/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4771840]

I don't understand photons. Are all particles photons (are all particles light?)

It's really been something that has confused me and impeded me from understanding physics (as little as I understand it anyway) and the nature of matter/energy.

[Anonymous No.4771861]

>I don't understand photons.
When the Coulumb field is quantized, the excitations in the field appear as photons. More specifically, a photon is a perturbation in the U(1) gauge field.

>Are all particles photons (are all particles light?)
No, although all particles are likely the same sort of fluctuations in some algebraic/geometric background with a lie group connection that tells what particle is what.

[Anonymous No.4771860]

The idea of light being particles is very old (at least as old as Newton). Photon is the modern name of light-particles, which is for example part of the quantum theory of light (quantum electrodynamics).

Photon particles are bosons, this are particles which don't take up space. All matter particles are therefore not photons, they are fermions. Electron is such a particle.

If you search on wikipedia you will soon find this type of classification - ask again once you can't find the answers there.

[Anonymous No.4771897]

>>4771861
Is there a reason you single out the Coloumb solution of the maxwell equations. Also I wouldn't identify the photon with the pertubation, maybe you want to use it synonyms with excitation.

What does "likely" mean in the second sentece. Also, are you a realist regarding quantum field theories?

(Lastly, I think all the tech-talk alla "U(1)-Lie group" is not likely to help OP)

[Anonymous No.4771934]

>>4771897
OP seems to be referring to off-shell quantities as he asked if all particles are light, so I specifically referred to perturbation and Coloumb field.

>Also, are you a realist regarding quantum field theories?
Not quantum fields, but some other structure like the background that comes out of Weyl invariance in string theory.

[Anonymous No.4771965]

>>4771897
He was just trying to be clever by using a lot of fancy terms that he knows someone with no in depth knowledge of physics will understand. It's a method of intellectual masturbation to proudly display your knowledge by making a statement using words which only a select few understand.

10/10

[Anonymous No.4771982]

>>4771934
I don't understand both points.
Why is OP refering to off-shell quantities? I'm not even sure if OP is particularly familiar with fields.

And I don't know which background "comes out of" weil invariance. Are you talking about the quantized theory here already?

[Anonymous No.4771984]

>>4771965
>fancy words
>a select few understand

>OP asks about a topic in physics when he only has a psuedo-knowledge from some popsci movie he watched an hour ago

[Anonymous No.4771993]

Weyl, I ment.
(Although Weil is also a cool guy and not afraid of anything.)

[Anonymous No.4772004]

>>4771984
Surely then, if that is a fact, then you can see the utility in using simpler terms or at least creating an explanation of all the concepts that these terms encompass. Otherwise, his answer is useless to the OP.

captcha: formal appropriate.

[Anonymous No.4772024]

>>4771982
>Why is OP refering to off-shell quantities? I'm not even sure if OP is particularly familiar with fields.
I just got the understanding initially that OP was referring to exchange interactions as opposed to real photons. Rereading, I see that I'm probably wrong.

>And I don't know which background "comes out of" weil invariance. Are you talking about the quantized theory here already?
See for example
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269389908915

[Anonymous No.4772061]

OP here. Again, I have no knowledge of physics.

I read just now that photons are a type of "force carrier" particle and have no mass as opposed to fermions, which have mass (if that is correct? bosons do not have mass?).

The supposed gravitons are also "force carrier particles". Does that mean that there IS a medium within which we all exist like the aether theories from a long time ago? Because everything is within the gravitational pull of everything else (the planet is in the gravitational pull of the sun, the sun is in the galaxy, etc)?

Also, if can bosons be captured and collided together? Can you create fermions only from bosons?

I know I will get flamed for this because I cannot into science and I'm not googling this shit but really, what would I put in the search engine to find a real answer?