The Breit-Wheeler Process and How It Might Affect Capitalism

[AdrianO]

It's a process or theory to create matter out of photons.
It has been tested in 1997 and it's being refined for testing again at the moment since 2014.
Now if this is successful enough to create matter and arrange it at a bigger scale, this will change the economics of the world.
How do you think this might affect the current status quo? Do you think the capitalists will even allow it to see light ?

Bear in mind this theory has been around since the 1930s and has only been tested recently.

I can't post any links yet, so you'll have to look it up.

[Heretek]

It's a process or theory to create matter out of photons.
It has been tested in 1997 and it's being refined for testing again at the moment since 2014.
Now if this is successful enough to create matter and arrange it at a bigger scale, this will change the economics of the world.
How do you think this might affect the current status quo? Do you think the capitalists will even allow it to see light ?

Bear in mind this theory has been around since the 1930s and has only been tested recently.

I can't post any links yet, so you'll have to look it up.

Mind you I didn't exactly look this specific thing up, but something to create any worthwhile material out of photons or other subatomics would, according to my understanding of physics and energy, nesseciate an immense amount of energy, and perhaps specialized material in the first place. This sounds something like the 3D printer rage that said it would revolutionize everything and allow terrorists to be build their own guns in their homes. Sure, that all sounds nice, but the logistics of the getting everything necessary, research to get it to work the way you want to, the price prohibitive of the unit itself, and then the material you're using in the machine, etc.. My point is, it makes things more convenient for people who get grants or for ready access light engineering (again, cost prohibitive), but for the layman, its virtually useless. Can't make a running car and engine, can't pay rent, etc. This "photon-material" sounds just as prohibitive and restricted. And capitalism will do what capitalism does. Exploit for profit

[Guardia Rossa]

What Heretek said. It's like asking if Industries could be invented in the Roman Empire. There is no real possibility for practical use of this technology right now, it's simply a pretty discovery.

[AdrianO]

It is cost prohibitive but only because the capitalists make it so. What capitalist would want an invention that created matter from sunlight ? How will he continue to amass wealth off the backs of laborers, if in some future products will not need to be bought or sold due to the abundance of solar energy ?
If we could put a man on the moon within around 50-60 years from using horse carriages, this can be more than a pretty discovery if the necessary resources are diverted to it as they were in the space race.
Obviously there is no current benefit.

[Tim Cornelis]

"[it allows] terrorists to build their own guns in their homes. Sure, that all sounds nice"

lol

[BIXX]

"[it allows] terrorists to build their own guns in their homes. Sure, that all sounds nice"

lol

Did you knwo you can actually build a fairly decent 3D printer for somewhat cheap?

[Rudolf]

Just... no. What you're thinking doesn't work. It's based on misunderstanding. What we're talking about here is particle physics (hence photon) and in particle physics energy is not some entity it is a property of particles and it is conserved. The notion that you can turn energy into matter is nonsense and is based on a misunderstanding of Einstein's mass-energy equivelence*. What you can do, however, is turn one collection of particles into another collection of particles, Breit-wheeler process being one process for this. Both collections have the same energy and the same momentum.


What this thread looks like to me is like someone who just found out about nuclear fusion and thinks it's a feasible way to make bread.

Oh and btw, the Breit-Wheeler process only results in electron-positron pair production. What was the last sandwich you ate that was made from 50% antimatter and had no quarks? Granted you can make other pairs with various bosons and gluons but you'll always fall into the same problem of trying to make bread from hydrogen



* btw, it's better to look at the mass-energy equivelence as implying that mass is energy as opposed to one being turned into the other. When you measure the mass of an object you're actually measuring the amount of contained energy.

[Aslan]

Sub-Atomic particles are strange things, completely different from normal physics in our universe. I don't really like to talk about it, since this is ground that has only been researched for only a decade and we need a better understanding before we jump to conclusions.

[AdrianO]

Just... no. What you're thinking doesn't work. It's based on misunderstanding. What we're talking about here is particle physics (hence photon) and in particle physics energy is not some entity it is a property of particles and it is conserved. The notion that you can turn energy into matter is nonsense and is based on a misunderstanding of Einstein's mass-energy equivelence. What you can do, however, is turn one collection of particles into another collection of particles, Breit-wheeler process being one process for this. Both collections have the same energy and the same momentum.


What this thread looks like to me is like someone who just found out about nuclear fusion and thinks it's a feasible way to make bread.

Oh and btw, the Breit-Wheeler process only results in electron-positron pair production. What was the last sandwich you ate that was made from 50% antimatter and had no quarks? Granted you can make other pairs with various bosons and gluons but you'll always fall into the same problem of trying to make bread from hydrogen

You're probably right. I'm not saying it's going to lead any where but the standard model of PP is far from perfect or complete and there's a lot to be discovered. I don't think this so called pairing process will make bread haha. I just think it's a step in the right direction to be able to harness more power and be less dependent on non-renewable energy.
It may take 100 years from now, it may take 1000. I don't think we will ever find out under the current capitalist system that will prohibit this kind of advancement, or any advancement that isn't cost-effective for them.

[Rudolf]

You're probably right. I'm not saying it's going to lead any where but the standard model of PP is far from perfect or complete and there's a lot to be discovered. I don't think this so called pairing process will make bread haha. I just think it's a step in the right direction to be able to harness more power and be less dependent on non-renewable energy.
It may take 100 years from now, it may take 1000. I don't think we will ever find out under the current capitalist system that will prohibit this kind of advancement, or any advancement that isn't cost-effective for them.


Tbh, technology isn't the issue here. We've already got the tech to abandon fossil fuels. We've also got the tech to do so without relying on using fertile land for biofuels.

[Remus Bleys]

Photons can decay into other particles, they do it all the time. Its called pair production. Its a naturalish process. In fact, this happens with all elementary particles, for instance in Beta decay. It really has no implications for anything practical. and it doesn't create the matter, really.

A photon is an excitaiton of something called the photon field. This excitation can then in turn excite other fields, for instance the electron field, creating positrons and electrons, all in accordance with the conservation of Energy and momentum and charge.

The "matter," by which you mean fermions (things like electrons and quarks - which make protons and neutron), than yes in this sense, it is created. If by matter you mean yes, then yes in some sense, mass is created, but really, in more fundamental sense, matter isn't created, rather the form of the energy is "changed."

This process won't be useful for creating "energy," by which you mean kinetic energy, because it would be highly inefficient, and impractical (not to mention highly difficult). In reality, even theoretically, a machine that is 100% energy efficient is impossible.

[Remus Bleys]

Sub-Atomic particles are strange things, completely different from normal physics in our universe. I don't really like to talk about it, since this is ground that has only been researched for only a decade and we need a better understanding before we jump to conclusions.

are you saying that fundamental particles have only been researched for the past decade? what?

[Aslan]

are you saying that fundamental particles have only been researched for the past decade? what?

I might as well make some sort of introduction. Hello, I'm Aslan, another lovely denizen of this website. Nice to meet you.

By the way, I was saying that it is still a young field and even the best minds have are at the tip of the iceberg. That's why I tend to stay away from it, since its still very new and better methods of observation could be invented.

[Remus Bleys]

I might as well make some sort of introduction. Hello, I'm Aslan, another lovely denizen of this website. Nice to meet you.

By the way, I was saying that it is still a young field and even the best minds have are at the tip of the iceberg. That's why I tend to stay away from it, since its still very new and better methods of observation could be invented.

quantum electrodynamics is a complete (and basically finished) theory, it has been so for many decades now.

[Aslan]

quantum electrodynamics is a complete (and basically finished) theory, it has been so for many decades now.

Ok, thanks for the info.

[Luís Henrique]

Famously,


E=mc²

This gives you the relation between energy (photons) and matter. Now how much energy would you need to create any non-negligible amount of useful matter? And how does this compare with effectively available energy (ie, roughly, the amount of photons that the Sun continuously pours upon the Earth?

(hint: "c" in the equation above is 300,000 km/s; thence c² is 90,000,000,000 km²/s², or 90,000,000,000,000,000 m²/s². One Joule is 1kg.m²/s².)

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

It is cost prohibitive but only because the capitalists make it so. What capitalist would want an invention that created matter from sunlight ?

Since only labour creates value, it depends on how much labour would be involved in the process.

If none, then capitalists would have no interest in it.

If lots (and I strongly suppose it is lots, or lots of lots), then all capitalists who have the initial capital necessary (which I suppose aren't many).



How will he continue to amass wealth off the backs of laborers, if in some future products will not need to be bought or sold due to the abundance of solar energy ?

This is a miscalculation. Solar energy is abundant regarding our actual needs for energy; it is not abundant enough for us to create significant amounts of matter through a reverse-atom-bomb process.

It would take a full year of solar energy (total solar energy, meaning that we wouldn't have light available for plants to grow) to create about 500,000 metric tons of matter. To put that into perspective, we consume about 9,000 metric tons of crude oil a day. We would have to stop all the normal functioning of the Earth for about a week per year, just to get enough oil for one day of our present consumption.

Luís Henrique

[Red Spark]

Just... no. What you're thinking doesn't work. It's based on misunderstanding. What we're talking about here is particle physics (hence photon) and in particle physics energy is not some entity it is a property of particles and it is conserved. The notion that you can turn energy into matter is nonsense and is based on a misunderstanding of Einstein's mass-energy equivelence*. What you can do, however, is turn one collection of particles into another collection of particles, Breit-wheeler process being one process for this. Both collections have the same energy and the same momentum.


What this thread looks like to me is like someone who just found out about nuclear fusion and thinks it's a feasible way to make bread.

Oh and btw, the Breit-Wheeler process only results in electron-positron pair production. What was the last sandwich you ate that was made from 50% antimatter and had no quarks? Granted you can make other pairs with various bosons and gluons but you'll always fall into the same problem of trying to make bread from hydrogen



* btw, it's better to look at the mass-energy equivelence as implying that mass is energy as opposed to one being turned into the other. When you measure the mass of an object you're actually measuring the amount of contained energy.

I am just a high school Physics student and my arguments might be flawed. Any criticism will be welcome.

As much as I have knowledge of particle Physics, it is clear that matter and energy are same thing and hence are interconvertible. In nuclear fusion/fission the total mass of reactants is greater than total mass of products and the net lost mass is changed into energy. Of course energy is conserved but again matter is nothing but very concentrated form of energy. Moreover, photon is actually not a matter particle but an energy particle. Light is sometimes treated as a particle(photon) and sometimes as a wave(electromagnetic radiation).

This much being said, the aforementioned process of converting energy into matter might not be very helpful. Yes, with some more dedicated attempts and research we might be able isolate electron from positron and even create particular atoms like hydrogen or carbon. But making bread out of those constituents is much more complex process of biophysical domain, very neglected branch within Physics.