The discussion centers around the question of whether light can transform into matter, exploring concepts related to energy, mass, and particle interactions. Participants delve into theoretical implications, including pair production and the nature of photons, while also addressing misconceptions and clarifying definitions.
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of light, energy, and matter transformation. There is no consensus on whether light can be classified as energy or how to properly characterize the relationship between light and mass.
Discussions include unresolved definitions and assumptions about energy, mass, and the behavior of light, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics.
It is incorrect to say that light is energy. It is correct to say that light has energy.ArmoSkater87 said:Mass and energy are interchangeable, since light is energy, it can be converted into matter.
This seems to suggest that light is a thing that has the property, energy. But if you remove all the energy from light, what is left?pmb_phy said:It is incorrect to say that light is energy. It is correct to say that light has energy.
Pete
Who, specifically, is this "you" that you are talking to? If it isn't some omnipotent god, then forget it, because the suggestion of removing all energy from light is not very meaningful.Vern said:But if you remove all the energy from light, what is left?
That's like saying that a car as the property of speed. Speed is not an inherent property of a car.Vern said:This seems to suggest that light is a thing that has the property, energy.
No energy, no photon. That can never be taken to mean that a photon and energy are the same exact thing. There is a one-to-one relationship. That is all. There is a one-to-one relationship between the volume of a sphere and the radius of a sphere. No radius - no sphere. But it is incorrect to say that radius and volume are different names for the same thing.But if you remove all the energy from light, what is left?
That is incorrect. See above.ArmoSkater87 said:When antimatter and matter annihilate, they are converted into ENERGY...not something that HAS energy.
That is incorrect. A photon can give up some of its energy, e.g. by scattering off of an electron. An photon can give up all of its energy by being absorbed by an atom. When it does so the photon no longer exists, it doesn't mean that its at rest.If light was something that HAD energy, then if it gave away all of its energy to some substance, there would be a stationary photon left...with no energy, and we all know that this can't be, and isn't true at all.
pmb_phy said:That is incorrect. See above.
Pete
Nenad said:what do you mean. When a matter and its anti matter particle anniahlate, they form pure energy.
I forgot to mention that pair production from a single photon can't occur in a vaccum. It must occur near the nucleus of an atom. The nucleus sort of acts like a catalyst in that way. If pair production from a single photon occurred in a vacuum then momentum wouldn't be conserved. The nucleas takes up some of that momentum.Tom Mattson said:No, they form photons. Photons are not "pure energy", they are...well...photons!
PMB had it just right above: Photons are not energy, they have energy.
Photons have spin and parity too, but we don't say that they are "pure spin" or "pure parity". They have those properties, they are not identical to them.
Nenad said:who told you that anniahlation of an atimatter and matter particle produces photons?
daveed said:one question.
light has 0 rest mass, yes? but light is never at rest... so couldn't you take the mass then as the momentum/c?
but then again, this whole business is quite tricky
Yes. In fact (relativistic) mass is defined as the m in p = mv. So when v = c -> p = mc or m = p/c.daveed said:one question.
light has 0 rest mass, yes? but light is never at rest... so couldn't you take the mass then as the momentum/c?
No. The wave part is statisical only. Too much to explain here what that means and I have to log off now. time to rest. More later.red_fox77 said:Duality. Wouldn't light be considered energy when it is behaving like a wave, and have energy when it acts like a particle?