If Sunlight is quantity of SUN?/Is the Sun Alive?

[Kumar]

Not really. The information is in the photo, not in the light.

Hans

But still it is information of light.

 

[Kumar]

Which does not exist.

Then, any new thing can be possible.

 

[Kumar]

They are all more or less true, depending on what you mean.

Again it is very confusing & contradicting. As such, someone here said truly that science is inharently skeptical and I said as non A&F and therefore can aso be skeptible in all scientific studies & understandings.

 

[Brian-M]

Of now pls take it like that: a mass in sunlight is heavier than that mass not in sunlight?

This question makes no sense. Can you rephrase it please?

If heavier, it will suggest that sunlight has mass.

Photons, whether from the sun or not, do have mass.

They just don't have any rest mass (intrinsic mass). This is why they're referred to as massless particles.

The only mass they have is proportional to their energy, which is dependent on their frequency or wavelength. But the problem is that the energy, frequency or wavelength of a photon depends on the velocity of an observer. It's not a fixed value, which is why it's not counted when we talk about the mass of a photon.

But if you're really interested, you can work it out.

Energy in a photon: E = h * c / λ
Mass from energy: m = e / c²
Therefore mass of a photon: m = (h * c / λ) / c²
λ = observed wavelength
c = 299,792,458 m/s
h = 6.626068 * 10^-34 = Planck's constant

So if we had a photon of green light with a wavelength of 510 nm, the mass of that photon would be:

m = ((6.626068 * 10^-34) * 299,792,458 / 0.000,000,51) / (299,792,458)²m = 4.333 * 10^-36 kg
m = 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,004,333 kg
​

It'd take about 200,000 of them to equal the mass of an electron.

(I can't guarantee that I've done all the math properly. I'm just working this out while watching TV.)

If we keep a sustance in sunlight, will mass of that substance increase or not than when it is not kept in sunlight?

If keeping it in sunlight causes it to get warmer than if not kept in sunlight, then the extra heat will cause it to gain a small amount of mass... but only until the object cools down. It doesn't have to be sunlight, placing it next to something hot like a lightbulb or a hot water bottle would have exactly the same effect.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sunray therapy or colour therapy may indicate that something is left in water on exposure it to sunlight.

Actual question is not refer to conversion but is as told that energy has mass. How a massless thing can be converted into mass?

How a massless thing can be converted into mass?

Btw, whether mass is aggragation or modification of energy?

I think better.

I asked it in simple way:-

If we keep a sustance in sunlight, will mass of that substance increase or not than when it is not kept in sunlight?

If increase, how it can be possible that massless energy can increase mass?

Btw, in view of energy mass conversion:- whether mass is an aggragation or modification of energy?

Sorry, it was a photon.

How then we can get a photo or vision of a substance?

Is it like it:-

Consider for example a lighted lighted bulb as a photon.

We can not recognize a substance by seeing at one bulb but can recognize a figure if many bulbs are forming that substance's shape. ?

I meant it:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
Your post indicates that energy has mass on one side but no mass on other side.?
Moreover how energy can be converted into mass if it has no mass?
I felt simplicity is linked to satability. Moving a photon in any unpredictable direction(as per link), I consider it unstability.

Such as?

Citation needed.

Still you confirm that energy has mass. More or less is an different issue.

Unless energy has mass, how it can be converted or aggragated into mass?

Many had indicated in this topic. Pls read few initial posts of this topic. MR hans has also indicated it.

Since, all forms you mentioned above has mass even molecules of water, your above example also suggest that energy(say in H2O form) has mass.

If that link not suggest that photons can move in any direction?

A wondering person in any direction can be considered as not stable person.

Pls remove oversimplification and just tell me again with simplification.

To simplify it, whether you meant that direction of photon is always predictibable?

But still it is information of light.

Then, any new thing can be possible.

Again it is very confusing & contradicting. As such, someone here said truly that science is inharently skeptical and I said as non A&F and therefore can aso be skeptible in all scientific studies & understandings.

There is no such thing as A&F in science.

 

[Big Al]

But still it is information of light.

Despite numerous protestations to the contrary, I really cannot see this labyrinthine attempt at misdirection leading anywhere but homeopathy.

 

[arthwollipot]

Ooh, can I play?

If we keep a sustance in sunlight, will mass of that substance increase or not than when it is not kept in sunlight?

Not.

 

[Mojo]

I asked it in simple way:-

If we keep a sustance in sunlight, will mass of that substance increase or not than when it is not kept in sunlight?

The sunlight will have exactly the same effect as heat from any other source. It doesn't include "quantity of SUN".

 

[Mojo]

Actual question is not refer to conversion but is as told that energy has mass. How a massless thing can be converted into mass?

E=mc²

 

[Mojo]

Sorry, it was a photon.

Photons are just photons. They do not have properties specific to whatever emitted them.

 

[Mojo]

How then we can get a photo or vision of a substance?

Is it like it:-

Consider for example a lighted lighted bulb as a photon.

We can not recognize a substance by seeing at one bulb but can recognize a figure if many bulbs are forming that substance's shape. ?

If you had photographs of objects made from different substances, but of the same colour, then you would not be able to tell which is which. There is no information in the photo about the substance, other than its colour. In a black and white photograph there isn't even that.

 

[AdMan]

Photons are just photons. They do not have properties specific to whatever emitted them.

Kumar has been told this multiple times, yet he apparently remains unable (maybe unwilling) to understand this.

 

[pakeha]

How then we can get a photo or vision of a substance?

Is it like it:-

Consider for example a lighted lighted bulb as a photon.

We can not recognize a substance by seeing at one bulb but can recognize a figure if many bulbs are forming that substance's shape. ?

No.

Since, all forms you mentioned above has mass even molecules of water, your above example also suggest that energy(say in H2O form) has mass.

We're getting ever closer to homeopathy, eh, Kumar?

But still it is information of light.

No.

 

[Big Al]

Sorry guys, after several posts sticking strictly to mass-energy equivalence, I did slip up in one post and say "energy has mass" rather than "energy has a mass equivalent". Sorry if that has prolonged the agony needlessly.

With regard to a photon of a given quantum number being identical to another photon of the same quantum number being emitted from a different atom, an analogy to use might be that a bet at a casino might be unique to the person making the bet, but only in the sense of the proportions of different value chips that make it up. Chips of the same denomination are are to all intents and purposes identical, regardless of the gambler who bets them. They are interchangeable between the different gamblers and may change hands many times and remain unchanged.

I am not a gambling man, but I would still put a sizeable stack on this still being a circuitous link to homeopathy. There seems to be this undercurrent of the photons preserving something of the parent atom when they leave - an atomic branded T-shirt, badge or button that is carried around with it wherever it goes: a memory of its birthplace.

Regardless of the fact that that is nonsense, it still seems to be the upshot of what Kumar is driving at so obliquely.

 

[Kumar]

This question makes no sense. Can you rephrase it please?




Photons, whether from the sun or not, do have mass.

They just don't have any rest mass (intrinsic mass). This is why they're referred to as massless particles.

The only mass they have is proportional to their energy, which is dependent on their frequency or wavelength. But the problem is that the energy, frequency or wavelength of a photon depends on the velocity of an observer. It's not a fixed value, which is why it's not counted when we talk about the mass of a photon.

But if you're really interested, you can work it out.


If keeping it in sunlight causes it to get warmer than if not kept in sunlight, then the extra heat will cause it to gain a small amount of mass... but only until the object cools down. It doesn't have to be sunlight, placing it next to something hot like a lightbulb or a hot water bottle would have exactly the same effect.

Thanks a lot. Since we interact mostly with a specific portion of EM spectrum, we can also say photon has mass to which we commonly interact. Your calculation also suggest that mass of photon is mass of energy/wavelength, hence energy has mass.

Now I think, two type of mass are there in photon. 1. Due to wavelength(I think permanent) 2. Due to temporary exposure of energy(temporary).

What do you mean by "velocity of an observer"?

 

[Kumar]

Ooh, can I play?

Not.

Sorry but is told by Brain M in 3 post back.?

 

[Kumar]

Ooh, can I play?

Not.

Sorry but is told by Brain M in 3 post back.?

I also do feel bit heavy when in bright sunlight.

 

[Mojo]

I also do feel bit heavy when in bright sunlight.

Eat less, and take a bit more exercise.

 

[Mojo]

Now I think, two type of mass are there in photon. 1. Due to wavelength(I think permanent) 2. Due to temporary exposure of energy(temporary).

 

[Kumar]

The sunlight will have exactly the same effect as heat from any other source. It doesn't include "quantity of SUN".

Sorry, if Sun is losing mass due to energy emittance and if energy(wavelengths composing sunlight) has mass, I feel it is quite logical to consider that natural sunlight is quantity of sun.