TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

If light photons have no mass, then how can gravity affect them? i.e., being pulled into a black hole.

Perhaps light, from its source, follows the curvature of space-time as created by gravitational objects such as stars and black holes.

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 19 2012: We should figure out how gravity and light actually work first. Doesnt that make more sense? But ultimately science is based on assumptions. Look up for your self how we measure light, you might find it interesting that it is based on one of the worlds largest assumptions
    • Dec 19 2012: Maybe you'll enjoy listening to this guy
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R2dNwih-1s
      • thumb
        Dec 19 2012: you know it based on the assumption that everything rotates in a circle and not an eclipse right? Light takes the same amount of time to travel no matter what distance it travels

        check out this video
        http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html

        I can provide scientific proof that most of science is based on assumptions
        • thumb
          Dec 19 2012: Re: "I can provide scientific proof that most of science is based on assumptions."

          You assume you can...
        • Dec 19 2012: Thanks for the links but i am currently on a very slow connection and having difficulties with downloading the videos. I'll watch them later.
          Re : most of science is based on assumptions
          I have no doubt :), but it would be very interesting to hear the scientific proof .
          Thanks !
      • thumb
        Dec 19 2012: And the best thing about science is even scientist will admit that everything is a theory and can always be proven wrong....
        • thumb
          Dec 19 2012: Perhaps, you didn't say it right. I have learned from experience to avoid phrases like "everything... can always...". The first thing that can be proven wrong is a statement like this.

          Carl Popper said that unfalsifiable theories (i.e. such that cannot be proven wrong in principle) are bad theories and have no place in science. In this sense, you are right. I wouldn't say, however, that any theory can always be proven wrong. Not any and not always. Only if we are lucky to have evidence and technology to discover it.

          "We can't all, and some of us don't" -- Eeyore.
        • thumb
          Dec 19 2012: RE: the Buddha comment: Mr. Christofaris, the contents of the link Ms. Niikulina provided is the subject of my comment. It was addressed to her.
        • Dec 19 2012: Arkady,
          what is 'wrong' with science is its doctrine of objectivity , which until recently has been holy in this enterprise.
          And objectivity can be viewed as assumption on previously achieved assumptions.
          I am very interested in what Casey is/was about to say.
      • thumb
        Dec 19 2012: Far out man! So, did Buddha understand, and explain to us, light and time? Someone should have stumbled upon that gem long ago.
      • thumb
        Dec 19 2012: Oddly enough, everything the hippie in the video says are scientific facts, not religious or philosophical blibber-blubber. Forget about the question, why photons are not affected by gravity. One can say that they simply move in a space warped by mass. But how can we say that photons "move" if from photon's perspective, time does not exist?! Photon's clock does not change! And if photon's clock does not change, a photon cannot change its position in space with time too... Which means MBR radiation does not come from "deep space" as an echo of big bang that happened 13.7bln years ago. From photon's perspective, MBR radiation is here and now. And the big bang is not something that happened somewhere 13.7 bln years ago. Big bang is also here and now. It's not even "happening" which implies some development in time. It, simply, *IS* here and now, along with everything else that ever was and will be...

        Oh, and, by the way, if space and time do not exist in photon's world, what exactly is photon frequency and wave length?

        Scientists seem to have hard time explaining what time is
        http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time#.UNIKvKKmc5A
        http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.1947.pdf

        When scientists say that religion does not make sense, it reminds me of that joke about a kid peeping into his parent's bedroom and saying "And these are the people who won't let me pick my nose!".
        • Dec 19 2012: Congratulations, Arkady ! :)
          You sound like Einstein who ask the child -like question :
          How does the time look from the crest of a light wave ?
          The answer is that , at the speed of light, time stops.
          So... non-material consciousness riding a light wave would see the whole of the past simultaneously with the whole of the future.
          To such a mind there would be no before and no after , only an undivided now. If it is not what can be called God, i don't know what it is, but it has little to do with religions OMHO : )
        • Dec 20 2012: Edgar Casey said, " Time is an illusion. Everything happens at once."
      • thumb
        Dec 19 2012: OK. But, again, did Buddha or I Ching explain light and time?
        • Dec 19 2012: In the video there is a quote :" nothing has independent existence from everything else " ( sounds quite quantum mechanical :) )
          It is the answer to your question; Buddhism doesn't dissect reality , which is the illusion of the human mind into parts like time space light ..etc.
          As far as i understand Buddhism doesn't care to explain anything , it's scientific 'faustinian' claim :) It teaches how to deal with illusion ( Maya ) And language, the very tool we are using now is the weaver of illusion.
          I Ching ' studied ' time as if consists of elements and achieved much more accurate and applicable understanding of time (or dynamics within time ) as we have now.
          But i am not an expert, really , almighty Google help you , if you are interested : )
          Best to you !
      • thumb
        Dec 20 2012: Re: "Arkady, what is 'wrong' with science is its doctrine of objectivity , which until recently has been holy in this enterprise."

        It's wrong for me to say it, but I've also learned that it's wrong to think of things as "wrong" or "right". "Do not judge..." If you know what I mean... :-)... But I agree with you.
    • Dec 20 2012: Hey Casey,

      We possibly found a new issue to disagree upon!

      The ONLY assumption science makes is that "We can percieve reality". All of science is based upon "describing the reality". Then this leads to a theory which "describes reality as closely as possible".
      Then there are a few options from there.

      1) We discover a new place where the theory should apply. But it fails. Then the theory is falsified. Which will result in scientists trying to come up with a different theory which is accurate in more cases.
      (this happened with Newton gravity laws when we realised that our solar system revolves around the sun and that some 'stars' are actually planets)

      2) We discover a new place where the theory should apply and it does! The theory gains probability of being correct.
      (This happened in 1919 when Einstein's theory correctfully predicted how much light would be bent by... and many more times after that as well)

      3) Some other scientist comes up with another theory for the same phenomenon and both seem to hold in the same cases where the rule is correct. (This somewhat happens with String theory... but I must confess that I am unsure how accurately this statement is... it is however also what Einstein did to Newton)

      So basically scientific theory describes all of reality as far as we know it! (So the assumption is that our perception of reality is accurate)
      To say however that theory is true is stupid because we can never(!) know if we know (or can even percieve) all of reality.
      Also to say that you can prove a theory to be false is stupid because you would have to find an occurence in nature where the theory does not hold up. And science only accepts a theory as valid when ALL KNOWN occurances are accurately described.
      So you HAVE to find an, up till now, unknown occurance of where the theory should apply AND on top of that it has to be one where the theory fails!
      Good luck!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.