Maximum Density of Light

[jeffocal]

Illuvatar
Is it possible that the quantum nature of space and photons is related to the resonate properties of mass and energy predicted by the equation E=mc^2 as defined at http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter2.htm

Jeff

[Achernar]

*Originally posted by Illuvatar *
Achernar, I have to bumb this thread up while I wait for some mathematical proof to show that I can’t make Illuvatar photons, here’s a few other google results:

http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckLength.html

http://www.planck.com/planckunits.htm

[the list goes on… etc]

Planck length is a fundamental unit. It is atomic. You cannot divide a quantum particle into a space smaller than 1 planck length.

Okay, I already know how the Planck length is defined, but nothing in any of those three links supports your claim that it’s the smallest length possible. At least, not that I could find; that first article is pretty long.

I understand what they mean when they say that it’s the quantum of length, and even when they say that it’s meaningless to talk about any length smaller. However, I don’t see that as justification for saying that photons above a certain energy (5 GJ) are fundamentally excluded from existance.

I’m happy that you agree that it’s possible to create Illuvatar photons with two massive anti parallel photons. But I see no reason why it can’t be done with 1. Can someone please show, with proofs, why individual Illuvatar photons cannot exist? **

Just because Chronos’s explanation doesn’t have numbers and equal signs doesn’t mean it’s not mathematical. What exactly is wrong with it, in your finding?

[Chronos]

You can’t really say that the Planck length is the smallest possible length. At best, you can say that it’s the smallest possible length at which our current theories of physics have any hope of making sense: At scales smaller than the Planck length, both general relativity and quantum mechanics would be simultaneously relevant, and we’re not yet sure how to get GR and QM to play nicely together. This does not mean that we won’t ever figure out how to make them work: When and if we do, then it will become perfectly meaningful to discuss smaller distances. Even with our current theories, the Planck length isn’t a hard-and-fast, brick wall limit: It’s just approximation for the sort of scale at which things break down. If your theory can’t handle the Planck length, then it probably can’t handle twice the Planck length, either, or likely not even a hundred times the Planck length.

The problem with doing things with one photon is that you can’t use a single photon to define a frame of reference. A black hole, for instance, does have a frame of remference, though (the frame in which the black hole is at rest). You can’t create a preferred frame of reference out of thin air, so a reference-free photon can’t turn into a referenceable black hole.

You can, however, define a frame of reference from a pair of photons, as long as they’re not perfectly parallel (they don’t need to be exactly antiparallel). So a black hole from two photons is OK.