- #1

- 6

- 1

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Nuradh
- Start date

- #1

- 6

- 1

- #2

Borg

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 1,891

- 2,445

Photons of light have no mass and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

- #3

- 16,805

- 7,574

To add to The Borg's response, you are probably under the misapprehension that velocities add linearly and can get something to move faster than c. This is not correct. Google "relativistic velocity addition".

- #4

- 6

- 1

- #5

- 16,805

- 7,574

As has already been pointed out, but I will repeat it since you seem to have missed it, light (photons) HAS no mass, so mass has nothing to do with the speed of light. The speed of light has been determined fairly closely by experiment, but is now DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.^{2}will not do for this

- #6

- 222

- 12

- #7

Borg

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 1,891

- 2,445

The speed of light was originally determined by the Danish astronomer, Ole Roemer while observing the orbits of Io around Jupiter. He noticed that the apparent motion Io changed as the Earth moved from one side of the sun to the other in relation to Io. From this, he was able to calculate the first estimates of the speed of light.Relativistic velocity addition already has a constant locking the speed of light into C, I'm attempting to ask what was the speed of light determined by? Was it mass, empirical experiments? Theoretically calculated ideas?

The consistancy of the speed of light is one of the two postulates of Special Relativity:Where does it show the speed of light as function of something?

These two starting assumptions came about from Einstein trying to resolve two issues in physics:(1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference)

(2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

In order to completely understand how light and mass mathematically relate to each other, you have to have take college level courses in calculus and electromagnetism in order to have the basics needed to do the math. Proving the relationship comes from the math.The inconsistency of Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism and the inability to discover Earth's motion through a luminiferous aether led to the development of special relativity, which corrects mechanics to handle situations involving motions nearing the speed of light.

If you want to dig deeper into how it works, check out the Special Relativity link above or you can try this site which tries to explain all things E=MC

- #8

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor

Gold Member

2020 Award

- 25,674

- 5,103

You are asking this 'the wrong way round', I think. c is a fundamental constant (at least, all our measurements seem to confirm this). It is tightly bound to the relationship between electric and magnetic fields, so, rather than being "determined by", it is "part of a structure which our present model is based on".^{2}will not do for this

c was introduced into EM theory long before Relativity came along and early work tells us that the speed of EM waves is independent of frequency. Einstein then tied it in with Space and time, in general.

- #9

- 6

- 1

Thank you sophiecentaur.

It seems I have been too indirect and as you say "asking this the wrong way round".

I do understand very well that c will not be anything but c. Just like π, won't ever be ∞.

c will always be 299,792,458 meters per second(rounded to 300,000,000 meters per second) and never 1 meter per second more.

The questions I am proposing is very simple. That is what makes it far too complex.

The question I proposed earlier was this -"Would the speed of light be effected by the mass of light"

I see now that it triggers two possible questions, the one I was attempting to get to and the question of whether or not light has mass and if the speed is the direct result of that mass. It seems to me, that I should have been clearer.

The question i should have asked is this one -"does the speed of light change if the mass of the light change?"

In other words, if you fuse two photons, will they be capable of travelling faster than the speed of light of one photon? c?

Perhaps even shorter, if two photons fuse and become a photon(2)? will c than become c(2)? as in the speed of fused light?

article about scientists fusing photons http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7469/full/nature12512.html

It seems I have been too indirect and as you say "asking this the wrong way round".

I do understand very well that c will not be anything but c. Just like π, won't ever be ∞.

c will always be 299,792,458 meters per second(rounded to 300,000,000 meters per second) and never 1 meter per second more.

The questions I am proposing is very simple. That is what makes it far too complex.

The question I proposed earlier was this -"Would the speed of light be effected by the mass of light"

I see now that it triggers two possible questions, the one I was attempting to get to and the question of whether or not light has mass and if the speed is the direct result of that mass. It seems to me, that I should have been clearer.

The question i should have asked is this one -"does the speed of light change if the mass of the light change?"

In other words, if you fuse two photons, will they be capable of travelling faster than the speed of light of one photon? c?

Perhaps even shorter, if two photons fuse and become a photon(2)? will c than become c(2)? as in the speed of fused light?

article about scientists fusing photons http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7469/full/nature12512.html

Last edited by a moderator:

- #10

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor

Gold Member

2020 Award

- 25,674

- 5,103

There is no experimental evidence at all that light has mass so it seems pretty clear to me that the question has no relevance to the real world.-"does the speed of light change if the mass of the light change?

You seem to be making up a 'Physics' that is just speculative and that isn't the brief of PF. See the guidelines at the home page of the forum to see that PF is not a platform for this sort of thing.

- #11

- 16,805

- 7,574

In a single sentence, and with a single usage, you are using "the speed of light" to mean two entirely different things. First, there is a "universal speed limit" which is the speed limit of all massless things. We know that light is massless and for historical reasons, we use the term "speed of light" to mean "the universal speed limit" although the universal speed limit is in fact independent of the actual speed of light. Second, if light DID turn out to have mass, no matter how tiny (which it does not) then it would NOT travel at the universal speed limit so in that sense it would not travel at "the speed of light" as used in the first item, it would travel at what I suppose we would come to call "the speed of photons" just as we talk about "the speed of neutrinos".-"Would the speed of light be effected by the mass of light"

As to the second part of your question, all photons travel at the same speed, "c" regardless of their energy. gianeshwar already told you that.

You have, repeatedly, been given answers to both parts of your question but you seem to be fixated on the idea that you have discovered some new physics that miraculously no other physicists has ever thought of. You would do better studying physics as it is, not as you want it to be.

- #12

- 31,055

- 7,738

If you "fuse" two photons then you get an electron and a positron. They travel with v<c.In other words, if you fuse two photons, will they be capable of travelling faster than the speed of light of one photon? c?

- #13

- 33,522

- 11,929

"Would the speed of light be effected by the mass of light"

You are getting a lot of responses pointing out that light doesn't have mass (more precisely, a photon's invariant mass is zero); but I suspect what you really mean to ask is whether the speed of light is affected by the

- #14

- 6

- 1

I can only presume my own perspective to the topic to be the problem. I ask for this topic to be closed.

My curiousity has been satisfied, but I apologize to the mighty kind members who kept up with my stubborn, confusing and perhaps ignorant questions.

I'll retire, for it seems my curiousity has no home here.

Share: