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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by theshadowknows
on topic: I do not think its possible. Thats like saying "air has mass".


Air dose have mass.




posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I have read many articles stating evidence of mass in photons. I am not sure if I had read the one that was given earlier to answer that question. What I can say is this. It still has not been conclusively proven that light has mass. Many proofs say no, and others give the contradicting impression of yes. Not to get into it too much, because I am honestly no where near an expert on this subject, but I have my own view.

Relativity accurately describes the actions of large bodied objects in the universe. Very accurately. It predicted many things, including the fact that gravity bends light. It also states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light due to the infinity problem. An object with any mass at all, travelling at the speed of light, would have infinite mass. If relativity wasn't so freeking accurate in its predictions and observations of large moving and fast moving objects ( I know all about the issues with small bodied objects in the quantum world), I would just throw it away, but it is accurate. Light having mass, and traveling at its own speed, would mean it had infinite mass (Solar sails would really get a gust!)

Now, the question "does a shadow have mass?" can be easily answered by saying no. Like everyone on this forum is saying, a shadow is only a perception. The question I really think you are getting at is "does light have mass?" According to most scientist, the answer would be no, but remember that there is a growing number of researchers who are saying yes.

I have two thoughts or speculations on this subject that I am sure others have thought about. The first is way out there.

1) Maybe light does have mass, and it does travel at a speed that makes it infinite. The energy needed to make it travel that speed would also need to be infinite as a result. Now, we don't truly understand what would be happening to anything infinite, so maybe we lose our ability to percieve mass at that point. Or something our minds cannot comprehend is occuring. Maybe there is a balance of infinite mass and infinite energy contradicting each other to make a cancel out effect. In other words, maybe something we have yet to understand is going on.

2) Maybe the speed of light is not the ultimate speed. This is where I personally have decided to stand on this subject. Rather light travels at the maximum speed the universe allows. The speed of light therefore, may actaully not be the maximum, but so close that it is impossible for us to differentiate. This way, light can have mass. It would be at such a small quantity, that its porabola curve of mass increase would be so steep at the end, that the small speed difference from the maximum speed and actual light speed may not have even hit the steep curve. The only problem with this is that light is measured at the same speed from all directions and relative points. Even at that, maybe there is a difference though. It could be possible that light goes the maximum allowable speed without being infinite, and as a result is measured the same speed in all reference points because our instraments cannot pick up differences at that point.

In short, what I am saying is that it could be possible that the speed of light is not the speed limit, but rather light travels at or close to the speed limit dictated by something else. Maybe that something else is even a key to joining the quantum and relative worlds.....and maybe it even could lead us to the ultimate theory, or ultimate truth. Well, now I am getting carried away!



Seriously though, for all you science and physics scholars in here, point me in the right direction.


IBM

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Sea people, the photon from our current understanding does not have mass, othersiwise it would not be able to travel at the speed of light due to special relativity.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by IBM
Sea people, the photon from our current understanding does not have mass, othersiwise it would not be able to travel at the speed of light due to special relativity.


I made that point very clear in the posts I made on this thread. I also made it very clear that there are opposing views to this. I even provided information on how to possibly mend the two contradicting views.

Now, again, I am no expert on this but:

Photons have energy, and relativity brought about an equasion "E=MC^2". Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Without mass, e would equal zero. Energy is also equal to the Planck's constant and the frequency of the particle (E=hf). Photons have frequency, so E could not be 0 in this case either. Some even argue that photons having momentum, must also have mass.

There are proofs that come from theorietical thought experiments and equasions that dictate light must have mass. Honestly, there is another side to the story, right or wrong as it may be.

Let me clear this up for everyone. LIGHT DOES NOT HAVE MASS. Please though, don't forget that light could add mass to a closed system.


****Just for your information, if you look through the thread, I have posted a few times and I am very particular in pointing out that I do not believe that photons have mass. I was simply trying to put forth logical reasoning.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by a basket of kittens
Is a red apple really red? Actually it is every other color except red. RED is reflected. So the apple is not really red.


Do you belong to the Flat-Earth Society?

If anything, a shadow has a negative mass if you want to say it has any mass at all!

BTW, to the posters saying thsat light doesn't have mass, why does a blackhole refuse to let light escape?

Gravitational forces acts on two masses.

If light didn't have any mass, light would readily escape the gravitational pull of a blackhole!


IBM

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by a basket of kittens
Is a red apple really red? Actually it is every other color except red. RED is reflected. So the apple is not really red.


Do you belong to the Flat-Earth Society?

If anything, a shadow has a negative mass if you want to say it has any mass at all!

BTW, to the posters saying thsat light doesn't have mass, why does a blackhole refuse to let light escape?

Gravitational forces acts on two masses.

If light didn't have any mass, light would readily escape the gravitational pull of a blackhole!


Interearthling, you are incorrect, light does not have mass, but is affected by the curvature of space time. Gravity is a geometric theory. Ask any physicist and they will tell you the same thing, that light does not have mass.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Dear group,,

Most interesting answers..honest. I tend to fall in with those who say it is better to think of light as a frequency or a wave than a thing made up of particles..just in terms of conception.

i would also posit that light is not confined to our dimensions but pervades all dimensions..and who knows what spedd it travels in the 7th dimension.

The Bible says in the beginning was the word and then there was light..in other words sound proceeded light...and in fact ot was a wave that created solid objects, divided night from day, etc.

I do not hold that the Bible is to be taken literally, but DO hold with the rabbinical view that within what reads like a simple child's tale there is a world of 'other-worldly' wisdom.
I also play a character in a musical drama about a DK broadcasting from a bunker after the apocalypse..his air is running out..he si trying to find meaning in his last moments.
So he talks to 'the audience'and says...' In space there is only radio and light..but light is faster than radio..so that means , even after the last lights have died out my voice will still be out there..for any green men who want to listen...,'
The completion of a cycle...

Buddha said that everything is just an illusion....the ZPFérs are rapidly coming to the same conclusion.

Shadows are illusions..tricks of light as observed by the retina...some other creature, like a bee, may not see the sahdow at all..just a different band of light in the optic spectrum.

So my point is, that this argument about the mass of photons and light particles. reminds me of the oild argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
it would be nice to see an angel first before resolving the argument..as it would be nice to see the mass of a photon.

I personally think we should posit the effects of dimensions intersecting with ours as the reason for seeing what we're seeing as far as light bending around black holes and such....and to help explain the phenomenon cited by many physicists in which sub-atomic particles seem to sporing in and out of existence.
In our dimension, yes..but surely not in others..surely they must be coming from somewhere else, these sub=particles....yes?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join