1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 09:47 PM |
Then why isn't their speed undefined? *magic* |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 09:55 PM |
| But if they have zero mass, they have zero inertia. Then anything that moves them would divide by zero. e_e |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Quenty
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Sep 2009 |
| Total Posts: 9316 |
|
| |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 09:59 PM |
^
Then they wouldn't go the speed of light. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 09:59 PM |
| It can't be 0. I believe that everything has to have mass. It just silly to say that something doesn't have mass, then watch as it doesn't go flying in a random direction forever. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MicroUser
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3601 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:04 PM |
| Actually it's the other way around. They have infinite mass and since that is impossible they are simply considered pure energy more than a particle. However when calculating their energy the electron mass is used... 9.109x10^-34 Kg |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MicroUser
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3601 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:07 PM |
| Oops... That is another constant. The mass is actually x10^-31. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:09 PM |
"They have infinite mass and since that is impossible" I have a problem with that statement. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
MicroUser
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3601 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:14 PM |
| Einstein's theory basically says that mass expands with velocity. Thus as an object approaches light's speed it's mass approaches infinity. Meaning that if this speed hits light's speed the mass should be mathematically infinite but as you may guess this is impossible and as a result light is not considered matter but energy. But at the same time this energy has mass (Yeah really hard to understand I know...) and it also follows matter's laws of physics. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:19 PM |
It is my personal belief that physics needs to be rewritten from the ground up (not completely, of course). I'm not saying ditch everything and start dropping hammers and feathers, I'm saying that we should get people to completely ignore everything known about physics and observe the behavior of quarks, documenting everything and noticing patterns. It would be a painstaking process, especially find people who can do this, but I think it would be worth it. (I know we can't observe quarks directly, but they could be like super-mathematicians!)
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MicroUser
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3601 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:22 PM |
@merlin
Stop saying non-sense. Physics are as accurate as they can get. Every now and then somebody comes in an establishes new theories about how things work trying to fix the holes in other theories (I'm looking at you Einstein... And Planck... And the list continues on....). And don't forget that quacks themselves are a theory. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:24 PM |
| Quarks exist... they've been found and proven... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MicroUser
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3601 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:35 PM |
| There is little evidence for their physical existence. They are thought to actually exist thanks to experiments made at the stanford acceleration center or something like that. What exactly these so called quarks are is not exactly known except for the belief that they are sub-atomic particles that compose atoms. However as we are not even sure how atoms work or look at all studying quacks is almost impossible. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:42 PM |
| Quarks exist. They have proven it, they are positive that they exist. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 10:45 PM |
"And don't forget that quacks themselves are a theory." Don't forget physics is a theory. And I'm not saying non-sense. I also don't truly believe that the universe would just throw non-sense at us like the physics we have. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2011 11:07 PM |
Are you serious?
How do you explain sight when they have a mass of zero? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
blocco
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 29474 |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2011 02:19 AM |
| How is light affected by gravity? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2011 05:24 AM |
| They HAVE to have a mass of zero. Remember, it takes infinite energy to get even the most infinitesimal mass going at the speed of light. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2011 05:28 AM |
@blocco Only black holes do that, and it's not really the gravity that does that. It's due to the distortion around the event horizon that bends the light to *look* like it's being sucked in. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2011 06:35 AM |
Mah theory:
Photons have the same mass as other fancy particles, But since they move at light speed, they do not make quantum wormhole vibration, and thus dont affect the gravity plane dimension of lolwut. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
stravant
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 22 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 2893 |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2011 07:41 AM |
"But if they have zero mass, they have zero inertia. Then anything that moves them would divide by zero. e_e"
What? Photons totally do have momentum! In fact, if you shine a bright enough light source on a sensitive scale you can measure a pressure that's being applied solely by the photons.
When a photon is created it takes some of the momentum of the source fermion with it. Same when it's absorbed, it adds momentum to the target fermion. Fortunately, in-between nothing can happen to the photon, since it doesn't even really exist. All a photon really is is an interaction between two fermions. (A fermion is just any sort of massive particle, that is, one that has mass) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Snej1
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 809 |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2011 09:42 AM |
| Light is affected by gravity so I think the mass can't be 0. For example a star doesn't have to be exactly where it seems to be because the light might be bent by the gravity of another star or planet. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Snej1
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 809 |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2011 09:48 AM |
| OK, I just googled it and it seems like photons actually don't have a mass. The reason that the light is being bent is that the gravity changes the shape of the space. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|