Trapped Light

[Klaynos]

Klaynos

 

I know the photon is timeless... but how does this relate? Elaborate please, also be cautionary, that the freezing of time is only significant to its frame of reference.

 

Swanson

 

Meh

 

Particles that are timeless cannot change. So if a particles energy changes then it must have changed in time (even in the time of the frame of thing), as the photon is timeless there is no time for it to change so a photons energy cannot change without it being absorbed and re-emitted. This is one of the main arguments for neutrinos having masses.

[Graviphoton]

Swanson

 

Then teach me something.

[ydoaPs]

yes, it was.

[swansont]

Photons are defined as energy. Strange you would say they aren't? Why is it that we talk about a system loosing energy through electradiation? In some manner, we must believe that the photon is a unit of energy, or E=Mc^2 is meaningless when describing a photon to lets say, a protino.

 

Photons can have any energy, depending on their frequency. They cannot be a unit of energy. They are certainly not defined as energy; energy has spin 1? Energy only interacts via the electromagnetic force? How does that work?

[Graviphoton]

Klaynos

 

Right, hold it there. You hit it on the button. How does a timeless particle evolve into a particle that does, when you state: Particles that are timeless cannot change? You make a point of absorption and emmision, but not ''decay''.

 

You cannot remove the energy of a photon, because the photon is the energu it makes up. Its a simple unit, that cannot be simplified any more.

[swansont]

Swanson

 

Then teach me something.

 

Meh

[Graviphoton]

Look, i am not going to argue this anymore. The both of you are arguing that the photon is something like a shell, that contains energy. Its not. Its diffused matter. It is energy.

[Klaynos]

Klaynos

 

Right, hold it there. You hit it on the button. How does a timeless particle evolve into a particle that does, when you state: Particles that are timeless cannot change? You make a point of absorption and emmision, but not ''decay''.

 

Yes, because decay indicates spontanious which can't happen as timelessness, but the photon can be absorbed by a particle-anti-particle pair in the vacuum fluctuations

 

You cannot remove the energy of a photon, because the photon is the energu it makes up. Its a simple unit, that cannot be simplified any more.

 

Sentence two does not follow from sentence 1, the photon is NOT energy.

[Graviphoton]

Your Dad

 

Yes, if you kick a ball, not only are electrons and photons exchanged with the ball, but the ball will also realease energy due to the action taken.

[iNow]

Graviphoton - Repeating yourself adds no validity to an invalid claim.

[Klaynos]

Look, i am not going to argue this anymore. The both of you are arguing that the photon is something like a shell, that contains energy. Its not. Its diffused matter. It is energy.

 

Do you have any references to back yourself up?

[Graviphoton]

Again

 

''Look, i am not going to argue this anymore. The both of you are arguing that the photon is something like a shell, that contains energy. Its not. Its diffused matter. It is energy.''

 

What really is the big deal anyway. First you all doubted the validity of matter being made from light, requiring a reference, which you finally got, amonf other references.

 

You have now agreed that light came first, and logic PURE UTTER GODDAMN LOGIC, indicates that these photons gave rise to matter with a rest mass, so now whats the problem...

 

oh yes, we are squabbling over the terminology of a friggin photon. This is very clever.

[mooeypoo]

Again

 

''Look, i am not going to argue this anymore. The both of you are arguing that the photon is something like a shell, that contains energy. Its not. Its diffused matter. It is energy.''

 

What really is the big deal anyway. First you all doubted the validity of matter being made from light, requiring a reference, which you finally got, amonf other references.

 

You have now agreed that light came first, and logic PURE UTTER GODDAMN LOGIC, indicates that these photons gave rise to matter with a rest mass, so now whats the problem...

 

oh yes, we are squabbling over the terminology of a friggin photon. This is very clever.

 

USE QUOTES!

 

You know how, you have no excuse, it is VERY inconvinient and very unfair to quote people like that. We need reference to what they said FULLY (hence,their original post) and we cannot have it without the quotation. Please use PROPER quotes. You know how, we've discussed this many times. It's part of the rules, which you should STILL read.

 

Now: Not all references are equal. Theories and claims are judged by their contents, not by their origin. The origin helps in assessing (preliminary assessment) how well-constructed the contents ARE.

 

Ces tout.

 

I can quote all I want from Harry Potter. That will do me no justice, nor will it prove my point, or my theories.

 

The fact you gave a reference (finally) does not mean you are done with proving your point. It means that now we (finally) have *another* source to analyze. Which we did. And it failed.

 

Seriously, you should read the rules and follow them. Logical fallacies and the creation of your own set of a random 'convenient' scientific method is not scientific. And it does not belong in this forum. Not in this post, not in other threads, not in any threads. Follow the rules.

 

~moo

[Klaynos]

Again

 

''Look, i am not going to argue this anymore. The both of you are arguing that the photon is something like a shell, that contains energy. Its not. Its diffused matter. It is energy.''

 

What really is the big deal anyway. First you all doubted the validity of matter being made from light, requiring a reference, which you finally got, amonf other references.

 

The problem has always been matter = trapped photons. Other references we can't find...?

 

You have now agreed that light came first, and logic PURE UTTER GODDAMN LOGIC, indicates that these photons gave rise to matter with a rest mass, so now whats the problem...

 

I think again the problem is your conclusion. Which doesn't apparently follow logically.

 

oh yes, we are squabbling over the terminology of a friggin photon. This is very clever.

 

Well terminology and definitions are rather important when trying to convey ideas. It also has significant relevance to your conclusions. So by trying to show you how your premise is wrong we're trying to make you think through the whole thing and come to the same conclusion as us. Or at least I think that's what we're trying....

[Graviphoton]

USE QUOTES!

 

You know how, you have no excuse, it is VERY inconvinient and very unfair to quote people like that. We need reference to what they said FULLY (hence,their original post) and we cannot have it without the quotation. Please use PROPER quotes. You know how, we've discussed this many times. It's part of the rules, which you should STILL read.

 

Now: Not all references are equal. Theories and claims are judged by their contents, not by their origin. The origin helps in assessing (preliminary assessment) how well-constructed the contents ARE.

 

Ces tout.

 

I can quote all I want from Harry Potter. That will do me no justice, nor will it prove my point, or my theories.

 

The fact you gave a reference (finally) does not mean you are done with proving your point. It means that now we (finally) have *another* source to analyze. Which we did. And it failed.

 

Seriously, you should read the rules and follow them. Logical fallacies and the creation of your own set of a random 'convenient' scientific method is not scientific. And it does not belong in this forum. Not in this post, not in other threads, not in any threads. Follow the rules.

 

~moo

 

To be fair to me, i never qouted anyone in this case

[Klaynos]

To be fair to me, i never qouted anyone in this case

 

Except yourself.

[Graviphoton]

The problem has always been matter = trapped photons. Other references we can't find...?

 

 

 

I think again the problem is your conclusion. Which doesn't apparently follow logically.

 

 

 

Well terminology and definitions are rather important when trying to convey ideas. It also has significant relevance to your conclusions. So by trying to show you how your premise is wrong we're trying to make you think through the whole thing and come to the same conclusion as us. Or at least I think that's what we're trying....

 

Well, since matter is defined as M, and photons as E, (since photons are energy), then E=Mc^2 is analogous to matter=trapped photons.

[iNow]

You apparently missed my post #64.

[Graviphoton]

Except yourself.

 

 

Oh yes... well... should i necesserily count?

[Klaynos]

Well, since matter is defined as M, and photons as E, (since photons are energy), then E=Mc^2 is analogous to matter=trapped photons.

 

Photons are not energy.

 

E=mc² should not be used when discussing photons.

 

E=mc² is used in all the nuclear binding energy and semi-emperical mass forumla stuff and there sure as hell ain't no photons involved there (except some virtual photons in the coulomb term of the SEMF but they are a very very small effect)....

[Graviphoton]

You apparently missed my post #64.

Yes, well, everything moves so fast here. People don't generally give time for anyone, unless it is asked for

 

Don't forget that E=mc^2 is a simplified version of the equation. It is actually:

 

[math]E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4[/math]

 

I did reply to this.

 

Klaynos

 

We shouldn't, but i have.

[mooeypoo]

To be fair to me, i never qouted anyone in this case

My point exactly. I have no clue anymore who says what and when, which is why you need quotations. Even when you quote your own post. Either that, or SAY "I said" and preferably add a quote number if you say that.

 

Seriously, you're being confusing enough as it is, and it really does seem that you ignore some posts here, not only because of the speed of things (some questions repeated themselves which you didn't answer).

 

Just play fair and debate fair.

 

~moo

[Klaynos]

Klaynos

 

We shouldn't, but i have.

 

So any conclusions you draw afterwards are invalid.

[Graviphoton]

But just to clear any misunderstanding,

 

In physics jargon, the mass of an object is called its 'invariant mass,' and the photon has no invariant mass. Now, a massless particle can have energy and it can have momentum, simply because mass is related to these through the equation E^2 = M^2c^4 + p^2c^2, which is subsequently zero-mass for a photon because E = pc for massless radiatiation. So yes, the photon has momenta and energy, and can deliver a punch out of it when it hits a surface, but it doesn't have mass.

 

But since the photon is energy, you plug the same variables into the equation above, with the added knowledge that if you use E=Mc^2 to describe the relationship between matter and energy, a proton and a photon, then these subtle things should be known. But if you have no eye for detail in physics, it will possibly never concern you.

 

My point exactly. I have no clue anymore who says what and when, which is why you need quotations. Even when you quote your own post. Either that, or SAY "I said" and preferably add a quote number if you say that.

 

Seriously, you're being confusing enough as it is, and it really does seem that you ignore some posts here, not only because of the speed of things (some questions repeated themselves which you didn't answer).

 

Just play fair and debate fair.

 

~moo

 

Well, i think i have tried extra harder tonight to answer everyone.

[mooeypoo]

Excuse me, but isn't Invariant Mass the mass of an object at rest? Combination of energy and momentum to give a value of the mass of a particle at rest, if i remember correctly.

 

A photon cannot be at rest, so it's "invariant mass" is irrelevant.

 

E=mc^2 is true for mass at *REST*.

 

here's a good link: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html

(excerpt:)

Do photons have mass? Because the equations E=mc2, and E=hf, imply that m=hf/c2 . Is it so?

 

The Answer

No, photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc2.

 

This equation often enters theoretical work in X-ray and Gamma-ray astrophysics, for example in Compton scattering where photons are treated as particles colliding with electrons.

 

Andy Ptak

 

Now, while all this is true, jumping from "A photon has energy" to "A photon is energy" is simply unbased and an illogical leap.

 

~moo