Speed of Light and Energy...?

[mistermack]

But of course if you post drivel. People will pour derision and scorn on it.

And that's the problem. Nobody poured derision over your drivel about photons going over c. Do as you would be done by.

[newolder]

The electron is electromagnetic, it's literally "made from light" in pair production, and the spin-flip is an electromagnetic phenomenum.

These 3 clauses show where and how you err:

The electron is electromagnetic
No, it isn't.

it's literally "made from light" in pair production
How and from where does the rest mass of the electron and positron emerge?

the spin-flip is an electromagnetic phenomenum
Phenomenology never was your strong point.

[colubridae]

But of course if you post drivel. People will pour derision and scorn on it.

And that's the problem. Nobody poured derision over your drivel about photons going over c. Do as you would be done by.

Ae you sure you understand what is going on!!!
'photons going over c' was hyperbole, refutation of hyperopia's drivel....

Naughty Naughty. now you are being disingenous and quote mining.

Tsk tsk.
That's a nasty little habit you've got, didn't you accuse me of having nasty habits. At least mine bear scrutiny.

If the photon translates, you have the problem of the hubius helix picking up energy on the upwind leg and losing it on the downwind leg.

So what happens to the wavelengths on the up/down legs.
Will the helix now precess?
How will that affect the magnetic moment?

Where are all the other positrons?
Hyperopia's theory has to explain all the problems, that it generates for itself.
You can't just pick up bits of evidence and discard bits that don't fit your theory.

also
Please explain why I put the funny smileys.
remember the magic carpet hint.
Please explain the singularities warping the photon geodesic.
I won't hold my breath.

[FBM]

Let's see if you manage without sarcasm.

If you can successfully explain how sarcasm is a productive response to a serious discussion of an academic/scientific controversy, I'll consider being sarcastic. Until such time, I'll continue to address the issue in a mature manner. When I read scholarly journals, I never see the sort of attitude you're displaying. If you want to put on such a display, please do so in the less serious sub-fora. Regardless of how ridiculous you feel your 'opponent's' ideas are, this is "Serious Stuff". Leave the playground tactics out, please. Thank you.

[mistermack]

it's literally "made from light" in pair production
How and from where does the rest mass of the electron and positron emerge?

That seems to be clearly spelled out here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
They are clearly saying that the nucleus is just an 'enabler', and adds nothing, and the energy of the photon provides the subsequent mass.
Obviously it depends on the freqency of the photon, for enough energy content to be present.

[mistermack]

There's been about 8 pages of reasoning.

If this thread was about evolution, and farsight was advocating intelligent design, how long would forum members be expected to stay reasonable?

The subject matter is more opaque, I guess, but the analogy holds well enough.

That sounds reasonable if you don't give it any thought. But nobody is obliged to reply to any post. You do have the option of doing nothing.
If you encountered a loonie on a bus, would you get agressive and sarcastic or would you leave him to get on with it?
It's the kids in the zoo syndrome again, I refer you to my previous post.
(and I'm not calling farsight a loonie!)
.

[newolder]

They are clearly saying that the nucleus is just an 'enabler', and adds nothing, and the energy of the photon provides the subsequent mass. 

Since the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by something, pair production cannot occur in empty space out of a single photon; the nucleus (or another photon) is needed to conserve both momentum and energy (consider the time reversal of Electron-positron annihilation).

Clearly this does not read like the nucleus (or other photon) 'adds nothing'.

What is the mechanism that converts massless photon energy to the rest masses of the fermion pair?

[mistermack]

[quote="Clearly this does not read like the nucleus (or other photon) 'adds nothing'.

Down the page under ''Examples' :

Electron-positron pair production
γ → e⁻ + e+

It's there in blue and white.

What was the mechanism following the big bang?

[newolder]

γ → e⁻ + e+

When we apply conservation of momentum and energy to that transfer, a nucleus (or other photon) is required to make the accounts balance.

What was the mechanism following the big bang?

I don't know for sure but the Higgs mechanism seems most likely.

[mistermack]

When we apply conservation of momentum and energy to that transfer, a nucleus (or other photon) is required to make the accounts balance.

A nucleus or photon is required to 'stop' the photon, otherwise it obviously just continues on it's path at the speed of light. There is no mass removed from the nucleus.
If a photon will do it, then that proves conclusively that the mass of the electron and positron is derived from either one photon, or two. Take your pick. It still proves the point and answers your original question, where did the mass come from?

[newolder]

... the mass of the electron and positron is derived from either one photon, or two. Take your pick. 

You have yet to supply a mechanism for this derivation.

It still proves the point and answers your original question, where did the mass come from?

What 'point' are you trying to 'prove'? The (my) question to Farsight was:

How and from where does the rest mass of the electron and positron emerge?

Are you Farsight too?

[mistermack]

If two photons interact, and produce an electron and positron, the rest mass of the two must come from one or both of the photons.
What the mechanism is, I have no idea.
No, I've answered that about farsight before. I don't lie.
You asked where the rest mass came from. Are you saying that mass from photons is impossible and never happened?

[newolder]

You asked where the rest mass came from.

I asked, “How and where...?”

Are you saying that mass from photons is impossible and never happened?

No. I'm quoting a result from previous study:
hf → bѢ + H → tan(β) → b + b + g
Bosonic energy appears as (a fermion anti-fermion pair and their product with something responsible for invariant mass).

The 'something responsible' may well be a product of the previously named mechanism. I wont know for sure until after the current lhc run is published in detail.
A sign of this mechanism in action would be a later decay with 3 products, twisted through a Weinberg angle in space-time, that themselves decay further into hadronic jets. Oh look, someone has kindly used intertubezcrayonz to draw a simplified view of such a decay:

[mistermack]

The electron is electromagnetic, it's literally "made from light" in pair production, and the spin-flip is an electromagnetic phenomenum.

These 3 clauses show where and how you err:
.....................
it's literally "made from light" in pair production
How and from where does the rest mass of the electron and positron emerge?

So you were clearly contradicting the 'made from light' concept, as I read it.
Anyway, I think I know a bit more now than a page ago, so I'm happy.
.

[Twiglet]

Let's see if you manage without sarcasm.

If you can successfully explain how sarcasm is a productive response to a serious discussion of an academic/scientific controversy,

Was that humour intentional or purely accidental?

I'll consider being sarcastic. Until such time, I'll continue to address the issue in a mature manner. When I read scholarly journals, I never see the sort of attitude you're displaying.

When you see the kind of stuff being postulated here in contemporary scholarly journals, be sure and let me know.

If you want to put on such a display, please do so in the less serious sub-fora. Regardless of how ridiculous you feel your 'opponent's' ideas are, this is "Serious Stuff". Leave the playground tactics out, please. Thank you.

I appreciate the problem here, but unfortunately, if this forum lacks the academic background to moderate science topics, then you are left in the unenviable position of moderating on a "be nice" basis rather than calling out fantasy and fabrication or wilful misinformation. In this thread, farsights ideas were given substantial time and analysis by at least 4 people who know what they're talking about. The playground stuff was borne of exasperation in the face of perpetual repetitions and farsights demands that we re-explain ourselves everytime a new page started. That is a trolling behaviour. Repition, misquoting, posting huge tracts of wikipedia which did not support the points he was making. If you want a "serious" science discussion, then get scientists to moderate the forum.

The reality from my perspective is that just about all of this topic can be answered in about 2 paragraphs - one of the lorentz transform and the other on Bells hypothesis. The reason it's gone on for so damn long is because of a deliberate and sustained attempt to subvert genuine experimentally validated science in support of someones personal fantasy, which wasn't initially obvious. It was then compounded by cheerleading.