Quantoman Posted November 21, 2005 Author Share Posted November 21, 2005 First off let me say that i am a novice on this topic. This is something that has been bothering me for a few mons. now and when i try to talk about it i always get puzzled stares. I posted my postulation in this forum hoping that others would explain why this COULD not be... So pls take it apart but pls explain why. @cap'n refsmmat and 5614 There is no such thing as inverted light but only in my head. To me inverted light = a black hole... -light is converted mass, and there are events in the cosmos where light has been converted back into mass. -time is the governing factor. it slows when mass is at the speed of light, and i believe it also has a effect on light because light was once mass. -if light could be slowed by time what is the reaction... it could be light but in a different form. a dense form of light that instead of moving outward it would move inward to the source, and accumulate until enough energy for a reverse big bang. -with this event the massive energy might produce speeds faster than light, mass can infintely expand, and time is dilated to a sand still. -by which as a result creating another or sub universe. becomming a full circle of creation.... @lazerfazer u are correct basically. did u ever find out anything from your teacher? @imasmartgirl it could be but can you elborate a little more. @atheist can u tell me why inverted light can not be? @scientistsahai you are 100% correct...???? @klaynos LOL... @ophiolite imagination is a superior form of thinking... maybe 1000 years from now i will be proven correct, generally speaking with out being hasty... @j.c. macswell LOL... (a-hole) thats funny @sunspot the energy could be leaking out into a sub universe. @all thank you for your response it is better than the one i am use to...(i dont know) and pls continue to explain why inverted light can not be. peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 -light is converted mass, and there are events in the cosmos where light has been converted back into mass. Light can be converted to mass, this can be seen in pair production and it's seen all over the cosmos. But I don't think this is what you are talking about, is it? -time is the governing factor. it slows when mass is at the speed of light, and i believe it also has a effect on light because light was once mass. When mass travels at c... nah, that's impossible. When a massless body travels at c it doesn't experience time. To a photon (which always travels at c) time doesn't exist. It can't tell the difference between going backwards or forwards in time, it's all the same, a photon (or any particle moving at c) doesn't experience time. What do you mean "light was once mass"? -if light could be slowed by time what is the reaction... it could be light but in a different form. a dense form of light that instead of moving outward it would move inward to the source, and accumulate until enough energy for a reverse big bang. Light can be slowed down, in fact light can be stopped... but photons always travel at c... how does this help? What's it got to do with anything? -with this event the massive energy might produce speeds faster than light, mass can infintely expand, and time is dilated to a sand still. What event would produce massive energy? Just because there's a lot of energy does NOT mean that faster than c is possible. In fact there are many ways to get lots of energy, getting energy isn't really a problem, well, other than the fact that an infinite amount of energy would be required... and infinite energy is impossible. Time being dilated to stand still occurs at c. ===== I don't really see where this is all going. I don't think I understand your concept of "inverted light", can we please focus on that for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lifshiztz Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 -time is the governing factor. it slowswhen mass is at the speed of light' date=' and i believe it also has a effect on light because light was once mass.[/quote'] Mass cannot reach the speed of light, because at the speed of light, an object's relativistic mass will be infinite. Force carrier particles, such as photons, can travel at the speed of light, like others have said already, but that's beside the point. Also, light doesn't slow down when an object travels close to the speed of light. All objects have "personal time", and an object traveling faster than another object in the same dimension will believe that time is slower for the other object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPQuiceno Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Don't be silly, creating ideas like "Inverted light" in your head without explaining them to everyone else, but expecting them to understand it, is crazy talk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 the "event that could produce massive energy" is a reverse big bang as he had mentioned. There is the inflation theory that the universe expanded FTL right after the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantoman Posted December 6, 2005 Author Share Posted December 6, 2005 @5614 -from what i gather all forms of E.M. radiation are created when an atom or molecule drops from a higher energy state to a lower one. The loss of energy which occurs is emitted in the form of radiation with an energy which matches this drop. energy from mass = light. -when light is converting back into mass i was referring to antimatter. -the event is when light reverse its polarity back to its source, which as a result may coverting back into mass (possibly as antimatter). i would like to say thanks for your questions. It has given me more of insight on the properties of light i was not aware of. thats exactly why i started this thread. @JPQuiceno LOL- i have a homework assignment for u. look up the word novice and post it here__________. also while your at it look up the word COULD__________. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPQuiceno Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 @5614 -from what i gather all forms of E.M. radiation are created when an atom or molecule drops from a higher energy state to a lower one. The loss of energy which occurs is emitted in the form of radiation with an energy which matches this drop. energy from mass = light. -when light is converting back into mass i was referring to antimatter. -the event is when light reverse its polarity back to its source' date=' which as a result may coverting back into mass (possibly as antimatter). i would like to say thanks for your questions. It has given me more of insight on the properties of light i was not aware of. thats exactly why i started this thread. @JPQuiceno LOL- i have a homework assignment for u. look up the word novice and post it here__________. also while your at it look up the word COULD__________.[/quote'] Please do elaborate on that cheap attempt to be humorous, I seriously do not understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantoman Posted December 6, 2005 Author Share Posted December 6, 2005 i will not elaborate for u but I will attempt to cheaply be humorus... what did the bird say when flying over JPQuiceno head???? Cheap, Cheap, Cheap.... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 -from what i gather all forms of E.M. radiation are created when an atom or molecule drops from a higher energy state to a lower one. The loss of energy which occurs is emitted in the form of radiation with an energy which matches this drop. energy from mass = light. EM radiation is created when an electron drops from a higher to lower energy state. Because energy must be conserved this energy drop (from higher to lower) has to be changed into a different type/form of energy, in this case it is a photon, light. Whilst mass = light could be true it also could not be true. Let me explain; it's correct because as Einstein showed mass and energy are the same thing. As light is energy you could conclude that mass and light are the same. However this isn't always correct because there are other forms of energy. So mass could = light but it could also = some other form of energy. Consequently you cannot always say mass = light. -when light is converting back into mass i was referring to antimatter. By that do you mean pair production? ie. when a very high energy photon splits into a particle and an antiparticle? You cannot get light converting only into an antiparticle, it always converts in pairs (ie. particle+anti). -the event is when light reverse its polarity back to its source, which as a result may coverting back into mass (possibly as antimatter).I don't get that. You mean when a photon is absorbed and so an electron will go from a lower to higher energy state? Do you know what polarity is? A photon being absorbed, which is as close as you are going to get to it's "source" is not converting it to mass, the energy from the photon is becoming the electrons energy (which is which it can jump to a higher energy level), there is no energy/mass conversion. And don't be rude about JPQuiceno, maybe calling this "crazy talk" offended you, but you did just come here talking about "inverted light" and you did not initially explain it. I think maybe you should stop explaining your "inverted light" and start learning the difference between light and matter and the relationship between the 2. You clearly already know a bit, but then you also clearly do not know it all, unless you can simply and properly explain this "inverted light" it may be a better use of your time to learn the physics and then one day you'll be able to answer your own question if you still understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantoman Posted December 11, 2005 Author Share Posted December 11, 2005 Whilst mass = light could be true it also could not be true. Let me explain; it's correct because as Einstein showed mass and energy are the same thing. As light is energy you could conclude that mass and light are the same. However this isn't always correct because there are other forms of energy. So mass could = light but it could also = some other form of energy. Consequently you cannot always say mass = light. -pls enlighten me, what are the other forms of energy? By that do you mean pair production? ie. when a very high energy photon splits into a particle and an antiparticle? You cannot get light converting only into an antiparticle, it always converts in pairs (ie. particle+anti). -yes, and ok... And don't be rude about JPQuiceno, maybe calling this "crazy talk" offended you, but you did just come here talking about "inverted light" and you did not initially explain it. -for one, crazy people say crazy things, and i am crazy so no offense taken, i thought it was just playful banter from the south park gallery. I was not trying to be rude, just a playful rebut. I think maybe you should stop explaining your "inverted light" and start learning the difference between light and matter and the relationship between the 2. You clearly already know a bit, but then you also clearly do not know it all, unless you can simply and properly explain this "inverted light" it may be a better use of your time to learn the physics and then one day you'll be able to answer your own question if you still understand it. -one, if u stop asking me to explain it than i will...when i came into this form i was expecting u all to tell me why this was not possible, and u have. -two, this is just a hobbie form me i have no intention to learn more about this subject as a profession... and if did i am sure i would answer my own question and maybe someday prove it. -three, no wasted time here for me, but maybe for u, i got what i was looking for with little effort on my part. again thanks... __________________ free thinkers need debunkers and debunkers need free thinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 Moved to Speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantoman Posted December 11, 2005 Author Share Posted December 11, 2005 i should have posted there in the first place... sigh the ignorance, i will know better in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Light isn't converted back into mass. Photons raise the energy level of atoms and electrons. Now if e =mc(sq) applies to normal and raised electron (two different energies) how is the other side of the equation altered without changing m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantoman Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 Light isn't converted back into mass.Photons raise the energy level of atoms and electrons. Now if e =mc(sq) applies to normal and raised electron (two different energies) how is the other side of the equation altered without changing m? although that maybe true in this universe... what happens in a black whole is any body's guess. after light enters a black hole i think it turns into mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 although that maybe true in this universe... what happens in a black hole is any body's guess. after light enters a black hole i think it turns into mass. That is the core of the problem, all interpretation is a guess and there is no complete interpretation within the Standard model. What is 'mass'. electromagnetism and gravity etc and how do they operate? are questions the Standard model does not answer. The current doctrine is 'if you can compute it you understand it'. This is the 'slap happy' state of physics, something that no other branch of science would find acceptable. There is no hope of explaining 'black holes' or for that matter, anything else, unless we first go back to basics and determine what the various entities really are and how they operate. The ability to predict is not in itself, an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_power Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 maybe that black hole could be sucking light from here and appear as a star in another universe??? But then there appears one more question, why is there not as many blackholes in this universe? Possible answer: There may not be that many stars in the other universe/universes. Maybe each blackhole spew light into different universe. Maybe the centre of big bang is nothing more than a blackhole termination from another universe. Maybe maybe maybe...nobody knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kermit Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 If i'm repeating anyone, ignore me. Back to the original question. If by "inverted" you mean "antimatter", I don't think antimatter light is any different from regular light. Photons are a force particle, and with antimatter it's only the mass particles that can be different from regular matter, force particles are the same for both. At least I think it's like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Md Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 " And nothing is faster than light. " Cause we can't see it. It's bullshit, there are alot of forces we don't know shit about, and why couldn't it be faster then light .. so stop saying bullshit, light is pretty slow lol universe wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantoman Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 Well i guess i was wrong... It looks like in 2007 at the CERN Large Hadron Collider there will be an experiment conducted to attemp a recreation of a Black Hole. They plan to blast two PROTONS together with enough energy to make them rip apart the fabric of spacetime. Until then i guess we can still SPECULATE if black holes exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now