Why does light bend?
- Thread starter KneD
- Start date
About KOLUET...
KneD,
Remembers me my ideas...
The whole concept of Universe as only energy and mass as a type of energy can be seen in my posts...
I'm not used to use the term "lock up"... but anyways...
In the vacuum is above c. The light is the limit of the physical world. Beyond light, anything can be detected because beyond light we are dealing with the fifth dimension, beyond space-time, which has an energy above c. That's the true nature of the vacuum. There's definetly energies above the speed of light, as there are particles that come from the vacuum, as they lose energy. When they lose energy, they become material. It's something like photons in atoms...
In my conception, mass is a low form of energy, because as high the energy is, as highter speeds it will move. We all know that we move pretty slow compared to an electron... So, the electron has more energy than us and moves in a highter "dimension". The photon moves in the fourth. Something moves in the fith, and as we can't detect it, we recognize it as vacuum. But there is something in the "vacuum". In the air we breath, there are trillions of atoms. In the vacuum, there are trillions of... something else than we have no idea what it is. Hundreds of years ago, we though that the air was "vacuum" because we couldn't detect atoms. Now we think that vacuum is empty because we can't detect either. But we are starting to see that vacuum is the place of Creation. It's not something physical... but there is something there...
It's simple...
Third dimension: less then c
Fourth dimension: c
Fith dimension: more then c
Sixth dimension: ...wait a minute! Let's see the fifth first!
Love,
Nelson
KneD,
Remembers me my ideas...
The whole concept of Universe as only energy and mass as a type of energy can be seen in my posts...
I'm not used to use the term "lock up"... but anyways...
In the vacuum is above c. The light is the limit of the physical world. Beyond light, anything can be detected because beyond light we are dealing with the fifth dimension, beyond space-time, which has an energy above c. That's the true nature of the vacuum. There's definetly energies above the speed of light, as there are particles that come from the vacuum, as they lose energy. When they lose energy, they become material. It's something like photons in atoms...
In my conception, mass is a low form of energy, because as high the energy is, as highter speeds it will move. We all know that we move pretty slow compared to an electron...
So, the electron has more energy than us and moves in a highter "dimension". The photon moves in the fourth. Something moves in the fith, and as we can't detect it, we recognize it as vacuum. But there is something in the "vacuum". In the air we breath, there are trillions of atoms. In the vacuum, there are trillions of... something else than we have no idea what it is. Hundreds of years ago, we though that the air was "vacuum" because we couldn't detect atoms. Now we think that vacuum is empty because we can't detect either. But we are starting to see that vacuum is the place of Creation. It's not something physical... but there is something there...It's simple...
Third dimension: less then c
Fourth dimension: c
Fith dimension: more then c
Sixth dimension: ...wait a minute! Let's see the fifth first!
Love,
Nelson
I prefer to say that mass has more energy than light, and light has more energy than particles with speeds c+
why? because I think that an energy-form that has the most influence on other energy, and causes the most important and significant reactions etc. in the universe will have the most energy.
And about my term 'locked-up', what I actually mean is more like a fase of energy......
Nelson, we are right!
why? because I think that an energy-form that has the most influence on other energy, and causes the most important and significant reactions etc. in the universe will have the most energy.
And about my term 'locked-up', what I actually mean is more like a fase of energy......
Nelson, we are right!
(Q),
What were you saying...?
Love,
Nelson
What were you saying...?
Love,
Nelson
KneD,
I think you are actually looking at gravity... not mass.
That's why I allways said that gravity is the strongest force in the Universe...
And, yes, you can look at matter as more important even though because... we are made by it!
Love,
Nelson
I think you are actually looking at gravity... not mass.
That's why I allways said that gravity is the strongest force in the Universe...
And, yes, you can look at matter as more important even though because... we are made by it!
Love,
Nelson
Last edited:
That's why I allways said that gravity is the strongest force in the Universe...
Nope.
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1988/illpres/four.html
Nope.
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1988/illpres/four.html
(Q),
That's just our nowdays conception...
As the Physics evoultes, we might see that it's not right.
Many ideas in physics completly changed.
Once we though that Earth wasn't a sphere.
If you tell someone that time that the Earth was a sphere... they would call you crazy or perhaps judge you as a whicht or something like that...
Only because we have an idea of reality today, it doesn't mean it'll never change...
Btw... good site...
Love,
Nelson
That's just our nowdays conception...
As the Physics evoultes, we might see that it's not right.
Many ideas in physics completly changed.
Once we though that Earth wasn't a sphere.
If you tell someone that time that the Earth was a sphere... they would call you crazy or perhaps judge you as a whicht or something like that...
Only because we have an idea of reality today, it doesn't mean it'll never change...
Btw... good site...
Love,
Nelson
hmmm, I quess (Q) has a point here.....
Gravity seems to be the strongest force just because mass is the only thing in space that is bad organised......the average charge in space is the same everywhere....
The reason mass is concentrated so strange is offcourse pretty logical, because of the weak power of gravity...
But......the other forces also have to do with energy in mass-form an electron and protons have mass, and are the basics for the weak and strong forces.
I am not completely sure about the electromagnetic force, that is important for our particles/energy/radiation with speed=c. But also for atoms isn't it???
I still keep on saying mass-energy has the largest amount of energy:
Nelson, when you said I meant gravity, I actually meant that mass has so much energy because it is able to create forces like gravity.
btw, (Q), great site!
Gravity seems to be the strongest force just because mass is the only thing in space that is bad organised......the average charge in space is the same everywhere....
The reason mass is concentrated so strange is offcourse pretty logical, because of the weak power of gravity...
But......the other forces also have to do with energy in mass-form an electron and protons have mass, and are the basics for the weak and strong forces.
I am not completely sure about the electromagnetic force, that is important for our particles/energy/radiation with speed=c. But also for atoms isn't it???
I still keep on saying mass-energy has the largest amount of energy:
Nelson, when you said I meant gravity, I actually meant that mass has so much energy because it is able to create forces like gravity.
btw, (Q), great site!
Counterbalance
Registered Senior Member
Thank you, Q.
Thank you for the link, and thank you for not declaring that what scientists think now, is what scientists will always think.
Thank you for not giving "us" a reason to caution you against thinking in certain ways, in certain directions; thoughts "we" wouldn't want you to think!
And finally, thank you for thinking.
Period.
~~~
Counterbalance
Last edited:
It seems that you have covered most of the topic here but I'll add my own explaination here anyway, since I have nothing to do.
As you should know light can be represented either as a particle or a wave. When it comes to interactions on a very small scale the wavelike property is most significant. The wavelike representation can be seen as a probability distribution. That means that is not absolutely certain in what direction the photon-wave will travel, one only knows the probability that it will travel in that direction. (If nothing acts or surrounds the particle then it is most likely to travel straight.)
When the photon-wave comes across an obstacle or is in the vicinity(?) of other particles (such as a corner or a small hole), this probability distribution is altered to fit the world around it. So when light hits a corner it behaves much like a water wave would do around a corner and bends around the corner slightly.
As you should know light can be represented either as a particle or a wave. When it comes to interactions on a very small scale the wavelike property is most significant. The wavelike representation can be seen as a probability distribution. That means that is not absolutely certain in what direction the photon-wave will travel, one only knows the probability that it will travel in that direction. (If nothing acts or surrounds the particle then it is most likely to travel straight.)
When the photon-wave comes across an obstacle or is in the vicinity(?) of other particles (such as a corner or a small hole), this probability distribution is altered to fit the world around it. So when light hits a corner it behaves much like a water wave would do around a corner and bends around the corner slightly.
I can not decide if photons have mass or not, but I think tht this is the case (for now )
Photons have no mass and when we see photons(light) affected (close to the sun stars appear to be in different possition) by the gravity we really are seeing how gravity affects timespace. Photons travel in timespace. Gravity bends timespace, photons seem to change their dirrection when really it is all timespace which changes.
)Photons have no mass and when we see photons(light) affected (close to the sun stars appear to be in different possition) by the gravity we really are seeing how gravity affects timespace. Photons travel in timespace. Gravity bends timespace, photons seem to change their dirrection when really it is all timespace which changes.
Avatar,
That's the simplest an most complete definition I've ever seen...
But doesn't explain the problem of the hole in the paper...
itchy's one is good too.
Welcome to sciforums itchy!
Love,
Nelson
That's the simplest an most complete definition I've ever seen...
But doesn't explain the problem of the hole in the paper...
itchy's one is good too.
Welcome to sciforums itchy!
Love,
Nelson
Yeah tht hole I know
I like these kind of a problems
makes you think.
Michael Chrichton in a sci-fi novel "Time travelers" (I suppose it was called like tht) proposed (from a different person) tht two holes-four spots phenomen might be explained like this-------
Photons are partciples. when one partciple collides with other they both are affected by tht collision (their dirrection). So what he proposed was tht they collide with photons from other universes (universes in a different dimmension). Photons are so small tht they with their force can actually affect other universes.
Stephen Hawking suggested tht if other dimmensions exist the wormholes should be seen only in a subatomic level, because they are so small.
a little sophisticated by now. and considerate it to be a sci-fi novel and all tht, But Jules Verne was true at the end, MC could be also.
don't take this theory too seriously , I don't. this should better be defined as an assumption.
ok cheers! have to think a little(very much) on this,
THNX Seeker, you reminded me about this phenomenon
I like these kind of a problemsmakes you think.
Michael Chrichton in a sci-fi novel "Time travelers" (I suppose it was called like tht) proposed (from a different person) tht two holes-four spots phenomen might be explained like this-------
Photons are partciples. when one partciple collides with other they both are affected by tht collision (their dirrection). So what he proposed was tht they collide with photons from other universes (universes in a different dimmension). Photons are so small tht they with their force can actually affect other universes.
Stephen Hawking suggested tht if other dimmensions exist the wormholes should be seen only in a subatomic level, because they are so small.
a little sophisticated by now. and considerate it to be a sci-fi novel and all tht, But Jules Verne was true at the end, MC could be also.
don't take this theory too seriously , I don't. this should better be defined as an assumption.
ok cheers! have to think a little(very much) on this,
THNX Seeker, you reminded me about this phenomenon
I've heard about it.
Isn't there a anti-photon in the other Universe and a photon in ours?
I think it is...
Crazy stuff...
.
.
.
I Love it!!
Love,
Nelson
Isn't there a anti-photon in the other Universe and a photon in ours?
I think it is...
Crazy stuff...
.
.
.
I Love it!!
Love,
Nelson
You reminded me other thing: The Cat of Schoedinger.
The problem states that a whole Universe is created by a single photon!
Love,
Nelson
The problem states that a whole Universe is created by a single photon!
Love,
Nelson
KneD,
I've got this from another thread. It's pretty much my idea:
"The Laws of the "Universe" "
Love,
Nelson
I've got this from another thread. It's pretty much my idea:
"The Laws of the "Universe" "
Love,
Nelson
about those many universes
If the inflationary theory of cosmology is right - http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html
-------------------
This is Stephen Hawking's site, so don't accuse me of pseudo science.......
..................
We should have a new forum - - advanced science - -
If the inflationary theory of cosmology is right - http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html
-------------------
This is Stephen Hawking's site, so don't accuse me of pseudo science.......
..................
We should have a new forum - - advanced science - -
truthseeker, that's it
y mass = x energy
the einstein quotation gives us:
x = c^2y, but that is a little bit simplified I quess.
well, let's get back to the real topic: the slit problem.
I think i got my idea of it ready:
a monochromatic light source (laser) sends a beam of light to a slit. 'Waving photons' don't interact that much because of the monochromatic nature. Just a straight beam.
then we come to the slit, the outside photons are reflected, or absorbed, and a few photons/waves just hit the rim of the diafragma, and disturb the rest of the beam of photons.
This disturbance causes a change of directions of photons, all interacting, and moving different ways, spherical......that's the diffraction.
Am I getting myself a little bit clear here?
it also explains the smaller the slit the bigger the diffraction effect:
2 disturbed photons/waves (hitting the rim) have more affect on 100's of photons/waves than on 1000's of waves.
I think this can explain the problem...comments?
y mass = x energy
the einstein quotation gives us:
x = c^2y, but that is a little bit simplified I quess.
well, let's get back to the real topic: the slit problem.
I think i got my idea of it ready:
a monochromatic light source (laser) sends a beam of light to a slit. 'Waving photons' don't interact that much because of the monochromatic nature. Just a straight beam.
then we come to the slit, the outside photons are reflected, or absorbed, and a few photons/waves just hit the rim of the diafragma, and disturb the rest of the beam of photons.
This disturbance causes a change of directions of photons, all interacting, and moving different ways, spherical......that's the diffraction.
Am I getting myself a little bit clear here?
it also explains the smaller the slit the bigger the diffraction effect:
2 disturbed photons/waves (hitting the rim) have more affect on 100's of photons/waves than on 1000's of waves.
I think this can explain the problem...comments?