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.

 

Oddities of Light

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I believe the photon has a mass, otherwise why would it be affected by the gravity of planets,stars or black holes? And it also does travel slower in water?

From this perspective, if it has the slightest mass it must suffer some deviation in its trajectory. Would it mean that stars we are looking at are actually not where we are looking at?




posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


If a photon had any mass at all, it would have infinite mass at the speed of light (because mass increases as you approach the speed of light.) So a photon cannot have mass. Go figure.

#

I am not sure that photons should really be considered elementary particles. I think it is better to look photons as an abstraction -- a tool to let us perform experiments and understand what is going on. Light can be viewed as a particle -- but it is actually a wave (in my opinion). Referencing a "particle of light" is just plain wrong.

#

The weirdest thing about light is that humans still have no understanding of what electromagnetic fields are. Why do two magnets attract or move away from each other? What causes the force of an electric field? We know the rules of magnetic fields quite well (courtesy of James Clerk Maxwell circa 1860) but we are still struggling with the most basic question as to why the electric forces exists in the Universe.

#

I am sure there are a lot of ATS members, more knowledgeable than myself in this area, who could comment in more detail. I would be interested in any posts. The whole "light" deal is pretty metaphysical to me.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
I believe the photon has a mass, otherwise why would it be affected by the gravity of planets,stars or black holes? And it also does travel slower in water?


As stated by above poster; photon can be thought of as infinite mass if you'd like. Einstein postulated that gravity/large bodies warp and twist space/time, thus the light is merely traveling along space and being "bent" around stars and planets. I however, abhorrently disagree with much of Einstein's work and most of what modern day physics has become. I believe that light is space/time.


From this perspective, if it has the slightest mass it must suffer some deviation in its trajectory. Would it mean that stars we are looking at are actually not where we are looking at?


Well, yes. Since it takes light time to travel we also know that by the time the light reaches our eyes the star has already moved. There are a number of factors in play throughout the universe, unfortunately we like to try and build one model to explain everything instead of focusing on single things at a time and completely figuring them out.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I however, abhorrently disagree with much of Einstein's work and most of what modern day physics has become. I believe that light is space/time.

Very interesting and provocative, Outfinite.

I think that you may be right about light being an intrinsic by-product of space / time. (Maybe it is the other way around?) Let me chew on that.

Superficially, light is simply a changing electric field. That much I understand, from basic physics. So we need to understand what electric charge is to understand what light is. Perhaps an electric field is a product (or perhaps the source) of space and time?

I see you started a thread on this: Questions About Light last month. I'm in the process of giving that a good read. I appreciate the fact that, in that thread, you were looking for unique hypothetical answers as opposed to a string of "what we know" type facts.

Not to disparage ATS at all -- I have a feeling here that these threads, like so many others, asks one of the essential questions of our existence. But its importance is going to be pretty much misunderstood, ignored and / or unrecognized by everyone here. Ouch! That's life.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by TheOracle
I believe the photon has a mass, otherwise why would it be affected by the gravity of planets,stars or black holes? And it also does travel slower in water?


As stated by above poster; photon can be thought of as infinite mass if you'd like. Einstein postulated that gravity/large bodies warp and twist space/time, thus the light is merely traveling along space and being "bent" around stars and planets. I however, abhorrently disagree with much of Einstein's work and most of what modern day physics has become. I believe that light is space/time.


You are right to disagree if that is what you think Einstein was saying :-P

Light has no mass at all. And so certainly not infinite mass. And no theory exists that expounds that.

It is slightly misleading to talk about this "light" though, as the word only really means the sort of electromagnetic radiation that causes certain effects in our retinas and sensory psychology. Better to discuss photons and electromagnetic radiation. Photons are massless.

However, the electromagnetic radiation vectored by photons does possess a property of momentum (see here: en.wikipedia.org... and see here: en.wikipedia.org...). It is this property (not mass) that gives rise to the geometric effects of gravitational fields on light in Einstein's theory.

Cheers.

Rob.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
Light has no mass at all. And so certainly not infinite mass. And no theory exists that expounds that.


I think it would make more sense if you had said it like this: "light has no mass at eternity/infinity, not at all." But then we would also have to agree that light as infinite mass at eternity.

None and infinite are logically the same. How long would it take you to prove nothing? How long would it take you to prove infinity?

I'll be seeing you around Rob.

Take care.


By the way; you do realize that to explain what I am going to eventually reveal I'll have to potentially create new words for every language for a deeper and easier understanding. Let's start with English: I like con-generate. Congenerate. There's a new word. The universe is congenerative.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
If a photon has no mass, how does a solar sail work? Is that not based on the rebounding of photons off a reflective surface? Or is it not light that is pushing the sail?

Wiki talks about radiation pressure, is that something different?
en.wikipedia.org...


Actually, now that I read it, I think its not the mass of individual photos reflecting, but the thermal radiation the sail emits when being hit with light.

Am I right?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toasty
If a photon has no mass, how does a solar sail work? Is that not based on the rebounding of photons off a reflective surface? Or is it not light that is pushing the sail?

Wiki talks about radiation pressure, is that something different?
en.wikipedia.org...

Actually, now that I read it, I think its not the mass of individual photos reflecting, but the thermal radiation the sail emits when being hit with light.

Am I right?


Hi. Very broadly speaking, a solar sail (where a light beam pushes the sail) works by the light transferring its momentum to the sail. As the wikipedia articles I linked to in my previous post go some way to explaining, light has no mass but does carry momentum. In all mechanistic interactions it is momentum that is conserved.


I think it would make more sense if you had said it like this: "light has no mass at eternity/infinity, not at all." But then we would also have to agree that light as infinite mass at eternity.


I don't know what you are trying to say here. The mass of light (or anything) has no bearing on infintity or temporal *position*. It *does* have bearing on its relative velocity (but not in its own stationary frame of reference). But I know from another thread that you will not accept that mass is a property absolutely independent of gravitational fields, so this thread is probably as meaningless to engage you in.

But incidentally, what do you mean when you say "at infinity"? Is it a place? A time? As far as I know of the word and its definition, infinty is like "blue" or "fizzy" - i.e. describes a conceptual property of something rather than a thing in it's own right.


None and infinite are logically the same. How long would it take you to prove nothing? How long would it take you to prove infinity?


They bloomin' aren't the same. What sort of logic are you using? Inductive? What sort of proofs are you talking about. The two things are concepts in mathematics, that's all. It is like asking to prove "and" - the statement just makes no sense.

Although interesting speculations can be made concerning asymptotic graphs...

PS - what is "congenerative" supposed to mean? "With-giving-birth"? Do you mean synergetic?

Cheers.

Rob.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Light is relative...

When messuring the speed of light, they turn on a lightsource and messure the time it takes to reach a given medium at a given distance right?

Have there been experiences made, where they messure the time it takes from when the lightsource is stopped, till the medium is no longer being illuminated by the lightsource?

I would like links to such experiments if they exist.

I tend to think that people see light as a carrier of images, and i don't believe that is true. You need light to percieve things with your eyes yes , but that is due to your perception abbilities not due to light itself.

for instance, when looking on a star they say the lightsource has taken so long to get here that what we see is actually an image of the past of that star. Even when observed thrue a telescope.

So if light over distance = looking back in time, we are looking back in time, everytime we look at a any lightsource. it may not be long back in time but still. This would also count nomatter what you are looking at, since your cannot see if there is no light. So the further you look away the longer back in time you are seeing.

I believe it takes time for a lightsource to reach a medium, but when the connection is established ,between the lightsource and the medium, there is no time involved, you are seeing exactly what is happening in realtime not in the past.

Light is dependent on the lightsource and the medium in wich it travels, you cannot cut out a "piece of light", and messure it or its weight. Remove the source and you remove the light.

Time always move forward you cannot stop time. Time is relative and so is light.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
They bloomin' aren't the same. What sort of logic are you using? Inductive? What sort of proofs are you talking about. The two things are concepts in mathematics, that's all. It is like asking to prove "and" - the statement just makes no sense.


Well rob, let's see how many things eternity and nothing have in common. Then we'll try and see what they don't have in common. Words describing infinity and nothing: eternity, ever, never, nothing, infinity, etc.

1. They are both immeasurable.
2. They are both for ever.
3. They are both never.
4. They are both present.
5. They are both absent.
6. They are both everything,
7. They are both nothing.
8. They are both of energy.
9. They are both concepts.
10. They both exist in thought.
11. Thought exists in energy, thus they both exist in energy.
12. They both exist in symbols.

I could go on.... forever. But I'll stop here. Now, what do they not have in common?

1. .....
2. .....
3. .....

Hmmm... it appears they are the same guy having an identity crisis! Have a good day Rob!

Here are two threads that I started that I'd really love you to take a look at.

Knowledge is transcendent

The immeasurable presence of absence

[edit on 21-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
...Words describing infinity and nothing: eternity, ever, never, nothing, infinity, etc.

1. They are both immeasurable.
2. They are both for ever.
3. They are both never.
4. They are both present.
5. They are both absent.
6. They are both everything,
7. They are both nothing.
8. They are both of energy.
9. They are both concepts.
10. They both exist in thought.


(Irrespective of the meaning of "thoughts exist in energy" - which sounds like new age gobbldigook doing its typical hijacking of sound scientific terminology and trying to make it mean something else.... This next step is a semantic drift, or possibly even a fallacy: All dogs have four legs. My cat has three legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.)


11. Thought exists in energy, thus they both exist in energy.
12. They both exist in symbols.

I could go on.... forever. But I'll stop here. Now, what do they not have in common?



Sorry, they are NOT both energy. Neither are they "for ever" - they are not *things*. In any case If I add something to zero then it is not zero. All that remains zero is the pure concept, and in that sense the attributes in time and space are meaningless. I say again, they are mathematical concepts. There are no adjectives to be appealed to because they are not object nouns. Infinity is not "everything" and - more subtley - zero is not "nothing". Zero is the conceptual way we frame absence of the quantity or quality which is being measured. It is referential to what is being measured. It is not anything in its own right. (I would speculate that this essentially conceptual quality of "zero" is why it does not appear in most older mathematical systems, and it had be "invented" and disseminated across the Arab World, not arriving in the West until the middle ages).

By your set of attributes, concepts/adjectives like "blue" and "tiny" are also the same thing as zero and infinity.

I'll look into the other threads at some point.

Cheers!

Rob.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
(Irrespective of the meaning of "thoughts exist in energy" - which sounds like new age gobbldigook doing its typical hijacking of sound scientific terminology and trying to make it mean something else.... This next step is a semantic drift, or possibly even a fallacy: All dogs have four legs. My cat has three legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.)


Hahaha. That is not quite the logic that is being presented. It's more like this; If a=b, and b=a, does b=a? It's very, very, verrrrry simple, let's not overcomplicate this. I can teach this to a 7 year old child, literally.


Sorry, they are NOT both energy. Neither are they "for ever" - they are not *things*.


Well, the very definition of energy is forever. I have no idea what you are doing now. Are you telling me that energy is not eternal? Could you please represent these claims with an example of some sort. Yes, they are things. They both explain energy/eternity/universe.


In any case If I add something to zero then it is not zero. All that remains zero is the pure concept, and in that sense the attributes in time and space are meaningless.


If you're attempting to create a closed system, then yes. You can't really add energy to the overall universal sum of energy. It states clearly that no new energy can be created or destroyed, so we're indefinitely at 0.


Infinity is not "everything" and - more subtley - zero is not "nothing".


Eternity is everything at an energetic level, we could go into definitions as to why zero is and is not nothing, but I'm afraid you're comfortable wiht the knowledge you've consumed over your life time and I wouldn't want to ruin your party.


Zero is the conceptual way we frame absence of the quantity or quality which is being measured.


Exactly. Eternity is immeasurable, therefore eternity=absence. Have fun with the rest.


It is referential to what is being measured. It is not anything in its own right.


It is and it is not. There are references and no references.


(I would speculate that this essentially conceptual quality of "zero" is why it does not appear in most older mathematical systems, and it had be "invented" and disseminated across the Arab World, not arriving in the West until the middle ages).


That is only speculation.


By your set of attributes, concepts/adjectives like "blue" and "tiny" are also the same thing as zero and infinity.


Yes, of eternity.


I'll look into the other threads at some point.


Please do.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
I believe the photon has a mass, otherwise why would it be affected by the gravity of planets,stars or black holes? And it also does travel slower in water?


Gravity lensing is a function of light traveling in a strait line through bent space according to relativity. It's not that they have mass and are pulled toward a star, but rather that massless light travels in a strait line through space which is bent enough close to stars that the curvature is discernible.

Light slows down in water or other clear mediums because of quantum effects, no mass. Clear mediums function by their outer electrons absorbing and emitting the photons. This very fast, but not speed of light process slows down the light as it passes through. It also leads to lensing, diffraction, and other effects.





From this perspective, if it has the slightest mass it must suffer some deviation in its trajectory. Would it mean that stars we are looking at are actually not where we are looking at?


Yes. You have to extrapolate the original locations for objects. Rogue black holes could make entire regions of the sky appear in areas where they do not actually lie. This is not the majority of the sky but can and does happen to the best of our knowledge.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by d60944
(Irrespective of the meaning of "thoughts exist in energy" - which sounds like new age gobbldigook doing its typical hijacking of sound scientific terminology and trying to make it mean something else.... This next step is a semantic drift, or possibly even a fallacy: All dogs have four legs. My cat has three legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.)


Hahaha. That is not quite the logic that is being presented. It's more like this; If a=b, and b=a, does b=a? It's very, very, verrrrry simple, let's not overcomplicate this. I can teach this to a 7 year old child, literally.


That only reduces to that, if you are saying that zero/infintiy ONLY exist as thought (i.e. they are identical with thought itself and have no other identity), and that thought is ONLY energy (is identical with energy and has other identity to anything else). Are you saying that??? If so, forgive me, as your logic would be correct (even though the premise it applies to is still wrong).

I thought you may have been confusing identity with membership of sets.



Sorry, they are NOT both energy. Neither are they "for ever" - they are not *things*.


Well, the very definition of energy is forever.


No it isn't. What sort of halfassed definition is that?


I have no idea what you are doing now. Are you telling me that energy is not eternal? Could you please represent these claims with an example of some sort. Yes, they are things. They both explain energy/eternity/universe.


Eternity has no meaning in a closed geormetric system anyway (time and extent wrap around on themselves - unbounded but finite). Spacetime may or may not be closed geometrically. In an infintely extended spacetime the energy density would however tend towards zero. In a flat system, and on the small scale energy is conserved in mass/energy-equivalence.


You can't really add energy to the overall universal sum of energy. It states clearly that no new energy can be created or destroyed, so we're indefinitely at 0.


Well, you're jumping the gun here and trying to make assertions about the physics of the early universe. Science is still exploring ideas and theories about how we have something from what looks like nothing. There are many ideas, none wholly satisfactory - purely as science that is. Suffice it to say that you may be correct, but we don't know that. You could also be wrong.



Infinity is not "everything" and - more subtley - zero is not "nothing".


Eternity is everything at an energetic level,


Is this you making up new language again? ;-) What do you mean - the combination of words don't arrange themselves into a phrase which carries any meaning for me.



Zero is the conceptual way we frame absence of the quantity or quality which is being measured.


Exactly. Eternity is immeasurable, therefore eternity=absence. Have fun with the rest.


Eternity is immeasurable because it - and I said this before - it is not an object noun. "And" is not measurable. And neither is "not". For the same reason. They are mathematical concepts. The question is meaningless. Does it frustrate you that against your better judgement the universe actually does seem to operate in a way that can be modelled mathematically?



(I would speculate that this essentially conceptual quality of "zero" is why it does not appear in most older mathematical systems, and it had be "invented" and disseminated across the Arab World, not arriving in the West until the middle ages).


That is only speculation.


Well spotted. That's why I used the word. At least that speculation is followed up by a fact, rather than an opinion...

Yay. Work's over until New Year :-)

Cheers.

Rob.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
That only reduces to that, if you are saying that zero/infintiy ONLY exist as thought


There are no onlys and that is the only only (is that a word? lol
say it too many times and it starts to not make sense). Nothing is absolute, yet nothing is very well from where we derive something.


(i.e. they are identical with thought itself and have no other identity), and that thought is ONLY energy (is identical with energy and has other identity to anything else).


Well, any thing that you can think of exists somewhere.



Are you saying that??? If so, forgive me, as your logic would be correct (even though the premise it applies to is still wrong).


What premise? That absence=immeasurable and eternity=immeasurable, thus the immeasurable presence of absence is the eternity of space and time? We measure the absence to create closed systems, which in fact are not really closed because absence would have us know that it can not separate any two things, ever, since it is not existing as a space of limited absence through which to divide anything.


I thought you may have been confusing identity with membership of sets.


There's really no difference, but I don't want to get into it right now.


No it isn't. What sort of halfassed definition is that?


*adds the other cheek* Now is it whole? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed... where does that leave us? Hmmm... energy is for ever.


Eternity has no meaning in a closed geormetric system anyway (time and extent wrap around on themselves - unbounded but finite).


Sure it does. You just explained why.


Spacetime may or may not be closed geometrically.


If we're talking about mathematical models, then sure, we can create a seemingly closed system, but you'll have to know that the closed system we create is always of the eternal system and never is it truly closed. If we're talking about the origins of the universe and the big bang etc. then space time never began and will never end, it is a sempiternal expanse not experiencing expansion.


In an infintely extended spacetime the energy density would however tend towards zero.


That which it is, thus the laws of thermodynamics have been overcome. Everything is already in harmony, synch, perfection, entropy, and equillibrium.


Well, you're jumping the gun here and trying to make assertions about the physics of the early universe.


I haven't jumped the gun, whoever introduced concepts like the big bang and energetic origins is in the wrong and they need to listen better for that gunshot... but it never comes.


Science is still exploring ideas and theories about how we have something from what looks like nothing.


That's because they aren't listening. Something is nothing. It doesn't come from anywhere, and it doesn't go anywhere. We measure, classify, label and identify the interconnected immeasurable nothing and arrive at somethings.


Suffice it to say that you may be correct, but we don't know that. You could also be wrong.


I agree, however I also disagree



Is this you making up new language again? ;-) What do you mean - the combination of words don't arrange themselves into a phrase which carries any meaning for me.


Energy is everything.



Zero is the conceptual way we frame absence of the quantity or quality which is being measured.


Exactly. Eternity is immeasurable, therefore eternity=absence. Have fun with the rest.



"And" is not measurable. And neither is "not".


Those are both definitions of immeasurability.


Does it frustrate you that against your better judgement the universe actually does seem to operate in a way that can be modelled mathematically?


How could a question be meaningless? It must have had some meaning for you to come to that conclusion. Yes, I am steaming!
No, it does not bother me at all.



Well spotted. That's why I used the word. At least that speculation is followed up by a fact, rather than an opinion...

Yay. Work's over until New Year :-)


Oh no it's not over... Rob... we have much work to be done
I have enjoyed our conversations, you are very cordial and fun to confab with. I hope it stays that way. Have a good holiday season, look forward to discussion.

L.O.V.E.

P.s. So energetically speaking... anything having 0 is really equal to infinite. i.e. light, theoretically so far, has infinite mass. For mass to travel at the speed of light, it would become light.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
So energetically speaking... anything having 0 is really equal to infinite. i.e. light, theoretically so far, has infinite mass. For mass to travel at the speed of light, it would become light.


fascinating! I can see this ..

I give you a few paths to enlightenment


sorry if i speak in riddles, the information isn't coming through in clear straight answers. Just parts.

the direction is in frequency and energy ..

this here
www.nexusmagazine.com...

the toying in subatomic gold is a telling reaction for one.
take the lessons and apply them with

the concept of 'frequency'

like in this approach
w5jgv.com...
www.world-mysteries.com...


added this too in case it further takes you on a journey
video.google.com...

a good lecture on some of this
www.stage6.com...


[edit on 21-12-2007 by E†E]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buck Division
I see you started a thread on this: Questions About Light last month. I'm in the process of giving that a good read. I appreciate the fact that, in that thread, you were looking for unique hypothetical answers as opposed to a string of "what we know" type facts.


Correct, and since it is logically shown that light has a rest mass of 0/infinite, and we could also conclude that everything is in free fall relative to everything else, then we can now surmise that everything is light. What is so scary about that? Condensed light. Infinite/massless light. etc. Get away from the mainstream people and think for a second. All they do is brainwash you from thinking and you just repeat what you hear and read without using logic and the unrestrained potential of your mind.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   



I believe the photon has a mass, otherwise why would it be affected by the gravity of planets,stars or black holes? And it also does travel slower in water?

Gravity is more of a bending of space time.



From this perspective, if it has the slightest mass it must suffer some deviation in its trajectory. Would it mean that stars we are looking at are actually not where we are looking at?

That is correct.

Even if the universe was static, if we looked up into the sky the stars would still appear to be in a diferant position than they really are.




[edit on 24/12/2007 by C0bzz]

[edit on 24/12/2007 by C0bzz]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join