Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does a shadow have mass?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Zohaar818

Zohaar818

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 09:53 AM

Dear Group,

I know it sounds like a foolish question but I have a reason for asking and I'm hoping someone here, more grounded in theoretical physics than I can find time to respond.

Here is why I pose the question...it seems to me that all this discussion of photons, and other sub-atomic particles possessing mass or negative mass is really a discussion about the mass of shadows.

Let me explain...according to my understanding of current theory, we live in a multiverse..and the multiverse is comprised of 11 dimensions.
We know that the basis of everything in the universe is 'light', whetehr visible or invisible..yes?
And as I have said in recent posts..[as is born out in super-string theory and zero-point-field theory] that would mean we are constantly being interacted with by other dimensions.

Isn't it conceivable that what we identify as sub-atomic particles possessing no mass but still exerting influence on our reality are nothing more than the 'shadows' from another dimension.

We can see shadows, we can measure their area, observe their outlines..but we cannot 'weigh' a shadow, as shadows are illusions of light that have no mass.
What we are observing then, when we observe these particles , is really the interaction of 'light' as it crosses or infiltrates between dimensions.

In these other dimensions what we perceive as a photon with no mass may actually be quite heavy..so heavy that in that dimension it could be that dimension's equivalent of a black hole a nano[star]gate which pushes its own equivalent of a plasma stream so powerful that it shoots particles into our space and time..our dimension...which we may perceive as sub-atomic, quantum particles...or mega :) plasma coils

And of course, just like shadows, although we can see them, measure their movement and their area we will never be able to calculate their 'mass',..since they have none. So are shadows illusions or are they indicative of realities beyond our borders...

I thank you in advance for your responses

-Sincerely

#2 Fishteacher73

Fishteacher73

    Coincidence of Molecules

  • Members
  • 1646 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 09:56 AM

Perhaps I am mis-reading your question, but my take on the idea is simply no. Shadows are not a product of light, but the absence of light. It is being blocked/reflected by some object, so photons are not hitting where the shadow is.

#3 Queso

Queso

    Synesthetic

  • Members
  • 7281 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 09:58 AM

yeah the shadow is deprived of light's mass. all that's there is just, space with the illusion that it's darker from an object blocking light. very indepth post though..

#4 C1ay

C1ay

    ¿42?

  • Administrators
  • 6488 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 10:08 AM

I don't think there's such a thing as negative mass but that's what the absence of mass would be if it existed. Mathematically you could probably use imaginary mass but I doubt the results would have any meaning.

#5 infamous

infamous

    Visions of grandeur

  • Members
  • 3962 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 10:08 AM

Perhaps I am mis-reading your question, but my take on the idea is simply no. Shadows are not a product of light, but the absence of light. It is being bloacke/reflected by some object, so photons are not hitting where the shadow is.


Exactly Fish; It would be that parameter around the shadow that would be absorbing mass in the form of photons.

#6 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • 1293 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 06:09 PM

Interesting question... Two comments I can make: As others are seeing that a shadow is the absence
of light. These others have said, no. Yet light as defined by Maxwell's equations and quantized by QM
is actually massless particle. What is less than nothing ? Still nothing ( - 0 = 0 ).

Second the actual notion of mass is the local potential of the Higgs field near the particle and is not
intrinsic to it. As the Higgs particle used to express mass (or it's Higgs field) still has not been observed,
it is only currently conjectured to be the case.

Neither made use of extra dimensions as in string theories. Yet again you can think of Vacumm
fluctuations which are absence of everything and can still have an energy density. With mass/energy equivalence one could deduce an equivalent mass (some veeeerrrry small number). So any small
deviation from zero according Heisenberg Uncertainty would still be too small to measure with
accuracy, so might as well be zero (0). Hope this helps.

maddog

#7 Dark Mind

Dark Mind

    Resident White Hat

  • Members
  • 2404 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 06:20 PM

I think I'm just more confused, I don't fully understand what it has to do with shadows being a part of "other" dimensions and therefore being an interaction of light across these dimensions. I understand shadows to be a lack of light, and if there is a lack of light there is also a source of light. A shadow is merely caused from some object blocking and reflecting the light away from it's prior course, causing the area that was in the light's path to become dark. The light doesn't disappear, it is just reflected and scattered so we can't tell where it goes unless it is reflected into another shady area.

#8 Zohaar818

Zohaar818

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 24 May 2005 - 04:27 AM

I think I'm just more confused, I don't fully understand what it has to do with shadows being a part of "other" dimensions and therefore being an interaction of light across these dimensions. I understand shadows to be a lack of light, and if there is a lack of light there is also a source of light. A shadow is merely caused from some object blocking and reflecting the light away from it's prior course, causing the area that was in the light's path to become dark. The light doesn't disappear, it is just reflected and scattered so we can't tell where it goes unless it is reflected into another shady area.


Dear Group,

i appreciate the responses..and do apologize for any confusion..being at best a curious type and not a 'scientist' ...
I am trying in my limited way to get a grasp of the fundamentals and to apply metaphors in ways that might help us view the problem form an 'outside of the box' perspective.
Call it a reality check.
See...we all agree that shadows are 'real' since we see them every day. But what is the 'reality' of a shadow..it has no mass..indeed, it is only the negative or polar mirror to something which is much more substantial..the light source.
Then again, a bumble bee passing through a field doppled by light and shadow might not see bright white light and dark zones..but yellow and purple ones..or some other chromatic scaling in the light.
So in that way I agree with the poster who says even a shadow is a freqeuncy of light..not just the absence of it.
The idea that the mass equivalent of any space should be affected by the light or shadow passing through it is ..well...I leave it quantum theorists and string theorists to posit but I can't see why the mass would change..unless someone posits the weight and density of a photon and not just speed and direction within tolerable uncertainties [a la Heisenberg]
Indeed, go measure the mass of a shadow...
But ..you ask...if that's how you feel..why ask the question? I do so becuase I am trying to wrap my head around the concepts of string theories, parallel universes and above all the Zero Point Field. How would one go about measuring the zero point field..and is the ZPF the ether from which thought takes form as some physicists are now postulating [bringing them ever closer to a buddhist perspective rather than a judeo-christian cosmology].
In the buddhist perspective all 'reality' is a self-created illusion..a trick of light..just like the illusion of shadows..light projected on to a neutral field, or a void, out of which come manifestations. One can only determine light from shadow when give a surface or a field through which the distinguishing freqeuncies can pass and be observed.
If Heisenberg is right and the observer affects the experiment then aren't we in effect, the experiment?
If parallel dimensions exist in harmony..or at least in sync..as part of one greater REALITY..then wouldn't that explain ghosts, out of body experiences and all the other observed, recorded and verified events which defy conventional [orthodox] theories about the nature of life or being which were previously reduced to being called the 'figments of ones imagination..'. .hallucinations..etc? Theoretically, under new models these spirits not only could exist, they'd almost certainly have to exist. So that means , even though they appear as shadows, phantoms, plasma coils and such to us..they are in fact real..despite not having verifiable mass.
Is that why some scientists dare not go anywhwere near an experiment that might prove the probability of quantum life after material death, give credence to the immortality of the soul..or validate the claims of some tested 'psychics and NDE survivors of 'having contact with dead relatives and alien intelligences who are locked in other dimensions intersecting with our own? Are they afraid that doing so would bring them or their theories into disrepute? Are they afraid of violat ing a deal they made with the vatican a couple hundred years ago to not investigate paranormal phenomena and leave all the soul stuff to the Church?
Maybe it sounds too abstract and weird..new age or old-school [and 'gnostic'] to go around giving thought and theoretical credibility to the notions of ghosts and spirits exisiting on a parallel but bridgeable plane to our reality.. and in finding such existence being fully consistent with current physics theory..but no more abstract and weird to me than the arguments, once upon a time, about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin...or the idea that you and i may be real but that our[interdimensional] shadows are just illusions..

#9 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • 1293 posts

Posted 25 May 2005 - 07:00 PM

If parallel dimensions exist in harmony..or at least in sync..as part of one greater REALITY..then wouldn't that explain ghosts, out of body experiences and all the other observed, recorded and verified events which defy conventional [orthodox] theories about the nature of life or being which were previously reduced to being called the 'figments of ones imagination..'. .hallucinations..etc? Theoretically, under new models these spirits not only could exist, they'd almost certainly have to exist. So that means , even though they appear as shadows, phantoms, plasma coils and such to us..they are in fact real..despite not having verifiable mass.
Is that why some scientists dare not go anywhwere near an experiment that might prove the probability of quantum life after material death, give credence to the immortality of the soul..or validate the claims of some tested 'psychics and NDE survivors of 'having contact with dead relatives and alien intelligences who are locked in other dimensions intersecting with our own? ...but no more abstract and weird to me than the arguments, once upon a time, about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin...or the idea that you and i may be real but that our[interdimensional] shadows are just illusions..

Most String Theories to date (Supersymmetric or not) have these critters often labled as Ghosts or
Ghost Fields that seem unable to get rid of them. Any attempts and they just come back. I have since
learned that in effect these class of theoretical particles would be similar to Tachyons. Particles such as
these create local Causality issues yet String Theories cannot get rid of them. I have since
contemplated that Tachyon-like particles could create all the effects associated with Psychic and
Paranormal phenominae.
Why is Dark Matter Dark ? What is Dark Energy ?? What about it that causes the universe to expand ?
I calculated once how many Angels could dance on a pin and found it to be the EXACT number of
Devils... ;-)

maddog

#10 phision

phision

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 106 posts

Posted 10 December 2009 - 08:04 AM

shadows do have mass! will explain later...

#11 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 8659 posts

Posted 10 December 2009 - 01:34 PM

shadows do have mass! will explain later...


No, shadows can travel faster than light so they cannot have mass or even substance.

Faster-than-light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If a laser is swept across a distant object, the spot of light can easily be made to move at a speed greater than c.[23] Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move faster than c.[24] In neither case does any matter or information travel faster than light.

#12 lemit

lemit

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1115 posts

Posted 10 December 2009 - 06:02 PM

shadows do have mass! will explain later...


Welcome to Hypography, phision!

I'm certainly interested in your explanation, and am wating with slightly bated breath. (I have some breathing problems, so I can't abate my breath very much.)

--lemit

#13 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • 6241 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 06:27 AM

The shadow of a person has a mass of 21 grammes! :ghost: :) :joker:

:hihi:

#14 phision

phision

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 106 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 08:22 AM

back and ready to explain....shadows are a single element of as system, and can not be isolated from that system! the system needs to have a light source and a shading element which defines the parimaters of the shadow. as the shadow can not be removed from the system, and the system has mass, it follows that the shadow has mass! mass is also added to the shading element by the light falling on it. which is what a shadow is!:) no one is wrong on this subject as we all have different definitions of shadows! pardon the pun!:joker:

#15 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 8659 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 07:48 PM

phision, a shadow is the absence of something, a shadow can be made by almost anything, but the shadow it's self is the absence of what ever is making it not the presence of it. Photons, electrons, protons, magnetic fields, a positive or negative charge, atoms, dust, meteors, wind or even ocean waves can cast a shadow of sorts, to say a shadow has mass is some what misleading to say the least. It might be correct to say that a barrier to particles of some sort is needed to cast a shadow but they do not add mass to the shadow.

#16 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • 14353 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 08:19 PM

no one is wrong on this subject as we all have different definitions of shadows!


Thus all I need to do is think of a shadow, and it will have mass (because according to you the mass is then a part of a system - me).

If science was so easy.

#17 lemit

lemit

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1115 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:00 PM

Does the light in the refrigerator still work when the door is closed? Yes. Its work is to remain dark, which it does with great energy efficiency. A Zen application of this principle might be how much light does a lamp on the clapper emit when only one . . . ?

--lemit:scratchchin: