1. Hey

What do you think of this:

we all know light has energy but has no mass but E=mc^2 and E=hv according to the quantum theory light has to have some mass. What i say is vissible light.

E=mc^2-------------------------------(1)
E=hv-----------------------------------(2)

M=E/C^2

but when we substitute 2

M=hv/C^2

I think this would only apply if the light was taken as a particle

2.

3. You are right.
That is valid fopr the "particle model" of light, the photons, and photons have mass given by the formula you derived.
The problem is that Relativity Theory predicts an infinite mass for something with some rest mass m0 by the formula m=m0/s where s=root(1-v2/c2) and so currently zero "rest mass" is given for the photons.

But you are right, photons have mass and Relativity is a wrong theory.
Please take a look at: www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
There you will find the right theory for light.

4. martillo, you have absolutly no right to claim relativity is wrong becuase your theory contradicts itsself and contain paradoxes. Relativity has been proven so many times, it bieng proven now, and now, and now and all the time every single day.

E=mc^2 worx if and only if the particle have rest mass, light dont have restmass therefor it doesnt count for light. Becuase when a formula makes no sense(such as infinities) it doesnt count for that specefic event. According to that derivation it should have infinite mass wich is a ridiculus idea. that would mean everything would be suckes to every photon in the universe and the furture we are analysing this the more stupid it gets.

So it doesnt work, and dont listen to martillo he is somekinda maniac who think he is better than the greatest physicist of all time wich came with a theory that is bieng proved right everyday in particle accelerators.

5. Ummm, just so everyone knows this, in the formula E=mc^2, E Reperesensts rest energy.

6. Not at all.
E=m0C2 represents "rest relativistic energy" while E=mC2 represents the energy observed by the correspondent referential of observation where the object have some velocity v and m=m0/s (s=root(1-v2/c2)).

7. Oops, meant to say E=m0c2. but [sup] and [sub] arent working

8. anyhow, if you use that formula for light it would mean the universe should ahve imploded right as bigbang happened

9. anyhow, if you use that formula for light it would mean the universe should ahve imploded right as bigbang happened
why? How?

10. I heard that if you cross two lightwaves in a way that negates both of them, then the ares where they cross is....dark (no light). Is that true ?

I crossed two light beams, but the cross area remaind bright

11. becuase all photons would have infinite mass and with infinite mass it would drag the entire universe back into a singularity. oh god martillo stop with this nonesense of your so called "theory" of yours, you have come up with nothing but a wish. You cant even understand the physics behind the theories you try to disprove

12. Originally Posted by oracle
I heard that if you cross two lightwaves in a way that negates both of them, then the ares where they cross is....dark (no light). Is that true ?

I crossed two light beams, but the cross area remaind bright
when two waves that are the opposite of each other, one waves crests correspond to the other waves troughs, then the waves are interfered with and cancel out.

simply crossing two beams of light doesn't nessisarily cancel out the waves.

Vroomfondel the tags are enclosed like so < > and not [ ] , which is why it didn't work for you.

E=m0c2
E=m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>

13. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by oracle
I heard that if you cross two lightwaves in a way that negates both of them, then the ares where they cross is....dark (no light). Is that true ?

I crossed two light beams, but the cross area remaind bright
when two waves that are the opposite of each other, one waves crests correspond to the other waves troughs, then the waves are interfered with and cancel out.

simply crossing two beams of light doesn't nessisarily cancel out the waves.

Vroomfondel the tags are enclosed like so < > and not [ ] , which is why it didn't work for you.

E=m0c2
E=m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
Immmmmm dumb. Thank you very much though :-D

Anywho the reason that the light waves from two flashlights dont cancel has nothing to do with the waves. The photons are extremely far appart relative to their actual size. This means that collisions are very rare, and interference only occurs when photons collide.

14. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
Immmmmm dumb. Thank you very much though :-D

Anywho the reason that the light waves from two flashlights dont cancel has nothing to do with the waves. The photons are extremely far appart relative to their actual size. This means that collisions are very rare, and interference only occurs when photons collide.
so when does wave interference become the issue? :?

15. collide is the wrong word, and size aswell, they have no real size, just as protons/electron have no defined size.

16. I saw pictures of the experiment, but maybe it was super high density light ? Since you said the particles are so far apart they rarely collide.

It said that if one day gravity waes are discovered, and artificially recreated, they could be crossed, and the cross area would suddenly have no gravity anymore.

17. I saw pictures of the experiment, but maybe it was super high density light ? Since you said the particles are so far apart they rarely collide.

It said that if one day gravity waes are discovered, and artificially recreated, they could be crossed, and the cross area would suddenly have no gravity anymore.

18. Zelos,
becuase all photons would have infinite mass and with infinite mass it would drag the entire universe back into a singularity.
Photons would have infinite mass within Relativity Theory only, not in the new theories.

19. first of all, its not a theory, its a wish
secondly: relativity have been proven, the twin paradox have been solved mathematicly. that dudes formula that you keep talking about doesnt go against relativity in its ORDINARY form. you are tricking ppl by using a classic derivation of it to belive it doesnt follow relativity, but it does.

you are using relativity in your ideas, and also quantum mechanic aswell. Things that cant be derivated from classic physics. explain this

20. I saw pictures of the experiment, but maybe it was super high density light ? Since you said the particles are so far apart they rarely collide.
You're thinking of the double-slit experiment.

And. No. It isn't super high density light. In fact, in some variations, it's set up so only one photon goes through the setup at a time. This way, there is no way that the photons are interacting with each other. And yet the interference remains the same!

This leads to the Uncertainty Principle and Schrodinger's Cat and other such quantum goodness.

The eerie quantum behavior has two main interpretations.

The Copenhagen Interpretation, which is the mainstream theory. The basic gist is that the photon goes through both slits.

And the Many Worlds Interpretation, which is not quite so mainstream but advocated by some famous names in the field such as David Deutsch. The gist of this theory is that the photon is being interfered with by photons in worlds that are close to ours in some sort of continuum.

21. When talking about the two beams interference, I think you are a little bit obsessed with the light-as-particle point of view.

It's quite easier to understand it from the light-as-wave one.

We have two electromagnetic wave sources. For cancelation, it's necessary that each frequency component of both electromagnetic fields have the same module and opposite directions at every point in the line traced between the sources. That's impossible unless the sources have only one frequency component, same module, linear polarization (both the same), and certain initial phase difference depending on their distance.

22. True. You could say I'm being obsessive about the particle interpretation. Looking at it from a post-quantum interpretation.

In fact, the original experiment proved that light was a wave rather than a particle.

It wasn't until the photo-electric effect showed that light also acted like a particle did things start to get tricky.

And, of course, the double-slit experiment can be done with electrons as well.

23. invert_nexus,
True. You could say I'm being obsessive about the particle interpretation. Looking at it from a post-quantum interpretation.
You are right doing that.
Light is made by "photons" (particles) and waves do not exist! Just a "wave like" behaviour exist and is properly explained giving the right electromagnetic structure to the basic particles of nature!

Please take a look at: www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

The "wave-particle duality" mystery has been solved!

But I must warn you, some of today's theories must be corrected and others are just wrong so you must open your mind to new possibilities in Physics...

24. how can you with the most closed mind here ask others to be open?

25. Originally Posted by martillo
invert_nexus,
True. You could say I'm being obsessive about the particle interpretation. Looking at it from a post-quantum interpretation.
You are right doing that.
Light is made by "photons" (particles) and waves do not exist! Just a "wave like" behaviour exist and is properly explained giving the right electromagnetic structure to the basic particles of nature!

Please take a look at: www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

The "wave-particle duality" mystery has been solved!

But I must warn you, some of today's theories must be corrected and others are just wrong so you must open your mind to new possibilities in Physics...

Maxwell equations are verified by ANY type of electromagnetic field. Light is a type of non-static electromagnetic field, thus consisting in a electromagnetic wave that carries energy along the space.

Every kind of electromagnetic wave have the same properties. I mean, your 2.4GHz WiFi waves are essentially the same as the 400THz visible red light or the 750THz visible violet light. Only their different frequency may cause any difference in their behauviour, but they all are electromagnetic waves that verify Maxwell equations and hence share the same nature.

26. Ok, let admit light is made of photons. Hence, any other electromagnetic wave must be made of photons too.
That is, a 6GHz radio-link should work by two antennas throwing photons to each other. How do you explain the direction those photons are moving?

But before that... how are those photons being generated?

It is not by photoelectric effect, since the frequency should depend on the material, and no antenna's working frequency depends on that.

So... do you have any idea?

27. by a changing electric or magnetic field

28. Shanon,
Ok, let admit light is made of photons. Hence, any other electromagnetic wave must be made of photons too.
That is, a 6GHz radio-link should work by two antennas throwing photons to each other. How do you explain the direction those photons are moving?

But before that... how are those photons being generated?

It is not by photoelectric effect, since the frequency should depend on the material, and no antenna's working frequency depends on that.

So... do you have any idea?
I invite you to see Section 7.3 where I treat how communications actually happen due to photons transmission: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...th_photons.htm

Your question about how photons are generated is a good one and is treated in Section 5.3: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin..._phenomena.htm

29. martillo you jackass, he asked a physical question, stay OUT OF IT. you you just create confusion for new ppl who dont know much iwht your false ideas. if they ask a question here, and not directly to you about ur idea or something, answer according to REAL PHYSIC

admin/mod can someone plz tell martillo to not create more confiusion for new people who wants to lkearn stuff?

30. Zelos,
Don't bother! Shannon asked a question specially to me!

31. no, it was a general question about real physics wich isnt your job to answer with false information

32. Originally Posted by Zelos
admin/mod can someone plz tell martillo to not create more confiusion for new people who wants to lkearn stuff?
Don't you think that you are already doing far more than is necessary?

33. ?????????

34. Zelos,
martillo you jackass, he asked a physical question, stay OUT OF IT. you you just create confusion for new ppl who dont know much iwht your false ideas. if they ask a question here, and not directly to you about ur idea or something, answer according to REAL PHYSIC
Shannon asked a question about communictions between antennas and surely as an Electrical Engineer know about that much more than you.

I'm wondering why you hate me so much to be dedicated to refute every post I submit in all the threads I post and I can only think that I'm being a real good contender to your loved theories!

35. once again bullshit, i dont hate you, i hate bullshit.

Electrical Engineer ? for some reason i dont belive you, if you are thgat tell it as it is and not your own wished ideas

36. What a rude man...

I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me
Says it all...

37. thats no9t rude, if u want me rude i can show u rude

38. Show me. I'm waiting.

40. Please stop and get back on topic.

41. i concure

42. Gentlemen,
let us try to keep it civil. Let us focus on the facts, the evidence and the analysis, not on each other's real or alleged shortcomings.

Martillo, Zelos does have a point: your conjectures on certain theoretical fundamentals of physics are pretty wild. In thos instances where I have any comepetence to judge they are just plain wrong. You a re doing a disservice to casual readers who are trying to understand orthodox theory by implying you are right and the rest of the worlds physicists are wrong. Could you not accompany your statements by some kind of a warning or disclaimer.

Zelos, I recognise you are frustrated by Martillos dogmatic adherence to his non-standard world view. By all means keep attacking that view by presenting the counterarguments and evidence, but let us have less of the personal comments, whether provoked or unprovoked.

Thank you all.

43. if you wanna fight, meet eachother after school in the park :wink:

44. meating up and fighting physicly is for neanderthals

but i agree with Ophiolite, on both points

45. I also agree with ophiolite but let me say that Zelos provoked me making something like a personnal persecution with very silly and ungentle posts in all the threads where I post something even when someone asked a question specifically to me!
But I understand I must not follow his game...

46. that post wasent directed to you as the creator of your little idea, if it were directed to you it was directed to you as a sane person who give a accurate answer according to the physics known today.

47. Originally Posted by Zelos
meating up and fighting physicly is for neanderthals

but i agree with Ophiolite, on both points
it was a joke
wanted to ease the mood...

anyway. i also think that everyone has a right to tell what they feel like unless it is offending to others.. nothing has to be 100% sure what we tell. and an opinion can't be discussed.

48. i think it can, certain feelings isnt allowed and should be discussed so badly that the person in question feeling so much pain about that feeling that he wont feel it again MOHAHAHA, isnt that i just said behavoir stuff?

49. Hi guys!

I see that there are a lot of posts since I asked those questions, but none of them related to the topic. I will appreciate if you answer instead of insulting each other.

Martillo, although I appreciate all suggestions, I prefer those based on the well-known physics.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement