Re: [OT] RE: Actual Warp Drive Theory

Steve wrote
> > A photon is actually an electron/anti-electron pair.
> 
> Hmm, let's see. An electron has a mass of 9.1x10^-31 kg. Same for a 
> positron (proper name for an anti-electron). So the total energy of 
> the mass of an electron/positron pair is given by E=mc^2 and is 
> 1.638x10^-13 J
> 
> Now, the energy of a photon is given by planck's constant x 
> frequency. Planck's constant is 6.626x10^-34. So the minimum energy  

> frequency a photon could have to have the equivalent energy of an 
> electron/positron pair is 2.47x10^20 Hz. Which is well into the 
> gamma ray range.
> 
> So, how is it possible that all photons are electron/positron pairs 
> when photons typically have much lower energies than the minimum 
> energy of such a pair?

Because that is not really the case. Photons "are" distinct particles 
and not e+e- pairs. However, high-energy-photons - as you calculated 
above, I didn't check the numbers - can be converted into
electron-positron 
pairs when interacting with matter or other photons.  

Also note, that according to Quantum Mechanics and Heisenberg's 
uncertainty principle, there are such things as 'Virtual Particles'
which 
"exist" only for minuscule moments of time before disappearing again. As
they 
can not be directly observed, they don't have to obey most conservation 
laws and for example, a low-energy photon can give rise to a virtual 
e+e- pair. Of course, it is a question for philosophers if virtual 
particles "exist". But certainly, there are measurable effects that you
can get 
out of the Quantum calculations only if you include virtual particles.
 
> This also links into another part of this thread: photon-photon 
> collisions can create particle/anti-particle pairs. Two photons of 
> frequency 1.23x10^-20 Hz or greater have enough energy to create 
> electron/positron pairs.
> 
> -- 
> "Reality must take precedence over public relations.	
>  Nature cannot be fooled."		       - Richard Feynman