Question on Light: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Question on Light » Question on Light

Question on Light
Quite possibly a dumb one.

Question on Light

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 11/02/07 - 05:28 PM: Subject: Question on Light	#1
First off the question: Which state(s) of matter does light land in? Yes. I know about the light being energy and matter area, and I don't necessarily refute the findings. I random thought came to me, and in order to continue on, I would need opinion/fact type answers with the 'whys' and 'hows' to the question asked. Not the whole math side of it, though a reference to which theories would be nice. Answer need not be purely scientific, metaphysical and other responses appreciated also. Thanks =D

Carbon Based
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 34

Posted 11/03/07 - 09:18 PM:	#2
Photons are the elementary constituents of electomagnetic fields and can be thought of as the microscopic transmitters of the electromagnetic force sometimes they are referd to as messenger particles. The elementary constituents of the strong nuclear force are called gluons, the weak nuclear force are called W and Z particles and of course gravity has its graviton but gravitons have yet to be found experimentaly.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 11/05/07 - 05:21 PM:	#3
Ya, i've read all that a few times, in different versions, and it doesn't technically answer the question. Thanks for the post though. Essentially what most science-types have gravitated towards is the energy-side of things only. They do not try to attempt to relate the energy side with what was found to be semi-specific static states to said energy. They seem to imply that photons, no longer exist outside of the energy/quantum definition, and that they have no static energy pattern; which I think may be a problem. "of course gravity has its graviton but gravitons have yet to be found experimentaly" I do always get a chuckle at that claim, everytime I see it. No offense; I just find it amusing in the illogic of it. Haven't even heard yet from one of the Allmighties' the possibility that the formation of what they are calling the 'gravitron' does not exist within the same bounds (dimensions) as that which are found within particles. ie. energy pattern must touch within 4-dimension xyzt model while the graviton may not exist in dimension xyzt, but rather xyzl. Part of the problem with applying Poincares conjecture as currently written to applications of a larger scale, is that these types of divisions are removed, even though they seem to exist. (a bit off topic, but oh well.) Thanks for the post though. =D

HeWhoKnowsNothing
Truly Unwise

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 81

Posted 11/12/07 - 02:50 PM:	#4
Light does not fit into a category of matter. Energy and matter are like two sides of a coin, each side has very similar properties, but is fundamentally different. A photon is an imaginary particle invented to represent light and how it behaves (when it is acting like a particle). A photon could best be described as a 'package' of light/energy. When doing the double-slit experiment you will never hear light described as a photon; this is because the entire experiment is meant to show that light acts like a wave. By the way, if you are going to live your life looking for 'whys' and 'hows' you are going to be sorely disappointed by science. Proven science almost never 'why' although it will touch on 'how' but even then, it can never really answer 'how' in a satisfactory manner. Science is for understanding 'what', 'when' and 'where'... What did this, when did it happen and where. 'How' and 'why' are for religion and philosophy (or pseudoscience) to explain.
_____________________ I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 11/14/07 - 08:43 PM:	#5
Mmmm.. I really like the last part. An old argument time and again. I've always been intrigued by what you mention, but moreso under a couple different reasonings; one being 'they' (your pick, just remember to read the sentence multiple times with different choices) often attempt to answer a different question then posed. Do you notice occassionally that people of the scientific persuasion use the term pseudo just for things they do not wish to believe in? So, another question. I disagree with the claim that light is (absolute sense) the transmitters between other particles, but it at least leads towards the thoughts to a similar answer I tend to go back to quite often as fairly valid. (by estimation, it tends to point at some of the same results science would give, but gives different reasons.) If you make claim that all energy is matter and the like, and make use of some fancy equations that actually work for proofs; then wouldn't it also be a valid claim to state that all matter does not fit into a category of matter, since they are all simply in existence due to that particular behavior of photons? Oh, and don't forget about the experiments where they show light bouncing off of items, some of the earlier experiments. So they have experiments proving light as what we term as having both matter and energy patterns.

chiloa
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2003
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 7

Posted 12/06/07 - 06:20 PM:	#6
Cadrache wrote: First off the question: Which state(s) of matter does light land in? Yes. I know about the light being energy and matter area, and I don't necessarily refute the findings. I random thought came to me, and in order to continue on, I would need opinion/fact type answers with the 'whys' and 'hows' to the question asked. Not the whole math side of it, though a reference to which theories would be nice. Answer need not be purely scientific, metaphysical and other responses appreciated also. Thanks =D What do you mean by "state(s) of matter"?

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2411

Posted 12/06/07 - 06:35 PM:	#7
Cadrache wrote: Oh, and don't forget about the experiments where they show light bouncing off of items, some of the earlier experiments. So they have experiments proving light as what we term as having both matter and energy patterns. Actually, the experiments show that light has properties that are quantified at a certain location and behaviours that propogate as waves. You should sit down and think about what you mean by "matter", because by some definitions, there really is no matter.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 12/14/07 - 10:21 AM:	#8
You should sit down and think about what you mean by "matter", because by some definitions, there really is no matter. "Is a rose a rose by any other name?" Thats' the problem Kwalish. The claim that everything is energy. They never tell you that this claim should read 'Everything that is can be defined if you use the term energy as a generalization'. If you take the 'old' view of matter being static objects or 'self-renewed energy patterns' (generalized, my own thoughts), and instead claim that every thing is simply energy and therefore do not behave by said functions, then either said functions are completely wrong, making the 'unified field theory impossible', or that what we knew of as matter, has an additional unique quality. To put it simply, different families of energy are possible. And yes, I do know that a large number of energy patterns can be mathematically induced in such a way that they can all fall on this neat wave-pattern. I will also agree that it looks like most of the ones' i've heard about belong on said pattern. (On a side note, I think a number of people have the whole UFT function wrong, they shouldn't necessarily be attempting a reductionist relationship).

Carbon Based
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 34

Posted 12/14/07 - 05:08 PM:	#9
"I disagree with the claim that light is (absolute sense) the transmitters between other particles" No it is the carrier of the electromagnetic force in all frequencies, gamma rays to infrared, microwaves to visable light. "Oh, and don't forget about the experiments where they show light bouncing off of items, some of the earlier experiments. So they have experiments proving light as what we term as having both matter and energy patterns." Don't take the term "particle" literaly to mean matter. What matter has no mass?

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 12/14/07 - 07:14 PM:	#10
Are we talking already discovered 'matter' to your question? Now, the first statement. Light may not be the carrier. Ever have 2 items tied by a string in a moisture filled area?(so the string is slightly limp.) A water droplet can form and then move along the string. I think that matter and atoms and the like, have an energy-type that is non-visible within current available technology. Sort of like an arc, it creates a similar effect to what happens with that string. No 'proof', i'll agree, and at this time no way to really even draw such. I'm thinking light could be the water droplet itself. Oh, and never noticed Chiloas' question. A state of matter, with the use of the whole 'light connecting' thing, would more or less be something like a different fluctuation in said 'matter-adhesive-type-thing'. Similar to how light wavelengths work, if this energy or whatever it is, is at a lower wavelength, there would be longer distances between peaks and troughs, and would essentially allow each atom more possible movement (and coincidently it may be inversely proportional to some other questions already asked by other scientists). Hence the question. Based on the experiments done by person X, a bit before Einstein came up with his own theory, an experiment came where they used the 'particle-like' attributes of light to bounce it off a metal sheet. Einstein furthered said experiment to show light having a duality. Most of todays science is only the second part, where light is a wave-pattern. They seem to totally ignore the duality and the particle type experiments. The question requiring answering, to even start really considering my thinking, needs to determine whether or not light itself is affected in the same way as matter is affected, and so the question was posed, does light have a state of matter? If light has a state of matter, it too may be affected by what I am thinking about, and would change where I would look for said thing.

HeWhoKnowsNothing
Truly Unwise

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 81

Posted 12/14/07 - 08:56 PM:	#11
Light is often used as an example of a transmitter between other particles because, in a sense, all the invented particles and different types of waves which are used to represent forces, gluons and gravity waves for example, all transmit information at the speed of light. In terms of how to consider light, I have recently been enlightened (pun intended) by a university professor; It seems that the representation of light as a wave is simply an expression of a probability field that the photons follow. Take a normal sin wave and graph it against the position x, and the amplitude of the wave function at any position along x represents the probability of finding a photon at that position on x. The best way to think of it is that each photon has it's own wave function representing the probability of it being in a certain position. Its confusing thats for sure, but it actually fits very well once you get your mind around it.
_____________________ I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 12/15/07 - 12:47 AM:	#12
Yup, Yup.. if you think that it is probability and not definable. :P The problem arises if you apply Bells' theorums into the mix; the one that coincides with schrodingers' cat paradox. To jump to alot of conclusions, it's possible that the matter-antimatter connection, there might be a 3rd type. Or that the universe has um.. 3 layers to it. Haven't really gone much past that in that train of thought yet. I'm still working on the Light question. =D

Codgod9
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 12/15/07 - 07:22 AM:	#13
I don't understand the question. Are you asking states of matter as in liquid/solid/gas or whether its matter or just energy...? Could you clarify exactly the question you're asking?

Codgod9
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 12/15/07 - 07:29 AM:	#14
HeWhoKnowsNothing wrote: It seems that the representation of light as a wave is simply an expression of a probability field that the photons follow. Take a normal sin wave and graph it against the position x, and the amplitude of the wave function at any position along x represents the probability of finding a photon at that position on x. The best way to think of it is that each photon has it's own wave function representing the probability of it being in a certain position. Photons are only introuduced when dealing with interactions with matter; light travels as a wave and interacts with matter as a particle. When light is travelling, it is treated as a wave and so not made up of constituent parts (photons). When light interacts with matter, in the form of photons, they individual photons have their wavefunctions (as given by Schrodinger's equation(s)) and the amplitude is the probability of the photon being in a given position: this is a concequence of quantum mechanics. But it should be remembered, as a I said before, thta light travels as a wave so when it's not interacting it's just an interaction between the electric and magnetic fields, as predicted by MAxwell's Laws/Equations. The sinusoidal behaviour of the wave is due to the variation of the two (perpendicular) fields and the rate at which they occur because they sustain one another, as described by MAxwell's Equations.

299792458
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 23, 2007
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 71

Posted 12/15/07 - 09:50 AM:	#15
Cadrache wrote: First off the question: Which state(s) of matter does light land in? Yes. I know about the light being energy and matter area, and I don't necessarily refute the findings. I random thought came to me, and in order to continue on, I would need opinion/fact type answers with the 'whys' and 'hows' to the question asked. Not the whole math side of it, though a reference to which theories would be nice. Answer need not be purely scientific, metaphysical and other responses appreciated also. Thanks =D The only 'state of matter' (at least, the only one of which I am aware) that light 'lands in' is a blackhole. Presently we are able to transform/transmute matter into electromagnetic energy, one of which is 'light'. However, I do not believe that we can consider the light as having 'landed in' a material state of matter. We are, as yet, unable to transform 'light' into 'matter'. The only possible exception is, arguably, a photograph, however, a photograph contains the information that was transmitted by the light and not the light itself. Metaphysically speaking, the 'inverted' (unenlightened) human form (matter) is thought of as being capable of trapping light (the metaphor is a blackhole) and not allowing the 'light' to be revealed or expressed. However, the term 'light' in this instance is a metaphor for 'spirit'. Light 'lands in' a black hole because the gravity is massive and the escape velocity from the gravity of a black hole exceeds the speed of light, so light is trapped in a blackhole. The 'physic' of light is 'to move'. 'Movement' is light's natural condition. So, my answer to your question is a 'blackhole'. (See also, Genesis, where the creation of the 'heavens and the earth' preceded the creation of light). Edited by 299792458 on 12/15/07 - 09:54 AM. Reason: illuminating comment

HeWhoKnowsNothing
Truly Unwise

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 81

Posted 12/15/07 - 07:01 PM:	#16
Codgod9 wrote: Photons are only introuduced when dealing with interactions with matter; light travels as a wave and interacts with matter as a particle. When light is travelling, it is treated as a wave and so not made up of constituent parts (photons). When light interacts with matter, in the form of photons, they individual photons have their wavefunctions (as given by Schrodinger's equation(s)) and the amplitude is the probability of the photon being in a given position: this is a concequence of quantum mechanics. But it should be remembered, as a I said before, thta light travels as a wave so when it's not interacting it's just an interaction between the electric and magnetic fields, as predicted by MAxwell's Laws/Equations. The sinusoidal behaviour of the wave is due to the variation of the two (perpendicular) fields and the rate at which they occur because they sustain one another, as described by MAxwell's Equations. Hmm so you are saying that the probabilistic approach only applies to light when it is considered as a particle, and that only occurs during it's interactions with matter. However, if you treat light waves as a representation of the probability of finding a photon in a particular location, x, wouldn't that propagate the same way as light is currently known to propagate? (working in 3-dimensions by the way, so now it is the probability of finding a photon in a particular location, [x,y,z]).
_____________________ I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 12/16/07 - 02:44 PM:	#17
And, if you wish to take it a step further, since all matter is energy, then all matter should land within the same probability configuration as light falls into. (well, maybe an inverse relationship, but haven't figured that out yet.) Thanks, 299792458. I agree with your assessement that light falls into a black hole, very clever Anyways, it is the mentions of 'interacting' that really interest me. I won't expand from Einsteins' light theory yet; concerning how his theory is merely a perceptive of standing on a light particle, but you turned the key a little bit, and pointed in the direction I need to look at.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.