Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Illuminaughty]

If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum,

That's what I was taught at school.

 

[createdtoworship]

He just pointed that out. Not quite sure you understand why they are understood to be massless, and what that really means? The kind of mass we're used to dealing with is essentially rest mass, although you're not even quite getting what "mass" is, because you're thinking in terms of what you see around you (which isn't an uncommon mistake, after all).

The picture isn't quite so simple though once you deal with photons and subatomic levels.

Imagine a box made of "perfect" mirrors on the interior, surfaces that reflect everything and absorb nothing. If you were able to trap some photons inside, they would add to the rest mass of that box. This is because of special relativity, that says E=mc2 - if you add to the E, you have to add to the M in proportion with the constant C squared. That's what it means.

Add to this the fact that a photon with energy of greater than just over 1 Mev can be converted to an electron-positron pair, each having a mass of just over 0.5ev in the right conditions.

Technically a photon is energy, it isn't a container for energy or really a thing with energy, it just ...is. Photons are never at rest (and never have rest mass, the mass with which we are acutely familiar) - but they have nonzero momentum.

Photons behave as if they have mass when they pass very very large objects - such as galaxies - because they follow the curvature of space-time taking the same path as if they had a tiny mass when they in fact do not. Energy is also capable of curving space-time (in fact, the curvature is really equal to the energy-momentum at that point, if I remember right), so photons do in fact have gravitational attraction.

And to complicate it even further, once you delve into quantum mechanics there are virtual photons which have a non-zero mass...and so on and so forth.

Basically...you're trying to borrow little bits of a very, very complicated concept, which is why you're going to run into problems.

okay so rest mass is what we are talking about. Because if they had mass the speed of light would alter. So no way around that.

 

[mkatzwork]

okay so rest mass is what we are talking about. Because if they had mass the speed of light would alter. So no way around that.

Well...yes AND no. And probably maybe too.

The actual speed of light alters quite a lot, and the amount that it can alter in certain materials is known as the refractive index of that material. C refers to the speed of a light in a vacuum, as I'm sure you know.

If the photon had even a tiny mass it would seem this would naturally cause the velocity of a photon in a vacuum to not be a constant, and lots of things would break down, including special relativity.

But let's complicate it even more...it's not actually proven experimentally that photons have no mass...we know the highest that that mass could be, and its a pretty small number. Like - crazy small. Depends on which experiment you're looking at, some people have issues with the one that gives the smallest upper boundary, which is measuring the magnetic fields of galaxies, but those that measure planetary magnetic fields are pretty sound.

Here's the thing though - there are a few theories that involve the photon having a very tiny mass without violating special relativity.

One says that photons with mass don't necessarily violate special relativity, because the constant C would then be said to be simply the limiting velocity above which nothing can travel faster, and the speed of light would not be that speed. Others use Alexandru Proca's equations to incorporate a non-zero rest mast for the photon into quantum electrodynamics. So...without getting overly technical - it's not really settled yet.

For the majority of what's going on...yes, we can assume it is massless, and it may BE massless...but it might not be...

 

[createdtoworship]

Well...yes AND no. And probably maybe too.

The actual speed of light alters quite a lot, and the amount that it can alter in certain materials is known as the refractive index of that material. C refers to the speed of a light in a vacuum, as I'm sure you know.

If the photon had even a tiny mass it would seem this would naturally cause the velocity of a photon in a vacuum to not be a constant, and lots of things would break down, including special relativity.

But let's complicate it even more...it's not actually proven experimentally that photons have no mass...we know the highest that that mass could be, and its a pretty small number. Like - crazy small. Depends on which experiment you're looking at, some people have issues with the one that gives the smallest upper boundary, which is measuring the magnetic fields of galaxies, but those that measure planetary magnetic fields are pretty sound.

Here's the thing though - there are a few theories that involve the photon having a very tiny mass without violating special relativity.

One says that photons with mass don't necessarily violate special relativity, because the constant C would then be said to be simply the limiting velocity above which nothing can travel faster, and the speed of light would not be that speed. Others use Alexandru Proca's equations to incorporate a non-zero rest mast for the photon into quantum electrodynamics. So...without getting overly technical - it's not really settled yet.

For the majority of what's going on...yes, we can assume it is massless, and it may BE massless...but it might not be...

I assumed you knew I was talking about a vacuum, so I am right.

 

[mkatzwork]

I assumed you knew I was talking about a vacuum, so I am right.

Um...no. Not necessarily.

Did you not read the rest? The photon could have mass.

 

[createdtoworship]

Um...no. Not necessarily.

Did you not read the rest? The photon could have mass.

um no, it would change the speed of light in a vacuum. We already discussed this. ( no need reading the rest)

 

[mkatzwork]

um no, it would change the speed of light in a vacuum. We already discussed this. ( no need reading the rest)

Yes - BUT that might still not be a problem for special relativity......that's the point. Gauge invariance would break down but the massive proton theories can generally explain that...sort of the first order of business for them. Which is why reading the rest mattered...

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes - BUT that might still not be a problem for special relativity......that's the point. Gauge invariance would break down but the massive proton theories can generally explain that...sort of the first order of business for them. Which is why reading the rest mattered...

just verbage to prove your agenda, which I don't need. occam's razor remember that.

 

[mkatzwork]

just verbage to prove your agenda, which I don't need. occam's razor remember that.

Verbiage. And hardly. I think that the photon most likely is massless, but not everybody does, and there are valid alternative theories. You're claiming an absolute, that you don't even really understand, where none exists...just to support your agenda (which it didn't even support all that well).

 

[createdtoworship]

Verbiage. And hardly. I think that the photon most likely is massless, but not everybody does, and there are valid alternative theories. You're claiming an absolute, that you don't even really understand, where none exists...just to support your agenda (which it didn't even support all that well).

well, we agree then. Photons are massless, and therefore have no time. Because time is a physical property. Which means that all information that is sent wifi or over wireless is also eternal. But, it is believed that information is eternal as it is. Regardless of it's state. A CD weighs half an ounce with a thousand dollars of software on it, or blank. So we know information is massless.

I sound crazy but it works out.

 

[mzungu]

I assumed you knew I was talking about a vacuum, so I am right.

The human body is a vacuum? I am still waiting for your mathematical model that explains how your massless soul interacts with the human brain.

All you are doing is basically digging yourself into the ground!

Oh well this is what happens when creationists try to use science to prove the supernatural!

 

[AV1611VET]

The human body is a vacuum? I am still waiting for your mathematical model that explains how your massless soul interacts with the human brain.

In tripartitism, the brain is considered part of the body; whereas the soul houses the mind.

 

[mzungu]

In tripartitism, the brain is considered part of the body; whereas the soul houses the mind.

And Where's the rest of the explanation

 

[AV1611VET]

And Where's the rest of the explanation

I thought I explained it already:

According to tripartitism, a born-again believer's soul is fed by the fruit of the Spirit, which gets its nourishment from the Word of God.

The two in turn, help to nourish the body by strengthening the immune system.

It's kind of like a circle: the body reads the Word, which feeds the Spirit, which nourishes the soul, which nourishes the body.

Very few people, including myself, have that harmony ... in my opinion.

 

[mzungu]

I thought I explained it already:

If you were to ask me to define the process of digestion and how the body absorbs the resulting nutrients would you accept this as an answer:

Digestion is when you eat food and it makes you stronger!

 

[AV1611VET]

If you were to ask me to define the process of digestion and how the body absorbs the resulting nutrients would you accept this as an answer:

Digestion is when you eat food and it makes you stronger!

If I didn't believe in digestion in the first place ... would any explanation matter?

 

[createdtoworship]

The human body is a vacuum? I am still waiting for your mathematical model that explains how your massless soul interacts with the human brain.

All you are doing is basically digging yourself into the ground!

Oh well this is what happens when creationists try to use science to prove the supernatural!

we all agree that photons are massless only yourself disagree. So who's digging now?

 

[mzungu]

If I didn't believe in digestion in the first place ... would any explanation matter?

We (pro science) are not the ones who mix the physical with the supernatural. when Creationists want to use science to prove the supernatural then they have to abide by the rules of science.

I asked for a definition. I have received none. It seems that creationists do not know what the word definition stands for

 

[mzungu]

we all agree that photons are massless only yourself disagree. So who's digging now?

If you are going to debate with me in this thread then do have the decency to read my posts. First learn how science works then come back to me else stay with your polka dotted unicorn arguments!

 

[AV1611VET]

I asked for a definition.

No, you didn't.

Here's what you said:

The human body is a vacuum? I am still waiting for your mathematical model that explains how your massless soul interacts with the human brain.

For someone who doesn't "mix the physical with the supernatural," this is one doosey of a demand.

I'm willing to mix science with Scripture via my Boolean standards.

Are you willing to do the same?

The thing with you "pro science" people (as you called yourself), you're not willing to compromise; but you sure as shootin' demand we compromise.

Well, I do compromise ... to a point.

And believe me, you guys let me know when I don't go all the way.