It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Speed of light question

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:27 AM
reading another post just a minute ago something crossed my mind....

If something traveling the speed of light (or approaching the speed of light) would have infinite mass (so to speak) why doesnt light itself have a mass so enormously large =\

just a thought...

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:37 AM
Not sure but maybe it's to do with ligh never having mass in the first place.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:39 AM
well i know its just photons (i beleive) but wouldnt they have a mass them selves?

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:41 AM
a little google turns up that photons have no mass.....nm

was a fun thought for a good 5 mins

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:04 PM
Yes, I have also read that photons have no mass. Something keeps confusing me though. If a photon can have a specific amount of energy and that energy can be converted to Joules, then with E=MC^2 wouldn't it have some kind of mass?

[Edited] - See this link below. It sort of explores the above question into more detail. I guess what I am referring to above is 'relativistic mass'. The link explains that quantum electrodynamics would be in some serious trouble should they find the 'rest mass' of a photon to be non-zero.

math.ucr.edu...

[edit on 20-1-2005 by n01ukn0w]

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:09 PM
I was goin good, until you did the energy joules converter E=MC2. Now blood is shooting out my ears. 13 sry.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:22 PM
Photons are packets of energy with no specified volume and no mass.That's just the way it is.I think the problem here hinges on the dual nature of light:wave or particle.this link should set your mind at ease.httpthis link

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:38 PM
photons have a mass, but its a relitivistic mass...... for all sakes purpose..... lets just assume they have absolutely no mass whatsoever

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:38 PM
light-Photons have a dual nature.
They are reconized as being both a wave( no masss) and a solid(mass)-depending on what time u look at them.
Since a photon does not always act as if it has mass-is how it can go speed of light.
We have been able to slow the speed of light by going throegh a cube filled with (forget what).

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:16 AM
In the famous argument between Neils Bohr and Einstein over the validity of Quantum theory Einstein said:
God does not play dice.
Bohr retorted..Stop telling God what to do with his dice

To me they both missed the point as well as the opportunity to solve together the big equation that would let both theories of special and general relativity conform and coincide with quantum theory..

God is not dice player..period..and why would He be..he owns the casino!
Think of a casino, a variety of games of chance, all conforming to laws of probability [in which the house gets a 2% advantage] and all under one roof.

String theorists are right to pursue their esoteric maths to the logical end, where they will be standing side by side with chaos theorists no doubt... all taking turns explaining not only the many different games [dimensions] god is controlling but the architecture of the casino proper.

-Sincerely
-Shai

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:34 AM
E=MC^2 is a formula for converting mass to energy (and I guess theoretically energy into mass, but I don't know if there's a known method for doing that.)

In a nuclear reaction (fusion or fission) a small amount of matter is converted directly into energy through annhilation with anti-matter. This doesn't mean the photons released have mass, the mass is destroyed in the reaction.

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
E=MC^2 is a formula for converting mass to energy (and I guess theoretically energy into mass, but I don't know if there's a known method for doing that.)

In a nuclear reaction (fusion or fission) a small amount of matter is converted directly into energy through annhilation with anti-matter. This doesn't mean the photons released have mass, the mass is destroyed in the reaction.

Not quite. First, energy can be directly turned into mass. This happens often in medium-high energy physics experiments, where two photons (pure energy) combine in the right environment to produce matter and anti matter. You can also readily create electrons and positrons by shooting 511KeV photons at each other.

Also, fusion and fission do not combine matter with antimatter. You end up with just as many protons/nuetrons/electrons after both fusion and fission as you started out with. However, an interesting observation in phyics is that an atom with, lets say 92 protons and 143 nuetrons (U-235) actually weighs more than the same 92 protons and 143 nuetrons in 2 seperate atoms (i.e. 2 Palladium atoms, of course they really never split in half and a few nuetrons are always left free). This difference in mass is turned into energy, which is why nuclear reactions work.

BTW - The lightest atom (when considering the number of particles in it) is actually Iron, which is why fusion works as well (turning 2 smaller atoms into one larger one).

A good representation of this can be found on the following chart which lists binding energy per nucleon - which is physics explination for the above mentioned effect

www.tpub.com... - Note it peaks around mass 80 (Iron) - this is also why there is so much iron in the universe

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... also gives a good explination of this.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Starwars51]

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Starwars51
Also, fusion and fission do not combine matter with antimatter. You end up with just as many protons/nuetrons/electrons after both fusion and fission as you started out with. However, an interesting observation in phyics is that an atom with, lets say 92 protons and 143 nuetrons (U-235) actually weighs more than the same 92 protons and 143 nuetrons in 2 seperate atoms (i.e. 2 Palladium atoms, of course they really never split in half and a few nuetrons are always left free). This difference in mass is turned into energy, which is why nuclear reactions work.

Saying antimatter was probably misleading but it is thought, at least conceptually that a positron is released from a proton turning it into a neutron and annihilates an electron, causing a loss in mass, no?

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Saying antimatter was probably misleading but it is thought, at least conceptually that a positron is released from a proton turning it into a neutron and annihilates an electron, causing a loss in mass, no?

Kind of. You seem to be thinking of beta decay, which doesn't play a role in fission/fusion. What happens is a Nuetron (which is heavier than a proton by about 1 MeV) turns into a proton and in the process gives off an electron (to maintain charge) and a particle called and anti-nuetrino. The anti-nuetrino and electron are both part of a class of particles called leptons, so the total number of particles is conserved as well. This is really a very interesting and difficult subject to cover in depth, I would suggest the following site for more in depth info:

education.jlab.org...

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:31 PM
As You reach the speed of light you turn into a electomagnetic wave, yes even you!, which has a specific frequency related to how much energy was there to start with. You can use the mc2 to work out how much energy you would! be in your photon!

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 07:45 PM
1. Photons dont have a mass. THen they have to be 'something' we dont know of yet.

2. Photons do have mass. Einstein was wrong, E isnt equal to MC^2.

3. Photons do have a mass. They have to be 'something' we dont know of yet.

Either way, lets wait 15 years and then discuss again.

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:36 AM
Dear group,

I posted a theory , only half in-jest the other day in which I posited that the Universe is a casino, many different games of chance with varying laws of proability all under one roof.
I know it isn't elegant and mathematically 'proven' as some of you more brainy types would like to see it, but I believe it quantifies the idea and is supported by super-string theorist, even if they aren't quick to notice the ramifications of their calculations..

Super-string posits 11 dimensions....yes?
ZPE theory tells us that there is indeed a parallel universe of a sort..and anti-universe or negative universe over which everything else is interlayed and interwoven.
The 'fabric' of space is ZPE
No one can measure a negative, only postulate its existence or measure its effects, so to go lookingh for mass in photons is to go looking for negatives..still, we are aware that our 'universe'is expanding at a more rapid rate than it should and is not conforming to big-bang theory.

www.bbc.co.uk...

But it does conform to parallel universe-super-string theory

It seems to me that if we are ever going to discover the mind of God ot the secret of creation out of nothing then we had better wrap our heads around a different set of assumptions and forget the notion that we are on ly dealing with a 3D OR 4D ENVIORNMENT..that indeed we are intersecting and being intersected all the time ..by other dimensions..that on each dimension different rules may be in play..and that a particle of no mass in our universe may be immensely heavy in another, parallel dimension....and that it is the linking or rubbing up against each other of these dimensions that causes the swirls and eddies of time, space and matter in ours

-Sincerely
-Shai

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:39 AM
If when you reach the speed of light you have infinite mass, what do you have when you reach the speed of dark?

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:38 AM

Originally posted by Shai
Super-string posits 11 dimensions....yes?

Yes.

still, we are aware that our 'universe'is expanding at a more rapid rate than it should and is not conforming to big-bang theory.

No we arent, thats just a theory, not a fact. Many things show that this is probably the case, but it hasnt been confirmed.

Originally posted by instar
If when you reach the speed of light you have infinite mass, what do you have when you reach the speed of dark?

THere is no such things as 'the dark', so therefore dark cant have a speed.

But if you are in a dark room with no light, then light still have the same speed as if there were light. There just arent any light.

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:53 AM

quote: Originally posted by instar
If when you reach the speed of light you have infinite mass, what do you have when you reach the speed of dark?

THere is no such things as 'the dark', so therefore dark cant have a speed.

But if you are in a dark room with no light, then light still have the same speed as if there were light. There just arent any light.

LMAO it was a rhetorical question. but now that you've answered it, the speed of dark must be greater than the speed of light. Dark exist as the abscence of light or does light exist as the abscence of dark?

new topics

top topics

0