Perpendicular light rays crossing - effect?

[bbk1]

If two light rays interest each other perpendicular, will their directiond get affected? Will they partially reflect of each other? Do the directions of the rays get affected or do they continue in the same straight lines?

 

[bbk1]

12 views but no input. I am begining to think I asked the wrong questions. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" />

 

[unclefred]

There is no known influenece of light affecting light. As far as we know light beams can pass through other light beams without either being influences in any way, no reflections, no bending, no absorptions, no nothing. This is totally consistent with wave theory. Drop a couple of rocks in a lake and the waves created will pass righ theour each other. If you think of light as photons, one could imagine a photon smashing into another photon but apparently they do not.

 

[bbk1]

unclefred<br /><br />Thank you for responding. I was under the impression that light rays would go through each ofther without being deflected or reflected, I just needed a confirmation. Your response would make my intention of discussing other points I have about stars mute. Can you imagine what our nighsky view would look like if the star light rays were in any way defelecting each other!!!

 

[billslugg]

There is a slight exception (discussed several months ago) in which two sufficiently energetic photons can combine to form an electron positron pair. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Just about all the light rays hitting earth from distant stars and galaxies will have encountered perpendicularly intersecting light rays all the way along their journey to earth.<br /><br />(think about it)<br /><br /><br />Up to billions of light years, and no discernible effect . . .<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bbk1]

That just confirms the hypothesis that light is made up of waves; as waves would go through each other unaffected. If light is made up of Photons then how could photons go through each other? Am I correct?

 

[vogon13]

How big are they? Their size would govern that odds of collision in this thought experiment.<br /><br />Another angle:<br /><br />Are photons transparent or opaque?<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

WHat about diffuse light versus coherent light?<br /><br />If I cross two spotlights, the area in which they cross will be more illuminated.<br /><br />Does that also apply to crossing two laser beams?<br /><br />They can't "reflect" themselves. Only matter that prohibits light transferrance can do that. A mirror would be that example.<br /><br />Seeing that light exhibits the property of both waves and particles, there seems to be no way that photons could "collide". I think that would violate the laws of Physics, but I'm not sure how.<br /><br />We know that if we collide two particles with any mass that energy will be yielded. But if light is the massless by-product of those collisions, there would not seem to be a mechanism by which photons could repel or combine.<br /><br />If it does happen, it seems to me that it would be more rare and difficult on orders of magnitude that detecting neutrinos. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[bbk1]

This whole hypothesis of light made up of Photons just confuses me. No matter how infinately tiny these Photons are one would assume that being particles they should deflect when they collide. Yet we don't see light rays ddflecting when two rays collide. It's said that Photons have momentum, that's energy. It's also said that Photons have no mass. So how can weightless photon have energy?

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> If I cross two spotlights, the area in which they cross will be more illuminated. </font><br /><br /> You are not seeing the light, you are seeing dust in the atmosphere reflecting the light. I'm not sure about lasers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[why06]

Waves dont interfer with each other ....<br /><br /><br /><br />I dont know about this. I see wave interference al the time. Get in the bath tub drop two rubber duckies at opposite sides of the bath, dont their waves interfere? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

The fact that waves interfer with one another, was the basis for Tom Youngs double-slit experiment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">This whole hypothesis of light made up of Photons just confuses me. No matter how infinately tiny these Photons are one would assume that being particles they should deflect when they collide</font><br /><br />Einstein rather nicely explained this. If any two particles with mass collide, and they combine, their mass is not the sum total of their pre-collision masses.<br /><br />Rather, a tiny fraction of mass is lost. The difference is made up for in the energy that results.<br /><br />Visible light is one of those results. A photon is a massless expression of that exchange. The Law doesn't say that if we fuse two hydrogen atoms that we have to create a new atom with exactly twice the mass of the individual hydrogen atoms.<br /><br />Rather, the Law says that if we don't get that exact increase in mass that the missing mass must be released in a different form. That form is energy.<br /><br />The reaction takes that missing mass and turns it into something different. What you have to understand is that mass and energy are just different expressions of the same thing.<br /><br />We can have infinite mass with no energy, or infinite energy with no mass. That's the ultimately basic forms that mass/energy can take.<br /><br />Now let's talk about two photons. We like to think of them as two discrete "packages of something".<br /><br />So let's pull out our "photon guns" and each shoot a photon at one another.<br /><br />Each of our photons act as a particle and a wave at the same time. Because of this, they're not allowed to occupy the same space at the same time even though they occupy any space at every time.<br /><br />A photon's nature prohibits it. It isn't allowed to ever interact with another photon. However, a photon <b>is</b> allowed to interact with everything else.<br /><br />If a photon hits a material dead on, the energy of that photon is absorbed or reflected. <br /><br />We know that because a laser can be reflected by a mirror. And regular sunlig <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[toothferry]

nice synopsis, Dragon04. Thanks for giving us this information in a clear and easy to understand post.<br /><br />The dual nature of light, photon/wave, the exhibition of characteristics of both, definitely sheds a little insight on the physical characteristics within the quantum world, one which is very different and difficult to comprehend given our on senses of the physical world. <br /><br />Perhaps at such a small scale there are no geometries that we've defined for our physical use and measurements that are truly accurate for the quantum world, at that small small scale, but particle/wave "dual nature" is the only way Ive heard it described so far, and its great though it certainly leaves contradictions within our mind when were thinking, "now this is science, its all supposed to add it, so how can it be <i />BOTH</i>". LOL, The quantum world certainly behaves differently from our physical world at the scales we as individuals perceive.<br /><br />In reality though I imagine that there isn't anything contradictory at all about the nature of quanta, that is if we had some sort of geometry that we could see and perceive and play around with.. and actually understand the physical properties from experience rather than theory. I guess that's where string theory comes into play, trying to formulate geometries and dimensions in a fashion that truly all adds up.<br /><br />The interesting thing is that all matter and energy exhibit the same dual particle/wave nature. A quanta of matter, or the photon (quanta of light).<br /><br />now if we could just accurately describe the geometries that exist within the quantum world and relate that with the scales of the larger world.. I think we could come up with a Grand Unified Theory. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

Damned good synopsis. Horrosho! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>