AETHER: The Physicalists' God

[The Man]

Photon structure

Main article: Quantum Chromodynamics
According to Quantum Chromodynamics, a real photon can interact both as a point-like particle, or as a collection of quarks and gluons, i.e., like a hadron. The structure of the photon is determined not by the traditional valence quark distributions as in a proton, but by fluctuations of the point-like photon into a collection of partons.

Oh please, did you even explore the references you have given?

Sure, in some photon collisions mass can be created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics for the interactions between two photons. If the energy in the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created

And structure can just refer to..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure

Structure is a fundamental and sometimes intangible notion covering the recognition, observation, nature, and stability of patterns and relationships of entities.

In this case "stucture" is the observation of the interaction of two photons slamming into each other with sufficient energy in the center of mass system to turn the relativistic mass of those photons, in that reference frame, to the rest mass of the particles resulting from that collision. Not that photons are comprised of those particles or have that rest mass.

As some on this forum like to say “Wikipedia” is not science. Science is a method, one part of that method is exploring and understanding the references you wish to site in order to ensure that you are using and applying those references properly. A lot of science is just built on referencing the work of others and improving it (as Einstein did). “Wikipedia” is just a reference resource like any other, and some may say worse then most. Now, good science can come from crappy references (by demonstrating those deficiencies) and crappy Science can come from good references (by not exploring or understanding those references, or the science involved). Your situation seems to be the latter.

 

[cyberdyno]

If there is structure then there must be process, and if there is process there is mass.

 

[The Man]

If there is structure then there must be process, and if there is process there is mass.

So, conversely (by your reasoning), if there are no processes, then there can be no structure and no mass.

In essence yes it does stop, in the proper parlance a photon is said to experience no passage of proper time. So even if you could demonstrate some internal structure, from the photon’s reference frame there could be no processes.

ETA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

Oh, look no time thus no processes, no structure and no mass (in the photon’s reference frame). Does that make it clear for you now?

 

[Roboramma]

So, conversely (by your reasoning), if there are no processes, then there can be no structure and no mass.

I don't think that follows from what he said. He said:
If A then B.
You say, that must mean:
If B then A

Which, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't follow.

That aside, thanks for your posts in this thread.

 

[The Man]

I don't think that follows from what he said. He said:
If A then B.
You say, that must mean:
If B then A

Which, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't follow.

Actually, I said it must mean if no B then no A, since if A then B, so it does follow. But that’s all just logical semantics, and may actually have been conversely converse (opposite in sequence as well as negated).

That aside, thanks for your posts in this thread.

You’re welcome, I’m glad someone other then me is reading them.

“Photon structure” is a very interesting field of study and is based on long established principles. From the terminology it is easy to be confused and think that “structure” refers to the photon being made up of subcomponents and not just the “structure” of how photons can interact (specifically at high energies). The former being untrue and converse to some of those long established principles, the latter being that interesting field of study.

 

[Dancing David]

If there is structure then there must be process, and if there is process there is mass.

If there is dog there must be fur, if there is fur it is a cat.

 

[Roboramma]

Actually, I said it must mean if no B then no A, since if A then B, so it does follow. But that’s all just logical semantics, and may actually have been conversely converse (opposite in sequence as well as negated).

Just read that again. You're quite right.

 

[cyberdyno]

If there is dog there must be fur, if there is fur it is a cat.

If there is dog there must be fur, if there is fur it is a mammal.