Light

[freziggity]

:shrug:

I believe that the residual energy left over from infinite decay of infinite particles in infinite space/time are what composes the Higgs background, and the reason light can travel smoothly through space is because it is slicing through the particles both propelling them and being degraded by them.


When a neutral symmetry of + and - charge is created it immediately begins to decompose by electro-weak interaction within itself. The positive and negative composition of nuclear hadrons is known. Though the quark cannot be observed independent a composite configuration, they too have charges +and-. the way these quarks bond ( I believe there are about 8 observed types) has alot to do with what type of particle forms, but the positively charged nucleus seeks equilibrium by gathering an electron cloud. the element is not complete until it is balanced. But again once it has achieved balance it is in a temporal state again, that is dependent on it's ability to maintain equilibrium of charge- emitting and absorbing whatever energy it needs to remain neutral. Heavy compression speeds up the degradive process and energy leaves the spheres at a fater rate.

Like counting from 0 to 9 using every possible number in between, It is impossible to raise 0 to a higher integer, because of the limitless 1-9's. Energy is existential only. None has ever left the universe and none can be lost. Is it impossible to consider energy, in it's purest state, as an ideal gas, that never experiences particle collision, in the infinite gravity of the superconductive perfect vacuum? Liken it to the super-massive black holes that are the causation for all the galaxies in space. Every orbiting particle in that masse's(the supermassive black hole) gravitation inherit's it's angular momentum from that first cause. Though these low energy states are not absolute 0. they are low enough to cause latent energy to pour into them, Eventually gas and dust collect and the hole plugs with energy to a stable pressure, this is when it fades. It can only fill if something is still sealing it. Pure energy is all permeating and all radiating indefinitely, at some level it is backing and providing the opposition force necessary to keep black holes from constantly sucking energy. I'm trying to (keyword) "timidly" call this the Higgs field. composed of infinitely broken down particles living extremely short lives, constantly breaking down and bonding to lower states, until they are pure energy, the ideal gas. Something permeating all things and emanating from all things, composed of +and- qualities. But that gravitation is the 0 state of energy, a vacuum that is superconductive, the most enoromous black hole possible. In essence I'm saying what happens inside of black holes is the balancing act between the background of pure energy and an energy vacuum, but in the ideal situation the universe is created.

 

[James R]

I believe that the residual energy left over from infinite decay of infinite particles in infinite space/time are what composes the Higgs background, and the reason light can travel smoothly through space is because it is slicing through the particles both propelling them and being degraded by them.

Why do you believe that?

Like counting from 0 to 9 using every possible number in between, It is impossible to raise 0 to a higher integer, because of the limitless 1-9's.

No idea what you're talking about here.

Energy is existential only. None has ever left the universe and none can be lost. Is it impossible to consider energy, in it's purest state, as an ideal gas, that never experiences particle collision, in the infinite gravity of the superconductive perfect vacuum?

Where is this infinite gravity you speak of ? What superconductive perfect vacuum? Where is that? What is the evidence that such things exist at all?

Liken it to the super-massive black holes that are the causation for all the galaxies in space.

How do supermassive black hole cause galaxies? Please explain.

Every orbiting particle in that masse's(the supermassive black hole) gravitation inherit's it's angular momentum from that first cause. Though these low energy states are not absolute 0. they are low enough to cause latent energy to pour into them

What's latent energy?

Eventually gas and dust collect and the hole plugs with energy to a stable pressure, this is when it fades.

Black holes have pressure? Please explain.

Pure energy is all permeating and all radiating indefinitely, at some level it is backing and providing the opposition force necessary to keep black holes from constantly sucking energy.

How can we detect this all-permeating energy of yours? What experiment would I need to do to prove that it exists?

In essence I'm saying what happens inside of black holes is the balancing act between the background of pure energy and an energy vacuum, but in the ideal situation the universe is created.

You think the universe is created by black holes?

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by Jack_
Do you mean it stands still relative to the earth's motion?
Does that mean it stands still in the vaccum of space or relative to the earth's motion?

I'm not sure what the motion of Earth has to do with these experiments. If Earth's motion was an influence then I'm sure the experiments would have had to of compensated for it. At the moment, I don't have the patients to go over how these experiments where set-up and run. Based on my own understanding of the nature of light I would have to assume that "standing still" is a reference to how we observe photons interacting with a super-cooled medium. The photons that enter and then exit this kind of enviroment would be traveling at the speed of light yet, when we observe the wave-nature of light inside this medium, we measure it as standing still. In other words, inside the medium, light does not move between points A and B even though the photons we measure entering and the exiting this medium would be traveling at the speed of light.
.
If we preformed these exact same experiments while traveling at the speed of light (relative to Earth) then, you should observe the exact same phenomena. That's what's important. Everything else must be thought of as a compensation between different "frames". The only time such compensations are important is when those "different frames" interact with each other (which happens often in our universe).

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'm not sure what the motion of Earth has to do with these experiments. If Earth's motion was an influence then I'm sure the experiments would have had to of compensated for it. At the moment, I don't have the patients to go over how these experiments where set-up and run. Based on my own understanding of the nature of light I would have to assume that "standing still" is a reference to how we observe photons interacting with a super-cooled medium. The photons that enter and then exit this kind of enviroment would be traveling at the speed of light yet, when we observe the wave-nature of light inside this medium, we measure it as standing still. In other words, inside the medium, light does not move between points A and B even though the photons we measure entering and the exiting this medium would be traveling at the speed of light.
.
If we preformed these exact same experiments while traveling at the speed of light (relative to Earth) then, you should observe the exact same phenomena. That's what's important. Everything else must be thought of as a compensation between different "frames". The only time such compensations are important is when those "different frames" interact with each other (which happens often in our universe).

referring to the Bose–Einstein condensate I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Imagine the immense pressure at the center of a mass like that.

But the constancy of the speed of light is seen in places other than in stars.

There is a certain Principle founded by one Wolfgang Pauli (The Pauli Exclusion Principle), This principle states, to paraphrase, That two states cannot occupy the same space.

It doesn't apply to light, gravity or any other boson related effect.

The speed of light may have something to do with the enigmatic Higgs Background.

The Higgs mechanism is in quantum field theory which presupposed special relativity, which presupposes the constancy of light speed.

I believe that the residual energy left over from infinite decay of infinite particles in infinite space/time are what composes the Higgs background, and the reason light can travel smoothly through space is because it is slicing through the particles both propelling them and being degraded by them.

Now you're just making stuff up in relation to a model you don't know and thus have absolutely no justification for your claim. Simply saying "Infinite decays or infinite particles in infinite space" doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof.

 

[sifreak21]

First things first. No force is needed to "drive" anything in free space. Newton's first law of motion says that an object will continue to travel in a straight line at constant speed forever, unless slowed down or sped up by a force. In other words, forces are only needed to change motion (speed), but not to keep it going.

Now, photons of light, from the moment they are created (in the sun or wherever), travel at the speed of light. They never change speed, so no force is required to "drive" them.

well dont qote me on this but i do know that photons have mass.. so when they enter the admosphere they do slow dont but by an amount that we cannot measure

 

[Quantum Quack]

Jack [now banned] actually mentioned an interesting point concerning the Boss Einstein Condensate experiments. [ my presumption of reference ]
When they considered that light was slowed down what was the slowing relative to?
Just the condensate, the measuring device or the chamber used to facilitate the experiment [ and as Jack alluded to, Earths orbit and stella motions etc etc ]
Might be worth a thread in pseudo science eh what!

 

[James R]

well dont qote me on this but i do know that photons have mass..

How can you "know" something that is false?

Who told you photons have mass?

so when they enter the admosphere they do slow dont but by an amount that we cannot measure

Light slows down in any medium. Light in water, for example, travels at about 3/4 of its speed in air.

 

[sifreak21]

How can you "know" something that is false?

Who told you photons have mass?



Light slows down in any medium. Light in water, for example, travels at about 3/4 of its speed in air.

i deal with lasers on a daily basis as it is my job. there is a program in minnasota called optical tweesers.. they move around single cells with just light. this would not be possible if ligh, photons didnt have mass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers

http://www.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/Optical Tweezers Introduction.htm

http://www.physicscentral.org/explore/action/tweezers-1.cfm

 

[Pete]

When they considered that light was slowed down what was the slowing relative to?

Relative to the medium, the condensate.

 

[Pete]

there is a program in minnasota called optical tweesers.. they move around single cells with just light. this would not be possible if light, photons didnt have mass

That light can apply a force doesn't imply that light has mass.

Also, you can see from the relativistic momentum equation that anything with non-zero mass moving at the speed of light would have infinite momentum.

Light doesn't have infinite momentum (it does have momentum, but it is very small), so it can't have mass.

 

[rpenner]

From http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27391&view=findpost&p=445609

k is a general wavenumber with units of inverse length.
λ is a general wavelength describing the distance which characterizes the length between periodic features.
k = 2π/λ
...
Elementary Quantum Relativistic Physics

p is momentum of an entity with respect to an inertial observer
h is Planck's constant
λ is the de Broglie wavelength as measured by that same inertial observer

|p| = h/λ
(This generalizes to p = (h/2π)k when p is a vector.)

E is the relativistic energy with respect to an inertial observer
f is the de Broglie frequency (cycles per second) as measured by that same inertial observer

E = hf

v is the velocity of an entity with respect to an inertial observer
c is the speed of light in vacuum

v = pc²/E

m is the invariant mass of an entity

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

When |pc| is very small when compared to |E|, we can approximate these relations as:
E = √(m²c⁴ + p²c²) = (mc²)√(1 + (p/(mc))²) = (mc²)( 1 + (p/(mc))²/2 - (p/(mc))⁴/8 + ...) ≈ mc² + p²/(2m)
|v| = |p|c²/E = |p|/(m + p²/(2mc²) ≈ |p|/m
or p ≈ mv
E ≈ mc² + p²/(2m) ≈ mc² + m²v²/(2m) ≈ mc² + ½mv²

So we see Newtonian kinematics are implied by relativistic kinematics as the low-momentum approximation.

The high-momentum approximation is gotten immediately by assuming m=0.
Then E = |p|c and |v| = |p|c²/(|p|c) = c

So for light in vacuum, E = |p|c = hf = hc/λ and |p| = E/c = hf/c= h/λ and f = E/h = |p|c/h = c/λ and λ = hc/E = h/|p| = c/f and |v| = c = λf because it is massless. The situation gets complicated with atoms in the way since atoms interact with photons and can capture then and re-emit them after a delay.

 

[sifreak21]

That light can applying a force doesn't imply that light has mass.

Also, you can see from the relativistic momentum equation that anything with non-zero mass moving at the speed of light would have infinite momentum.

Light doesn't have infinite momentum (it does have momentum, but it is very small), so it can't have mass.

how can light alone move something around if they didnt have mass? unless its because of small ammounts of heat somehow thoes photons alone are moving cells around how is that possible?

doesnt your post contridict itself a bit? or im interprating it wrong

anything with non-zero mass "so mass is greater than 0"

so your saying if i shine a laser into the sky it wont keep traveling untill it strikes something? that cant be right we can see stars that are millions of lightyears away YET some of them may be gone but we just havent seen the last of there light yet.. and light from some stars hasnt even reached us yet

 

[Farsight]

Because it's got momentum, sifreak. Not mass. To understand it, just think of a water wave. The wave hasn't got any mass, because the water has the mass. But a wave can still knock you over.

 

[BenTheMan]

Because it's got momentum, sifreak. Not mass. To understand it, just think of a water wave. The wave hasn't got any mass, because the water has the mass. But a wave can still knock you over.

This is a dangerous analogy. It is good, but you should be cautious about thinking of things this way. For example, if the water were massless, would the wave still knock you over? Does the vacuum, from which the photon is excited, have ``mass''?

 

[sifreak21]

Because it's got momentum, sifreak. Not mass. To understand it, just think of a water wave. The wave hasn't got any mass, because the water has the mass. But a wave can still knock you over.

well how can something have momentum with no mass? even if the mass is .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 if it doesnt have mass

they have GIANT sails that pick up photons like wind in outerspace if this was connected to you you would be knocked over

 

[Quantum Quack]

How big is a photon particle ?
What dimensions does it have?
hmmmmm.....

 

[Pete]

how can light alone move something around if they didnt have mass? unless its because of small ammounts of heat somehow thoes photons alone are moving cells around how is that possible?

Because the light applies a force to the cells. Like a magnetic field applies a force to iron filings.

The magnetic field doesn't have mass. The light doesn't have mass.

doesnt your post contridict itself a bit? or im interprating it wrong
anything with non-zero mass "so mass is greater than 0"

Yes, non-zero mass means mass is greater than zero. No, there's no contradiction in the post.
Read what I wrote. Non-zero mass, moving at light speed, means infinite momentum.
Light moves at light speed. So, if light had mass greater than zero, it would have infinite momentum.
But light it does not have infinite momentum, therefore it does not have mass greater than zero.

so your saying if i shine a laser into the sky it wont keep traveling untill it strikes something?

No.

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by scifreak21
well dont qute me on this but i do know that photons have mass.. so when they enter the admosphere they do slow don't but by an amount that we cannot measure

There are five ways to observe a photon and mass is not one of them. The first four amount to the same quantity (wavelength, frequency, energy and temperature) but the fith (spin), this matches what we observe in other messenger type particles (massless particles). First you have the wavelength (distance between peaks or valleys) then comes frequency (amount of times two peaks or valleys pass over a stationary point) which carries energy. The higher the frequency, the higher the energy (Planck's constant) which leaves temperature as a byproduct (Boltzmann, second radiation constant, Kelvin). All four of these measurements are constantly related to one another and this is what we call a photon. As for the particle's spin, aka, quantized angular momenta ... I don't know enough jargon to comment (h-bar, g-factor and what not). I'll have to leave this to the more knowledgeable members.
.
Note: Everything in parentheses are keywords. Look them up if you're interested.

 

[James R]

how can light alone move something around if they didnt have mass?

It turns out that mass is not required for momentum or energy.

How big is a photon particle ?

You can think of it as being roughly the size of its wavelength, if you like.