It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 59
55
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
How big is a photon ?
Is it bigger if it has more energy ?
How many photons are in a distance of 1mm (just for example)




posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
How big is a photon ?
Is it bigger if it has more energy ?
How many photons are in a distance of 1mm (just for example)


Actually this is a hard question to answer ill tell you why. Photons arent actually like a ball and dont actually have defined edges. Size depends on what your doing with it in Quantum mechanics we know it can be a wave or particle. Now photons dont have a defined sizes because of this weirdness. so in reality they dont have a size at all they have a frequency just like turning the dial on a radio. in QM fundamental particles interact as infinitely small points. However, in between interactions, they are described by quantum wavefunctions meaning we could look at its wavelength as its size. The smallest it could be is a planck length vary slightly depending on frequency and that is 1.616199(97)×10−35 metres. Or to answer your millimeter question billions of them.
edit on 7/3/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id rather you just state an answer to my question; A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

I started reading that page but had to stop, im a bit under the weather and dragonriders first two posts were rambling nonsense, of which had nothing to do with my question. Im asking a very direct question that can be answered generally or directly, simply, but at all.

According to standard model, is it thought the space field which is responsible for gravity is a connected network of particles? yes or no.


No its nothing more than potential energy. It doesnt exist until something causes it to interact.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

down to Planck's length ? ... ok

so... if you would calculate the interaction of 2 microwaves, one 3GHz and the other wave 30GHz ( just for example )
moving perpendicular, you would use the wave function, right ?
at any particular distance or time ?


something like this but perpendicular

edit on 3-7-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id rather you just state an answer to my question; A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

I started reading that page but had to stop, im a bit under the weather and dragonriders first two posts were rambling nonsense, of which had nothing to do with my question. Im asking a very direct question that can be answered generally or directly, simply, but at all.

According to standard model, is it thought the space field which is responsible for gravity is a connected network of particles? yes or no.


No its nothing more than potential energy. It doesnt exist until something causes it to interact.


If you do something called thinking, you would discover that saying that 'the area that allows gravity to exist is absolutely nothing, but when something causes it to interact, then that area of absolutely nothing, 'exists'' makes no sense.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id rather you just state an answer to my question; A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

I started reading that page but had to stop, im a bit under the weather and dragonriders first two posts were rambling nonsense, of which had nothing to do with my question. Im asking a very direct question that can be answered generally or directly, simply, but at all.

According to standard model, is it thought the space field which is responsible for gravity is a connected network of particles? yes or no.


No its nothing more than potential energy. It doesnt exist until something causes it to interact.


If you do something called thinking, you would discover that saying that 'the area that allows gravity to exist is absolutely nothing, but when something causes it to interact, then that area of absolutely nothing, 'exists'' makes no sense.


Welcome to the world of QM. Takes a force carrier to cause virtual interactions. Difficult comcept for people to grasp until you indwrstand particle physics.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
so... if you would calculate the interaction of 2 microwaves, one 3GHz and the other wave 30GHz ( just for example )
moving perpendicular, you would use the wave function, right ?
Microwaves don't interact.

The video doesn't show interaction, it shows superposition. Superposition is just summing the individual waves, and is considered to be a lack of interaction. If they were interacting you'd get something other than just a sum of the waves.

Interaction of 2 photons has never been observed, and as far as I know isn't even predicted at microwave frequencies. At much higher frequency it's theoretically possible for two photons to interact, rarely, but interaction has never been observed to my knowledge.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id rather you just state an answer to my question; A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

I started reading that page but had to stop, im a bit under the weather and dragonriders first two posts were rambling nonsense, of which had nothing to do with my question. Im asking a very direct question that can be answered generally or directly, simply, but at all.

According to standard model, is it thought the space field which is responsible for gravity is a connected network of particles? yes or no.


No its nothing more than potential energy. It doesnt exist until something causes it to interact.


If you do something called thinking, you would discover that saying that 'the area that allows gravity to exist is absolutely nothing, but when something causes it to interact, then that area of absolutely nothing, 'exists'' makes no sense.


Welcome to the world of QM. Takes a force carrier to cause virtual interactions. Difficult comcept for people to grasp until you indwrstand particle physics.


No, dont give me that tired excuse. I understand reality and truth, if a theory doesnt make sense in regards to reality and truth, the theory is wrong. If you cant explain it in anyway that is logical, that makes sense, than the theory is not logical, does not make sense, and is there fore wrong. Reality by nature of existing at all, must be logical and make sense, it must equal it self at all times, it must be tautological, it must have reasons at every level for what exists, why, and how, and how each aspect of it interacts and why. If your theory cannot explain this, or if your theories explanations are impossible to be logical, impossible to claim what exists, why, and how each part of what exists, exists and works, your theory is wrong.

I grasp what you mean about the self consistent magic you speak of, but it is a proud misinterpretation of reality at most. Virtual particles cannot come into existence, out of nowhere, from nothing, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY AND THINK AND BELIEVE.
edit on 3-7-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
so... if you would calculate the interaction of 2 microwaves, one 3GHz and the other wave 30GHz ( just for example )
moving perpendicular, you would use the wave function, right ?
Microwaves don't interact.

The video doesn't show interaction, it shows superposition. Superposition is just summing the individual waves, and is considered to be a lack of interaction. If they were interacting you'd get something other than just a sum of the waves.

Interaction of 2 photons has never been observed, and as far as I know isn't even predicted at microwave frequencies. At much higher frequency it's theoretically possible for two photons to interact, rarely, but interaction has never been observed to my knowledge.


What would occur if you made a tube, whose inner area had a dimeter of a planck length, and from the opposite ends of the tube at the same instant you shot 1,000,000 photons at once, not one after the other, 1,000,000 on one end, 1,000,000 on the other, and if this doesnt appear realistic how about at first the tube is greater diameter and then dwindles down to the planck length diameter, and if you say when the photons begin being squeezed in a tighter and tighter space, because of their momentum they will follow the original straight path and radiate away as having crashed into the downward or upward slope as they progress towards the decreasing diameter, than how about we strictly imagine this scenario theoretically, that is to say perhaps it is not possible experimentally, but knowing the characteristics of a potential planck length diameter tube, and knowing the characteristics of light, tell me what would occur under these circumstances. So, as if the photons to one another were ghosts, and in a scenario with no surrounding space to creep by one another in, can you really tell me with a straight or crooked face that that very real quantity of energy would just pass by one another without contact? Oh, or, its like 1,000,000 on one side, 1,000,000 on the other, conservation of energy, its not like the collision reaction can result in 3,000,000 coming out, or there would be no physical reason for it to end up as 2,000,000 coming out one side and 0 on the other. Though if they did interact I presume there would be detected in the center of the tube, out the sides, during the collision, energy leaked at the point of contact, depending on what type of material was used, I presume.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
You might find that this will answer at least some of your questions:
A small tutorial in gamma-gamma Physics

From classical electrodynamics we know that EM waves pass through each other without any interference. From Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) we know that Photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they don't carry charge, but they can interact through higher order processes:

A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion/ anti-fermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks.
Read the rest of the tutorial at the source. Note they are talking about gamma-gamma (high energy) interactions, and yes I can say with a straight face that at lower energy, a million microwave photons in one direction can pass through a million microwave photons in the opposite direction without interacting because we've never observed any interaction. Of course if you think otherwise feel free to set up the experiment.

At the frequencies used in fiber optic cables we have a lot of experience sending photons through the fiber optic cables which I suppose you could call a "tube" to use your description. Sending photons in opposite directions doesn't seem to create any interference, but there is signal attenuation for various reasons; photons can interact with impurities in the fiber, so purity is a big issue in fiber optics. The fiber optic photons are also "immune" from interference from other photons:

Fiber Optics

Light signals traveling via a fiber-optic cable are immune from electromagnetic interference (EMI) and radio-frequency interference (RFI). Lightning and high-voltage interference is also eliminated. A fiber network is best for conditions in which EMI or RFI interference is heavy or safe operation free from sparks and static is a must. This desirable property of fiber-optic cable makes it the medium of choice in industrial and biomedical networks.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
You might find that this will answer at least some of your questions:
A small tutorial in gamma-gamma Physics

From classical electrodynamics we know that EM waves pass through each other without any interference. From Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) we know that Photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they don't carry charge, but they can interact through higher order processes:

A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion/ anti-fermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks.
Read the rest of the tutorial at the source. Note they are talking about gamma-gamma (high energy) interactions, and yes I can say with a straight face that at lower energy, a million microwave photons in one direction can pass through a million microwave photons in the opposite direction without interacting because we've never observed any interaction. Of course if you think otherwise feel free to set up the experiment.

At the frequencies used in fiber optic cables we have a lot of experience sending photons through the fiber optic cables which I suppose you could call a "tube" to use your description. Sending photons in opposite directions doesn't seem to create any interference, but there is signal attenuation for various reasons; photons can interact with impurities in the fiber, so purity is a big issue in fiber optics. The fiber optic photons are also "immune" from interference from other photons:

Fiber Optics

Light signals traveling via a fiber-optic cable are immune from electromagnetic interference (EMI) and radio-frequency interference (RFI). Lightning and high-voltage interference is also eliminated. A fiber network is best for conditions in which EMI or RFI interference is heavy or safe operation free from sparks and static is a must. This desirable property of fiber-optic cable makes it the medium of choice in industrial and biomedical networks.


Has the micro waves towards microwaves experiment been done in the conditions I specified? Did you not comprehend the importance of my rhetoric concerning the minutest diameter of space?

Thats very interesting saying that a photon, all by itself (?) can turn into a quark...wow... I wonder what valueable knowledge is contained in that suggestion regarding the relationship of all quanta of energy/matter.

By tube I meant; planck length diameter vacuum tube. To suggest the smallest possible area of space, concealed in a distance of area containment, which, if one wanted to do trials, an ever increasing quantity of opposing photons would be sent through. While being personally unsure if the situations in which you exclaim 'photons do not interact' have all taken place in much larger than planck length diameter confines, so as to exclaim, 'what would happen if many photons were confined to planck length diameter confine?', if you wanted to do trials, a quantity of photons approaching infinity, assuming the material used to contain the vacuum tube, would not allow the photons to leak, or do very well with not absorbing them.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id rather you just state an answer to my question; A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

I started reading that page but had to stop, im a bit under the weather and dragonriders first two posts were rambling nonsense, of which had nothing to do with my question. Im asking a very direct question that can be answered generally or directly, simply, but at all.

According to standard model, is it thought the space field which is responsible for gravity is a connected network of particles? yes or no.


No its nothing more than potential energy. It doesnt exist until something causes it to interact.


If you do something called thinking, you would discover that saying that 'the area that allows gravity to exist is absolutely nothing, but when something causes it to interact, then that area of absolutely nothing, 'exists'' makes no sense.


Welcome to the world of QM. Takes a force carrier to cause virtual interactions. Difficult comcept for people to grasp until you indwrstand particle physics.


No, dont give me that tired excuse. I understand reality and truth, if a theory doesnt make sense in regards to reality and truth, the theory is wrong. If you cant explain it in anyway that is logical, that makes sense, than the theory is not logical, does not make sense, and is there fore wrong. Reality by nature of existing at all, must be logical and make sense, it must equal it self at all times, it must be tautological, it must have reasons at every level for what exists, why, and how, and how each aspect of it interacts and why. If your theory cannot explain this, or if your theories explanations are impossible to be logical, impossible to claim what exists, why, and how each part of what exists, exists and works, your theory is wrong.

I grasp what you mean about the self consistent magic you speak of, but it is a proud misinterpretation of reality at most. Virtual particles cannot come into existence, out of nowhere, from nothing, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY AND THINK AND BELIEVE.


They dont come from nowhere this has been attempted to explain to you several different ways. Ill try a different way the energy to create virtual particles is there because of the uncertainty principle.so it means the more acurately we measure the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa. This means the shorter the time scale the more energy we find. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds. But in particle physics even such a short amount of time can cause effects. You can choose not to believe this but so far experiments do indeed show them to exist. So you're arguing against the real world no magic involved experiments have shown us the smaller area we look at the rules change. The micro universe is entirely different than we ever imagined.This is why QM and relativity dont mix because all the rules change in particle physics.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
By tube I meant; planck length diameter vacuum tube.
I know what a vacuum tube is, but I don't think you're talking about a vacuum tube. If I guess at your meaning, I don't know of any way to construct such a tube, even hypothetically, because a planck length is one one-hundred quintillionth the size of a proton, and a proton is one of the smallest units we can make things out of. To put it another way, you're asking what will happen if you use bowling balls to make a hole so small that sand can't pass through it. You can't do that with bowling balls and for similar reasons you can't use protons etc to make a tube of the size you suggest.


To suggest the smallest possible area of space, concealed in a distance of area containment, which, if one wanted to do trials, an ever increasing quantity of opposing photons would be sent through. While being personally unsure if the situations in which you exclaim 'photons do not interact' have all taken place in much larger than planck length diameter confines, so as to exclaim, 'what would happen if many photons were confined to planck length diameter confine?', if you wanted to do trials, a quantity of photons approaching infinity, assuming the material used to contain the vacuum tube, would not allow the photons to leak, or do very well with not absorbing them.
The closest thing I can think of to what you're describing are fusion experiments where lots of lasers are all aimed at the same spot. Very high temperatures are generated. If there was any tube, it would melt. If you continue the experiment hypothetically adding more and more energy to a small area then you're approaching big bang conditions. Our understanding of such energy densities approaching infinity is of course speculative since we've never achieved them in experiment, but you can read the speculation here:

Planck Epoch

The Planck epoch is an era in traditional (non-inflationary) big bang cosmology wherein the temperature was so high that the four fundamental forces—electromagnetism, gravitation, weak nuclear interaction, and strong nuclear interaction—were one fundamental force. Little is understood about physics at this temperature; different hypotheses propose different scenarios.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok but all I was trying to ask was; by placing more and more photons in a smaller and smaller space, are the photons interacting with one another? Or you can fit 1,000,000^1,000,000^1,000,000 photons in a planck length of space? And they are still separate photons?



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ill try a different way the energy to create virtual particles is there because of the uncertainty principle.so it means the more acurately we measure the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa. This means the shorter the time scale the more energy we find. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds.


Describe what you mean by 'pop up'.

The energy IS NOT THERE BECAUSE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE! ITS THERE BECAUSE REALITY WORKS AS REALITY WORKS. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF REALITY. IT EVEN SAYS SO IN ITS NAME, IT SAYS, "WE ARE UNCERTAIN ABOUT REALITY".

so you have to explain, 'where the energy is', and without saying the uncertainty principle, how that energy is there, what it is, what form it is in.

We are taking a tool of measurement. What is the tool of measurement measuring, where is the tool located, what physical/energetic object/s is the tool near, that it is attempting to measure, and what physical/energetic object/s does it end up measuring, when you then claim 'energy to create virtual particles is there'?




But in particle physics even such a short amount of time can cause effects. You can choose not to believe this but so far experiments do indeed show them to exist. So you're arguing against the real world no magic involved experiments have shown us the smaller area we look at the rules change. The micro universe is entirely different than we ever imagined.This is why QM and relativity dont mix because all the rules change in particle physics.


No, you dont understand where I am coming from. You have memorized harry potter, I am talking about the real world, you are talking about a fiction, that without thinking, you take to be equal to the real world. I am pointing out time and time again, how the terms and ways your saying things and viewing things is wrong, and you are failing to understand, I always understand what you say, I am always saying it is insufficient to describing reality, and im always ONLY ever asking for more, and you are always only giving me the same harry potter fiction world appropriated self consistent concepts, I am always only probing deeper, asking further and further, about those concepts, describe them, explain them, describe them, how how how what what what, you cant you cant you dont you dont.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
so... if you would calculate the interaction of 2 microwaves, one 3GHz and the other wave 30GHz ( just for example )
moving perpendicular, you would use the wave function, right ?
Microwaves don't interact.

The video doesn't show interaction, it shows superposition. Superposition is just summing the individual waves, and is considered to be a lack of interaction. If they were interacting you'd get something other than just a sum of the waves.

Interaction of 2 photons has never been observed, and as far as I know isn't even predicted at microwave frequencies. At much higher frequency it's theoretically possible for two photons to interact, rarely, but interaction has never been observed to my knowledge.


really ? interesting...

visible EM waves do interact (slit experiments ), longer waves do interact, but not microwaves... ?
at which wavelength the interaction stops than ?
what frequency is the threshold and WHY ??

BTW: what this video shows is a visualization of someones thoughts, and I said "something like this"
edit on 4-7-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
I don't know. If you do the experiment and find out, let me know what happens. My guess is if they are all gamma rays a few will interact. If they are all microwaves I wouldn't expect any interaction but I could be wrong.


originally posted by: KrzYma
really ? interesting...

visible EM waves do interact (slit experiments )
Again, that's superposition, not interaction. If you add a peak to a trough they cancel and that's still a form of superposition seen in the dark bands of interference patterns. A layman might see that as "an interaction", but according to the physics definition of "interaction", it's not.

I didn't coin these terms, but this is how physicists use them. Emphasis mine:

Bizarre state of matter causes photons to be attracted to each other.

Ordinarily, photons—particles of light—don't interact with each other. They interfere, but that's a characteristic that doesn't alter their wavelength or cause them to attract or repel. However, if photons can be induced to interact, it could open up a wide number of applications in quantum computing and optical materials. This sort of radical change can't happen under ordinary circumstances but is possible in special environments.
That article implies the photons interact but there are more than just photons involved so it's still not exactly evidence of photon-photon interaction in a vacuum.


what frequency is the threshold and WHY ??
As the source in my previous post mentioned, interaction might be possible with two gamma photons. Not sure about X-rays but probably anything less is increasingly unlikely. It's probably not a sharp cutoff, but something like decreasing probability of occurrence at lower frequencies. This is an interesting question which may be answered by experiments since there are some planned to look for photon photon interactions. All the sources I've read say either "high energy" or "gamma ray" or something like that in reference to possible experiments looking for interactions. X-rays are fairly high energy but I'm not sure if it's high enough.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
so... if you would calculate the interaction of 2 microwaves, one 3GHz and the other wave 30GHz ( just for example )
moving perpendicular, you would use the wave function, right ?
Microwaves don't interact.

The video doesn't show interaction, it shows superposition. Superposition is just summing the individual waves, and is considered to be a lack of interaction. If they were interacting you'd get something other than just a sum of the waves.

Interaction of 2 photons has never been observed, and as far as I know isn't even predicted at microwave frequencies. At much higher frequency it's theoretically possible for two photons to interact, rarely, but interaction has never been observed to my knowledge.


really ? interesting...

visible EM waves do interact (slit experiments ), longer waves do interact, but not microwaves... ?
at which wavelength the interaction stops than ?
what frequency is the threshold and WHY ??

BTW: what this video shows is a visualization of someones thoughts, and I said "something like this"


Ok photons do indeed interact most people believe they dont because Maxwells equations are linear and cannot describe any photon-photon interactions. a man named H. Euler in 1936 first showed that in the frame of "quantum electrodynamics" photon-photon interaction was possible. In the visible regime (photon energies of the order of a few eV) photon-photon is negligible.For gamma rays with photon energies of the order of 500 MeV a pair of photons can annihilate creating an electron-positron pair with a substantial probability. Arbitraguer wasn't sure if experiments have been done but they have with a petawatt laser at lawrence livermore labs.The stronger we make the lasers the more interactions we see.

www.llnl.gov...

PS this is also how we know the "fantasy" ima fungi thinks exists is reality. We have created virtual particles in the lab and measured them. But like all things they have there own set of rules and there are exceptions as well such as an odd number of photons ado not interact which was shown in Furry's Theorem. Basically they cancel each other out and end up with zero in a fermion loop.
edit on 7/4/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
I looked at that link but I don't see anything about experimental evidence of photon photon interaction. But as I said and posted a link to earlier, high energy (gamma) photons can theoretically interact, though I guess technically it's not the photons themselves interacting exactly, it's that one of the photons is able to transform into a fermion/ anti-fermion pair, (leptons or quarks) which the other photon can interact with. I still haven't seen experimental evidence of photon-photon interaction yet, or if it's in the link you posted maybe you can cite the specific passage you think refers to that, because I didn't find it.

edit on 4-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: dragonridr
I looked at that link but I don't see anything about experimental evidence of photon photon interaction. But as I said and posted a link to earlier, high energy (gamma) photons can theoretically interact, though I guess technically it's not the photons themselves interacting exactly, it's that one of the photons is able to transform into a fermion/ anti-fermion pair, (leptons or quarks) which the other photon can interact with. I still haven't seen experimental evidence of this yet, or if it's in the link you posted maybe you can cite the specific passage you think refers to that, because I didn't find it.


Your looking for something like this. The laser intro was just a general overview.

academic.research.microsoft.com...



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join