The Light Wave Conspiracy Theory

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35622

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Question 1) Light has no rest mass. However it does have energy and its interactions involve this energy.

Question 2) Black holes absorb stuff that falls into it, not space itself.

Question 3) Light passing a black hole will bend, just like light passing near the sun or a star or a galaxy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

light according the quantum mechanics is both a particle and a wave at the same time. This should be moved to pseudoscience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

>> This should be moved to pseudoscience.

I disagree, this sould be in the Physics stream.

>> Question 1) Light has no rest mass. However it does have energy and its interactions involve this energy.


light has momentum, much as a sea wave has when it hits the shore.

EMR is another curious thing, damn, too many unexplained things.

 

>>EMR is another curious thing, damn, too many unexplained things

Yes, I agree.
My thoughts are that once we have an accurate description into the nature of emr, many of the other unknowns will also become apparent.
IMO, photons are only a property of a model and are not necessarily a particularly accurate representation of the process we observe as EMR.

 

even if light were not understood well, which it is, experiments with particle accelerators have show that as they accelerate particles toward the speed of light, the amount of energy needed to go faster goes up exponentially, and that infinite energy would be needed to get matter to travel as fast as light. Thus the light speed barrier is not theoretical like models of light, but is a proven fact! thus no alien conspiracy here, if alien found a way to travel faster then lights it is by some means that gets around the light speed barrier. Such as warping space/time, hyperspace travel, worm holes, ect.

 

My main contention with our current model of light are the properties bestowed upon the photon.
Its not a particularly credible set of parameters:
- No rest mass, which imparts momentum?
- A wave when it travels and a particle when it interacts?
Photons are a model dependant descriptor of observed phenomenon, that in my opinion, do not exist.
The imparted momentum and energy is very real, but we don't need this 'carrier' particle to account for these.

 

no its a wave and particle at the same time all the time. Experiments proves this:
http://web.phys.ksu.edu/vqmorig/tutorials/online/wave_part/
http://www.art-themagazine.com/ian/nonlinear/pages/slit.html

 

Its a matter of how much energy it take to move mass, it takes a exponential amount of energy that approaches infinite to move any mass at the speed of light, proven fact. This is because as it approaches the speed of light its time slows and at the speed of light time would stop for that mass.

you can lenses waves with a vortex in the middle of a pool of water try it. Same happens when light is bent by a large mass.

 

Thanks for the links- Interesting reading, but nothing that shows that light can be represented by waves and particle nature simultaneously.
(edit: haven't read it all yet)
It propagates as a wave, as shown by the single photon/electron passing through both slits (Youngs double slit experiment), but interacts as a particle.
When attempting to identify which slit the photon or electron pass through, the wave collapses and behaves as a particle.

 

you did not read it did you? by experiment light functions like a wave in the it can interfere with its self making interference patterns. But when light levels are dropped down to a few photons we see points of impact like a particle.

 

Hi WellCookedFetus,
don't really have to- Read it all before.
Lets see if we are talking about the same thing.
I'm asserting that even one photon cannot be classified as both a wave and particle at the same point in space and time.
Photons can interfere with themselves as evidenced by the time dependant interference pattern observed over a period of several emissions. They can be referred to as waves ( they have a frequency proportional to the difference in energy from the excited and stationary quantum states).
So you cannot really claim that light (even thought it can be quantized into photons) is both wave and particle instantaneously. The photons are also waves when traveling and only become particulate when colliding or 'observed'.

 

one photon is a particle and wave at the same time, in fact matter has both particle and wave properties. Read up on wave-particle duality theory and quantum mechanics.

 

>>one photon is a particle and wave at the same time

How would you go about observing this simultaneous nature.
As soon as you make the observation, it 'collapses' into a particle.

 

because of wave particle duality there is the uncertainty principle and you can't find the exact position of a particle if you no its speed and can't find its speed if you know its exact position.

 

So your saying that due to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, a particle has a certain precision in position/momentum or energy/time.
I'm not sure I understand the relevance to my point.
Your claiming that light can be simultaneously a wave and particle, because you assert the photons are particles. Is that correct.

 

no I was answering your question of "How would you go about observing this simultaneous nature." uncertainty principle happens because of matter and light have particle-wave duality.

 

I agree with that statement.
I disagree that the wave and particle nature of light can be shown to be 'simultaneously' observable.
If you know of any experiment that has shown both properties observable simultaneously, I'd appreciate a link.
Must go now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yes there posted above. Even single photon will not land after passing through a interferometer at points where the waves annihilate each other, this means that a single photon though it is absorbed like a particle had wave properties.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This only enhances my understanding that wave and particle properties cannot be evidenced 'simultaneously'.
Please note, you used the word ..."had" wave properties...
I agree with this, but at no time did we experimentally determine a wave and particle property at the same time.