How Does Light Move and What Propels Photons?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RichyB
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of light, specifically how photons move and what propels them. Participants explore concepts related to light as both a wave and a particle, the mechanisms of photon emission, and analogies to gravitational forces in celestial mechanics. The scope includes theoretical and conceptual inquiries into the behavior of light and photons.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the propulsion of photons, questioning what initiates their movement from a light source to an observer's eye.
  • One participant draws an analogy between the movement of light and the Earth's revolution around the Sun, suggesting a connection to forces like gravity.
  • Another participant discusses the idea that objects move through space at constant speed unless acted upon by a force, raising questions about how this applies to massless particles like photons.
  • It is noted that the emission of light occurs when electrons transition between energy levels in an atom, releasing energy in the form of photons.
  • Some participants challenge the explanation of light's source, with one asserting that the transition of electrons in a nucleus does not account for the origin of typical light.
  • There is a discussion about the Pauli Exclusion Principle, clarifying that while electrons must occupy different quantum states, transitions in one atom do not affect those in another.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the mechanisms behind light emission and the nature of photons. There is no consensus on the explanations provided, with some participants challenging the validity of certain claims and others providing alternative perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding and express uncertainty about the physics involved, particularly regarding the behavior of photons and the implications of quantum mechanics.

  • #31
I agree with you jnorman and I love the summary that I once read (can't remember where !) Light takes no time to get from one point to the next and for light there is no distance between one point and the next.
Wish I understood it !

I believe you are saying that light does not experience time, as it travels at c and according to the math time should stop at that velocity. I'd say that the math simply doesn't work when you input a velocity of c into the equations, so you cannot depend on it.

Such stuff, which is ok intuitively to some extent, leads to comments like this, which I like:

Eternity is no time at all for a photon.

Richard Feynman may have been the wise guy [genius] who coined that, I'm not sure. But it sounds like something he would have said!

I think the math does 'work' but just for light;it's not a realistic result. The issue is that 'nothing' [no mass, no test instrument] can ever reach the speed of light so nothing can be in the frame of light. One way to understand this is that no matter how fast you think you are going, locally light will always pass you at 'c'...so 'nothing' can attain such speed 'c'. The math tells you that IF you are moving at speed c ,as a photon does, time appears to stop and [Lorentz-Fitzgerald] length is zero. [You can't use photons to measure any time delay because they don't age!]

Hence the other common adage:
Photons don't age.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
It was a mistake to state that 'typical' light came from electrons in a nucleus.
This mistaken statement appears to have been backed up in post *10 my a 'science advisor' no less.
I hope that we would all agree that mistakes of this sort must be corrected.
 
  • #33
'We all know there are no electrons in the nucleus' yet we all know (!) that beta radiation (electrons) come from the nucleus.
Physics is fascinating.
 
  • #34
truesearch said:
'We all know there are no electrons in the nucleus' yet we all know (!) that beta radiation (electrons) come from the nucleus.
Physics is fascinating.
“An unstable atomic nucleus with an excess of neutrons may undergo β− decay, where a neutron is converted into a proton, an electron and an electron-type antineutrino.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Photon has kinetic energy, and therefore it moves.
 
  • #36
Momentum, yes. But KE? How would you detect it?
 
  • #37
Is there a way to measure the kinetic energy of a photon using relativity? I know you could try to measure it with Newtonian mechanics but I am pretty sure that the answer would be wrong.
 
  • #38
Subductionzon said:
Is there a way to measure the kinetic energy of a photon using relativity? I know you could try to measure it with Newtonian mechanics but I am pretty sure that the answer would be wrong.

Not really. Per the definition from wiki:

The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.

A photon requires no energy to accelerate up to c, it simply moves at c always. Furthermore, a photon could never be decelerated either. In addition to that, a photon always moves at c regardless of who is observing it, which means that it's kinetic energy could not be based upon it's motion, as it moves at the same velocity in all frames yet it's energy differs.
 
  • #39
I have received an 'infraction' as a result of my posts following post *10.
Therefore, as much as I would like to contribute to this discussion I fel that I must keep quiet.
 
  • #40
truesearch said:
I have received an 'infraction' as a result of my posts following post *10.
Therefore, as much as I would like to contribute to this discussion I fel that I must keep quiet.

Well, as long as you don't do whatever the infraction was telling you not to do you should be fine!
And don't worry too much. An infraction is like a "notification" that just tells you that you've done something you maybe shouldn't have. It's not a warning and it doesn't count against your points on the forum. It's just there to let people know they've strayed a little too far from the main road before they get too far off and start to get warnings and such.
 
  • #41
what I did was to repeat what a 'science advisor' did... I quoted his/her quote.
I am interested in physics not other peoples quotes.
Say no more about it... let's concentrate on physics
 
  • #42
Subductionzon said:
Is there a way to measure the kinetic energy of a photon using relativity? I know you could try to measure it with Newtonian mechanics but I am pretty sure that the answer would be wrong.

You could 'infer' a value for KE, perhaps, but not measure it. In any case, the energy of a photon is just its energy and of an type that is specific to photons. Why should it be related to half m vsquared? (If it doesn't have a mass) People make the same mistake about the momentum of a photon and try to relate it to an mv definition.
 
  • #43
My bad, momentum is a much better word.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K