Where do photons come from?

porchrat said:
LOL I wish. You got to be mega smart to work at places like that :p
Click to expand...

Thing is with places like CERN. You have to be highly versed in physics ad enigineering fundamentals and highly skilled in micro technicalities (such as open source and other techie work) ... to even hope to qualify for an interview.

But the more you have in between, the better your chances.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sci show have about 6 interesting videos on the four fundamental forces [video=youtube;Yv3EMq2Dgq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv3EMq2Dgq8&list=PLsNB4peY6C6JDc1HcVKjjYzVB0BYEXexd[/video]
 
jingaling said:
How does the physical structure of the photon form when the electron releases excess energy and is there an explanation for how the photon takes on "everywhere at once" behaviour?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's possible to know anything about the physical structure. In particle physics we can only get approximations that conform to models. If a model is "correct" it means it gives an accurate prediction from this model and not that the model is a representation of reality. This is where people often yell "how can we know that electrons are really balls?" Well we don't actually but it gives us a remarkably accurate model to predict their behaviour. In truth they are more likely to just be volumeless coordinates. I don't know what you refer to as "everywhere at once" behaviour.

Humberto said:
Are photons themselves energy, or are they simply the messenger particle of the electromagnetic force?

Radio waves and gamma waves consist of photons, however the energy difference is due to the frequency of the waves, not the amount of photons.

And if photons have no mass, then why are they affected by gravity?
Click to expand...
Photons can be thought of as energy or particles that form by the combination of energy. Energy and how it makes up particles and matter is still poorly understood and will likely remain that way. It's debatable if photons have no mass. Indications are they do need to have a very small mass (such that it doesn't affect the measured weight of something) in order to fit in with the standard model of relativity.
 
well perhaps they have a mass but its so low it cannot be quantified
 
RiaX said:
well perhaps they have a mass but its so low it cannot be quantified
Click to expand...

Nope. Mass increases as velocity approaches c. So if they had mass it would be infinite.
 
why infinite ?

EDIT:

assuming the theory is correct. If I was to sit at the event horizon of a black hole my mass would be infinite ? since I would be traveling near/at the speed of light
 
RiaX said:
why infinite ?

EDIT:

assuming the theory is correct. If I was to sit at the event horizon of a black hole my mass would be infinite ? since I would be traveling near/at the speed of light
Click to expand...

In special relativity, an object that has a mass cannot travel at the speed of light. As the object approaches the speed of light, the object's energy and momentum increase without bound.
In the first years after 1905, following Lorentz and Einstein, the terms longitudinal and transverse mass were still in use. However, those expressions were replaced by the concept of relativistic mass, an expression which was first defined by Richard C. Tolman in 1912, who stated: “the expression m0(1 - v2/c2)-1/2 is best suited for THE mass of a moving body.”[12]
As v approaches c, v2/c2 approaches 1. You then get m being m0 / sqrt(0)

Hence tending towards infinity.
Sorry formatting sucks.

You don't travel at the speed of light at the event horizon.
 
Sinbad said:
Nope. Mass increases as velocity approaches c. So if they had mass it would be infinite.
Click to expand...
This seems flawed. If their mass were minute they would be able to travel very near ultimate speed which we measure as the speed of light without having much relative mass. Who says the speed of light is the precise value of c? It's quite possible this value is actually slightly larger than the speed of light. Zero mass brings about its own problem where the equation collapses.
 
RiaX said:
why infinite ?

EDIT:

assuming the theory is correct. If I was to sit at the event horizon of a black hole my mass would be infinite ? since I would be traveling near/at the speed of light
Click to expand...

Actually Sinbad must be correct here. Which is exactly why it is physically impossible to be on the event horizon or escape from beneath it just like FTL travel is impossible.

What I do not agree with is Sinbad's statement that:

You don't travel at the speed of light at the event horizon.
Click to expand...

To stay on it, yes you do. Gravity bends Space and time thus causing this extreme amount of distortion near a gravity-well. Staying perfectly stationary on the EH looks stationary for the observer but space-time is so distorted between the observer and you that for you (on the EH) the observer will experience 0 time, die and deteriorate all in 0 seconds while the observer will see a snapshot, completely motionless you (on the EH)
 
Swa said:
This seems flawed. If their mass were minute they would be able to travel very near ultimate speed which we measure as the speed of light without having much relative mass. Who says the speed of light is the precise value of c? It's quite possible this value is actually slightly larger than the speed of light. Zero mass brings about its own problem where the equation collapses.
Click to expand...

No. C is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X