What is light? I know what it looks like, I know its colors, but what IS it? It's not matter, I know thatm but I don't understand what it IS. A seperate dimension? Can anyone explain?
- Status
Light is electromagnetic radiation, the same as radio waves, x-rays, inrared radiation, microwaves, etc.
It's just that we have a radio that recieves those frequencies (our eyes) built into our heads.
It's just that we have a radio that recieves those frequencies (our eyes) built into our heads.
Actually, gravity bends space, and the electromagnetic waves just follow the space.
Matter and light are not the same, but they can be converted from one to the other.
Matter and light are not the same, but they can be converted from one to the other.
1waffle1":2kcbzj9z said:
Correct answer probably is 'we don't know'. This is my take on light.
It's a tiny bit of energy, whose physical nature is unknown (some one can fill in here), travels through space in straight line. When it travels it creates electric and magnetic fields around its path, these fields are wave-shaped. Every wave has a wavelength/frequency, that's where light gets its wavelength, and the name electromagnetic wave.
I'd love to hear other interpretations of light.
Is it a separate dimension? or does it travel in a separate dimension? Current science says 'no'. But I won't rule out anything because there's something strange about light.
When matter loses energy through various means, that energy loss is emitted via electromagnetic radiation. This includes light. This energy propagates via electromagnetic waves. These waves carry the energy and momentum. It is one of the four known fundamental forces of nature. The other three are the strong and weak force as seen in nuclear physics and, the most familiar, gravity.
The light you see from the sun is, actually, the sun losing energy. Much of this energy loss happens in the sun's core through nuclear fusion... namely, the proton-proton chain reaction. When this reaction happens, two gamma-ray photons are emitted. Of course, we can't see gamma-rays with our eyes. What happens it that these photon interact with matter in the sun (electrons) on their journey towards your eyes. During these interactions with electrons the photons lose energy and eventually fall to energy levels (frequencies) that your eyes can detect.
The light you see from the sun is, actually, the sun losing energy. Much of this energy loss happens in the sun's core through nuclear fusion... namely, the proton-proton chain reaction. When this reaction happens, two gamma-ray photons are emitted. Of course, we can't see gamma-rays with our eyes. What happens it that these photon interact with matter in the sun (electrons) on their journey towards your eyes. During these interactions with electrons the photons lose energy and eventually fall to energy levels (frequencies) that your eyes can detect.
One can also look at Maxwell's equations and - with a little insight, realize that a
time varying Electric field can generate a time varying Magnetic field which in turn
generates a time varying electric field etc......
Let there be light (classically)
(Taking Maxwell's equations and deriving the wave equation and the associated
speed of light in terms of e0 and u0 was a standard on Ph.D. oral exams)
Wayne
time varying Electric field can generate a time varying Magnetic field which in turn
generates a time varying electric field etc......
Let there be light (classically)
(Taking Maxwell's equations and deriving the wave equation and the associated
speed of light in terms of e0 and u0 was a standard on Ph.D. oral exams)
Wayne
light is EM radiation in the form of a photon. On of the elementary particles from which the universe exists of. So it is energy. But if you look at E=mc2, E=m... sooo what is mass? Y Iz we SolidZ? Well the simple answer to that is: We have absolutely no clue. We think it has something to do with the higgs boson, or the God Particle. CERN is trying to discover it with the LHCb later this year (right?). Either we finish the model of particles in physics or we all die in a black hole. :lol:
MeteorWayne":ylx10ie7 said:
yes...they are.
Light is both Wave and a Particle. hence the wonderful world of Quantum Physics and the wave-particle duality.
Look up the Nichols radiometer. It is an experiment which uses a 'wind-vane' in a chamber (no air disturbances). By shinning a light or a laser on he vein, it will start to turn, the only explanation, transfer of momentum, which means light has mass.
From what I understand, when you shake an Electron, it generates Photons. Photons are basic particles that are flatter than the rings of Saturn because of Lorenz Fitzgerald Contraction at the speed of light or 186,000,282.1 Miles per hour in a vacuum. Photons are the purest form of any kind of energy. The particles are subdivided by electric charge and magnetic charge or L/S. They are comprised of electro/magnetic waves and have no solid body.
Electrons have no subatomic particles in them! They cannot be divided. Electrons are made of electric charge and magnetic charges. There are no sub electric particles.
From what I understand about Magnetism, the invisible magnetic fields around magnets are made of electrons and magnetic charge. It literally is an electric field.
X Ray diffraction shows Atoms look like flakes with their orbits of electron clouds.
Atomic Nuclei are made from Protons and Neutrons which have lots of mass and charge. Mass is equal to gravity from what I understand. The protons are made from Quarks and Gluons and these all made be made from Superstrings. which are Interdimensional particles.
Black Holes can eat light, matter, energy of any kind, and even suck in Time itself!
White Holes use The Penrose Process to suck in the fabric of Space Time and warps it into matter from Virtual Particles.
The matter is ejected from the core of each Galaxy when the Quasar turns back on.
Most Galaxies seems to have a White Hole or Quasar inside the core.
Any other questions?
Electrons have no subatomic particles in them! They cannot be divided. Electrons are made of electric charge and magnetic charges. There are no sub electric particles.
From what I understand about Magnetism, the invisible magnetic fields around magnets are made of electrons and magnetic charge. It literally is an electric field.
X Ray diffraction shows Atoms look like flakes with their orbits of electron clouds.
Atomic Nuclei are made from Protons and Neutrons which have lots of mass and charge. Mass is equal to gravity from what I understand. The protons are made from Quarks and Gluons and these all made be made from Superstrings. which are Interdimensional particles.
Black Holes can eat light, matter, energy of any kind, and even suck in Time itself!
White Holes use The Penrose Process to suck in the fabric of Space Time and warps it into matter from Virtual Particles.
The matter is ejected from the core of each Galaxy when the Quasar turns back on.
Most Galaxies seems to have a White Hole or Quasar inside the core.
Any other questions?
"Most Galaxies seems to have a White Hole or Quasar inside the core."
No they don't. I may know very little, but I know that one has ever found a white hole.
No they don't. I may know very little, but I know that one has ever found a white hole.
1) The mass of [everything] is a measure of its energy content. Energy = mass x the speed of light squared. Even a single photon, traveling in empty space, has a relativistic mass, which is its energy divided by c2. But the rest mass of a photon is difficult to define, because a photon is always moving at the speed of light — it is never at rest.
2) In Quantum Physics, the photon is the gauge boson for electromagnetism, so its lepton number, baryon number, and flavour quantum numbers are zero ... but it carries spin angular momentum.
3) The photon might not be a strictly massless particle, in which case, it would not move at the exact speed of light. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the "speed of light" would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically move. It would still be the speed of gravitons, but it would not be the speed of photons.
4) The photon is currently believed to be strictly massless (at rest), like the graviton, but this is still an experimental question.
5) Gravitons are still hypothetical, and are believed to be undetectable by any means. We are currently attempting to detect gravitational waves, which may provide information about the properties of gravitons.
6) IOW: The jury is still out; there are lots of elegant theories ... but we really don't KNOW. If the 1998 Weizmann Institute of Science experiment (demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed) was not flawed, then they have proven one of the most bizarre premises of Quantum Physics: We will never even be ABLE to know, for sure, by observation!
P.S. Mars_Unit: Wooo! That's downright scary, dude! (Quick; where are the tranquilizer darts?)
2) In Quantum Physics, the photon is the gauge boson for electromagnetism, so its lepton number, baryon number, and flavour quantum numbers are zero ... but it carries spin angular momentum.
3) The photon might not be a strictly massless particle, in which case, it would not move at the exact speed of light. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the "speed of light" would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically move. It would still be the speed of gravitons, but it would not be the speed of photons.
4) The photon is currently believed to be strictly massless (at rest), like the graviton, but this is still an experimental question.
5) Gravitons are still hypothetical, and are believed to be undetectable by any means. We are currently attempting to detect gravitational waves, which may provide information about the properties of gravitons.
6) IOW: The jury is still out; there are lots of elegant theories ... but we really don't KNOW. If the 1998 Weizmann Institute of Science experiment (demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed) was not flawed, then they have proven one of the most bizarre premises of Quantum Physics: We will never even be ABLE to know, for sure, by observation!
P.S. Mars_Unit: Wooo! That's downright scary, dude! (Quick; where are the tranquilizer darts?)
Quantum mechanically speaking, light is made up of bosons. Bosons are force carrying particles and are defined as having integer spin numbers (usually 1 or 2). Spin is sort of like a particles's angular momentum. The specific boson that light is made up of is the photon, which carries the electromagnetic force. The electromagenetic force is one force that behaves differently depending on the situation, thus manifesting itself as either the electric force in static situations or the magnetic force in dynamic situations. So if a particle wants to intereact with another particle, both particles emit photons which tell it how to behave (i.e. two particles of opposite charge attracting eachother). If a stream of photons is traveling in space, macroscopically it appears as a beam of light.
In quantum mechanics, all particles have wave properties according to their associated quantum state, including photons. Since atoms are made up of a large number of particles with differing frequencies (quarks, leptons, photons, gluons, gravitons, etc.), it is very difficult to measure these properties. It is much more common to find a stram of photons all with the same wave characteristics (i.e a laser beam), thus it is very easy to measure the frequencies of light.
Mass is a tricky one. Theoretically, massive particals interact with eachother via the graviton, however the quantum theory is very incomplete with this regard. This is one of the most avtive areas of research in physics. According to the standard model, mass is given to particles via the hypothetical Higgs boson through quantum mechanical interactions. Thus only the particles that interact with the Higgs boson are given mass. There is a whole mathematical model which predicts what particles have mass and which do not. Since the photon doesn't interact with the Higgs boson, it does not have mass.
As for momentum, all particles carry momentum because they have energy, not neccessarily because they have mass. According to Newtonian physics, momentum is defined by an inertial mass, however Maxwell's equations show that electromagnetic radiation, and by extension photons, carry moment with them as well. Basically, when photons collide with a surface, they impart some of their energy to the surface in the form of kenetic energy.
Hope this helps.
In quantum mechanics, all particles have wave properties according to their associated quantum state, including photons. Since atoms are made up of a large number of particles with differing frequencies (quarks, leptons, photons, gluons, gravitons, etc.), it is very difficult to measure these properties. It is much more common to find a stram of photons all with the same wave characteristics (i.e a laser beam), thus it is very easy to measure the frequencies of light.
Mass is a tricky one. Theoretically, massive particals interact with eachother via the graviton, however the quantum theory is very incomplete with this regard. This is one of the most avtive areas of research in physics. According to the standard model, mass is given to particles via the hypothetical Higgs boson through quantum mechanical interactions. Thus only the particles that interact with the Higgs boson are given mass. There is a whole mathematical model which predicts what particles have mass and which do not. Since the photon doesn't interact with the Higgs boson, it does not have mass.
As for momentum, all particles carry momentum because they have energy, not neccessarily because they have mass. According to Newtonian physics, momentum is defined by an inertial mass, however Maxwell's equations show that electromagnetic radiation, and by extension photons, carry moment with them as well. Basically, when photons collide with a surface, they impart some of their energy to the surface in the form of kenetic energy.
Hope this helps.
As simply out as possible, light is a form of energy that moves.
It is different from other moving forms of energy because it does not need a 'carrier'. Kinetic energy is 'carried' by a mass that moves, and electrical energy is 'carried' by a charge that moves.
We know from elementary physics experiments that light carries its energy in discrete parcels we call 'photons'. We try to describe what we see in our experiments mathematically, with 'models.'
Sometimes light acts like mathematical particles, and sometimes it acts like mathematical waves. The particles and waves are themselves mathematical things that we can 'plug into' our equations to get predictions about what particles or waves will do. We then compare those predictions to what real photons do. As long as the analogy holds we can say that photons act like particles or waves, depending on the model we are using.
Unfortunately some people misunderstand the process of analogy and erroneously assume that the photons *are* either particles or waves. This is a common error.
Photons are *only* photons.
Our experiments help us understand photons by allowing us to *compare* them to things we think we understand, like particles or waves, and to measure different properties of photons.
- HTH
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
It is different from other moving forms of energy because it does not need a 'carrier'. Kinetic energy is 'carried' by a mass that moves, and electrical energy is 'carried' by a charge that moves.
We know from elementary physics experiments that light carries its energy in discrete parcels we call 'photons'. We try to describe what we see in our experiments mathematically, with 'models.'
Sometimes light acts like mathematical particles, and sometimes it acts like mathematical waves. The particles and waves are themselves mathematical things that we can 'plug into' our equations to get predictions about what particles or waves will do. We then compare those predictions to what real photons do. As long as the analogy holds we can say that photons act like particles or waves, depending on the model we are using.
Unfortunately some people misunderstand the process of analogy and erroneously assume that the photons *are* either particles or waves. This is a common error.
Photons are *only* photons.
Our experiments help us understand photons by allowing us to *compare* them to things we think we understand, like particles or waves, and to measure different properties of photons.
- HTH
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
I swear by god that after reading this thread I have learned more physics than I did this year in Honors "Fizzix" at School (am 16)... I hate you Mr. Taylor... 
You better not show up on this forum and give me an F for the rest of the year in AP C
You better not show up on this forum and give me an F for the rest of the year in AP CLight is explainable as an oscillatory energy transfer between two spacetimes that comprise ordinary reality, that is, a spacetime established by the electrostatic force of attraction and a second spacetime established by the electrostatic force of repulsion. With this understanding, one gets, evaluates, the Hubble constant precisely in terms of other fundamental constants (70.53 km/s per megaparsec) and gets an accounting for the misunderstood "dark energy" effect that is in excellent agreement with observation. One also now has gravity and electromagnetism as aspects of the same fundamental force.
See http://www.3rdRelativity.org., pages 56 to 70 for this particular discussion. You will note there are no adjustable parameters, "fudge factors," there. The work is highly mathematical. If you would like plain-language summaries, email me and I'll send them to you in PDF.
"A book is like a mirror: if a jackass peers into it, he can't expect a prophet to look back out." (Lichtenberger)
See http://www.3rdRelativity.org., pages 56 to 70 for this particular discussion. You will note there are no adjustable parameters, "fudge factors," there. The work is highly mathematical. If you would like plain-language summaries, email me and I'll send them to you in PDF.
"A book is like a mirror: if a jackass peers into it, he can't expect a prophet to look back out." (Lichtenberger)
Light has mass and energy and waves. We don't know if the wave guides the mass/energy or follows. Which one goes first is an equally important question to the existence of the Higg's boson.
Thx --
-- Bill
Thx --
-- Bill
The "what is light question" the wave particle duality question has its roots back during the great debates between Bohr and Einstein. The electromagnetic wave, light, has its most controversial acceptable answer in the early 1900's from the Copenhagen interpretation of the two slit trick, -- Compton scattering (since we can never know what goes on behind the quantum curtain without affecting the results it is a waste of time asking the question and we can only talk about what we see). It relates to the quantum weirdness of photon or atom's passing through one or the other of the two open slits landing on a screen behind it. There has since been other interpretations of it but none of them including the Copenhagen interpretation currently is widely acceptable.
The Copenhagen interpretation was pushed by Bohr. There is a lot of debate afterwards about the Copenhagen interpretation such as the Shorodinger's cat explanation and the Heisenberg principle explanation. Bohr was a trailblazing quantum mechanics genius of his time however today there is a widely held believe that he bullied his favorite interpretation through to counter Einstein's concerns, not that Einstein had at that time a better solution.
Today there is no true widely acceptable definition of what is light however if I have my way there will be soon, this will only come to light under stringent peer review. This new simple explanation will cause a lot of pain equally for quantum mechanics people and relativity people, the most pain will be endured by me by dealing with the people that refuse to try to understand it.
Under the current definition of the wave particle duality question I assure you there it is not a duality problem, If I'm proven to be right then the winner will be wave anomaly -- the particle is an illusion created by the wave, the wave is an effect from another known force.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." -- Albert Einstein
The Copenhagen interpretation was pushed by Bohr. There is a lot of debate afterwards about the Copenhagen interpretation such as the Shorodinger's cat explanation and the Heisenberg principle explanation. Bohr was a trailblazing quantum mechanics genius of his time however today there is a widely held believe that he bullied his favorite interpretation through to counter Einstein's concerns, not that Einstein had at that time a better solution.
Today there is no true widely acceptable definition of what is light however if I have my way there will be soon, this will only come to light under stringent peer review. This new simple explanation will cause a lot of pain equally for quantum mechanics people and relativity people, the most pain will be endured by me by dealing with the people that refuse to try to understand it.
Under the current definition of the wave particle duality question I assure you there it is not a duality problem, If I'm proven to be right then the winner will be wave anomaly -- the particle is an illusion created by the wave, the wave is an effect from another known force.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." -- Albert Einstein
I was told that the laws of Physics demands that Light be completely massless. I never ever believed that. Then a physicist discovered it did have a very tiny tiny mass and that for all intents and purposes it was negligible in force. Almost no mass really, but very very minuscule. I think the Mass of Light is measured when the Sun's gravity bends star light across the Solar System. They measured it in a Solar Eclipse. Einstein's theory was proven right.
Think of a pond of water. It is made of water particles called H2O. The pond has waves on the surface and inside the pond deep down. That is why sand waves build up at the ponds bottom. It is like that with light and Electromagnetic Fields. Particles and waves. It is a force of Nature called Electromagnetism.
Gravity is said to be made from Gravitons, but no one has ever seen a Graviton particle and all there is are indirect evidence in Binary Solar Systems with Pulsars.
I disagree with the theories of Gravity as a separate force. I have come to personally believe that Gravity is probably caused by Electrons or some kind of Electric Charge like Static Electricity. I have experimented with Ferromagnetism, Paramagnetism and Diamagnetism which are like different Spectrum of attractive and repulsive forces. Gravity seems like Paramagnetism to me, but all magnetism cannot warp space like Gravity and cannot slow down time.
Who knows? Maybe the Earth's atmosphere sticks onto it due to a Static clinging Force!
Think of a pond of water. It is made of water particles called H2O. The pond has waves on the surface and inside the pond deep down. That is why sand waves build up at the ponds bottom. It is like that with light and Electromagnetic Fields. Particles and waves. It is a force of Nature called Electromagnetism.
Gravity is said to be made from Gravitons, but no one has ever seen a Graviton particle and all there is are indirect evidence in Binary Solar Systems with Pulsars.
I disagree with the theories of Gravity as a separate force. I have come to personally believe that Gravity is probably caused by Electrons or some kind of Electric Charge like Static Electricity. I have experimented with Ferromagnetism, Paramagnetism and Diamagnetism which are like different Spectrum of attractive and repulsive forces. Gravity seems like Paramagnetism to me, but all magnetism cannot warp space like Gravity and cannot slow down time.
Who knows? Maybe the Earth's atmosphere sticks onto it due to a Static clinging Force!
Just to clarify some incorrect points in previous posts:
- Photons have no rest mass. If they did, then they couldn't travel at the speed of light. That's standard Relativity Theory. The particles that people previously thought massless and might have mass are neutrinos. If photons had rest mass, the universe would look very different (no pun intended). See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
- Light doesn't travel in a straight line. It travels along geodesics.
- Light behaves as both a wave and a particle, and it depends on the way in which you're attempting to view it. That's not the same as it being both a wave and a particle. (Colloquial English is not very precise.)
- There is such a thing as matter. There are such things as forces. Any assertion to the contrary needs to be backed by extraordinary proof, rather than just tossed in as a one-liner.
- That PDF from 3dRelativity.org has probably not been peer-reviewed, and after a short skim, my impression is that the author is pretty much just making things up. (For example, claiming that proton-electron and electron-electron Coulomb interactions don't have the same space-time scale. WTH? Evidence? Measurements? Bueller?)
{ 30 minutes later }
Yeah, I was right. The papers in that PDF were rejected for publication. I wouldn't take anything in that as authoritative.
- Photons have no rest mass. If they did, then they couldn't travel at the speed of light. That's standard Relativity Theory. The particles that people previously thought massless and might have mass are neutrinos. If photons had rest mass, the universe would look very different (no pun intended). See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
- Light doesn't travel in a straight line. It travels along geodesics.
- Light behaves as both a wave and a particle, and it depends on the way in which you're attempting to view it. That's not the same as it being both a wave and a particle. (Colloquial English is not very precise.)
- There is such a thing as matter. There are such things as forces. Any assertion to the contrary needs to be backed by extraordinary proof, rather than just tossed in as a one-liner.
- That PDF from 3dRelativity.org has probably not been peer-reviewed, and after a short skim, my impression is that the author is pretty much just making things up. (For example, claiming that proton-electron and electron-electron Coulomb interactions don't have the same space-time scale. WTH? Evidence? Measurements? Bueller?)
{ 30 minutes later }
Yeah, I was right. The papers in that PDF were rejected for publication. I wouldn't take anything in that as authoritative.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 174
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
Blue Origin stacks huge New Glenn rocket ahead of 1st launch (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 3
-
Is this the best Black Friday camera deal ever? The Canon EOS R5 is nearly $1500 off the MSRP
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
US Congress will hold another UFO hearing this week. Here's how to watch
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
Brilliant fireball explodes over North America as satellites watch (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram