Light has mass, and it travels at the Speed of light, so a massless object .

iAWESOME
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Light has mass, and it travels at the Speed of light, so a massless object...

I'm new to this entire field, and I know I'm probably wrong, and someone has already debunked this years ago, and if so, please either 1. correct me or 2.Add something.

Since Photons have mass and when they comein contact with another object actually push on that object, a massless object could (theoretically) "ride" on a light beam. IF you could fuse light with the massless object (like what happens inside the sun for example) and acceralated the light (by accerating the massless object, with is fused with the light) you could (theoretically) make the light travel faster than light. Much faster. Maybe millions times faster.

Something else I thought of. I know everyone here knows that when you look at a star you see the star (or how it looked) maybe millions of years ago. Same with the sun (8 mins ago) and the Moon (3 secs ago) etc. The light travels to slow for us to see said object in 'real time' ,but if you sped up the light (see paragraph 1) would you then see the object in real time? And, let's say you had a probe or whatnot on this massless object riding the light beam, and you set off and millions of times faster than light, and your destination is where the Earth was say 45 years ago on this day, would you arrive on the Earth 45 years ago? Einstein said time and space were connected so since all space (we think) exist right now, all time must exist right now, which means next week is happeneing right now ,and 45 years ago etc.

Like I said, I'm probably 100% wrong, and if so, please feel free.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Unfortunately, photons have no rest mass, so that opening 'since' doesn't work. They do have momentum though, and that's how they can exert a force on other things. But that doesn't mean they have mass.

You can't speed up light either, unfortunately. And there's no way we can travel faster than light, or build a probe that would. And though time and space may be connected, it doesn't follow that all time must exist right now.

Though I do agree it does often feel as if I'm stuck in a recurring loop.
 


Now that's been answered, anything else would just be speculation.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...

Similar threads

Back
Top