BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

A Puzzle

  
 
6opow
19:05 / 09.08.01
OK, here is something that I've been puzzling over for a little while, and was wondering if anyone out there in the electric ether could help out. Here goes:

1) We know that E = mc^2.
2) By the above, we know that there is a limiting factor on how fast something can travel in a vacuum; namely, c.
3) As well, by the above, anything with any sort of a mass at all is going to need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to c.

Now here is the puzzle: if a photon is a packet of energy, then how can it travel at c without having an infinite amount of energy to feed its velocity? Or alternatively, if the photon has a slight mass (as scientists assert it does) then how come every photon does not contain an infinite amount of energy?

In other words, how can light travel at c and yet still be anything more than nothing at all?
 
 
guyz
22:23 / 09.08.01
Late at night answer - I'll try & check up on details in the morning. A photon has zero "rest mass" - the mass it would have if it were stationary, so it doesn't get the problem of increasing mass with velocity.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: guyz ]
 
 
Wombat
05:52 / 10.08.01
From
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/aphymis.html

Does light have weight if gravity can bend it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, in a way. Gravity acts upon the total energy of a physical system, not just the part that we can discern as the bulk mass of the system. This means that many different kinds of energy, taken together, contribute to the total gravitational force that a body feels. Usually the mass of a body it the biggest contributor, but in the case of light which has no 'rest mass' but is 100 percent electromagnetic energy, it is the electgromagnetic energy which determines how strongly it will be affected by a gravitational field. Another way to look at this is that the energy of light is given by E = h x c/wavelength where c = speed of light and h = Plancks Constant. But E = m c^2 so that light can be thought of as having an 'effective' or 'equivalent' mass given by m = h /(c x wavelength). Light does have 'weight' but it is best not to think of it that way. The real point is that energy produces gravity and the form of the energy is not important.
 
 
guyz
17:18 / 10.08.01
Cool site...
 
 
6opow
19:57 / 10.08.01
Yeah, that site looks fab, I'll give it a better look later...

Wombat, you show that light has mass, but then you say that "it is best not to think of it that way," but this is exactly what I am puzzled about. If we can show that light has mass, then how can we not think about it that way?

You also say that energy produces gravity (which I am in agreeance with) but by the equivalence of energy and mass, mass creates gravity as well (only pointing this out). Gravity, as far as my understanding goes, is the degree of curvature of space around an object with mass (or energy). Anything that exists bends space, right (and this leads to an interesting consideration: if space and time are a continuum, then anything that exists bends space, and warps time)? So, if a photon is merely a packet of energy, which traverses bent space (near objects occupying areas of space), and if energy bends space, then does each individual photon contribute some degree of curvature to the space around it?
 
 
Mordant Carnival
09:00 / 11.08.01
'Kin'ell.

You lot know bloody everything

 
 
6opow
08:23 / 12.08.01
Had a look at that site and, well, ya' can't judge the contents of a web page by the names of its links! What I mean is, for a NASA project, it is full of typos and brief statements which do not always accurately portray the information meant to be conveyed (or perhaps that Faces on Mars guy isn't too far off when he says NASA stands for "Never A Straight Answer"). That said, there is some good stuff there, but some of it, I think, is misleading...

Wombat, I realize now that your post is from the website you link to (I guess that's what the lines were for). Thanks for the attempt to assist though!

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: the godog ]
 
 
Tom Coates
08:23 / 12.08.01
Isn't the point that light DOESN'T have mass, but that gravity doesn't pull things towards it, it merely bends space. Hence light 'falls' towards / around large mass entities...
 
 
SMS
02:18 / 13.08.01
We have determined that the photon has a mass less than 2*10^-16 eV. To put this into persepctive, the electron mass is about 0.510 Million eV.

I take these to be rest masses.

I can't quite remember the formula to transform from one frame to another, but it would surprise me greatly if a particle with no mass in one frame could suddenly have mass in another.

A photon will interact (theoretically) with a graviton, and thus respond to gravity, but it doesn't need t have mass in and of itself to do so. Mass is caused, we think, by higgs particles.

I hope I've got that right.

In any case, none of it really answers the question if we say that a photon has energy. Shouldn't I be able to say that it has mass as well? Shouldn't I then be able to suggest that it cannot travel quite to the speed c? All I can really guess is that, if this is the case, then we don't have any way to test it.

Ask again in about a year.
 
 
guyz
13:44 / 13.08.01
I think this comes down to what we mean by mass. A photon has zero rest mass, but it carries energy and momentum. This energy is equivalent to a mass given Einstein's equations. When the photon hits an object, that object recoils - you can measure this using a thin sheet of foil in a vacuum. If you shine a light on it, the foil feels a slight force. These are "mass like" effects - the photon is acting like an object with mass.

[ 13-08-2001: Message edited by: guyz ]
 
 
Wombat
14:12 / 13.08.01
I`d allways thought that E = mc^2 meant that mass and energy were inraconvertable rather than mass is energy.

Mass bends space-time and this is what effects the path of light near large masses.
(or gravity effects all energy or exchanges bosons with all energy.....whatever is simplest at the time to use)

So photons have no mass. They do distort the area around them to a tiny degree due to their energy. It takes no energy to accelarate a photon since it has no rest mass.

A further question though.

A moving electric field creates a magnetic field. A moving magnetic field produces an electric field. Hence electromagnetic fields propogate. (ie photons)

But, a field is only potential. It has no existance until a particle is placed into it.

How can a star that burned out millions of years ago produce a field that interacts with my eye (or other detector) right now?

It looks like I`ve misunderstood the entire concept of fields. Can anyone point me in the correct direction?
 
 
Wombat
14:22 / 13.08.01
*slaps forehead*
I remember now. Virtual particles. They interact with the field all the way from the star to the eye.
I`ll just shut up and go back to sleep.
 
 
guyz
14:33 / 13.08.01
*Also slaps forehead*

Apparently my physics is rather dated - 10 years out of college and getting crusty.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/photon_mass.html

quote: This question comes up in the context of wondering whether
photons are really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy
and energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.
The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions of
mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that
photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a "relativistic
mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength. This is based upon
an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not strictly wrong, is not
used much today.
 
 
6opow
19:10 / 13.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Tom Coates:
Isn't the point that light DOESN'T have mass, but that gravity doesn't pull things towards it, it merely bends space. Hence light 'falls' towards / around large mass entities...

Yes, gravity is only a name that we give to a force (I am very suspect about the existence of gravitons) which is actually bent space-time under the GTR (general theory of relativity). The kicker (at least to me) is that everything is falling through warped space-time: we stick to the earth's surface because the collection of stuff that is us is seeking the easiest route to the centre of a portion of radically bent space-time.

quote:Originally posted by SMatthewStolte:
Shouldn't I be able to say that it has mass as well? Shouldn't I then be able to suggest that it cannot travel quite to the speed c?

Yes, this is part of what I am puzzling over.

Now: some want to say that a photon only has a relativistic mass, but is this is not a strict mass; in other words, the photon is really massless. OK. Now we have all this wacky talk of virtual particles, yet, it becomes apparent that over some stretch of time, there is a constant fluctuation at the quantum level whereby no particle maintains a steady identity with itself, but instead engages in a constant dance through the exchange of these virtual particles. Thus, there is not one type of subatomic particle that has a "real" existence, but only a temporary existence due to its manifestation as a collection of virtual particles.

Now, I'm not very well versed in field theory, but it seems that what we call a field (or as has been pointed out, potential) is nothing more than the possibility that there can exist some virtual particle(s) in such and such section of space-time. It appears that the virtual particles become actual by some combination of potential; in other words, as is suggested by string theory, particles are collections of superimposed oscillations of energy. This energy appears to be the outcome of the potentials of the given field.

Thus, it seems as if all mass is but an illusion that manifests through the interaction of potentials; that is, it seems as if we can not separate a "relativistic" mass from some sort of "true" or "absolute" mass. Which makes my original question of, "...how can light...be anything more than nothing at all" extend to include, "how can anything be more than nothing at all?"
 
 
Wombat
05:34 / 14.08.01
OK. how about the big rubber sheet metaphor.
Mass causes the rubber sheet to bend. A photon would be a ripple in the sheet. (as if you flicked it at a point). It doesn`t have mass , but it does have a velocity and can effect the masses on the sheet very much like a moving mass. The masses exist, the photon exists, the rubber sheet exists.

I`m failing to see how any of these things can be described as nothing. Missing your point big time. Sorry, I`m a bit thick and it`s very early.

Or are you suggesting that everything is just ripples in space-time? Mass is big slow ripples and photons little fast ripples. All interacting with each other both forwards and backwards in time? (Cool idea. i`m sure it`s not true, but can`t prove it off the top of my head)
 
 
6opow
06:05 / 14.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Wombat:
I`m failing to see how any of these things can be described as nothing. Missing your point big time.

That is OK, because I am still trying to figure out exactly what I want to say within the context of the tools and interpretations of modern physics.

quote:Originally posted by Wombat:
Or are you suggesting that everything is just ripples in space-time? Mass is big slow ripples and photons little fast ripples. All interacting with each other both forwards and backwards in time? (Cool idea. i`m sure it`s not true, but can`t prove it off the top of my head)

You are certainly not the least "bit thick" if this is what you have derived from this thread as presented thus far: you are fairly close to what I am thinking in your use of the term 'ripples'. I would put it like this though: everything is simply ripples ofspace-time. Part of my interest lies in trying to show that Einstein was correct to think that everything is composed of light, and also to show that light itself is nothing whereby an identity is shared between nothing and everything (or zero = infinity).

[ 14-08-2001: Message edited by: the godog ]
 
 
Wombat
06:34 / 14.08.01
Like the idea of ripples of space-time.

I`m gonna expand that to include many worlds.
Layers of space-time created by quantum events that interact with wave functions (as utilised by quantum computers, tunneling diodes and the human brain)

then I`m going to add in creation of baby universes via black holes. This makes the amount of space-times vast and infinite.(called a multiverse -because I can`t think of a better word)

Using godogs ripple theory, all physical laws are generated by the structure of this multiverse and it has no content. If this structure has a fractal nature, then it is infinitly big but has no content only structure.

(like the fractal where you remove the centre ninth from every square and repeat forever....ending up with an infinitly long boundary and no surface area.)
 
 
6opow
06:52 / 14.08.01
AHA! I like where you are going Wombat. I'm very interested in fractals, and recently (earlier this year) wrote a paper about the fractal structure of the universe. The distinction you make between the infinite complexity of the structure but the lack of content is excellent: it fits what I'm thinking about like a glove--gonna' let it roll around in my head for awhile...

What is really, really cool (if you're into this area of human pursuit) is to take Jung's idea of the archetype of the Self (which, he asserts is the archetype from which all other complexes in the psyche derive, and is itself empty) and equate it with what you have called the multiverse (I also seek to promote the collapse of the mind-body problem/ paradox; that is, to dissolve the distinction between the internal and the external).

[ 14-08-2001: Message edited by: the godog ]
 
 
Wombat
07:26 / 14.08.01
As far as the mind/body problem is concerned I`m currently favouring pembrose`s emporers new mind theory.

I can see the connection with jungs archtype of self on an intuitive level, but can`t make it work at the hard science level. I`ll let it rattle round my head for a while.
If you can help me wrap my head around the concept then it would make me a happy bunny.
 
 
6opow
07:43 / 14.08.01
I'm not aware of Pembrose's theory (although I've heard of the name).

As far as getting Jung to hook into hard science, I'm afraid I can only offer you metaphysics. A problem we create for ourselves is dividing our knowledge into special categories, and then thinking that these catagories have little in common with one another: my ideas about archetypes, spacetime, and such, violate people's areas of specialization; thus, such ideas are not at all well received. As well, as these ideas cross boundaries through their synthesis, I don't think that they are reducible to fit inside one of the paradigms of specialization; in other words, I am doubtful that archetypes and multiverses are able to be expressed in the box of "hard science."

Should we start a new thread on this (as we have moved out of the original puzzle)? Or should we simply continue on in this thread (it is a thread I started, after all, does this allow me to break the rules regarding that dreaded thread rot?)?

Are you wanting more details on Jung, or do you want more details on what I think about the relation between this multiverse and the archetype of the Self?
 
 
Wombat
07:53 / 14.08.01
Metaphysics is fine. I know what you mean about crossing boundaries. I didn`t want a "hard science" explanation. Just some kind of crossing point. The way I see it (at the moment) is that the universe contains a brain, the brain contains a model of part of the universe and archetypes. Can`t make the jump to universe being archtype. (Can see how the archtype is similar to the universe though)

My knowledge of Jung is a little flaky.(read a few books and only his papers on synchronicity all many years ago). Can you explain your theories on the connection of self and multiverse. if my jung fails I won`t hesitate to ask dumb questions.

As for the thread. Do what you like. It`s your thread.
 
 
6opow
08:36 / 14.08.01
Here is a start:

It is not that the universe is an archetype, or vice-versa, but that they are different ways of interpreting the same thing. Perhaps try to think of the universe not as containing a brain, but as a mind; however, this mind (before space-time) is in an enlightened state: it is "no mind." In other words, it is a consciousness that is not conscious of anything; that is, it is empty of content--like Jung's archetype of the Self, and like your idea of the structured multiverse. It then becomes the interactions that stem from this emptiness which fill the void (and it seems necessary that, given the infinite potential of the void, it ought to manifest something).
 
 
Wombat
10:23 / 14.08.01
Aaaah. Now I see the connection. The empty mind (The self) is similar to the empty multiverse. Possibly even similar in a fractal/holographic way. (reminds me of "as it is below..so it is above). It doesn`t matter which scale you are looking at since all is a copy of the parts above and below and all is empty anyhow. (at least that`s the way I`ve interpreted what you said)

Also reminds me of zen and no-headedness.
Hmmmm. You`ve fried my brain with that one.
 
 
ynh
18:29 / 14.08.01
I did something like this utilizing time as a master signifier (semiotics, check out Structuralism and Semiotics): requires the collapse of identity, an infinite universe, and entropy. and was motivated by the "as above, so below" notion of self and universe.

Are you considering E=mc^2 over time? Or am I remiss in thinking that the energy would necessarily be immediately used up? [didn't need to do this, though, and it's a throwaway though that arose while reading the first several posts]

Master signifiers like "I" are empty but universal...
 
 
6opow
21:05 / 14.08.01
Wombat: yeah, I think that you've got a firm grip on what I'm getting at. It was my pleasure (the brain frying bit--hope you are now a happy bunny) .

Teela: like the sound of what you are saying, but couldn't pick it out in the thread that is linked to your post. Also, not sure what you're asking with your(throwaway) questions. If you'd be so kind, please eleborate on both.
 
 
Blank Faced Avatar
23:39 / 15.08.01
It just seems that, to explain the universe, you have to have things like photons with mass sometimes and no mass from other points of view, or higgses you have to take on faith, or counter intuitive layers of quanta that don't simplify out... and you'll still have pretty vague ideas on gravity. If you think about hard science 'til your head aches, and still have fundamental uncertainties, you're in good company. So do all hard scientists.
 
 
YNH
05:28 / 16.08.01
Oh my. I meant for that link to go to Amazon. Oh well.

E=mc^2, as you mention, allows mass and energy to be the same thing: intraconvertible. Your own questions revolve around the energy needed to accelerate to c, but is the equation instantaneous? Or does the increase (or use) of energy occcur over time, and could it occur over a long period (tens of billions of years?) I dunno, I usually ask someone in the field before suggesting something silly.

What you're doing, tying Jung and relativity together, is similar to what I had to do to argue that time functioned as a master signifier (or something that is but signifies nothing, roughly.) I came up with a bunch of notes and used some of 'em to write a paper. Beacause both meaning and physical existence are dependent on time: each word is modified by those that follow (to the.) and physical presence occurs over time - they appear to be nomologically linked. So you have the social construction of reality, and the expanding universe (presumably fueled by the transition of gravitational energy into matter?) again looking like the same thing. And there was this paper by Rod Swenson that showed how higher order organization actually increased entropy in the universe at large and that the universe might be doing this on purpose. So, if accelerating matter to the speed of light uses up all its energy, perhaps that's what the universe wants? Sorry, this is still babble, but it's late and my notes are packed.
 
 
Wombat
14:13 / 16.08.01
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/thou.html

---------------------------------------------

In Hameroff and Penrose (1996a) it is suggested that such a quantum-enhanced state increases intensity and frequency of conscious events and merges normally pre- and sub-conscious processes with consciousness by a baseline shift in quantum coherence. Psychedelic perceptions and hallucinations may be glimpses into a pre-conscious/sub-conscious quantum superposed world.

------------------------------------------

OK. Some people here may have more experience of psychedelic perceptions than me. Does this seem possible? Can drugs allow you to experience quantum effects or space-time structure directly?
 
 
bob
15:01 / 16.08.01
"Can drugs allow you to experience quantum effects or space-time structure directly?"

I recently read Terence McKenna's True Hallucinations, and he (at least from my very limited understanding) seems to posit just that. From the information he received from the Logos both during and after his mushroom trips he was able to extrapolate his own cyclical theory of time which coincided well with important events in his life. His system also defined the current epoch as ending on Dec. 22, 2012, the same date that time will end according to the ancient Mayan calender.

I have become more interested recently in non-linear models of time, since from my own experience time cycles seem obvious. Unfortunately my understanding of physics and math is limited. I am starting a thread in the hopes that anyone out there might help me to understand a little better?
 
 
YNH
15:04 / 16.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Wombat:

OK. Some people here may have more experience of psychedelic perceptions than me. Does this seem possible? Can drugs allow you to experience quantum effects or space-time structure directly?

How would we know, exactly? If, and only if, I have had any experience with psychedelic perception, I might be able to suggest that what hippies refer to as "vibes" might be a heightened awareness of quantum effects and that hallucinations may be syaesthetic attempts to integrate heretofore imperceptible events. Were I to know someone who had experienced "time flies" and "a watched pot never boils" sensations simultaneously, I might think that s/he had more sensual access to temporal existence. Had said individual uttered "maybe time is just a story," I might have written a paper about it. And might such perceptions be possible without drugs as well?

Penrose is full of suprises for being a classical.
 
 
YNH
16:10 / 17.08.01
Can light merely appear to travel at c via quantum leaping?
 
 
6opow
23:54 / 18.08.01
quote:Originally posted by [YNH]:
E=mc^2, as you mention, allows mass and energy to be the same thing: intraconvertible. Your own questions revolve around the energy needed to accelerate to c, but is the equation instantaneous? Or does the increase (or use) of energy occcur over time, and could it occur over a long period (tens of billions of years?)

Hmm...I still don't think I understand what you are getting at (especially, I don't know how a equation can be "instantaneous"--do you mean the process of conversion from say, matter to that of energy?). My original questions were about photons and basically were these: if they have a mass, then how can they travel at c (as an infinite amount of energy is required to accelerate a mass to c), or alternatively, if the photon has no mass, then how can it be anything (i.e., have any effect on things with mass)?

quote:Originally posted by [YNH]:
...I argue[d] that time functioned as a master signifier (or something that is but signifies nothing, roughly.) Beacause both meaning and physical existence are dependent on time: each word is modified by those that follow (to the.) and physical presence occurs over time - they appear to be nomologically linked. So you have the social construction of reality, and the expanding universe...looking like the same thing.

This sounds really interesting, and has seeded thoughts in my mind which are bound to bloom into some beautiful things--thank you!
 
  
Add Your Reply