Speed of light confusion

  • Thread starter GENIERE
  • Start date
  • #1
It seems many posters on these forums as well as others make a distinction between “light” and a “photon” when discussing the speed of light. Most will agree that an individual proton propagates at C whether passing through air, lead, glass or a vacuum. If one defines light as a packet of photons, or a shower of photons, it allows the possibility of saying, “the speed of light is medium dependant” while knowing that an individual photon propagates at exactly C.

An example of the confusion caused by the distinction can be found in refraction tables developed by persons of great authority wherein they assign to light, a velocity dependant on the properties of the medium. The title of the tables usually refer to the “speed of light”. They are either ignorant or, more likely, distinguish between light and a photon.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Chagur
33
0
Huh?

Most will agree that an individual proton propagates at C
whether passing through air, lead, glass or a vacuum.


Not me!
 
  • #3
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,253
63
Originally posted by Chagur
Huh?

Most will agree that an individual proton propagates at C
whether passing through air, lead, glass or a vacuum.


Not me!
Gamma Ray photons will penatatate a significant thickness of lead.
 
  • #4
Chagur
33
0
Okay, which are you discussing? Protons or photons?

Besides, penetrating a 'significant thickness of lead' is not the same as 'passing through' it.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Originally posted by Chagur
Huh?

Most will agree that an individual proton propagates at C
whether passing through air, lead, glass or a vacuum.


Not me!

Yeah, he meant photons Chagur
 
  • #6
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,253
63
Originally posted by Chagur
Okay, which are you discussing? Protons or photons?

Besides, penetrating a 'significant thickness of lead' is not the same as 'passing through' it.

It certianly is, if you have less then that significant thickness!
 
  • #7
Chagur
33
0
I really don't need the attempt at word play, Integral.

Penetrate =/= pass through ... Check a dictionary.
 
  • #8
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,253
63
I fail to see the difference. This is physics not english.


Edit:
How do I look up pass through in a dictionay? If a gamma ray is able to penatrate x meters of lead ( if you wish, do some research and replace x with an actual number) and you have less then x meters of lead surrounding your gamma source there will be many gamma rays which pass through the lead. Why is this a word game?
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Chagur
33
0
The original post, to which I replied, referred to 'Light', not 'gamma radiation'

Sorry for not immediately bringing it to your attention and
avoiding the futile word play you wish to engage in.

And please don't retort with: 'But they're just different
energy levels of the same phenomena.'
 
  • #10
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,253
63
Originally posted by Chagur
Huh?

Most will agree that an individual proton propagates at C
whether passing through air, lead, glass or a vacuum.


Not me!

Where does this post refer to the visible portion of the spectrum?

edit: I must admit that I completed missed the replacement of Proton for photon. Since the entire thread is about photons, I simply read it as was intended, not as written. Of course, no proton has ever achieved the speed of light, so it makes no sense if it is read literally.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Bartholomew
527
0
Chagur, are you serious?
 
  • #12
Chagur
33
0
And that is what I questioned, I thought, Integral.

Not being that up on Physics, I was willing to grant
that protons, like photons, could pass through air,
glass, and a vacuum; but the lead bit didn't seem
right and I questioned it.
 
  • #13
Chagur
33
0
Yes, Bartholomew.
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
It was a typo, Chagur. He meant "photon."

So to clarify: a photon always travels at C. Refraction is often oversimplified to imply that it doesn't. This is especilly true in high school physics classes.
 
  • #15
Chagur
33
0
Okay, russ_watters.

Thanks.
 
  • #16
OOPS! I guess I added confusion to the confusion. Didn't mean pRoton, nor to start a little spat.
 
  • #17
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,874
10
Originally posted by russ_watters

So to clarify: a photon always travels at C. Refraction is often oversimplified to imply that it doesn't. This is especilly true in high school physics classes.

That would be SOME high school physics classes! Many textbooks (Paul Hewitt's especially) try to make it clear that light waves/photons always travel at c (disregarding the latest theories of variances).

The net propagation of light is slowed by the photons interactions with the atoms and molecules of the substance it is passing through. But while the photon is traveling from atom to atom, it is propagating at c.
 
  • #18
Bartholomew
527
0
Chagur, "penetrate a certain distance" of a material is the same as "penetrate through" the material, if the material isn't as thick as the distance. It doesn't matter whether the thing doing the penetrating is a photon, a proton, or a bullet.

You accept that light can pass through glass. It certainly wouldn't pass all the way through 10 miles of smoked glass. It would penetrate only to a certain distance. But if you reduced the thickness of the glass, eventually light would start coming through in significant amounts--it would start penetrating all the way through.

The same thing is true for lead, on a smaller scale. Instead of feet of glass that the photon can pass through, you have fractions of a millimeter of lead. The light will penetrate that far, and if you can hammer out the lead thinner than that fraction of a millimeter, the lead will be transparent.
 
  • #19
"But if you reduced the thickness of the glass, eventually light would start coming through in significant amounts--it would start penetrating all the way through."

When you say "eventually", are you referencing time or thickness??? I first read it as time, but assume thickness. Right???

Nautica
 
  • #20
S = k log w
66
0
Are we talking about a photon, or about wave theory?
Are the photons electron free?

Please define "light".
 
  • #21
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
Originally posted by S = k log w
Are we talking about a photon, or about wave theory?
Are the photons electron free?

Please define "light".
Huh?
 
  • #22
yogi
1,525
10
"All these years of conscious brooding about the photon have brought me no closer to the truth - nowdays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows the answer, but he is mistaken."

Albert Einstein in a letter to his friend Besso near they end of his life.
 
  • #23
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,253
63
Originally posted by yogi
"All these years of conscious brooding about the photon have brought me no closer to the truth - nowdays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows the answer, but he is mistaken."

Albert Einstein in a letter to his friend Besso near they end of his life.

There was an interesting claim made in the PBS Nova, "Elegant Universe"

From about 1920 on Einstein did not keep up with the mainstream of Physics. He did not keep up with or understand the QM model of the Atom which he initiated with his Noble Prize winning paper on the Photoelectric effect. He concentrated on his eforts of Unification without the essential knowledge of QM. His efforts were doomed without that information.

So any quote from Einstein about understanding QM is pretty meaninless. He choose to ignore it.
 
  • #24
yogi
1,525
10
Integral - the fact that Einstein did not agree with some interpretations of QM does not mean his views should be discarded - or that they were unfounded...Einstein, unlike you and a lot of the others who post on these boards, continually re-thought things from a conceptual perspective - his own contributions as well as those of others - and if you knew more about his life you would not say that he didn't keep up - he spent many hours thinking through experiments that would invalidate the Copenheagen interpretation - "In matters of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" Einstein always worked alone "I am a horse for a single harness - not made for tandem work" His great contributions were done solo - and he continued in that style - If these boards are only to regurgitate the stuff from text that have been copied from each other - they are a waste of time - Ever thought you were really sure of something and found out you were wrong??
 
  • #25
FZ+
1,599
3
The same thing is true for lead, on a smaller scale. Instead of feet of glass that the photon can pass through, you have fractions of a millimeter of lead. The light will penetrate that far, and if you can hammer out the lead thinner than that fraction of a millimeter, the lead will be transparent.
I'm guessing we are using a useful version of pass through where we do not insist that we have an infinite thickness of medium where nothing can pass through.

Anyways, a finite amount of lead can not completely block off light. Fire enough photons at it and eventually one will be lucky enough to get through.

Integral - the fact that Einstein did not agree with some interpretations of QM does not mean his views should be discarded - or that they were unfounded...Einstein, unlike you and a lot of the others who post on these boards, continually re-thought things from a conceptual perspective - his own contributions as well as those of others - and if you knew more about his life you would not say that he didn't keep up - he spent many hours thinking through experiments that would invalidate the Copenheagen interpretation
Indeed. The most powerful one was the so-called EPR paradox. It was conducted. Einstein was shown to be wrong.

Ah well. And that's the end of that.

Are we talking about a photon, or about wave theory?
Photons and wave theory are two sides of the same coin. Physics usually mean "em radiation" when they say light.
 
  • #26
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,253
63
Integral - the fact that Einstein did not agree with some interpretations of QM does not mean his views should be discarded - or that they were unfounded...Einstein, unlike you and a lot of the others who post on these boards, continually re-thought things from a conceptual perspective -

Hey, I am just repeating a tidbit I picked up from a good TV show. Don't take it personal.

This is all off topic of this thread Please get back on topic.
 
  • #27
S = k log w
66
0
Originally posted by S = k log w
Are we talking about a photon, or about wave theory?
Are the photons electron free?

Please define "light".

Light has a frequency, a wave length. More accurately photons 'oscillate'. Think of a sine wave inside of a pipe.
The path of that photon 'draws' the sine wave. Light has some of the properties of both energy and of matter. When the electron is not propogating the sine wave it is, obviously, not at 'notsine'.
The pipe, if you will, is 'light'. Light is photons, waves, sine and notsine. The speed of light does not change. What may change is, for the same frequency, at the same energy, the ratio of sine to notsine for a series of photons.
 
  • #28
S = k log w
66
0
What is the EPR paradox?


Originally posted by FZ+
I'm guessing we are using a useful version of pass through where we do not insist that we have an infinite thickness of medium where nothing can pass through.

Anyways, a finite amount of lead can not completely block off light. Fire enough photons at it and eventually one will be lucky enough to get through.


Indeed. The most powerful one was the so-called EPR paradox. It was conducted. Einstein was shown to be wrong.

Ah well. And that's the end of that.


Photons and wave theory are two sides of the same coin. Physics usually mean "em radiation" when they say light.
 
  • #29
yogi
1,525
10
Einstein, Podeski and Rosen devised a thought experiment they believed would invalid the non-local character of light - in the late part of the last century tests were conducted by Alain Aspect and others in France that showed (ostensibly) that photons would be entangled in such a way that one could instantaneous affect the other at great separation distances. The conclusion of the physics community was that Einstein was wrong and Bohr was right - but more recently some aspects of those tests have been called into question. The point I try to get across when I post on these boards is that maybe everything is not quite as well understood as we would like to believe
 

Suggested for: Speed of light confusion

Replies
19
Views
791
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
356
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
638
Replies
25
Views
553
  • Last Post
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
395
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
8K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Top