr drowsey did it himself and my memorie
of doing things is different because I evolved just what I thought at
the time.
Hang up
It's a Miracle
and Jaguar seems like that and Jaguar is related to this purple glass
The opposite color to white is fuzzy pink maybe and Islanf island fizz
at dennys? Looks like the color and thats whats hidden in whites shadow
and whites dark energy
Female I believe
It's a Miracle
is a Blush
Shadows making dark energy are blushes like antilasers i bet
It's a Miracle
edges terminate with some kind of physics and are vibrating at a
frequency related to video game convulsions but shadow is not 3 d but
appears floaty if its not harsh and the edges look stampy like postage
stamps like a tension pull of something unless the edges are sharp then
tension pull isnt obvious maybe? doesnt seem detectable
It's a Miracle
edges terminate with some kind of physics and are vibrating at a
frequency related to video game convulsions but shadow is not 3 d but
appears floaty if its not harsh and the edges look stampy like postage
stamps like a tension pull of something unless the edges are sharp then
tension pull isnt obvious maybe? doesnt seem detectable
Hang up twice already
Another hang up Ill still look around at shadows and keep on talking
maybe something but not a tension pull.I think Hue is tension though and
scientific not moody like or not emotional like temperature
It's a Miracle
edges terminate with some kind of physics and are vibrating at a
frequency related to video game convulsions but shadow is not 3 d but
appears floaty if its not harsh and the edges look stampy like postage
stamps like a tension pull of something unless the edges are sharp then
tension pull isnt obvious maybe? doesnt seem detectable
--
It's a Miracle
edges terminate with some kind of physics and are vibrating at a
frequency related to video game convulsions but shadow is not 3 d but
appears floaty if its not harsh and the edges look stampy like postage
stamps like a tension pull of something unless the edges are sharp then
tension pull isnt obvious maybe? doesnt seem detectable
Hang up twice already
It's a Miracle
and color
hang up just an appearance that looks natural but not alive like mold
It's a Miracle
superfine velvet layer in the center so you get like an egg effect sunny
side up.
It's a Miracle
with the rebellious kids chanting something about angels
It's a Miracle
globe is arty and things like hue re scientific so it made a shadow
laser so all you need is an arty laser tube and maybe Tiffany light
fixture they rant over that over priced carp but sometimes nice.A little
like stained glass in churches and this church over here has a beautiful
display and another are a is like an alter with a lock and a small
seating area and the Holy water got green floaty spots and those are
holes i bet not dirt.
Another hang up
It's a Miracle
globe is arty and things like hue re scientific so it made a shadow
laser so all you need is an arty laser tube and maybe Tiffany light
fixture they rant over that over priced carp but sometimes nice.A little
like stained glass in churches and this church over here has a beautiful
display and another are a is like an alter with a lock and a small
seating area and the Holy water got green floaty spots and those are
holes i bet not dirt.
--
It's a Miracle
superfine velvet layer in the center so you get like an egg effect sunny
side up.
Hang up
It's a Miracle
and color
--
PD
> On May 27, 10:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 3:21 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 10:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 3:13 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It doesn't make sense to me:
>
> > > > > When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> > > > > and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> > > > > overlap each other like waves)?
>
> > > > A couple of comments.
> > > > 1. First of all, photons do not collide to produce electron/positron
> > > > pairs.
>
> > > They specifically call it a collision, not me.
>
> > Who is "they", specifically? Wikipedia article authors?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
And you'll note that in this article is said the following:
"From quantum electrodynamics we know that photons cannot couple
directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can
interact through higher-order processes."
>
> Quote: "A photon-photon collision can occur when the electron and the
> positron both emit one photon. If the transverse momentum transfer is
> large, one or both electrons can be deflected enough to be detected,
> this is called tagging."
>
> What do they mean by sufficient momentum ...since I believe a photon's
> momentum is always constant since it's mass(if any or zero) and
> velocity are constant????
No, that is a mistake. Momentum is not always mass times velocity.
That rule ONLY applies to slow-moving massive objects. It is by no
means a universal rule.
>
> They speak of momentum as the requirement while Tom Roberts (and Eric
> Gisse the Heckler) ridicules it (ridicules any particle/wave described
> behavior towards the photon)
I think you misjudge them. There is a careful distinction to make.
Photons do exhibit wave behavior. They also exhibit particle behavior.
The mistake is then to think this means that a photon is a particle,
or that it is a wave -- or that it has to be one or the other at all.
> and prefers to refer to them as a
> behavior of quantum objects (which I believe this refers to the terms
> of probability and quantum entanglement).
Well, that's included, but there's much, much more to it than that,
more than can be encapsulated in a few paragraphs.
PD
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >Photons do not interact with photons directly. There is a 2-
> > > > vertex process by which this can happen, however. One of the initial
> > > > state photons radiates a positron and a *virtual* electron, and the
> > > > second photon interacts with the *virtual* electron to produce a real
> > > > electron. There are two photons in the initial state and a positron
> > > > and electron in the final state, but there was no direct photon-photon
> > > > interaction.
> > > > 2. It is incorrect to say in an absolute sense that light waves
> > > > overlap but do not interact. Light waves do produce electron-positron
> > > > pairs when they collide, but usually the frequency of the light is too
> > > > low to produce any significant number of them.
>
> > > > Your mistake is in assuming *absolute* behavior one way or the other,
> > > > when it is *always* a little of both.
>
> > > > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
gu...@hotmail.com
> On May 28, 1:03 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 10:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 3:21 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 25, 10:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 23, 3:13 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > It doesn't make sense to me:
>
> > > > > > When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> > > > > > and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> > > > > > overlap each other like waves)?
>
> > > > > A couple of comments.
> > > > > 1. First of all, photons do not collide to produce electron/positron
> > > > > pairs.
>
> > > > They specifically call it a collision, not me.
>
> > > Who is "they", specifically? Wikipedia article authors?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
>
> And you'll note that in this article is said the following:
> "From quantum electrodynamics we know that photons cannot couple
> directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can
> interact through higher-order processes."
>
>
I would think that coupling (male + female) in terms of no charge they
mean no attraction or repulsion which has nothing to do with
collision.
The higher-order process could they mean the e & m fields of a photon?
I know there's also the quantum entanglement theory which I despise
along with the Uncertainty principle.
.....Actally how can an em-wave (photon) also have an em-field = very
strange???
>
> > Quote: "A photon-photon collision can occur when the electron and the
> > positron both emit one photon. If the transverse momentum transfer is
> > large, one or both electrons can be deflected enough to be detected,
> > this is called tagging."
>
> > What do they mean by sufficient momentum ...since I believe a photon's
> > momentum is always constant since it's mass(if any or zero) and
> > velocity are constant????
>
> No, that is a mistake. Momentum is not always mass times velocity.
> That rule ONLY applies to slow-moving massive objects. It is by no
> means a universal rule.
>
Ok so what do they mean then by higher momentum can generate a
particle pair? It can't be higher velocity of the photon because that
is constant "c"....???
>
>
> > They speak of momentum as the requirement while Tom Roberts (and Eric
> > Gisse the Heckler) ridicules it (ridicules any particle/wave described
> > behavior towards the photon)
>
> I think you misjudge them. There is a careful distinction to make.
> Photons do exhibit wave behavior. They also exhibit particle behavior.
> The mistake is then to think this means that a photon is a particle,
> or that it is a wave -- or that it has to be one or the other at all.
>
I really realy really do not believe in the quantum entanglement
theory. If at all it's a field about the photon that is interacting
the same way the gravity field between the Sun & Earth...shake the Sun
around and Earth will displace as well.
> > and prefers to refer to them as a
> > behavior of quantum objects (which I believe this refers to the terms
> > of probability and quantum entanglement).
>
> Well, that's included, but there's much, much more to it than that,
> more than can be encapsulated in a few paragraphs.
>
I despise quantum entanglement....rather I truly truly truly believe
that the photon to photon collision behaves EXACTLY like water wave
collision meaning:
1. two water waves cannot collide (superposition instead)
2. ****BUT**** at a certain momentum (when momentum higher then
viscosity of the water) the wave like (superposition) behavior CEASES
and the very water molecules (inside the wave, inside the frequency)
instead inter-collide with each other.
PD
>
> > > > > > > It doesn't make sense to me:
>
> > > > > > > When do photons collide togheter (as when forming electron/positron)
> > > > > > > and when do photons instead behave like waves (no collision but
> > > > > > > overlap each other like waves)?
>
> > > > > > A couple of comments.
> > > > > > 1. First of all, photons do not collide to produce electron/positron
> > > > > > pairs.
>
> > > > > They specifically call it a collision, not me.
>
> > > > Who is "they", specifically? Wikipedia article authors?
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
>
> > And you'll note that in this article is said the following:
> > "From quantum electrodynamics we know that photons cannot couple
> > directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can
> > interact through higher-order processes."
>
> I would think that coupling (male + female) in terms of no charge they
> mean no attraction or repulsion which has nothing to do with
> collision.
Well, actually coupling (the physics term, not the sexual term) has
everything to do with collisions. It's how collisions *occur*. Here
again, you will find that doing some reading other than on the web
will give you much better background. As it is, you are crippling your
own comprehension by declining to use tools handed to you.
>
> The higher-order process could they mean the e & m fields of a photon?
No. Once again, it would be better if you did some reading to
understand the terminology in Wikipedia articles. You are trying to
read a map in the dark while keeping the flashlight in your back
pocket.
> I know there's also the quantum entanglement theory which I despise
> along with the Uncertainty principle.
Has nothing to do it, so despising it is misplaced. It's like being
suspicious of dogs because you despise income tax.
>
> .....Actally how can an em-wave (photon) also have an em-field = very
> strange???
It can't.
>
> > > Quote: "A photon-photon collision can occur when the electron and the
> > > positron both emit one photon. If the transverse momentum transfer is
> > > large, one or both electrons can be deflected enough to be detected,
> > > this is called tagging."
>
> > > What do they mean by sufficient momentum ...since I believe a photon's
> > > momentum is always constant since it's mass(if any or zero) and
> > > velocity are constant????
>
> > No, that is a mistake. Momentum is not always mass times velocity.
> > That rule ONLY applies to slow-moving massive objects. It is by no
> > means a universal rule.
>
> Ok so what do they mean then by higher momentum can generate a
> particle pair? It can't be higher velocity of the photon because that
> is constant "c"....???
I just told you. The momentum of a photon is not related to its speed.
If you want to know what the *general* expression for momentum is,
then you'll need to study about momentum in *general*, not just what
you find in a Wikipedia article.
>
> > > They speak of momentum as the requirement while Tom Roberts (and Eric
> > > Gisse the Heckler) ridicules it (ridicules any particle/wave described
> > > behavior towards the photon)
>
> > I think you misjudge them. There is a careful distinction to make.
> > Photons do exhibit wave behavior. They also exhibit particle behavior.
> > The mistake is then to think this means that a photon is a particle,
> > or that it is a wave -- or that it has to be one or the other at all.
>
> I really realy really do not believe in the quantum entanglement
> theory.
Two comments. What I just said has nothing to do with quantum
entanglement. Secondly, quantum entanglement is not a theory. It is an
experimentally observed behavior. That is, it is *seen* in real life.
Quantum mechanics describes, quantitatively and accurately, how much
entanglement one can expect to see in certain circumstances, but its
existence is established by *looking* at the behavior of things, not
by theory.
> If at all it's a field about the photon that is interacting
> the same way the gravity field between the Sun & Earth...shake the Sun
> around and Earth will displace as well.
>
> > > and prefers to refer to them as a
> > > behavior of quantum objects (which I believe this refers to the terms
> > > of probability and quantum entanglement).
>
> > Well, that's included, but there's much, much more to it than that,
> > more than can be encapsulated in a few paragraphs.
>
> I despise quantum entanglement....rather I truly truly truly believe
> that the photon to photon collision behaves EXACTLY like water wave
> collision meaning:
And that would be a mistaken belief.
>
> 1. two water waves cannot collide (superposition instead)
Actually, water waves exhibit quantum effects too (particle-like
behavior) -- they're just more unusual and more difficult to observe.
It is incorrect to say that water waves simply and absolutely do not
interact any other way than by classical superposition.
Eric Gisse
[...]
Paul this guy is completely uninterested in learning. He will take
what you say, twist it, then spam another dozen messages to the
newsgroup thus wasting more time.
PD
The "twisting" is the unintentional result of trying to read meaning
into unfamiliar jargon when trying to learn something on the internet.
It is a pervasive phenomenon. Students in classrooms do it too, but in
that venue, the teacher can correct the misconstrual before the
student runs amok with it. The problem is that guskz (and many others
like him) do not have that feedback-loop in place, and that is the
fundamental difficulty with trying to learn anything on usenet and
Wikipedia.
Sure, hiring class time with a knowledgable teacher or working
systematically through a carefully written book is more demanding and
more costly, but in the end, it is a MUCH superior way to learn
something.
For hobbyists, usenet is fine as long as one recognizes that one will
*never* gain any better understanding of a topic than at the hobbyist
level from usenet.
PD