Man-made Black Hole that could destroy the world

[Tsiangkun]

force = mass * acceleration.

ever heard of a solar sail ?

How much light is there in the universe ?

i wonder what the mass of all that light is, perhaps infinite ?

[King Monkey]

Hey Ben did you write all that stuff on light and massless particles yourself? If not then you should reference it...

[BenRea]

i cant edit it for some reason but...


Original by Philip Gibbs 1997.

[cammel]

force = mass * acceleration.

ever heard of a solar sail ?

How much light is there in the universe ?

i wonder what the mass of all that light is, perhaps infinite ?

It has all become clear. In restating F=MA Tsiangkun has effectively won this argument.

I think that it is probably not that WE havent heard of solar sails, but more likely the YOU have not read anything about them except that they are big mirrors. If you read anything about solar sails in depth you will learn about radiation pressure which does not have anything to do with mass but is from momentum and energy, two things, that if you read the post before yours, light has without mass.

[Blue_turnip]

force = mass * acceleration.

ever heard of a solar sail ?

How much light is there in the universe ?

i wonder what the mass of all that light is, perhaps infinite ?

You're contradicting yourself when you use that law. If the mass of light was infinite, then an infinite force would be required to accelerate it to the speed of light. lol.

f = ma, newtons second law applies to most common situations, however it's generally agreed that in extreme circumstances, its simply not innacurate.

I couldn't phrase it better so this is ripped from wikipedia. No pulling the whole "not everything from wikipedia is accurate". We havn't seen any support from anywhere saying that the mass of light is infinite, so you cant hold shit against me. Anywhere, here's the bit: "At speeds comparable to the speed of light, the second law holds in the original form F = dp / dt, which says that the force is the derivative of the momentum of the object with respect to time, but some of the newer versions of the second law (such as the constant mass approximation above) do not hold at relativistic velocities."

Since we're dealing with light, you really can't use newtonian physics.

I also think everyone who argues light has infinite mass needs to just step back and ask themselves what infinite means. It means something thats not finite, something that goes on forever. If the mass was infinite, and light took up a finite amount of space, then the density would be infinite and as a result, gravity would be. The universe just wouldn't exist.

Infinity is really just an abstract concept humans have made to help us understand certain things. Nothing we know of is infinite. Nothing. There is nothing we have measured that has a magnitude of infinity, it just doesn't work.

If the mass of light was infinite, it wouldn't simply pass us by, without massive amounts of gravity crushing us. Black holes have finite gravity and they own. If light had infinite gravity then wtf, everything from everywhere would disappear. Because the only way gravity could be infinite is by having mass within a 0 amount of space (ie infinite density)

And Jeremy, that's really great that you've got high marks in all your science classes. But so have I, it's really nothing that special, and not hard to do

I think jeremy was merely disproving your argument that if you don't think light has infinite mass, then you've failed every physics class ever or whatever it was you said. Regardless, have you topped your state in anything, ever? Footbag doesn't count, and you probs haven't topped your state in that either.

Just to top it off wiktionary states mass to be "The quantity of matter which a body contains, irrespective of its bulk or volume"

I'd reference my physics textbook, but unfortunately its way past telling me what mass is. We learnt that in like year 7.

Since light contains no matter it can't have mass.

And finally, a brief comment on the duality of light, in case you're arguing that photons contain matter: Yes people say light consists of photons and yes some people say its waves. Thats because we really don't know the nature of light. It behaves in both ways. What it doesn't behave in, however, is a mass carrying entity.

Nuff said.

[Blue_turnip]

You'd be hard pressed to find a book that stats anything other than the theory that light has infinite mass.

I'm holding in front of me "Physics 2: HSC course", and it's a HSC certified text book. In other words, its reputable.

17 out of its 26 chapters discuss light in reference to their topics, yet nowhere does it state light has infinite mass. (I've read and made notes on all these chapters too many times).

In fact, throughout its entirety it inherently argues against light having an infinite mass.

I wasn't 'hard pressed to find' this book. Infact it was forced upon me by the school.

[King Monkey]

FYI, i think i this instance HSC stands for Higher School Certificate, which is the graduation from high school after 13 years of attendance, in some states of Australia. At this point you are about 18 or 19 yrs old. The Higher School Certificate is awarded following a year of a constant assessment and a final exam for each subect.

[apoplectic]

ive read into this.supposedly this black hole is so tiny it wont be able to suck up even a proton(one magizene compared it to the comparison of a small asteroid to the sun).i dont think it would be a bad idea to do it,and besides,its pretty damn cool .ohh and i think that guy ment the sum of all photons mass in this uneverse would be infinate,not a singular one is infinate,if he ment that,we;d be living in a blackhole so huge it would rip spacetime fabric. and if light has no matter,why d they talk of light as photons?photons are not massless,they have a negligeable mass.

Force= mass x acceleration

lets do this equation with mass equals zero for photons

Force= 0 x acceleration
divide both sides by zero to get acceleration

(Force)/0=acceleration

you cant divide something by zero.for light to go 360,000,000 mps,it has to be accelerated at some point,and how can it if it has no mass?

to say that light has no mass is just stupid.just because the mass of something is superdooper small,dosent mean its massless.

[apoplectic]

I think that it is probably not that WE havent heard of solar sails, but more likely the YOU have not read anything about them except that they are big mirrors. If you read anything about solar sails in depth you will learn about radiation pressure which does not have anything to do with mass but is from momentum and energy, two things, that if you read the post before yours, light has without mass.

also,if the work on momentum and energy look at this:

formula of momentum

P=mv

p=momentum,m=mass,v=volocity

if the mass of light is zero then,

P=0 x 360,000,000

P=0

no momentum

if it were powered on momentum and energy,to say that light is massless would be to say that solar sails would not work,and i dont think that scientists would over look a problem such as this when suggestion that NASA should use them

[Switch Kicker]

I think that it is probably not that WE havent heard of solar sails, but more likely the YOU have not read anything about them except that they are big mirrors. If you read anything about solar sails in depth you will learn about radiation pressure which does not have anything to do with mass but is from momentum and energy, two things, that if you read the post before yours, light has without mass.

also,if the work on momentum and energy look at this:

formula of momentum

P=mv

p=momentum,m=mass,v=volocity

if the mass of light is zero then,

P=0 x 360,000,000

P=0

no momentum

if it were powered on momentum and energy,to say that light is massless would be to say that solar sails would not work,and i dont think that scientists would over look a problem such as this when suggestion that NASA should use them

I think you meant m=x x 360,000,000. The rest of it's right though.

[Switch Kicker]

Lol... now I feel dumb. I meant to say, that I think you meant to say...

m = 0 x 360,000,000

lol, I'm so smooth. Not.

[apoplectic]

no accually i meant it the way it is, but either way would prove my point just as effective as the other.

[Switch Kicker]

no accually i meant it the way it is, but either way would prove my point just as effective as the other.

My bad, lol. Just made more sense to me I guess. Still works though.

[apoplectic]

no problem dude.everyone thinks differently,its what creates innovation.me likey innovation

[Tsiangkun]

we know
E=mc^2.

We all know that light has energy, and thus we can convert that energy to mass by placing it in an environment where the net momentum is zero.

[apoplectic]

very true.but i still think that a object has to have a mass to have energy.how else would we be able to see light?(i know that is a very primative way of thinking,but thats the only way i can think of not going into very complicated quantum mechanics)

[BenRea]

E=mc^2.

[BenRea]

why cant i edit my post!!!! ahhh!

i meant to say, we learned about that in class today!

[cammel]

and if light has no matter,why d they talk of light as photons?photons are not massless,they have a negligeable mass.

Try reading a physics book. Photons are defined as a MASSLESS PARTICLE. They have relativistic mass but no rest mass, meaning no "real" mass

to say that light has no mass is just stupid.just because the mass of something is superdooper small,dosent mean its massless.

You are basing you opinions on Newtonian mechanics which is quite a "stupid" thing to do when dealing with light.

formula of momentum

P=mv

if it were powered on momentum and energy,to say that light is massless would be to say that solar sails would not work,and i dont think that scientists would over look a problem such as this when suggestion that NASA should use them

Again, this is a Newtonian formula which doesn't mean shit for light.

we know
E=mc^2.

We all know that light has energy, and thus we can convert that energy to mass by placing it in an environment where the net momentum is zero.

very true.but i still think that a object has to have a mass to have energy.how else would we be able to see light?(i know that is a very primative way of thinking,but thats the only way i can think of not going into very complicated quantum mechanics)

Very astute observation Tsiangkun. But E=mc^2 cannot be applied to light because it is only true for particles at rest. The general equation is:

E^2-(cP)^2=(mc^2)^2

Clearly when v=0, P is also 0 so you get equation E=mc^2

Photons are massless so

E^2-(cP)^2=0 or E=cP


Therefore it is possible to have "momentum" in special relativity without invariant mass, and that momentum depends only on the energy of the light given by the equation P=E/c. Light can in fact increase the momentum of a solar sail without having mass, and light is massless in the Newtonian sense

[Jeremy]

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 60731.html

According to NASA, photons do not have a mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

According to Wikipedia, the mass of a photon is 0.