What is the boiling/freezing point of light?
Do photons even have states of matter? I dont think so.
So many theories, physics is definitely expanind my mind right now. College for my BS will be fun.
Figure out how to measure the temperature state of a photon. Then you can tell what the boiling point is
Aren’t photons always moving at c? Thus, if you could even say that they had a temperature, it would never change.
Boiling and freezing points don’t make sense in the context of light. Photons are massless.
Then you two can explain how they made a bose-einstein condensate from light if it doesnt freeze
The mystery of particle-wave duality is the root here. That’s still a very weird aticle.
Basically matter is light that confines itself to a single unit of space. Light corkscrews as it travels, fluxtuating along a linear path. You can say that matter is light that has had its frequency increase so tight that it’s actually bent back on itself and turned from a corkscrewing pattern into an in-place fluctuation pattern.
Personally I think there’s some cosmic maximum unit of energy that can exist in a finite amount of space, and if this limit is reached the energy grabs on to a piece of space and becomes matter. That’s the only explanation for why light bounces off other light when they are turned into matter, because spacetime won’t allow any more energy in that unit of space.
Well, it’s not the only possible explanation, but it’s the one I like right now. It could also be possible that something about the interaction between space and energy that results in matter could be resisting the approach of other matter.
I like the phrase that matter is energy that takes up space, it’s rather literal.
So electrons are quanta that barely have their foot through the door on the side of having mass, so they tend to rest, or orbit if you will, and the photons are all the way through the door, so they move at top speed wherever they are and vibrate besides.
I like watching pictures of gold atoms through electron microvideo on youtube
Light isn’t what something IS; it’s what something DOES. “It” cannot boil or freeze.
My point simply is that it’s not an exact analog to “boiling” and “freezing” at the macroscopic level. The matter is simply at a minimal quantum level of energy.
Nah, electrons and the rest are still made up of quarks. Those are the real elementary particles. I’m no expert, naturally, but look into quarks.
One thing you have to realize is that all matter is already moving at light-speed. Because matter is made up of light, and all light must be moving at the speed of light at all times. The difference with matter is that light is moving at the speed of light–or I like to say fluctuating–within a confined space.
Incorrect. As far as is currently known electrons are fundamental particles and have not been found to have a structure, and certainly not the strong interaction at the nuceli level among quarks.
Can you qalify your assertion that mass IS vibrating light? There are certainly interesting mass-energy equivalences that have been revealed and play a vital role in modern physics and the speed of light as a constant plays an important role in these identities but it’s not clear to me how you can assert from that mass is “vibrating light” necessarily.
Right, right, no quarks in eletrons. But in neutrons and protons, yes.
I’ve had this idea for a long time. We know matter is made of energy, energy must always be moving at the speed of light, clearly it’s doing this in place as matter. All quite basic so far.
Since light is moving at the speed of light, the question is, what happens to that light when you add a motion vector. If I begin moving at 5 mph in a direction, the light i’m composed of cannot gain 5 mph of speed, it must remain at the SoL.
So inertia is light grinding against the speed of light whenever your speed changes. When you gain speed, light must change its frequency ever so slightly to incorporate the new (relativistic) energy it’s picked up, and when you slow down it must again grind to lose energy, moving to a lower frequency.
As for mass, I simply take the nature of light as unchanging even in the form of matter. Light becomes matter by being so energetic within a unit of space that it warps space and wraps around a piece of space in a stable configuration. What that config is I would have no idea. Ostensibly there’s a enough to form all the quarks and the electron (tho many of these aren’t stable at all).
Clearly, being light, it must still move at the speed of light, and the existing frequency of light still continuation to fluctuate, it just now fluctuates in place, perhaps fluctuating around a rotating center. Somehow spacetime is caught up in this stable unit like a knot in space.
This explains also how it’s possible for antimatter to instantly ‘undo’ analogous matter, for the antimatter is like a key to matter’s lock. It’s is an inverse arrangement of spacetime, which when brought together with regular matter restores normal space–it unravels the spacetime knot–and causes instant release of the energy that had been captured in place.
If I’m right that matter is a piece of energy warping space creating some stable configuation, then it is this warping of space that creates mass, the illusion of solidness, and does so by virtue of there being some critical energy density at which spacetime will warp sufficiently to create matter. I have no idea what this amount of energy should be, unless it’s equivalent to the amount of energy released / 2 when matter and antimatter come together by unit. But that still wouldn’t tell you what energy density you’d need. Still, we create matter from energy in the lab all the time via colliders, so it’s not all that mysterious I suppose.
Something about the way highly concentrated light warps spacetime to create matter pinches spacetime in such a way that it refuses to allow more energy into its diameter. The same effect that causes high-density energy to form into matter is the same one that creates the feeling of solidness, what I’d call a maximum-energy density in space-time. It may also be that this pinching is responsible for producing gravity.
So there’s my own uninformed, probably wrong theory of how it all works 
Enjoy. If there was something right and true in there, being all mainly speculation by a novice who is only interested in such things, I’d be amazed. Caveat emptor 
But it makes sense to me.
Which is quite a dangerous rubric when talking about the deeper issues of physics >_>
Ok I think I see where you’re coming from. There are still some statements that are problematic that I think mgiht be worth taking note of. For instance:
If this means what I think it means, then it lies as a corollary o the very statement you’ve made whose veracity actually needs to be established; that energy is light. Nevertheless it does seem an interesting hypothesis. I will also note it’s been quite a while since I’ve been doing any serious physics, so I don’t think I would any longer vouch my own “expertise” too much.
Your remark about photon creation from positron electron annhilation got me thinking if the same might apply to neutrino anti neutrino annhilations, and lo behold Wikipedia leads me here to a non-mainstream theory oddly putting forward exactly the opposite hypothesis!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_theory_of_light
I also gently wanted to add the following statement did make me giggle a little inside :
The feeling of “solidness” in fact has nothing to do with mass or gravity but electrostatic forces and resistances between electrons at the atomic level. So if I punch you in the face no matter how hard I try I’ll never touch your neutrons! 
If however you were talking about the energy created from these electrostatic collisions emitted in the form of photons of varying frequencies, well perhaps I’ve pwned myself…
P.S. As I’m sure everyone has realised, none of us are speaking the right language or using the right procedure to discuss these questions with even a remote degree of seriousness or competency. Perhaps we might stop embarassing ourselves…
Haha, yes, sure 
Interesting points
Energy does not have to move at the speed of light. That doesn’t really make sense. Energy is the ability to do work. It is not a “thing.” Don’t forget about gravitational, chemical, etc. potential energies.
Light, as a fluctuation of spacetime, does have to move at the speed of light. And matter is made of light.
Other kinds of energy like gravity-potential, chemical, are different matters to be sure.
Gravity, too, moves at the speed of light, being a property of space-time. At least that’s what we believe right now, kinda hard to measure that.
Theres evidence that wold suggest that gravity moves much faster than light, see Paul LaViolette.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
They compared the position of J0842+1835 on September 8, 2002, with its average position on the off-Jupiter days. Plugging this into Kopeikin’s formula for the gravitational field of the moving Jupiter gave them the answer they were looking for. Kopeikin and Fomalont became the first two people to quantitatively measure the speed of gravity, one of the fundamental constants of nature. They found that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 1.06 times the speed of light, but there was an error of plus or minus 0.21. The results were then announced at the 2002 American Astronomical Society annual meeting in Seattle, Washington.
The speed of light is the max speed for all physical interaction.