Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT : What happens to photons when

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    It's probably more accurate to say they don't have mass, but they share some traits with mass-bearing particles.

    Seriously, let's not get into quantum mechanics. Drop it here. Because if you're looking for the "why", you will only find "is".
    nothing can stop me now

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dirk View Post
      Think about our eyes. Our eyes don't fill up with photons as we get older, right? Light is obviously going in, and going *somewhere*, or becoming something else. Since a senior citizen's eyes don't glow in the dark, the photons must be absorbed and changed.
      .
      That's why in this case photons aren't behaving as particles, they're behaving as waves. Our eyes can no more fill up with photons than our ears can with particles of sound. Nothing is absorbed, nothing is changed.

      E=mc2 doesn't imply that mass and energy cannot exist independently. It's only a formula for how much energy is produced when mass is converted to energy.

      www.billfitzmaurice.com
      www.billfitzmaurice.info/forum

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by billfitzmaurice View Post
        That's why in this case photons aren't behaving as particles, they're behaving as waves. Our eyes can no more fill up with photons than our ears can with particles of sound. Nothing is absorbed, nothing is changed.

        E=mc2 doesn't imply that mass and energy cannot exist independently. It's only a formula for how much energy is produced when mass is converted to energy.
        I believe that photons (of a particular wavelengths) are absorbed by the eye's "rods" with the photons energy providing the rods's stimulus.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by billfitzmaurice View Post

          E=mc2 doesn't imply that mass and energy cannot exist independently. It's only a formula for how much energy is produced when mass is converted to energy.
          It's not even the complete formula. It's the "sound bite" version that looks good on chalkboards. The full version is E=(m+c)^2 * (p+c)^2. I think. I may be missing exponents. The p is the momentum.
          nothing can stop me now

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Millstonemike View Post
            I believe that photons (of a particular wavelengths) are absorbed by the eye's "rods" with the photons energy providing the rods's stimulus.
            The eye's photoreceptors convert energy provided by the light waves into electrical impulses, which provide the brain with the necessary information to interpret the information carried by the light waves. Juts like the ears the eyes are transducers.
            www.billfitzmaurice.com
            www.billfitzmaurice.info/forum

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by View Post
              Ridiculous sophistry. Mathematics is not physics. You cannot transfer energy without mass being involved. When atoms lose mass in fusion reactions, it leaves in the form of high energy photons. Moving mass = energy.

              Einstein wasn't convinced he was right. So yeah, I'm as smart as Einstein since I agree with him. Besides, Einstein was terrible at math. That's why he hired mathematicians to do the grunt work.

              The equation for momentum p=mv. That pesky mass just doesn't seem to want to go anywhere.
              R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

              Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


              95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
              Gravity is an overrated force on the cosmic scale. Physicists are missing the bigger picture. They fell into a black hole and were never seen advancing the understanding of the cosmos again.

              Comment


              • #22
                Ok, so would you say that an incandescent light bulb will never lose mass over its lifetime?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Pete Schumacher View Post

                  Ridiculous sophistry. Mathematics is not physics. You cannot transfer energy without mass being involved. When atoms lose mass in fusion reactions, it leaves in the form of high energy photons. Moving mass = energy.

                  Einstein wasn't convinced he was right. So yeah, I'm as smart as Einstein since I agree with him. Besides, Einstein was terrible at math. That's why he hired mathematicians to do the grunt work.

                  The equation for momentum p=mv. That pesky mass just doesn't seem to want to go anywhere.
                  Sophistry indeed when it comes to your opinion about Einsein. This story that he was bad at mathematics has been used by school children and the ill informed for years, an urban myth. He wasn't bad at mathematics. Have you looked at any of his mathematical proofs? He worked with other mathematicians to check his work because it was so far outside the realms of the then current thinking. Einstein said "I never failed in mathematics... Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus."

                  Einstein did however fail his first entrance exam into the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School (ETH) in 1895, when he was two years younger than his fellow students but scored exceedingly well in the mathematics and science sections, then passed on his second attempt. The reason he struggled was due to his French grammar being very weak.

                  He was also quoted as saying Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.. Which of course never suggested he was bad at math just struggling with higher ideas.

                  And no you're not as smart as Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    nigelb, Einstein always employed mathematicians to do the heavy lifting. That's not to say he was anything but brilliant. After all, he did win the Nobel for explaining the photoelectric effect.

                    But Einstein was not convinced that his theory of Relativity was correct because it led to nonsensical results like infinite density. On that subject, I wholeheartedly agree. At least he was honest. It seems his adherents thought they knew more than Einstein about his own theory.

                    All one has to do to see how much difficulty present theory has with reality is to read the headlines when new discoveries come from the incredible machines pulling in the data from deep space. If scientists are regularly "astonished," "surprised," "will have to reconsider the foundations . . .," "impossible planet found," "quasar seen to emit 1000 times more energy than thought possible," when something new pops up, it means that the theory isn't very good at predicting what they find. Relativity and the Big Bang model of cosmology is so bad that they had to invent things like dark matter and dark energy to explain why it wasn't working. Basically, from the acceptance of Relativity as fact and the idea that photons have no mass, no major advances in the subjects have been made. That's 100 years and no marriage of Relativity and Quantum mechanics.

                    I'm not convinced.
                    R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

                    Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


                    95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
                    Gravity is an overrated force on the cosmic scale. Physicists are missing the bigger picture. They fell into a black hole and were never seen advancing the understanding of the cosmos again.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Pete Schumacher View Post
                      nigelb, Einstein always employed mathematicians to do the heavy lifting. That's not to say he was anything but brilliant. After all, he did win the Nobel for explaining the photoelectric effect.

                      But Einstein was not convinced that his theory of Relativity was correct because it led to nonsensical results like infinite density. On that subject, I wholeheartedly agree. At least he was honest. It seems his adherents thought they knew more than Einstein about his own theory.

                      All one has to do to see how much difficulty present theory has with reality is to read the headlines when new discoveries come from the incredible machines pulling in the data from deep space. If scientists are regularly "astonished," "surprised," "will have to reconsider the foundations . . .," "impossible planet found," "quasar seen to emit 1000 times more energy than thought possible," when something new pops up, it means that the theory isn't very good at predicting what they find. Relativity and the Big Bang model of cosmology is so bad that they had to invent things like dark matter and dark energy to explain why it wasn't working. Basically, from the acceptance of Relativity as fact and the idea that photons have no mass, no major advances in the subjects have been made. That's 100 years and no marriage of Relativity and Quantum mechanics.

                      I'm not convinced.
                      The compensation for Einstein's relativistic affect of gravity and speed on time is built into the GPS system.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The problem is that E = mc^2 implies that m is the relativistic mass. More generally, E^2 = (m0c^2) + (pc)^2, where m0 is the rest mass and p is the particle momentum. For photons, m0 is zero and the energy is just equal to the partial momentum time c. For a photon, the energy is proportional to the photon's electromagnetic frequency, E = hc/w = hf, where h is Planks constant,w is the wave length and f is the frequency. Since E also = pc, it follows that p =h/w.

                        When a photon strikes an object, it can be absorbed or reflected. Objects appear of a specific color because they reflect photons with frequency of that color while absorbing all photons with other frequencies. The absorbed photons' energy appears as heat in the object. That heat is then radiated to the environment as photons of varying frequency, depending on the objects temperature. At lower temperatures the radiation tends to be primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum and is not visible light. As the object heats up, the photons released are more energetic and, therefore, of higher frequency and eventually in the visible light spectrum. For example, a piece of steel left in the sun gets hot but still looks the same color. But heat it with a torch and it will glow red, then orange, then yellow as it gets hotter and hotter because the radiated photons have more energy thus, higher frequency in the visible light range. (This is a bit of an over simplification.)
                        John k.... Music and Design NaO dsp Dipole Loudspeakers.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Pete Schumacher View Post
                          Despite what Einstein said about light being "massless," his own equation, E=mc^2 shows that nothing is without mass. You can't have energy without mass. And since photons carry momentum, they do indeed have mass.

                          Light absorbed on a material is converted to heat, or it moves electrons in the case of the photoelectric effect. Heat is motion of atoms and electricity is motion of electrons.
                          Blah, blah, blah. Don't you have some essays to write?
                          ​I backed down your erroneous statements with something other than argumentative opinions. Show me your proof, as in put up or shut up.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by nigelb View Post

                            Sophistry indeed when it comes to your opinion about Einsein. This story that he was bad at mathematics has been used by school children and the ill informed for years, an urban myth. He wasn't bad at mathematics. Have you looked at any of his mathematical proofs? He worked with other mathematicians to check his work because it was so far outside the realms of the then current thinking. Einstein said "I never failed in mathematics... Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus."

                            Einstein did however fail his first entrance exam into the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School (ETH) in 1895, when he was two years younger than his fellow students but scored exceedingly well in the mathematics and science sections, then passed on his second attempt. The reason he struggled was due to his French grammar being very weak.

                            He was also quoted as saying “Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.”. Which of course never suggested he was bad at math just struggling with higher ideas.

                            And no you're not as smart as Einstein
                            Amen brother!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by johngalt47 View Post
                              Ok, so would you say that an incandescent light bulb will never lose mass over its lifetime?
                              Not only does an incandescent radiate light, it also radiates thermal energy, ie., heat. What particle with mass does that heat consist of? That revelation would certainly be Nobel Prize worthy.

                              www.billfitzmaurice.com
                              www.billfitzmaurice.info/forum

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by billfitzmaurice View Post
                                Not only does an incandescent radiate light, it also radiates thermal energy, ie., heat. What particle with mass does that heat consist of? That revelation would certainly be Nobel Prize worthy.
                                The particles with mass that come from the heat being fed by an energy source are emitted as photons. They carry away the energy delivered to the system by means of other matter in motion. In the case of a heater like a light bulb, electrons are being shoved through the filament being driven by some other source of energy causing an electric current to flow. Everything done to cause the photon to move has involved the motions of matter in an electromagnetic field. If a photon moves within an electromagnet field, it is matter in motion because it can do work on other matter. Photons have mass. One of the big errors created by the assumption of zero mass particles is that it leads to operations in mathematics that aren't allowed. You can't divide by zero. And something divided by zero does not equal infinity.

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhYsOQTfYEc
                                R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

                                Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


                                95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
                                Gravity is an overrated force on the cosmic scale. Physicists are missing the bigger picture. They fell into a black hole and were never seen advancing the understanding of the cosmos again.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X