JaKiri Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 No. E = hf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I dunno about the hf bit, but the NO`s good bear with me, I`m trying to build up a picture here of what`s going on, see how this sounds; using the idea that accelerating any mass to light speed will require infinate energy. and that a photon travels at this speed and does NOT have infiniate energy as you just said "No". something must give way, and the only thing left would be to say that photon has no mass. is that anywhere near close at all (it`s still not 100% in my mental model yet as that generates other questions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Yep. That's right. Although I don't see what this has to do with energy loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Phew! no it`s got nothing to do with it now, that route would have taken forever just to get to where I am now in understanding, treat it as wholey ignorable. but we can continue down that tangent if you like,see what pops up, I`m easy on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :since we`re doing it the other way around and trying to turn energy into Mass, I would expect therefore that there would be similar losses. that`s all There aren't any losses in the change Electricity -> Energy, because sound and heat are types of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I agree 100%, I meant losses in terms of electricity to desired form of energy. ie/ 240vac mains to make my toast, I`ll get a percentage of heat but it won`t all be heat, some will be a orange glow, some magnetics etc... I can`t actualy envisage any system not having losses and certainly not one that Gains (above unity) as that would be the realms of "perpetual motion" and belong in Pseudoscience I equaly expect there would be losses in energy to matter or matter-energy conversion also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 There aren't losses in the matter -> energy one (because energy is conserved), which is what I was trying to say with the 'leccy -> energy one; there are losses, they're just part of the group term 'energy'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 ok dokes, I`m cool with that, as I said it was a tangent that wasn`t really going anywhere. back to the point in post`s #27 and 29. agreed that a photon has no mass, then what actualy IS a photon? I`m finding it increasingly difficult now to envisage something that isn`t there but IS at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 It's a particle and a wave. It's a distortion in the EM field. It's a goblin who carries chunks of energy from the sun. Well, not that last one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 a particle and a wave? now I can picture a particle traveling in a wave like pattern, a bit like a cork floating on the sea and traveling in a direction at the same time. the particle is the bit I have a prob with (it`s obviously not a cork LOL). what is it? It`s said to without mass and that`s fine. but how can it be? does it have a measurable size at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Particle wave duality is the name of the game. And it's not like any particle has measurable size, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 I understand it`s my fault entirely, I just simply cannot envisage how it can be so? I`ts like a mental block. I consider everything no matter how miniscule to be made of SOMETHING, a bit like you can always divide by 2 forever and you`ll still have something left. I suppose this might be a daft question since it maynot have a size perse, but does it have a shape? or is the waveform the shape (now this is getting weird, I`ll end this post here as I`m confusing myself a bit LOL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 It has the properties of both a particle and a wave (basically). http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=particle+wave+duality&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 whoa! I think I`ll wait till I`ve got a quiet hour or so in peace before digesting that, here`s the one I`ve bookmarked: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~zgap118/ I think until then though, I`ll leave this thread (unless there`s bits I don`t understand) cheerz dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmember Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 i'm not a professor or doctor first of all... but from what i learned until now the question of duality of physical phenomena is connected to inability of math to give uniform description for phenomena. The example i have in mind is that of a light of different wavelength. As long as wavelength not too short (like visible light) the light interacting with matter can be seen as wave but when wavelength is shortens (frequency grows) the mathematical description of interaction must consider the light to be particle-like So the bottom line is that i think that probably the true mathematical description of a light is not as wave or as particle but something else.... something that should combine these two sides wave-particle under the same hood. So basicly the question of duality will resolve after some time... will be glad to here where i wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 E=mc^2... If I were to convert photons to, say, electrons, would the gravity of the resultant electrons equal the gravity of the non coverted photons? Assume the conversion was 100% efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agaubr Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 How do you explain the photoelectric efect if the photon has no mass? Ag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 newmember said in post # :As long as wavelength not too short (like visible light) the light interacting with matter can be seen as wave but when wavelength is shortens (frequency grows) the mathematical description of interaction must consider the light to be particle-like That's right. Some even go onto say that our (humans) wavelength is VEEERRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYY BBBIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGG and that's why we don't appear wavelike. I'm going to be reading about Quantum Physics in 2 days, i'll gladly put whatever i find cool agaubr said in post # :How do you explain the photoelectric efect if the photon has no mass? Ag THe photon excites the e- to a higher orbit, than nanoseconds later, the e- falls back down & emits the photon again. alt_f13 said in post # :If I were to convert photons to, say, electrons, would the gravity of the resultant electrons equal the gravity of the non coverted photons? Assume the conversion was 100% efficient. I'm not really sure how you would go about doign that... Force of gravity depends on mass, but mass is related to energy... sorry, this is beyond my scope of things maybe MrL? 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