How Does Light Behave According to Newton's Third Law?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sofakingdom
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hello Member
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of light in relation to Newton's Third Law and the implications of light's speed. Participants explore concepts related to mass, speed, and the nature of light, touching on theoretical and conceptual aspects of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that light's speed is the fastest because it does not need to push matter out of the way, linking this to Newton's Third Law.
  • Another participant emphasizes that lightspeed being the maximum speed is a consequence of the structure of Einstein's theory of relativity, rather than due to any mechanical reasoning.
  • Some participants discuss the relationship between mass and speed, noting that as objects approach lightspeed, their mass becomes infinite, requiring infinite force to accelerate further.
  • A participant mentions that massless particles, like photons, travel at lightspeed and cannot go slower, which is attributed to their lack of inherent mass.
  • There is a mention of a theory suggesting some particles may travel faster than light, but this remains unconfirmed.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity of terminology and the need for precise definitions in physics discussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best way to learn physics, with some advocating for formal education while others support informal learning through discussions. There is no consensus on the implications of light's speed or the relationship between light and Newton's laws, as various interpretations and theories are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the concepts discussed, including the need for clear definitions and the potential for misunderstanding due to the nuanced nature of physics vocabulary.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the foundational concepts of physics, particularly those curious about the nature of light and its relationship to classical mechanics.

sofakingdom
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I am currently a college student who has always had a love for math and science. I was recently thinking and discussing with some of my friends, how mass increases with speed as it gets closer to the speed of light. Then I started thinking about the concept of speed of light and how it is the fastest speed (at least to my knowledge) due to the fact that it doesn't need to push things out of the way to continue moving...

Anyways, I started to think about that law that states, for each reaction there is an equal reaction. I was wondering what effect this has on the rules of light.

I want to state, I am neither majoring in, nor am I taking any courses in physics. I don't have too much knowledge about a lot of physics, so go easy on me please :). Thanks.
 
Science news on Phys.org
hello and welcome to PF !

If you want to learn about physics, this is certainly the right place to come.

As to your questions, I have to say I don't know how to answer. Physics (as many other fields of human intellectual activity) has a well-defined vocabulary and rather precise meanings for many words.

As such, when you say:
due to the fact that it doesn't need to push things out of the way to continue moving...
then this doesn't mean probably what you have in mind. Certainly, lightspeed is not the maximum speed because of any reason that could correspond to what you write ; in fact nobody knows *why* lightspeed is the maximum speed. It is simply that because of the structure of a theory that seems to describe quite well concepts of distances and times (and much more), namely Einstein's theory of relativity, that there is a universal speed "build in the structure of space and time". But nobody really knows why nature is *this* way, and not another way.

action = reaction is a law of nature that was first discovered in Newton's time in the frame of mechanical forces. Later it was realized that this was a consequence of the conservation of momentum, something which had a broader application than simply mechanical forces. And in the end, it is again realized that this follows from a certain symmetry property of space and time (namely, the symmetry that if you move the whole universe "1 cm to the right", all laws of physics remain the same).
As such, action = reaction, in its modern form, namely, conservation of momentum, also applies to light, because light carries momentum (although it is tricky to say that you can exert a mechanical force on light).

The problem is that in order for all this to make any sense, one first needs to learn what all the words mean.
 
vanesch said:
hello and welcome to PF !

If you want to learn about physics, this is certainly the right place to come.

I disagree. If you want to learn physics then take a course at your university. This place is fair at best for learning physics... let's be honest.

On the other hand, vanesch's answer to your question is perfectly fine--it's a good answer... but it doesn't really teach you physics...
 
olgranpappy said:
I disagree. If you want to learn physics then take a course at your university.

There was the word "about" :wink:

Also, one should distinguish "if one wants to become a physicist", then yes, you'll have to go to university for that - or if one wants to learn SOME physics, while one has other professional interests.

The answer: "if you want to learn physics, go to university" implies that if you don't go to university, you won't be able to learn anything about physics. But that's suicide for a field ! Imagine movie makers say that if you want to see movies, you should go to an academy for that!
Places like PF are there for people who are not physicists, or who do not intend to become a physicist, to get some answers to their questions about the field, where they can be guided to good books on the matter, and discuss the difficulties they may have in their understanding. In other words, to provide information for the interested lay man. I agree fully that that doesn't replace formal courses.
 
Last edited:
well, I am at a college, and even though I have a lot of interests in physics, like vanesch has stated, I'm currently not looking to take a course. I have specific interests, and due to people having different preferred learning styles. I really like to take things at my own pace and at "sort of" a one on one experience.

What I was mainly getting at with the law stating equal reactions, is that in my mind, I assume light has the fastest possible speed (even though it might technically not) because it doesn't depend on matter. For a bullet to move, even one more atom forward, it has to push atoms out of the way and create the vacuum that places the atoms back behind it. The reason why I think sound isn't as fast as speed, is due to it depends on the matter it is being transported through. But now that I'm thinking about it more, I do remember my Physics teacher saying that black holes are capable of warping the path of light, to add curvature. As to all of the vocabulary, I am sorry I might not thoroughly express things as clearly as I mean.

I hope for some more posts in this thread to see what others are thinking/know about the topics I am talking about. I also thank you vanesch for going easy on me, a lot of forums aren't so welcoming. :)
 
I think the main key to this thread is the statement Vanesch pointed out; the idea that lightspeed is the fastest possible speed because light doesn't have to push anything out of the way (I confess that I don't really understand the meaning of that statement). Lightspeed's title as "The Fastest Speed Anything can Go" is more related to another statement you made in your original post; that things gain mass as they speed up. At lightspeed, the mass of any object becomes infinite, and so that object would require infinite force to accelerate it. In fact, just before lightspeed, the mass of any massive objcet becomes "close to" infinite, and so requires more power than exists in the Universe to accelerate any faster.

Massless partices like photons travell exactly at lightspeed, and can't go any slower. This is not because of lack of drag or good aerodynamics, but because they have no inherent mass to be multiplied as they accelerate (that's way simplified, so don't take it too literally). There is a theory that some particles may travel faster than lightspeed, but it is impossible for them to slow down to the speed of light (which retains the prohibition against massive particle traveling at lightspeed), but this remains unconfirmed.
 
wow, thank you very much, that helps a lot, and opens my mind up to a lot of other thoughts. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
16K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K