Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Light stands still

  1. Apr 2, 2004 #1
    when we build something we must have a starting point or a foundation, something constant. physics should be no exception.
    lets use some basic human logic here. where is the logical foundation for physics? what in out universe is constant?

    most physical laws are based in or on some theory of the function of light(even if light was not included)

    example: what is an atom? how do we measure it? we assume that it is a nucleus with posative and negative orbitals (and guess that there may be such orbitals within the nucleus also) but how do we know? we measure its effect with things like x-ray, microwave, electron wave so on. then we graph the results. We probably have a close picture of what an atom is, but it would be purly accidental. All of the tools we use to measure such things use Light as the medium. the problem with this is that we do not account for light in the equation.

    Light is the only thing in the universe that has no motion, yes has appearant velocity. We could also say that light has motion yet no appearant mass. If we apply the "speed of light" to our physical equations we comeoup with astonomical numbers that leave us feeling insignificant in the grand scheme of things. however, since we know light is constant (light travel at the same speed no matter how fast our appearant frame of referance moves) isent it a little presumptious of us to assume that it is light that is moveing and us that is at rest. Especially since we know without doubt that we are not at rest.

    reguardless weather we are moving or it is light that is moveing, light is still the constant in our reality, and therefor the fundemental foundation for all knowlege and all things. So how do we value light?

    Here is my particular paradox, light is absolute so lets give it a value so we may calculate all other things.

    If light has no motion then is it massless and therefor should be "zero" however, light has affect so at the very least it should be numbered "one"

    lets let light = 1 and the absence of light = 0 (rudementary digital)
    the problem here is, "what exactly is the absence of light?" we find that our reality is only one side of the equation. SO there must be ANTI-MATTER or a parallel existance? But lets work with what we know. lets build our models based on light as the universal constant and give it a value of 1.
    I am not a mathmatician so i will leave that up to you guys, i will however provide you with some possible starting points in later posts.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 2, 2004 #2
  4. Apr 2, 2004 #3
    I'm thinking that anything that can be, but also be absent... isn't quite an absolute.
  5. Apr 2, 2004 #4
    Photons have mass, which is frequency dependent. The only the don't have mass is when they are at rest, which they never are.
  6. Apr 2, 2004 #5
    Prediction: We will never find anything inside the universe that seems to only move and not stand still, to only stand still and not move, that is without is not, that stands alone in any way shape or form.
  7. Apr 2, 2004 #6
    isent it? wouldnt it be LESS of an absolute if it were otherwise?


    since we have no knowlege of the absence of light the absence may not exist.. this is the point where we make that "leap of faith"
  8. Apr 2, 2004 #7
    There does seem to be a leap of faith involved... can't quite put my finger on it though.
  9. Apr 2, 2004 #8
    what brings you to this conclusion?

    We have to speculate that photons have mass to explain the energy of light, but in truth we dont even know if photons exist. and the reason we dont know is becouse we cannot find mass in light. there are only 2 possible explinations for this lack of mass, either it is moveing too fast to record, OR it is at absoult rest and the "frequncy" or our measuring tools interfear with acurate calculaton.

    We can compensate for the "harmonics" of our instumants but this is fundementally flawed in that the frequncy we assign the insturment is based on other insturments with harmonics of their own.

    IE: a gamma ray measurement is calibrated with another gamma ray insturnment. the effect "freqency" is then divided by itself to achive a mean average. which is then deducted from the equation we are working with. However, there is no way of knowing if the reaction of 2 gamma rays are constant. If you drop a perfect ball bearing into a perfectly round pool of water, we can say that the wave pattern is the frequncy of that marble, dropping the same marble into the same pool should repeat the same pattern and it does. but what is the constant in this equation? the marble? the frequency? the size of the pool? or the water?

    here is a couple mind benders..
    What effect does light have on the pool experiment?
    If light is photons traveling in waves, and photons have mass then the light in the room should have some effect on the frequency logically. So by adjusting the level of light shed on the test we should be able to measur the difference. But, no matter how much light we add or subtract the frequency remains the same. (include the WHOLE spectrum of light) the flaw in this test comes at the point where water boils. We cannot remove the atoms from the water at least not for the purposes of this test.

    We know that light WILL effect atoms at some level but how do we measure that effect? it stands to reason also, that any effect light has on one medium it would have also on all other mediums present.

    mind bender 2: the only constant we can assure with some reliability, is the light in the room. The marble is effected by gravity, the size and shape of the pool is in motion, the water suffers convection, as does the air in the room. The molecules the marble strikes on its second drop are not the same molecules that it struck previously. How ever, the light in the room is not subject to any of these permeations and therefor is the only constant in the test.

    3: look in a mirror, is what you see truly a reflection? or is it the result of the light leaveing you reacting with the tinfoil behind the glass causing the tin to produce new light? anyone who has ever accidentially left tinfoil on a plate in a microwave can probably accuratly answer that queston.

    4: why does light have spectrum? Well, we know that spectrum of light depends on the properties of the reflective material or medium. or the presence of photons in material a haxe x effect on material a. when photonic energy from material b comes in contact with material a, the effect is y=ab2+x look familer?
  10. Apr 2, 2004 #9
  11. Apr 2, 2004 #10
    Jim asked this on another thread, i thought is more appropriate here

    What you are describing is a mechanical longitudinal wave, sound is a spherical longitudinal pressure wave. Light is not longitudinal it is a transverse EM wave. The term for what you are describing is diffraction.
    Where we are getting hung up is not the mechanics of wave theory, but the mechanics of particle theory. You have been saying photons do not move correct? and that light is only a wave moving thru a medium which is nothing but photons. That is a very controversial statement because thats not what I learned in Physics.

    My understanding is that photons are emitted and a shadow is an area where photon density is lower than neighboring regions. (ie review the double slit experiment)

    Oh and sorry for taking us way off topic.

    well, here is my solution you are absolutly correct, how ever, the only real difference between the 3 is dimensional, the water test is 2 dimensional, Sound is 4 dimentional, and light is (who knows how many dimentional) shadow is a result of the effect of passing through photons (or photons passing through something) maybe a closer analogy would be frozen smoke in a vacuum. It would better approximate shadow, however smoke has mass, and therefor motion and therefor a flaw.

    remember that neither light nor shadow neccicarily have substance.
  12. Apr 2, 2004 #11
  13. Apr 2, 2004 #12
    Energy = mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. even einstein was leary of predicting "rest energy" He understood his lack of understanding of the one thing he could not measure. LIGHT ENERGY(or some property thereof).


    you have a good grasp of what i call "pop-theory" but use your own interpretaions to devour my "pop-theory" that is how you and i will really learn from one another 8)
  14. Apr 2, 2004 #13
  15. Apr 2, 2004 #14
    You're absolutely right. Its pretty tough to prove a photon has zero energy at rest.
  16. Apr 2, 2004 #15
    thats karma, i also am a musician (guitarist, pianist)

    lets not confine ourselves to "measurable effects"
    lets break the problem down and look at the different aspects of it.

  17. Apr 2, 2004 #16
    The frequencies would be dependent on the amount of energy released by the electrons. If you a bunch of electrons at different energy states wallah.
    I'm not following how the quadractic fits in here?
  18. Apr 2, 2004 #17
    Yeah sorry, I am engineer so I tend to be grounded in reality.
  19. Apr 2, 2004 #18
    lets start with the hardest part to define c^2 (speed of light squared)
    lets work metrically since the math is easier
    c=300,000 kps (k/s) or kilometers per second
    300,000 multiplied by 300,000 is ? 90,000,000,000
    hmm, can anything known or imagined travel at 90billion kilometers per second?(35,344,000,000 miles per second)
    lets give light a more reasonable speed like 1 (where 1 is equivilant to zero kps)

    e=mass multiplied by 1
    or e=Mass now we find a real problem or is it. since we model "mass" based on treditional theory of light speed our mass is numerically incorrect. and therfor disturbes the entire equation. it does however answer the question of lights consistency through frame of referance, 1^any whole number is still 1
  20. Apr 2, 2004 #19
    this is a replacement system neccesary to define "zero" since there is no such thing as "zero definition" and since it takes light 1 year to travel from point a to point b as we percive it lightspeed is 1. Very hard to explain, well not if light is already there and it simple takes us a year to percieve it... another topic maybe
  21. Apr 2, 2004 #20
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?