Jump to content

Light is matter at below c


Recommended Posts

Photons -- massless particles of light long thought to not interact among one another --have been fused together to create a new state of matter that until now had only been theoretical, according to a new study published in the journal Nature.

 

A joint team of researchers from the MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms managed to coax photons into binding together to form molecules, a feat that runs counter to decades of scientific belief.

Two laser beams, for example, will simply pass through one another if shined towards each other. But the "photonic molecules" behave less like traditional lasers and more like a light saber from the Star Wars films.

 

"Most of the properties of light we know about originate from the fact that photons are massless, and that they do not interact with each other," said Mikhail Lukin, a physics professor at Harvard University and lead author of the study. "What we have done is create a special type of medium in which photons interact with each other so strongly that they begin to act as though they have mass, and they bind together to form molecules. This type of photonic bound state has been discussed theoretically for quite a while, but until now it hadn't been observed.

 

"It's not an in-apt analogy to compare this to light sabers," Lukin added. "When these photons interact with each other, they're pushing against and deflect each other. The physics of what's happening in these molecules is similar to what we see in the movies."

 

 

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4178/20130926/new-state-matter-created-fusing-photons.htm

 

I'm just stating that I did predict this was the case, that light was matter. This is contained in one of my previous posts. This was stated as Light is matter at below c, I Am Shawn j thanks for reading my post.

post-91277-0-32024100-1380320889_thumb.jpg

Edited by swansont
snip text, add link and quote box
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You would need to give us some more specific properties that one can test in experiments.   0m +c = 1m and so on is just nonsense.

The units don't make sense for a start. It is just not physics, I really don't know how to explain that to you.

Because nothing you have said anywhere on this forum suggests that you actually have any real knowledge of phsyics. You have admitted this yourself. Thus, I do not understand why you think you have ma

Posted Images

There is nothing mysterious about the physics at work here - it has been known for a while that the photon behaves as though it has a mass in superconductors. Interestingly, particles like electrons will exhibit even more mass than before, except they can move at incredible speeds.


It's not that the photon actually gains a mass however, you are changing nothing but the medium in which it is moving in.

Edited by TrappedLight
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you minimizing the scientific breakthrough that matter can be created out of photons? Or that I predicted this was the case before this study was done.

 

This experiment doesn't say matter can be made out of photons, it is saying that photons behave as though they have a rest mass. They are completely different statements. I noticed some bad journalism writes the article headlines as ''scientists make matter from light'' this statement isn't true. Light is imitating particles with mass.

 

Separately, we know we can make matter from light, we have known this from collision experiments for a while. But this isn't what the experiment is showing us. The experiment shows us that if we change the medium in which particles move in, you can alter their usual dynamics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what I did wrong swan, could you explain what I can't post. Am I just allowed to post links to papers ? I don't understand how it is plagiarism, I posted a link to the whole story in thread.

Edited by PureGenius
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what I did wrong swan, could you explain what I can't post. Am I just allowed to post links to papers ? I don't understand how it is plagiarism, I posted a link to the whole story in thread.

I'm not swansont but generally you need to post a link and a credit in the post where you post excerpts from a news piece. In this case your link needed to be in the first post where you posted all of the excerpts from the news story itself, not later in the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dog. I appreciate your explanation , it was not intentional, but obviously my mistake.

!

Moderator Note

As doG said, it is the news piece that needs a link. Your link in post 3 is to the paper, so you still need a link to the news piece that you copied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This experiment doesn't say matter can be made out of photons, it is saying that photons behave as though they have a rest mass. They are completely different statements. I noticed some bad journalism writes the article headlines as ''scientists make matter from light'' this statement isn't true. Light is imitating particles with mass.

 

So this isn't really a "feat that runs counter to decades of scientific belief", but rather an observation of past's theory?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In any dispersive matter, photons have a non-zero mass.

 

Photons interacting with an other in matter (which means this matter is nonlinear) does not mean that light is matter. For instance the spin distinguishes them. So a theory would better not predict such a thing.

 

I have my doubts that photon interaction in matter were never observed before...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this isn't really a "feat that runs counter to decades of scientific belief", but rather an observation of past's theory?

That would be my take on it. Also remember that no all scientists are aware of all the phenomena predicted in a theoretical physics papers. Quite easily some claim could easily be "against scientific belief" in the sense that most scientists have not thought about it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The study at no point discusses rest mass, there is clear indication that light at below c ie slowed by super cold atoms displays properties of mass. It is clearly explained in the paper. The fact is I got this one right, light is matter at below c. They use the term molecules as in photons combining into new forms of matter. The study does state light has properties of matter when slowed below the speed of light. This is my interpretation .

Edited by PureGenius
Link to post
Share on other sites

The study at no point discusses rest mass...

Probabily because the "rest" mass of a free photon is simply zero and that is what anyone would usually mean by rest mass.

 

, there is clear indication that light at below c ie slowed by super cold atoms displays properties of mass.

We know that there are such situations. For example the Meissner effect and the London penetration depth can be understood in the context of an abelian Higgs model. There are situations where we have dynamical generation of mass for gauge fields.

 

 

The fact is I got this one right...

I think you are strethching your claims to fit established physics. You would be better off looking closer at what we do know and know well.

Edited by ajb
Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Probabily because the "rest" mass of a free photon is simply zero and that is what anyone would usually mean by rest mass. We know that there are such situations. For example the Meissner effect and the London penetration depth can be understood in the context of an abelian Higgs model. There are situations where we have dynamical generation of mass for gauge fields. I think you are strethching your claims to fit established physics. You would be better off looking closer at what we do know and know well.

I think the parameters of my definition exactly fit the outcome of the experiment, matter at c is energy, light at below c is matter. I'm not aware of any discrepancy between the clear prediction made within my high velocity relativity idea. Also Ajb I'm aware of were we are scientifically with photons, although I may not have as much knowledge as you I do understand the principles of light well enough to have made an accurate prediction. Edited by PureGenius
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any discrepancy between the clear prediction made within my high velocity relativity idea.

Do you really have a clear prediction here? I mean a mathematical model that gives some mechanism for dynamical generation of mass and it looks like you need a dynamical mechanism for the disposal of mass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really have a clear prediction here? I mean a mathematical model that gives some mechanism for dynamical generation of mass and it looks like you need a dynamical mechanism for the disposal of mass.

Ajb I predicted light would become matter at below c. So you want 0m+ c =1m. 1m-c=0m. Matter at the speed of light attains zero mass as matter slows below the speed of light it gains mass and in effect becomes matter. The translation is from light ie energy em propagation, to matter ie the combining of photons to form matter or mass, within the definition of the study I've presented within this thread. I think my prediction is well within the scope of science as this study was recently undertaken, and my theoretical prediction was accurate.

This is the paper I was referencing.

 

I will say this I think I may have figured out a way to incorporate higher speeds into relativity .

 

I will state some new postulates.

 

No object can attain infinite velocity.

 

No object can attain infinite mass.

 

Light equals mass at below the speed of light

 

The Mass of any object is equal to zero at the speed of light

 

Mass equals electromagnetic field strength at the speed of light. M c = e=mc2. Xs5 = New e.m field

 

The calculation is this. M= e at c or m=0mass at c = e= Light equals mass at 0 velocity

 

Moving at 1c electromagnetic fields strengthen by 5 times

 

Mass is reduced by 100 percent at the speed of light

 

Time dilation is equal to electromagnetic field strength increase ie 5 times base time Time period at c Xs5= expanded timeframe

 

Exceeding the speed of light, converts mass to energy slowing down below c energy returns to mass so when objects slow below c one reverses all postulates. I am Shawn j. Thanks for reading

I think I was right about this one Ajb as far as light becoming matter,i did predict this was the case.

Edited by PureGenius
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I was right about this one Ajb as far as light becoming matter,i did predict this was the case.

You would need to give us some more specific properties that one can test in experiments.

 

0m +c = 1m and so on is just nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the study not clear, were my multiple statements in advance of the study, stating light was matter at below the speed of light not enough. I'm not sure why you say these simple equations are nonsense . 1 ie mass accelerated to the speed of light equals zero mass. Light which has zero mass at the speed of light gains mass as it slows below the speed of light. That is exactly what I was trying to present, this study indicates I'm correct Ajb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.