Light - an explaination request

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LKD

Guest
I would like to know if anyone can explain something for me. It seems that light is the only matter (If I can call it that?) that has no gravity, but is effected by black hole gravity. This of course, seems to go against all common sense.

There seems to be only one speed for light. I have never heard of slow light but red and blue shifted light, though maybe there is such a thing?

This one next question is what started me on the quest to understand a little more:
How can you create light so that it never breaks. What I mean is that if you explode something, particles are moved and react with other particles until the energy subsides or finds equilibrium. But light is very different.

At no distance does the light run out of particles to effect. What I am trying to ask is that if light in infinite in particles, that you can't go anywhere no matter how far and not see something that is unobstructed, how can/does science explain this?

We can see things billions of light years away on an infinitesimally small arc of space. I have not heard of anyone ever saying that they are beyond the limits of light reading. Or that this light, is breaking up because the source can not generate enough light to be recorded.

Woudl someone please help me understand a little more of the basic priciples of light?

Thank you so much.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
all very good questions, aimed at the fundamentals. My favorite. To do the questions justice would take quite a bit of time and text. I don't have that much just now, so I'll give you something to get you started.

1) Light has no mass,but is affected by gravity...why?
----because it's affected differently. It isn't attracted like regular mass. Instead it does what it always does, travel in a straight line. How gravity affects light isn't by directly tugging on it, like it does regular matter, but by bending the path the light travels. It reshapes space, so that what appears as a straight line to the light...isn't straight any longer.

It's comparable to how you can walk in a straight line out the front door of your home...only to arrive at the back door if you travel far enough. You've been on a straight path the entire time, but the geometry of space that you've traveled on, isn't the regular flat geometry you're familiar with.

2) Light has many speeds! It's a common misconception that it ONLY travels at C. C is merely the maximum it can go, and that's in a vacuum. If you make it travel through, say, air, water, glass, etc, the speed is much slower. This change in speed is actually what causes light to refract and bend when traveling between mediums. And different colors have their speed changed a different amount (depending on the properties of the medium)...so they get refracted more, or less, creating the rainbows.

3) How to create light that never breaks? The quick way to look at this is to see light not as a spreading cloud of particles, but as a wave. Drop a rock in a pond and it makes a wave...does that wave ever 'break' without outside influence? Or does it just fade away? Reconciling this aspect of light, with the particle nature you envisioned, is a major part of quantum mechanics, and can be quite an involved issue.


Hope that helps for now, I'm sure others will chime in soon.
 
L

LKD

Guest
It does very much so. Thank you.

In regards to black holes distorting space, that makes sense. So if it is curving space, we can actually see around a black hole, can't we? Like a satellite passing by a planet, if it is arcing because of a space depression, light at an angle should curve around so that the black hole can not be seen at all. Or is something else going on to stop this?

On the wave explanation I am still troubled by that. I can imagine light acting as a wave, like sound or water, but why does light not interfere with itself?

Thank you again.
 
K

Kessy

Guest
The fundamental nature of light is a bit hard to explain, and goes into areas where our intuitive understanding of the world simply no longer applies, so you're going to have to think of light in a couple different ways at the same time to try to grasp what's going on.

Light is an electromagnetic wave. That means that it's a disturbance of the electromagnetic field that travels at a characteristic speed. Like all waves, light has energy and momentum. Think of ocean waves breaking on a beach, tossing some light object back and forth.

However, while waves we're more familiar with, like ones in water, seem to carry their energy in a pretty continuous manner, when you look at light closely, you can see that its energy is actually carried in discreet packets called photons. Photons are very strange beasts that behave in ways that are hard to visualize. Sometimes they act like particles, and sometimes like a wave. They are both and neither at the same time.

At the scale of photons (which are really really small) the distinction between mass and energy gets a bit fuzzy. Photons have a rest mass of zero, which means that if you stopped a photon, it would have no mass at all. But photons always travel at the speed of light, c. Special relativity says that objects that move close to the speed of light appear to actually increase their mass, and a normal object with a positive rest mass would actually have infinite mass if it could be accelerated to c. The thing is that if you multiply infinity by zero, you can actually get a finite number. So photons do have an apparent mass, as strange as that sounds.

Because photons have an apparent mass, they are effected by gravity the same way as normal matter, and create gravity themselves. But because the apparent mass of photons is very small and they're moving very fast, normally the effect of gravity on photons is very slight.

General Relativity says that gravity isn't actually a force but a distortion of space that creates an illusionary force because of your frame of reference. Think about how you're pushed back in your seat when your car accelerates. It feels like there's a force pressing you back in the seat. But if you look at it from outside the car, you can see that actually the seat is pressing into you, accelerating you forward. Gravity works in a similar way - standing on the surface of the Earth, we perceive a force pushing us against the planet. But to an outside observer, you'd see that the mass of the Earth is actually bending space so that an object resting on the surface of the planet is actually being accelerated upwards by the surface of the planet, the same way the car seat is accelerating you forward. An object at "rest" in a gravitational field is actually an object that's in free fall. If you were in a sealed free falling room without an outside point of reference, you wouldn't be able to tell if you were in deep space far away from any gravity, or if you were near a planet falling toward the surface.

Because of space being distorted, anything moving near an object with mass will move along a bent path that follows the curvature of space. (Unless it's being accelerated by another force, like a rocket, for example.) This applies both to light and to normal matter. A satellite in orbit moves in a circular path because of the curvature of space, even though from the satellite's point of view it seems to be moving in a straight line. These curved "straight" lines are called geodesics, and represent the shortest distance between two points while conforming to the curvature of space. This is like how if you look at a map with the course of airplanes, it will look like the planes are curving way out of their way toward the poles, but if you look at a globe, and stretch a string between two points, you'll see that the planes are actually going in a straight line.

As for light moving at different speeds, that's because of the way light interacts with matter. Photons (and all other particles with a zero rest mass) *always* move at exactly c. When light travels through matter, like air, water, or glass, the light appears to move more slowly because the photons hit the atoms in the material and are absorbed by them. That energizes the atoms, and they then emit another photon with the same energy. It's like how a train moving along a line with lots of stations will have a lower average speed then an express train that doesn't stop, even though both trains move at the same speed in between stations.

As for "breaking" light, I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but light, like everything else follows Newton's first law of motion - an object will travel in a straight line at a constant speed unless acted on by an outside force. If an astronaut in deep space throws a pebble into the void, that pebble will keep going forever unless it hits something. Light is the same way - it just keeps going. Light is not the only thing that travels vast distances across the universe - high energy cosmic rays are believed to come from very distant supernovae. We tend to use light to study distant objects because how much it interacts with matter just right. It doesn't interact too much, so it can travel vast distances without being changed too much. But it also interacts enough that we can capture them and study them. Some things interact too much, like cosmic rays, that are mostly charged particles that get tossed every which way by electromagnetic fields, so we can't tell where they come from. And some things interact too little, like neutrinos, that pass right through ordinary matter so easily we can barely tell they're there.

PS Light does interfere with itself the same way sound or water waves do. We don't normally see it in day to day life because ordinary light is incoherent - it's made up of waves that are all different frequencies and oriented in all different directions, so the interferance patterns are either mostly too small to see, or are washed out by all the rest of the light around. Coherent light, like that produced by a laser, is all the same wavelength and all arranged the same way, so you can see interference effects pretty easily with that. Interference between laser beams is actually often used to make very fine measurements in physics.
 
L

LKD

Guest
Wow, thank you so much for taking the time you did to write out what you did. That explained a good deal. It also added a few questions, like trying to visualize gravity, but that is for another topic.

The question I had about breaking up light, is that it seems that a nondescript sun will produce infinite amounts of photons. You can move anywhere in space, and with a proper telescope, be able to see it completely from any angle. It seems unfathomable to me that any reaction would be able to do this outside of gravity. I have an example that might make my question more clear:

I think it was on Star Trek. There was this Alien machine that could see spy satellite quality imagery from a light years away. Is this actually possible (ignoring the absurdity of the telescope), or is there a distortion and break up of the light at great distances so that the reception of the photonic/EM wave would be muddied and near indecipherable?
 
S

Saiph

Guest
That's a good read kessy, thanks for picking up the slack. You even threw in my favorite tidbit about how light moves at C in a medium...between atoms, when viewed as a particle. I agree completely with all but one statement:

you look at light closely, you can see that its energy is actually carried in discreet packets called photons
because this diminishes the particle/wave duality and quantum probability and all that jazz. Which, LKD, I (and others) can talk about, but it's a bit of a head trip.


LKD:
One of the things about light is, so far as we've worked out, you can only really view it from either the photon angle OR the wave angle...never both at the same time. And even when you try, it gets sorta weird and counter-intuitive (probability waves and such jazz).

If you look at a star spewing photons, it spreads a LOT of them in all, essentially random, directions. The camera trying to pick it up intercepts these photons. As you travel away from the star the distance between photons increases, but there are LOTs of photons, in many of the angles. So you'll, eventually, catch one regardless of how far away you are.

It just means you have to wait for a while. Distant objects are dim, meaning we recieve few photons per second from them. So you have to keep the camera shutter open longer....or find a way to catch more photons. We do that by making wider telescopes, that cover a wider area, and can catch and focus more of the photons, so we don't have to look as long.

The way to look at this same problem from the wave perspective is merely that of energy transport. The waves are so weak when they reach us, we have to let them work for a long time, or have a large telescope to catch and carefully focus them to a greater effect.


So you're asking why we don't see 'broken' objects...and the answer is...but we do! with really faint light sources you CAN see the picture slowly build, photon hit by photon hit.

You also ask why light doesn't interfere with itself...and it most definitely does. And we use this for all sorts of observations and applications.
 
L

LKD

Guest
Oh I see. I didn't know that these photos of distant galaxies and such actually take a while to collect to be able to get a clear picture. I was under a false impression that they were just snapped like a camera. Thank you for clearing that up, that definitely answers my question and explains why I couldn't comprehend how observatories and such could get a photo of something several billion light years away and be able to tell what they are looking at.

I am grateful to you both for everything.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
No problem.

I can give you a bit more of an insight into astronomical pictures. I've taken a few myself, here's where I posted my pics of the trifid nebula, and explained the process a bit.

the pictures were taken using a 24" telescope. The larger the telescope, the more photons you gather. You can also see better detail (more resolution) as well. This is why really blowing up an image taken from a small camera only results in large, but very blurry, images. You can gather as many photons as you want, but if you have a small main lense you can only magnify an image so much before you actually lose detail.

They are also the composite of 4 images, each exposed for 2-5 minutes. The total time the camera was open to get that image was ~15 minutes.

There's lots more details in the thread. Feel free to take a look and ask questions there (or here) if you like.
 
K

Kessy

Guest
Well I'm glad I could help. ^_^ Oh, and LKD, you can see around black holes (and other massive objects) because of light being bent by gravity - it's called gravitational lensing. and like Saiph said, a lot of astronomical photos are taken with very long exposure times. The Hubble Deep Field image, for example, took over 100 hours of observing to produce.

Saiph, the "packets of energy" phrase may not be the best way to describe photons, but the wave particle duality is hard to explain period, and I didn't want to get too deeply into it. That's also the way it was first described to me in high school physics, which I think is actually a paraphrase of Einstein, tho I could be wrong about that, please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
nah, you're good kessy. You'll find I like to nitpick, and be nitpicked in return.

I like to give, and read the broad general answers given to people here for the straightforward answers. But I find haggling over the details is entertaining to 'those in the know' here on the boards, and can help provide deeper insight to the lurking crowd too.

and to be clear I wasn't worried about the 'packets of energy' part, but the implications that looking close at a wave of light reveals photons...cause the two paradigms are a bit harder to merge than that, as you rightfully mentioned, and understandably simplified :)

Oh, and btw, welcome to sdc, both of you :)
 
L

LKD

Guest
Very nice pictures. That must have been great to look through a 24" telescope. I really loved the explanations.

Now if only the photography industry would invest a lot more money into producing better and more accurately designed CCDs than they do. It's such a shame. Oh well, some day.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Oh, they invest TONS of money into improving CCD and various camera technology. What they can do even now is absolutely amazing. Just the fact that they're actually outstripping traditional photographic film in resolution and color depiction is incredible.
 
L

LKD

Guest
Maybe, But they have a tremendous way to go. Distortion and the lack of contrast resolution is still a huge problem. They need to develop curved and textured CCD plates. But someday soon. :)
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Distortion is a matter of the optics used to focus the light, not the CCD itself, and I can't imagine how you'd get better contrast detection in a CCD. Astronomy grade CCD's can detect SINGLE photon hits. You can't cut it any finer than that.


Now, with normal photography CCD's, they're interested in a bit more than just light detection. The problem is they also have to incorporate color filters and integration/processing software/hardware...and it gets really messy.
 
J

Jerromy

Guest
I applaud the replies, they were very well explained and very informative! This may be way beyond the scope of the original request but there are a few points worth noting, for the quest of truthful knowledge. There are concievable distances where matter (and the light it emits or reflects) is beyond the range of distance to be witnessed by any means in our capability. As the big bang theory has been debated to have occured in various places across the universe at expansion rates far greater than the speed of light as we currently understand it's maximum, there could very well be stars that are further away than the proposed 13.7 billion light years distance from us, that it wouldn't even have had time to send a single photon from it's initial ignition to our telescopes to be observed. Even what we do see from way far out on the fringes of what time is allowing us to see has been travelling for so long that the original source is long since burned out and/or very far from where we think we see it. Same for gravitationally lensed light, the object we see being distorted or condensed into a smaller brighter spot is not in the direction we are looking in a straight line sense. More or less light IS broken, but it is all we have to see by.

As for neutrinos, they are the future of cosmology. There is no better way to detect what is really out there and how the universe really works that has been confirmed by modern science. A neutrino camera could concievable see the reflection of our own star being born.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Just a small point. Neutrinos can only travel at "c" if they have no mass. Indications are they have some very small mass, so have to travel slower than "c".
 
J

Jerromy

Guest
Thanks Meteorwayne, I wasn't aware that neutrinos are proposed to have mass and that therefore they move slower than the speed of light. I sometimes get off the science track and find myself dreaming of where science might be someday. The curious point I've been considering of the nature of neutrinos is that they can pass through planets unscathed and therefore can represent a true image of locality and distance in the universe.
 
A

azure_infinity

Guest
Greetings!

Please accept my apologies if it seems that I'm hi-jacking your thread, I thought it would be better to post my question here instead of starting a new thread. I posted this question already: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/0908 ... onomy.html

but it doesn't see much activity.

The above link proposes an experiment for testing wave/particle duality of light using the double slit experiment at astronomical distances. It'll be really cool if they do it.

Problem is, Light from a single source will be arriving via two paths (our slits) only path A is straight and path B is "bent" and therefore longer. This ruins the experiment because by detecting what time the particle arrives, we can gleen which path the particle took, losing the "wave" quality.

It is known, that if you place a detector--even one that preserves the original photons--at one of the two slits, you destroy the wave interference...even if that detector makes no attempt to gather information. The "potential" to gleen which path the photons take, causes the light to behave like that...particles.

John Wheeler proposed when faced with the delimma of unequal path lengths, to use fiber optic cable to "lengthen" the path "A" so that it is equal to path "B". (You'll have to read the article)

If you place a fiber optic cable at path A to "lengthen" that path, aren't you potentially "detecting" whether a "photon" is entering the cable, and hence, forcing the wave to become a particles? My intuition is telling me this experiment isn't going to work, can someone please explain , why I must be wrong?

I'm tempted to try this at home!
 
S

Saiph

Guest
the catch is that the FO cable works the same for particles, as it does waves, so it won't detect it. it's no different than the photon/wave traversing the interface between air and vacuum, or bouncing off our mirrors into our instruments.
 
A

azure_infinity

Guest
Excellent, Thanks Saiph!

I can, more or less, imagine the FO cable traversing both paths, making them identical or indifferent. Placing the cable in only one path bothers me, that's all. It still seems counter-intuitive to me. Dammit, where's that FO cable I had laying around here?

Here's my kicker...

The experiment Mr. Doyle is proposing already contains the time delay for path B due to gravitational lensing. He's planning to use radio equipment adjusted to "remove" the knowledge once the knowledge has been "placed" into the photon stream...or wave.

What are your thoughts on this? Isn't it too similar to the "disabled detector" syndrome?

The significance of the experiment is to somehow prove that the light leaving the source, billions of years ago, needed to know whether to be a "wave" or "particle" for his detector in the here and now.

It seems that the experiment is jaded by classical notions of time. To me, there is no significance to the fact that the light left it's source billions of years ago. Once the light is lensed by the intervening galaxy, which path the "photons" took has been placed into the data.

Am I still wrong?
 
S

Saiph

Guest
I don't have to much time to go into it right now, but here's one thing that'll get you thinking.


A photon travels at C...where time stops. A photon is created, destroyed, and travels all the points between, in the same instant as the photon perceives it.

That being said...why wouldn't a photon being emitted 10 billion years ago, know how we're going to measure it today :)


and yes, i'm over simplifying and likely confusing the issue...but it is a very confounding phenomena...
 
A

azure_infinity

Guest
Oversimplifying it? Yes, perhaps we both are. You are doing very well at explaining the behavior of light so far, so no, you're not confusing it by all means!

You summed up my point precisely. For example, it wouldn't be outright wrong or meaningless to suppose that every "photon" we detect in our universe, is the same photon everywhere all at the same time. At speed C all bets regarding "tardiness" are off!

So why do they think they can censor or remove knowledge from the observation? If Mr. Doyle can achieve wave interference in his data, it will be profound, but I think he's going to find nothing but photons. His Mach-Zehnder Interferometer won't be a "quantum eraser" like he's expecting.

Furthermore, I really don't think that detecting photons and not waves, changes anything about the uncertainty principle, let alone "invalidates" it to any extent.

To oversimplify my question, and not necessarily to debate it, what do you believe Mr. Doyle will see?
 
A

azure_infinity

Guest
hmmm.

No-one? Seriously?

It's just an idea. If you understand SR, you MUST have an opinion.

So sad, you can't share it cuz you're afraid someone will laugh at you.


:shock:
 
S

Saiph

Guest
give the forums time, topics can be slow to grow occasionally.



it wouldn't be outright wrong or meaningless to suppose that every "photon" we detect in our universe, is the same photon everywhere all at the same time.

This is really the only part I completely disagree with. Since photons are created and destroyed at different times, some will exist over durations that don't even overlap others, and each photon has a discrete path it takes. While time has no real meaning for a photon, that doesn't mean it's everywhere all at once. Only that it's everywhere on it's particular journey at the same time, and only during the time period (from slower than light observations) of it's travel.

It has to mesh with the observations of slower than light observers...otherwise it creates a prefered reference frame...which is a no no in relativity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts