Jump to content
Science Forums

Does a shadow have mass?


Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What has your freaky dog got to do with shadows?:eek2: The same as your brother nothing!  Shadows are an indicator of mass~energy being added to the object that has the shadow. If you or your broth

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

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...