Scientists stop light

[Kramerman]

ok, new question

Despite what Newton says, mass doesn't give gravity - it is energy that does. This is what General Relativity is all about. The energy warps space-time, not the mass. (Besides, in GR, you can always find a frame of reference where the light moves in a straight line)

i was taught that mass is what warps space time, adn that light has no gravity itself, but does get 'bent' when traveling thru warps made by a mass, like a star or somethn. is this energy deal somethn relatively new or was my physics teacher a moron? it could very possiblly be the second

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Azazel


oh look, it's the humanities guy.

It's always a pleasure to make an honorable appearance here on Apolyton.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher


But we can still diss MrFun right?!

Only if I know that you diss me because you like me so much.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by MrFun



Only if I know that you diss me because you like me so much.

you are so gay

[MrFun]

one word -- DUH

[Ben Kenobi]

I said it, not RJ.

Apologies Azazel.

I shall edit the post.

[Japher]

is this energy deal somethn relatively new or was my physics teacher a moron? it could very possiblly be the second

I think it's new... but since I have been wrong once before I am not going to talk about this crap anymore. IMO, it's all theories anyway, so they can be wrong too.

MrFun your fun to hurl sheit at.. but I'm not gay.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kramerman
ok, new question



i was taught that mass is what warps space time, adn that light has no gravity itself, but does get 'bent' when traveling thru warps made by a mass, like a star or somethn. is this energy deal somethn relatively new or was my physics teacher a moron? it could very possiblly be the second

I always figured that it had to be energy that causes gravity, if it isn't I can't comprehend how the recipricol force/momentum transfer is going to take place when objects gravitationally pull on massless particles.

I also wonder what would happen to the gravitational fields generated by matter and anti-matter after they annihilate. Surely they still exist even when all that is left is photons. Else you could have perpetual motion machines?

[Japher]

I am also an author of the Technical Design Report for the European linear collider, which has a proposed budget of $4 billion.

Now that's some serious dough. My wife drives over the Stanford Linear Accelerator everyday, it's impressive...

Whatever the case with this "stopping light" I think it is cool that they can generate the effects of a super conducter without the low temps, just goes to show how limitedless the binds of science really are; problem, throw some nerds on it, problemed solved... Awesome

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher

MrFun your fun to hurl sheit at.. but I'm not gay.

I said "like" -- I didn't say "lust."

[Kramerman]

hooah nerds

[Az]

I also wonder what would happen to the gravitational fields generated by matter and anti-matter after they annihilate. Surely they still exist even when all that is left is photons. Else you could have perpetual motion machines?

Umm, I don't think so, explain.

[Dis]

this seems like old news. I can swear I already read this in Discover magazine.

And in any case that is a worthless scientific achievment.

Check this out:

The highest prime number.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/11/prime.number.ap/index.html

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kramerman
i was taught that mass is what warps space time, adn that light has no gravity itself, but does get 'bent' when traveling thru warps made by a mass, like a star or somethn. is this energy deal somethn relatively new or was my physics teacher a moron? it could very possiblly be the second

This depends on your definition of 'relatively new' - 1905 or so? Lets go with option 2.

It is the energy that warps space time - not the mass. It is just that for all 'normal sized' objects 99.9999999% of its energy is in its mass. So light itself will warp space-time too.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Japher
Including that in order for something to contain energy it must also have a mass. If you want to refute that light does not have energy than you can say it does not have a mass, but I don't think you want to say that. Do you?

What the **** are you on?

Who told you that mass is a requirement for energy?