Help
Sign In
metaphysics
November 2009 
When whimsical particles of light collide
Cinc
My question of the day:
Off and on over the decades, I've wondered what happens when photons collide - which of course they do all the time, but humor me on this one : -)
Some definitions (keep these in mind as I expound my whimsy):
According to Wikipedia*:
"...a photon is an elementary particle..the basic "unit" of light...[and] the photon has no rest mass"
[Comment: No "rest mass," eh? No problem: Since photons (that is, particles of light) don't even exist at rest, the whole concept of rest mass doesn't seem to apply to light, for light is never at rest.]
According to answerbag**:
"...a photon is at least a Billion-Trillion times lighter [than an electron]! (most likely its mass is exactly zero)"
[Comment: What you mean by "most likely," White Man?]
According to many sources: Light is a phenomenon that exhibits the properties of waves and particles - this is known as the wave-particle duality.
Increasing the mass of particles is the key
The machines crudely known as atom smashers (more to the point: particle accelerators) do just that. After streams of particles within an atom smasher (for instance, electrons) have been accelerated to near the speed of light, they've substantially increased in mass. These extra-massive electrons are then bombarded into target atoms, thereby disintegrating them into their component parts.
The extra mass which is gained by the process of acceleration is the key. In fact, acceleration is the key. The reason why nothing can travel faster than (or even as fast as) the speed of light has to do with the upper limit this increase-of-mass phenomenon imposes on physical reality.
When an object starts to accelerate - even slowly at first - it gains mass (by the way, never understood how that worked). The faster an object can be made to move, the more massive it becomes. If you could accelerate an object so that it actually reached the speed of light, it would have to have infinite mass (which is more mass than that of the entire universe).
Which of course means, no object could ever hit light speed due to this upper limit.
But...photons (which are particles, right?) are already moving at the speed of light, so if they have any mass at all, that mass must be infinite (unless it's special mass - I jest). [I know, I know...this sentence must stand as proof that photons have absolutely no mass when in motion, which adds to what we already know: photons have no rest mass.]
However, in order to assert that light is in some way a "particle," yet has no mass, invites us to the realm where it's possible for particles (other types, above and beyond photons) to "exist" without mass (or, to put it crudely, stuffness). If that can be possible, then one is forced to ask: "Just what exactly is something that has no mass? Can anything without mass be said to have any is-ness whatsoever?"
My crude experiment
I took two flashlights and aimed them at each other, turning them on. I thought about all those photons smacking into each other at the speed of light, each one having all the mass that speed implies. Since accelerated electrons moving near light speed can actually disintegrate atoms, shouldn't these photons disintegrate each other if they suffer head-on-collisions at this highest-possible-speed?
Guess not....turning my two flashlights on didn't smash photons and vaporize me. There was no sudden release of a tremendous amount of energy similar to the kind of energy rush you get when atoms are smashed (as in a nuclear weapon).
But I thought, "Wait a minute. What if we aimed two laser canons at each other and opened fire?" Of course, the timing would have to be exquisite. But what if?
Just thinking...
Light holds a very special place in my heart. In a literal sense, a photon of light "pops" into existence when an atom is excited to a higher energy level. First it doesn't exist, then it does exist. Also special because God said, "Let there be light." First there was no light, then there was. Interesting, in and of itself.
As for any wave-particle duality, maybe a photon "shuttles" back and forth between these two identities and does so so rapidly, even if two photons collided, there wouldn't be any tremendous release of energy due to photon-smashing unless both happened to be in particle mode. If you talk about the odds of that happening, I suppose far greater within a star than in the void of space or even here on earth.
Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:
"My real interest in light lies in how it enables us to know each other, not in trying to figure out how to use it to obtain more energy. We already have all the energy we need for what's really important to be done. It's just a matter of focusing it and using it wisely" - Steve.
Founder of The Best Party Available
Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
** http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/97627
Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.
Access: Public
Wise and insightful? But a comment , though perhaps in a different direction.
As the story of our existence continues to unfold, to be expressed in many ways, seemingly directly related to the expression the moment before, there are many concepts and themes and ideas, that have become part of the story we are expressing and experiencing in this reality.
One of the ideas being expressed is that of matter, physical matter. We have experienced, initially, through our senses, in their simplest application, the boundaries of our physical world.
Our sense of sight tells us something is “out there.” Touch tells us it has a definable boarder and a texture, and perhaps as we push against it, a certain resistance to movement. Our nose may tell us it emits and odor, our ears may alert us to some sound it seems to be producing. If we place our tongue to it, it may have a taste.
We are “aware” of certain experiences. And that awareness occurs in the brain, or does it. Our story seems to imply that it does, or at least that was once its central theme.
There have been additions to our story of late, that suggest that the ideas we once believed true and absolute, may not be at all.
Our story is composed of a huge number of actions/experiences of what? Of us, of energy, of consciousness, of awareness. That which is unobservable, expresses as something observable, in a fashion that has meaning to us. Does that mean that the expression of the unobservable, though in a manner different than other expressions, is actually a different component of what is unobservable.
What is a photon by any other name? What ever you choose to call it. The breeze that blows gently across your face, and the wind that moves the leaves on the trees, and the tornado that destroys the house, and the hurricane that creates the tidal wave, are all expressions of one thing, wind.
Difference in expression does not mean difference in substance, or…non substance.
Photons colliding and breaking into something else , makes sense to us, because that is what the grossly observable stuff does. Or at least that is what our senses seem to tell us it is doing.
If we observe photons because we believe we observe photons, and if they collide because we believe they collide, and if they create other “particles” because we believe they create other particles, and if all we experience in “this” reality occurs in line with our developing beliefs, then it is up to us, what it is that occurs, when photons collide
You/we will decide, and our story will continue.