Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

"Light" is an anthropomorphic relative function. It is a subjectively assigned frequency section of the electromagnetic spectrum. It's defintion is based on the phyical design of the eyes of various species on earth, primarily humans.

 

Light, when travelling through a vacuum, travels at light speed, /

 

 

These relationships did not exist at the BB and thus irrelevant.

Posted

isn't light just a release of photons resulting from the conversion of one type of energy to another?

 

What are photons? Do they have mass? and if not how can light be turned into matter?

 

Do photons posess energy if they have no mass? Do they have mass? Help!

Posted

Originally posted by: deamonstar

when doing basic calculations of theories where the mass of a photon isn't a critical variable, it would be allright to assume a value of zero for the mass of a photon. however, when we delve into calculations of theories based on special realativity or quantum mechanics, where the mass of a photon becomes more critical, we must give a non-zero value to avoid anomolies such as infinities or absolute zero's. but, what is this non-zero value, and how can it be determined?

 

an ingenius experiment carried out by Jun Luo and his colleageus at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China using a very sensitive torsion balance (a device with rotational torque) have been able to determine the mass of a photon. they aimed a beam of light at the apparatus, for which the value of the torque (or rotational energy) of it is known. when the photons hit the device, there is a measurable increase in the overall torque. this method is a 20-fold increase in the accuracy to determining the value of the mass of a photon over previous methods for determining the photon's mass. the newly determined estimate for the non-zero value of the mass of a photon is 10<SUP>-51</sup> grams or 7 x 10<SUP>-19</sup> electron volts.

 

for more info, go to the following link:

 

photon mass

  • 3 months later...
Posted

QUOTE "It's defintion is based on the phyical design of the eyes of various species on earth, primarily humans."

 

That is so wrong im speechless...

Posted

Originally posted by: wepe

QUOTE "It's defintion is based on the phyical design of the eyes of various species on earth, primarily humans."

That is so wrong im speechless...

Since you are quoting Freethinker I won't support or refute his statement, I'm sure he would prefer to handle that. I will require you to explain what is wrong and offer a better explanation. The above post is not how we conduct ourselves here. If you have something intelligent to offer,... please tell us. If you want to post just to "talk", there are many mindless online chatrooms for that.

Posted

Originally posted by: wepe

QUOTE "It's defintion is based on the phyical design of the eyes of various species on earth, primarily humans."

 

That is so wrong im speechless...

 

"Speechless" means "NO speech".

 

Obviously, posting what you did IS "speech".

 

So what we find is that you don't even understand what "speech" or "speechless" means. Nor do you have the ability to support claims you make.

 

Thanks for your meaningless speechless speech.

 

Feel free to let us know in the future when you ahve nothing of value to add.

Posted

Originally posted by: wepe

QUOTE "It's defintion is based on the phyical design of the eyes of various species on earth, primarily humans."

 

That is so wrong im speechless...

 

These all come from Google, various sites:

 

Definition of light:

light, visible light, visible radiation -- ((physics) electromagnetic radiation that can produce a visual sensation; "the light was filtered through a soft glass window")

 

Definition of visible:

" Able to be seen. "

 

Definition of see:

perceive by sight or have the power to perceive by sight; "You have to be a good observer to see all the details"; "Can you see the bird in that tree?"; "He is blind--he cannot see"

 

I'd say FT's only unclear aspect was the "primarily humans" part, which I don't understand (because our eyes are built exactly like many other animal eyes - cows' eyes, for example. No?). The rest sounds like a reasonable statement to me.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...