Jump to content

Light is matter at below c


Recommended Posts

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.

Do we agree all matter can be converted to energy using e=mc2 ? I'm just stating I knew light would become matter at below the speed of light, are you saying I didn't ?

Maybe I should be considered for a science award for stating what would happen to light if it was slowed down enough , the forming of matter the gaining of mass just as I predicted.

Edited by PureGenius
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

Do we agree all matter can be converted to energy using e=mc2 ?

I agree that mass can be viewed as a kind of energy in the sense that we can have mass defects in bound systems and so on. In this respect they are equivalent, but this needs to be treated carefully.

 

I'm just stating I knew light would become matter at below the speed of light, are you saying I didn't ?

I am saying that you don't really know what such a statment means and that you in no way predicted the experimental results in the paper you quote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that mass can be viewed as a kind of energy in the sense that we can have mass defects in bound systems and so on. In this respect they are equivalent, but this needs to be treated carefully.I am saying that you don't really know what such a statment means and that you in no way predicted the experimental results in the paper you quote.

I don't understand why your so sure I didn't when this whole thread proves beyond a doubt I did in fact predict the outcome of a study that concluded light becomes matter ie gravitationally bound photons when slowed by super cold atoms. This wasn't the intent of the study it was a side effect of the experiment and thus my prediction is even more amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why your so sure I didn't when this whole thread proves beyond a doubt I did in fact predict the outcome of a study that concluded light becomes matter ie gravitationally bound photons when slowed by super cold atoms. This wasn't the intent of the study it was a side effect of the experiment and thus my prediction is even more amazing.

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 made predictions of this kind of nature. Sorry to be blunt and I don't want this to feel like a personal attack, but you have not given us any real reason to think you actually could have predicted things like this, which actually were predicted using mathematical models before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing I don't know enough to know what I predicted interesting spin Ajb, although it really lacks any reality my physics knowledge is way beyond many members of this forum, also I did predict light would become matter just admit I'm right it'll be ok why can't you be honest and admit my ideas are physics and your not sure what I'm talking about because I may know more than you. This open ended you don't know anything argument just makes you look je alous , it's not even an argument and it's definitely not intended to help . Thisis why I un friended you Ajb you are very, desperate to discredit me, even though I've never done this to your threads .

Edited by PureGenius
Link to post
Share on other sites

I predicted something you couldn't I guess that's funny John. Ajb is so desperate to discredit me he messages other members privately and tells them not to read my content. I think this says allot about ajb so lol indeed .

Edited by PureGenius
Link to post
Share on other sites

The paper cited says "The fundamental properties of light derive from its constituent particles—massless quanta (photons) that do not interact with one another1. However, it has long been known that the realization of coherent interactions between individual photons, akin to those associated with conventional massive particles, could enable a wide variety of novel scientific and engineering applications2, 3. "

 

The dates of the references are 1992 and 1997.

Are you saying that you posted 16 years ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ajb is so desperate to discredit me he messages other members privately and tells them not to read my content.

Does Ajb really need or want to discredit you?

At least I have received no such message from Ajb.

And, well, I feel he's really patient and even-tempered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Ajb really need or want to discredit you?

At least I have received no such message from Ajb.

And, well, I feel he's really patient and even-tempered.

You have every right to your opinion, but Ajb did in fact do exactly what I said and he is desperately trying to discredit me this thread is proof enough of that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on AJB, John ( and Enthalpy ), I give you guys way more credit than that. Neither of you seems the type to be uselessly banging his head against a brick wall You are just encouraging his delusions and conspiracy theories. Sometimes you just have to be blunt and stop trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Edited by MigL
Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise we are not likely to get him to see sense, but he's funny.

"although it really lacks any reality my physics knowledge is way beyond many members of this forum"

 

I still want to see him explain how he "predicted" something from 1992

 

Over to you Pure G.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ajb did message a member and tell then to avoid my content . I guess your opinion is I'm delusional mig, although I was right about light becoming matter at below c. My iq is in excess of 120 , and I see your comments are defensive in nature so I won't take you seriously.

I realise we are not likely to get him to see sense, but he's funny.

"although it really lacks any reality my physics knowledge is way beyond many members of this forum"

 

I still want to see him explain how he "predicted" something from 1992

 

Over to you Pure G.

I predicted light would become matter at below c John, I know your response no you didn't etc this is getting redundant. Also I thought Canadians were nice , mig makes me wonder if that's just a misperception . I think not everyone has the vision to step beyond the norm and reach for the proverbial stars, I may be confusing and at times incorrect but all of my material is based on current scientific knowledge . Also there is mounting evidence I'm right about the black hole in the center of the universe, I'm thinking Nobel prize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, well, I feel he's really patient and even-tempered.

 

I strongly agree; he's been very cooperative for such a discussion -- and on several threads also. These would have been closed already by the forum's typical conventions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the last time, light does ''not become matter at speeds below c.''

 

Two major problems exist within such a statement. Light for starters, always travels at light speed. A photon can not slow down. You can change the medium in which your photon is moving and this matches it's wavelength to the Compton wavelength, which means a photons energy matches the rest energy of an electron, showing the presence of inertia. However, that photon is still moving at lightspeed, you haven't made it officially move slower. All you have done is tamper with the space it is moving in.

 

There is nothing magical here and we have known this a lot longer than you first ''proposed'' your theory (which) is worded wrongly and the physics is interpreted wrongly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ajb is intelligent and even pleasant at times, but he does obsess on me being wrong so it's difficult to tolerate .

 

No one is obsessing, you are simply wrong. You need to be obsessed about reading up and learning physics so you can make statements in which no one will call you out on.

Plus he is extremely kind in his assertions. I know other posters that would eat you up for breakfast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally thinking ''reality check.''

Can you explain dark flow ? Galactic spiral arms ? Universal expansion ? Time dilation ? Variables of the speed of light , and their effect on biological systems ? Universal contraction ? I can and have explained all of these things in many posts also I have never once been thanked for taking the time to elaborate on all of the previously mentioned ideas. The fact is I have discovered many more things that are just as interesting. Black holes radiate the strongest electromagnetic field within our universe the spiral arms are the second most powerful electromagnetic field , there is a direct relationship between our universes central black hole and the rotational velocity of all black holes in our universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Pure Genius - Stop making comments about other members and negatively portraying their motivations. Any further posts which deal with the person rather than the science will be hidden and serious consequences will follow. I will add my two-pennyworth that AJB is one of this forum's real assets and has a patience and tolerance with those learning physics that is admirable.

 

Whilst you originally based this thread on a decent article and a sensible piece of physics everything since then has been hair-brained speculative fantasy. The thread is being moved to speculations. You know the rules about the Speculations forum.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a direct relationship between our universes central black hole and the rotational velocity of all black holes in our universe.

What central black hole? Many galaxies have a central black hole but I've never heard of any central black hole for the universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's gone, but yeah, we've never seen any particular proof for one.

 

Universe likely came from something resembling a black hole. Not sure the definition fits with the state space itself was in at that point, but only word we have that fits.

 

I would think there would be re-collapse issues if some part of it continued to exist after the initiation of the Universe. Besides that there would be the question as to why some matter "exited" and other matter did not. I don't see any particular reason it would play favorites.

 

I'm of the opinion the Universe might just cycle through different initial conditions. Not sure how or if ever we'll be able to prove or disprove such conjecture though.

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.