E=MC^4^2...A thought experiment regarding Energy and the Speed of Light.

a reply to: TheWetCoast

Can you explain how posting baseless assertions and getting called out for it proves that science is a religion?

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thats not the point to my q...

Were/How do they get thier motion from?

originally posted by: Miccey
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thats not the point to my q...

Were/How do they get thier motion from?

Light is a emitted energy form. Light gets its motion from emission.

So just by flipping a switch i can get
these particles at 300k km/s??

It is actually hard to belive....

A 9v battery a bulb some wires and
me....
Doesnt seem to take much energy.
But then, its just the particles..

originally posted by: Miccey
So just by flipping a switch i can get
these particles at 300k km/s??

It is actually hard to belive....

A 9v battery a bulb some wires and
me....
Doesnt seem to take much energy.
But then, its just the particles..

Yes, Just by the flip of a switch

But light is not a particle. Light is actually a wavelength. A wavelength is not a particle but a ripple within a void. It is the void that is set in motion and create the visible light. Particles only absorb the wavelengths/light.

a reply to: spy66

Photons are wave packets, they do not form a continuos wave like ripple from point a to point b. Photons have both wavelike and particle like properties

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Doesn't this refuse your position that matter is just light?

Answer 3:


It's very inefficient at bending space time. You could calculate it from E=mc2 and E=hc/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength of light (400nm for blue light, 700nm for red).

You need a *LOT* of light or energy to make up for even a small amount of mass.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
There's a PhD physicist on another thread who argued that light is a form of matter, and I'm not sure the other physicists agree (I don't think they do) but given the fact that "matter" isn't that clearly defined I think it's hard to say he's completely wrong. More traditionally light and other EM radiation correlates with the left side of the E=mc^2 equation whereas matter with rest mass is on the right side, but when you get into details even this can get a little fuzzy.

There are some explanations here but I think the first one touches on the ambiguity of the status of light as matter (or not):

scienceline.ucsb.edu...

I'm not sure if other scientists would answer this question the same why I do, but I think this is a very philosophical question that depends on what you mean by matter....

After the first guy elaborates on "depends on what you mean by matter", the following three replies more or less say photons aren't matter, as I read them, which kind of parallels the discussion we had in the other ATS thread on this topic.

Arguing about the definitions of words that aren't defined very well such as "matter" probably isn't that productive. My opinion is that photons aren't matter, but when someone says they are, I can't say they're wrong, I can only say: "Oh, so you're one of the people who defines matter THAT way".

If you look at the properties of photons and other particles as published by the particle data group I think that represents a general consensus, so it's not like there's confusion over the photons as much as the definition of the word "matter".

However I don't see a photon as that much like a snake swallowing its tail, as suggested in the post you replied to, so if you want to question that part of the post, I would support you in questioning that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well his post was not saying photons are matter so much as saying ALL matter is composed of ONLY photons, and it's the circular "eating their tail" motion that creates mass and in turn gravity. His entire post hinges on light "eating it's tail" and going much much faster than the "speed of light".

Basically he is saying light is responsible for bending space time by going ultra fast in a circle .. but his link to prove it says light is not good at bending space time .. which is what I was highlighting.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The source I posted is calculating the amount of light needed to bend spacetime by using the "speed of light" constant "c" of 299,792,458 meters per second. Yes, at that "speed of light" it is inefficient at bending spacetime. I agree with the source I posted.

However, when light is bent in a very tiny orbit, it travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second for reasons I've already stated earlier in this thread. I would hate to use the term "faster than light" because it is light.

Also, the source I posted is calculating the amount of light needed to bend spacetime by dividing the lambda, which represents the "wavelength" of light. Let me tell you that when light is in such a small orbit as I describe, there is no "wavelength". At this point, it's no longer a wave.

The electric field and magnetic field of light, when it is bent in a tiny orbit, not only removes the speed limit of light, but it also increases its energy.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



The source I posted is calculating the amount of light needed to bend spacetime by using the "speed of light" constant "c" of 299,792,458 meters per second. Yes, at that "speed of light" it is inefficient at bending spacetime. I agree with the source I posted.



However, when light is bent in a very tiny orbit, it travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second for reasons I've already stated earlier in this thread. I would hate to use the term "faster than light" because it is light.



Also, the source I posted is calculating the amount of light needed to bend spacetime by dividing the lambda, which represents the "wavelength" of light. Let me tell you that when light is in such a small orbit as I describe, there is no "wavelength". At this point, it's no longer a wave.



The electric field and magnetic field of light, when it is bent in a tiny orbit, not only removes the speed limit of light, but it also increases its energy.

Can you post a source for this? The only source you posted to support this theory does not support it at all.

You also seem to be suggesting the photon has mass and is going "FTL". Is this correct?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No I cannot post a source. Nor would I. This information is not supposed to exist in public. You can discover it for yourself though if you wish, and had the resources. I am pointing the way, not giving away.

No, I am not suggesting the photon has mass. I am suggesting it can create mass (or gravity). Which is what my source supports.

No, I am not suggesting it is going "faster than light". Semantically, because it is light, and it can't go faster than itself. What I am suggesting is that it can travel faster than 299,792,458 meters per second.

Let me tell you that light can travel much faster. The electric and magnetic nature of a photon is what limits its speed. When you measure the speed of light, you seem to always measure it in the presence of other light, which causes interference, and the resulting regulated speed. If you were to discover a way to measure light in a space where light was completely absent, you would find a much greater speed. Keep in mind, even in the darkest of places, light exists.

Or, you can measure light while it is in it's tiny orbit, when its electromagnetic nature forms a closed loop, and somewhat ignores external interference.

You have to love how magnets naturally form loops. Oh, and electricity too.

It always worries me when people who can't do the mathematics 11 year olds are taught (brackets and adding indices) think they've somehow cracked things.

Please learn basic physics and mathematics before embarrassing yourself in the future. Even without the mistakes the equation is complete nonsense and meaningless stuff anyone can write down and pretend is true.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

More or less what I expected. No point in replying again.

originally posted by: Miccey
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thats not the point to my q...

Were/How do they get thier motion from?

Photons travel at the speed of light because they have energy but no mass. Their energy is entirely in their momentum, and specifically, their momentum at light-speed.

If they moved slower than light-speed, their energy would be 'consumed' in their (now) negative mass and they would not exist.

The famous E=MC^2 formula is actually only relevant for the rest mass of objects (and since photons have no rest mass, it doesn't really apply). The expanded form of the equation explains the relationships with momentum included and can give a positive value for energy when mass = 0:

Here's a cool Minute Physics video clip that explains it quite simply.

a reply to: chr0naut

Still not an answer...
What gives the photons its
momemtum...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: WeAre0ne

More or less what I expected. No point in replying again.

Yup. It's genuinely scary people make up these things and even worse when they try and pass it off to others when it's something a child can see through. I can't see a single statement in their post that comes anywhere near reality yet they're trying to pass it off as truth in a vain attempt to look clever or cool.

originally posted by: Miccey
a reply to: chr0naut

Still not an answer...
What gives the photons its
momemtum...

p =h*f/c

a reply to: bastion

Funny people need a source, and without a source they wont believe anything. As if they don't understand that sometimes there is only one source, and you are speaking to it.

I wonder if when Einstein said "E=mc^2" people asked, "can you provide a source?". lol

You don't know reality. Not even the beginning of it.

As Tesla states...

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Long ago, it was discovered that all matter is simply made of light.

The evidence is all over the place.