0

Can we annihilate a photon with an opposite phase? As two photons annihilate to give two antimatter photons (with opposite charge), these photons must have some opposite property. When these opposite photons annihilate, what happens?

Also, why there is no black light? I think that there must be a black light made of antiphotons, and in a black hole, antiphotons exist, causing the black hole to be black.

auden
  • 7,027
Noman Khakwani
  • 21
  • 1

1 Answers1

-1

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement, but in order to 'annihilate' two photons you must have a reaction between an equivalent quantity of antiphotons, which are essentially photons with different charges and leptons, which i link to spin, which I assume is phase. When they annihilate, they theoretically combine in such a way as to negate their existence through subatomic congruency, which is pretty incredible. A flash of energy and then conjecture takes over. Light is simply a perception, the energy contained in light stimulates (overcomes gateway thresholds) within the eye. Blackness by definition is the lack of light. Also, within a black hole it's not that there is an absence of light, we just perceive it that way because the force exerted on the photons prevents that energy from ever reaching our eyes. You could be right, it's theory, but there's also a theory based on some interesting and sound research that points towards a heliocentric universe after all. Boom

ShuddaBeenCodin
  • 117
  • 1
  • Given that photons have 0 charge and 0 lepton number, I don't understand ...antiphotons, which are essentially photons with different charges and leptons – Kyle Kanos Dec 30 '16 at 14:12
  • Z bosons and gluons have a small electromagnetic force. Weird thing is, as mentioned above, photons and antiprotons are essentially the same thing, and if you want to get real into it, the word/concept of a photon is an outdated concept and term. We cannot truly define a 'photon' as a time dependent wave form, but rather as creation and destruction operators. If you combine 2 photons at high energy positrons also come into discussion. I'd recommend reading up on fermi, and especially maxwell as his equations are dauntingly insightful (even if they were wrong at first). – ShuddaBeenCodin Dec 30 '16 at 14:37
  • That doesn't help the case of your asserting that photons have charge and lepton number, both of which are false. – Kyle Kanos Dec 30 '16 at 14:40
  • The correspondence principle indicates spin as well as momentum in a photon. Leptons are a trait of antimatter and as I mentioned was simply an allusion to the idea of spin. Their electromagnetic principles (however slight) indicate charge. uou also seem quite certain about topics that are still very malleable amongst top physicists. As I mentioned the idea of a photon is primitive and misleading. – ShuddaBeenCodin Dec 30 '16 at 14:55
  • And with that, you've proved you know very little about particle physics. No one believes a photon to be a charged, spin-half particle. – Kyle Kanos Dec 30 '16 at 15:05
  • Did I say half spin? Did I say charged? They have electromagnetic properties. Look up the fundamental formula for an electric field with respect to such. I think I'll move on now as you seem more set on arguing that learning. Of course a massless and undefinable phenomenon does not adhere to the Pauli exclusion principle, however photons DO have spin. Look it up guy. Thanks for adding a positive mark to open discourse and scientific discussion. – ShuddaBeenCodin Dec 30 '16 at 15:18
  • http://www.eltronresearch.com/docs/photons.pdf – ShuddaBeenCodin Dec 30 '16 at 15:26
  • Yes, calling a photon a lepton, you are saying it is a spin half particle. By saying an antiphoton has charge, you are saying the photon does too. – Kyle Kanos Dec 30 '16 at 15:29
  • This is getting acrimonious. Perhaps we can stop here? – mmesser314 Dec 30 '16 at 15:30
  • That seems like the best option. You do realize we're talking theory anyway right? Your insults are a testament to the progression of scientific discourse in America. Perhaps some glasses are in order, as I count three misquotes without even glancing to check. Been a pleasure. – ShuddaBeenCodin Dec 30 '16 at 15:35
  • Apologies. That was hypocritical. I'm not a particle physicist, thought a discussion might be interesting. – ShuddaBeenCodin Dec 30 '16 at 15:38
  • Thanks for discussing my questions.wonderful discusion;-) – Noman Khakwani Feb 04 '17 at 15:25