Where specifically is that said? please provide an exact referenceFor light it is said it has no volume
It depends what you mean by that. What sort of experiment are you thinking of? Or what quantity would you accept as being the volume of light.Could we measure volume of light?
Light means waves in electromagnetic field. You need to define spatial boundaries of a wave, to determine its volume.For light it is said it has no volume and also it it waves of electric and magnetic field. But for electric and magnetic field you need space? So can they both be at the same time?
no it doesn't. .... "light" refers primarily the visible, to us, part of the EM spectrum plus/minus a bit ... ie ... IR through visible to UltravioletLight means waves in electromagnetic field.
pretty difficult to do that for an EM wave when it's spreading out pretty much to infinityYou need to define spatial boundaries of a wave, to determine its volume.
a reason for running those words together ?Similarily it would be hard to determine volume of sound(soundwaves) or surfacearea of waterwaves.
Light is quantized as photons but this quantification is a representation of an amount of energy, not a representation of an amount of matter or mass, photons are considered "mass-less", meaning, they are not made of a substantial material that occupies space. They are not made of an amount of physical material. If they were, that material could be measured and given a mass, weight and volume.Could we measure volume of light?
System of at least two photons have non-zero mass so your reasoning is flawed.They are not made of an amount of physical material. If they were, that material could be measured and given a mass
1. Define "substantial material".but this quantification is a representation of an amount of energy, not a representation of an amount of matter or mass, photons are considered "mass-less", meaning, they are not made of a substantial material that occupies space.
So, two or more particles with zero mass have a combined total of greater than zero mass? How is this an exception to the mathematical principle of 0+0=0? A photon is a particle of energy instead of a particle of matter such as a proton or electron, isn't it?System of at least two photons have non-zero mass so your reasoning is flawed.
1. Define "substantial material".
2. Energy is a property of particles/systems, not a particle (or whatever) itself. Photons also have momentum, so why do people seem to focus so much on the energy part and neglect other things? And it's always in a spirit like if massive particles didn't have energy...
Yes. Mass is the norm of the four-momentum. So the norm of a sum of four-vectors is greater than the sum of the norms of the original four-vectors. This is the four-vector equivalent of the triangle inequalitySo, two or more particles with zero mass have a combined total of greater than zero mass?
It is a different mathematical object. Mass is the norm of a four-vector, so it doesn’t add like a real number.How is this an exception to the mathematical principle of 0+0=0?
No.isn't momentum also energy?
You could say that, sure...Couldn’t you say that the light from let’s say a flashlight traveled a distance of d in say t time, and spread out into a cone shape taking up a volume of v space travelled in t time. Also in this case I assume that the flashlight stayed on and thus the light “takes up” that volume since if you stand anywhere in that volume of space you would see the light.