It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Does a shadow have mass?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Dear Group,

I know it sounds like a foolish question but I have a reason for asking and I'm hoping someone here, more grounded in theoretical physics than I can find time to respond.

Here is why I pose the question...it seems to me that all this discussion of photons, and other sub-atomic particles possessing mass or negative mass is really a discussion about the mass of shadows.

Let me explain...according to my understanding of current theory, we live in a multiverse..and the multiverse is comprised of 11 dimensions.
We know that the basis of everything in the universe is 'light', whetehr visible or invisible..yes?
And as I have said in recent posts..[as is born out in super-string theory and zero-point-field theory] that would mean we are constantly being interacted with by other dimensions.

Isn't it conceivable that what we identify as sub-atomic particles possessing no mass but still exerting influence on our reality are nothing more than the 'shadows' from another dimension.

We can see shadows, we can measure their area, observe their outlines..but we cannot 'weigh' a shadow, as shadows are illusions of light that have no mass.
What we are observing then, when we observe these particles , is really the interaction of 'light' as it crosses or infiltrates between dimensions.

In these other dimensions what we perceive as a photon with no mass may actually be quite heavy..so heavy that in that dimension it could be that dimension's equivalent of a black hole a nano[star]gate which pushes its own equivalent of a plasma stream so powerful that it shoots particles into our space and time..our dimension...which we perceive as sub-atomic, quantum particles.

And of course, just like shadows, although we can see them, measure their movement and their area we will never be able to calculate their 'mass',..since they have none. So are shadows illusions or are they indicative of realities beyond our borders...

I thank you in advance for your responses

-Sincerely
-Shai




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
A shadow has less mass than the surrounding light area, seeing as it has fewer photons per cubic centimeter.

A shadow could conceivably have mass, I think, if the light source was so bright it caused a severe disparity in the number of photons between light and dark area - and if the aptmosphere was charged in such a way to induce photons into gravitational behavior; say around a neutron star.

So maybe your shadow would have 'mass' mimicked by a gravity effect if you were standing in front of a light source a million times stronger than our sun and in front of a diamond 100 times the size of our planet.

A sub atomic particle and your shadow are different, your shadow is the absence of photons due to the blocking effect of your physical body, while sub atomic particles are the left overs of broken down atoms. If an enormous energy source (not just visible spectrum) that was composed largely of x-rays hit your back, most of those rays would travel through your body and produce a 'mass' effect out your front, insofar as x-rays and other emissions can have mass.

There could be 11 dimensions. There could be infinity - 1 dimensions. We don't know.

The basis of the universe is energy, not just visible light, in various stages of polarization and excitement.

Most sub atomic particles are rooted firmly in our dimension, the exception being quarks, gluons, and a few other known ones.

As far as I know, sub atomic particles accelarated away from a black hole stay in this dimension. There might be something that is able to pass through the event horizon and travel to another dimension, but I wouldn't be able to tell you what exactly. I don't think anyone could for sure.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
A shadow has less mass than the surrounding light area, seeing as it has fewer photons per cubic centimeter.

A shadow could conceivably have mass, I think, if the light source was so bright it caused a severe disparity in the number of photons between light and dark area - and if the aptmosphere was charged in such a way to induce photons into gravitational behavior; say around a neutron star.

So maybe your shadow would have 'mass' mimicked by a gravity effect if you were standing in front of a light source a million times stronger than our sun and in front of a diamond 100 times the size of our planet.

A sub atomic particle and your shadow are different, your shadow is the absence of photons due to the blocking effect of your physical body, while sub atomic particles are the left overs of broken down atoms. If an enormous energy source (not just visible spectrum) that was composed largely of x-rays hit your back, most of those rays would travel through your body and produce a 'mass' effect out your front, insofar as x-rays and other emissions can have mass.

There could be 11 dimensions. There could be infinity - 1 dimensions. We don't know.

The basis of the universe is energy, not just visible light, in various stages of polarization and excitement.

Most sub atomic particles are rooted firmly in our dimension, the exception being quarks, gluons, and a few other known ones.

As far as I know, sub atomic particles accelarated away from a black hole stay in this dimension. There might be something that is able to pass through the event horizon and travel to another dimension, but I wouldn't be able to tell you what exactly. I don't think anyone could for sure.




Interesting post but I don't quite follow the logic..sorry. Could you run it by me again please?
I'm specifically bothered by the assertion that a shadow has fewer photns than a light beam...What is the basis for that conclusion? Are you saying brightness=[photonic]density?
Yes, I agree that all is energy..and that means by extension that energy has its part to play, and will be expressed in all dimensions..but current theory suggests that all energy is best expressed as a vibration of light, be it visible, or invisible to our eyes. and whether it be solid or ephemeral..It is all Light.

We posit that the reason our Universe is not only expanding but acclerating is due to the pull of 'dark matter'and that dark matter comprises a full 80% of our known Universe...so again..I am confused as to your stement regarding the relative densities of light beams and shadows.
I use the term 'shadow' to describe evidence of mass existing somewhere else in space and time than the what are seen to be the outlines of the shadow proper..just as a chalk line shows where a dead person used to lie..we can see from the outline that something is/was but are left to ponder the details and 'mass'of whatever body occupied that time and space just a [nano-]second before.

As for gravity..hmmm. We are still at the same puzzle Einstein was trying to solve and others with him..what constitites the nature of gravity.
Up to now we can only predict its effects and measure its effects but we cannot describe exactly what gravity is..since of all the forces known to govern moving bodies on whatever scale gravity is the weakest..yet it is everywhere. In fact, despite what we know to be the weakness of the gravitational pull upon our bodies it must indeed be an extremely powerful force to hold the Entire Universe together..to hold entire galaxies in orbit.

This is, again pardon my layman's logic, another example of being pre-occupied with 'shadows', in that we have measurable effects of known and predictable patterns bit no mechanism by which to describe the real 'nature'of gravity...or even where it is from since it is a force exerted not inside the Universe, like light...but upon the Universe from outside its borders.

Does that ring true for you?

Thanks again for the reply
-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
If a beam of light hits you from behind, some of the light is reflected, some is absorbed, and some passes through you. The same is true of our aptmosphere, and the same is true of our moon, and just about everything else that has mass. If a photonic light packet hits something, it breaks up in accordance with the wavelength that it strikes. Blue light is reflected off of blue cloth in greater quantity, therefore, less blue light gets through blue cloth. As I understand it, this has to do with vibratory sympathy (the commonality in the pattern of atomic movement shared by light waves and any given reflector).

I think the bottom line is, all light is energy, but not all energy is light.

They call gravity the weak force, but I don't think they've accounted for some of the properties of gravity possibly existant in inter-galactic systems. Larger bodies, like galaxies, neutron stars, etc. may trump so called 'strong' forces when it comes to influence, but we don't know. Most scientists will say that galaxies don't come close enough to each other to exert any force, but I can't see how that's possible, unless their field is so repellant that they can't touch.

As far as the human shadow being a reflector of the passage of sub atomic particles, I don't think so. As far as the human shadow being a trail of recently broken light, that's more accurate I think. If you've ever shot a film, you'll know all about diffusion - it's what gets hung over the lights, in varying thicknesses, to soften and spread the illumination. The human body, indeed the human energy field, is a kind of diffusion. We absorb a great deal of light, which gets processed by our mitochondria (I believe) and trapped in our melanin.

Also, I'm not sure our universe is expanding faster. I know the red(?) shift would tend to indicate that, but I don't yet have full confidence in scientific understanding of the properties of the outer edges of the universe. I also don't think we can infer anything about the outer edge of the known universe, certainly not using observable phenomenon to understand the laws in effect. In my mind that's equivalent to observing a tidal pool and formulating theories on the pressure variances at 5000 feet below the sea. Most scientists are confident in their ability to extrapolate successfully, I'm not so positive.

If you want to understand the properties of gravity, the best place to start in my opinion is in fluid dynamics. The similarities are many. I don't think gravity acts on us from another dimension, at least I haven't read anything to indicate that. I think gravity acts in this dimension, perhaps upon other dimensions, but not from them. If you have any links to the contrary I'd love to read them.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Just for some backround information here, it has not been conclusively proven that photons definitely even have mass. They may have a seriously small amount of mass. More than likely, they do not.

Light can be bent by gravity, for different reasons. Remember, according to todays physics, no object with mass can travel the speed of light. The speed of light isn't completely dependent on light, rather it is a limit. If there were other particles with no mass, then they too may travel at that speed.

No where will you find conclusive proof that light has mass, therefore, a shadow has no mass being it is a shade of light.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai
So are shadows illusions or are they indicative of realities beyond our borders...


They're neither. They are a spot where there is less light, hence they look dark. They have no mass because they aren't anything.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com...

[edit on 25-1-2005 by spike]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I tried to edit my post to add the link above, and my post got erased. Sorry. Anyway, a shadow is only the absence of light. I don't see how something that is absent (not there!!!) can have mass. That's my take on it. Also the link provided above is Plato's theory about our reality being a lesser reality. That is to say that our shadows on a wall are living a lesser real than we are.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spike
I tried to edit my post to add the link above, and my post got erased. Sorry. Anyway, a shadow is only the absence of light. I don't see how something that is absent (not there!!!) can have mass. That's my take on it. Also the link provided above is Plato's theory about our reality being a lesser reality. That is to say that our shadows on a wall are living a lesser real than we are.


I think the point here is, assuming Light has mass, then a shadow may have mass as well, just a great deal less. There IS reflected light in a shadow, so if we assume light has mass as gospel, then any level of light would have some mass. I think the biggest question here is: Does light have mass. If thats true then a shadow would in fact have mass.



[edit on 25-1-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Light must have some sort of mass otherwise solar sails wouldn't work.

Still, the shadow doesn't have the mass, the light peppering it does. A distinction that's important I think.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Solar Sails work by cathing the solar wind, a jet of particles comming off the sun, but not photons in particular.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Many Many particles are ejected from the sun at high velocities. Light particles have no mass.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by spike
I tried to edit my post to add the link above, and my post got erased. Sorry. Anyway, a shadow is only the absence of light. I don't see how something that is absent (not there!!!) can have mass. That's my take on it. Also the link provided above is Plato's theory about our reality being a lesser reality. That is to say that our shadows on a wall are living a lesser real than we are.


I think the point here is, assuming Light has mass, then a shadow may have mass as well, just a great deal less. There IS reflected light in a shadow, so if we assume light has mass as gospel, then any level of light would have some mass. I think the biggest question here is: Does light have mass. If thats true then a shadow would in fact have mass.



[edit on 25-1-2005 by skippytjc]


See? The point is that if ANY light is reflecting off the surface, then it IS NOT a shodow. Any "shadow" that is visible to the human eye will undoubtedly be contaminated by errant photons under normal earth conditions. But these shadows are only "shadows" comparitively speaking. They are darker perhaps than adjacent surfaces. The brain translates this into a mental image, and just like an automatic camera, the brain compensates and adjusts the contrast giving us a "percieved" image that "approximates" what is really there. And what is there is still a LACK of something. A shadow is where light (photon activity) simply does not exist.

Here's Dictionary.com's Deffinition:

An area that is not or is only partially irradiated or illuminated because of the interception of radiation by an opaque object between the area and the source of radiation.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a shadow is really more of a perception, imo, caused by a reduction in light by a material object in the path of a light source. I would argue a shadow exists on the back of our retina's and therefore does not have mass.


perhaps you could weigh one ?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I think if light has mass then a shadow has mass.

Does light have mass? If not, then a shadow does not.


[edit on 25-1-2005 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I think if light has mass the a shadow has mass.

Doode, a shadow is not a thing. Its just a zone where there is less light, usually that which is blocked by some object. The surface its on has mass, the shadow does not have mass. A shadow is not a thing, you can't hold a shadow, its not made up of anything, not even the light that is there. Saying a shadow has mass is the same as saying a room becomes heavier when the lights are turned off.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Does light have mass? If not, then a shadow does not.


I don't think light has mass. If it does it would never be able to achieve light speed because of the formula we all know created by the you know guy.

Surf



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Thank you Nygdan,

I couldn't have put it more simply.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
well, first that 11 dymensional universe ,the base of the superstring theory is still a theory, the shadow is only an optic effect, based in our optic interpretation, now we could analyse the propieties of the universe at high vacuum and very very low temperature (an supershadow:roll
there some theories that say about the generation of virtual particles in such conditions, in fact there is cosmology theories that explain the universe expansion-acceleration with that concept



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Great babbling baby jesus! What the hell was any of that supposed to mean? I think anyone who has a real concern that shadows might have mass need stay away from superstring theories and m-brane theory and why it requires 11 dimensions.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join