Hi Doug,

Photosynthesis isn't a good example of the interchangeability of matter and energy or viceversa because it's basically a reaction that involves molecules, not sub-atomic particles.

A nuclear reaction is where this is observed, where an atom weighing N breaks up into two smaller atoms weighing P and P + P < N. In this case you may say that m = n - 2*p and then it follows that the amount of energy released equals to m * (c^2) (einstein's formula).

As far as light being a wave or a beam of particles, it behaves as both depending on the circumstances. That's how we ended up with Quantum mechanics.

If you're interested in these topics, I suggest you visit http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/FTL.html There are a lot of interesting things there in plain english.

alex



>Larry,
>
>Well, think about this for a minute.. Remember, energy can be converted to matter, and matter can be converted to energy. A simple examination of photosynthesis (sp?) shows this to be the case. Being struck by a laser beam of the right type can punch a hole through solid steel as well.
>
>If we were to imagine the total absence of all atoms I dare say that time and light wouldn't exist either.
>
>So, are they the same in a fundamental sense? I think they are. Perhaps different formulations but they mudst have a commonality in order to be able to 'talk' in that energy can become matter and back again.
>
>Light is nothing more than atoms of a certain type vibrating at a certain frequency (simply put) and we have indeed proven that light has mass. It can be bent and apparently now accellerated. IOW, it can be manipulated. It exists in a material sense.
>
>Time is really nothing more than the relationship of moving heavenly bodies. We "perceive" time by virtue of these movements. Let's look at the corrolary: timelessness. In the Christian circles I travel in this is called "eternity", but in today's world that word has just about zero meaning. I'd say that timelessness (lack of time) would be the non-measurable present. It simple is. We can only try and define timelessness, and thereby define time by virture of contrast. Timelessness, for example, is not past, or future. The "present" really wouldn't have much meaning since it derives a lot of its value from what it is not - past or future. <g> From a timelessness pov you could say that all time-based events are observable at the same ..er.. time. <g> It's tough to try and define, we're so stuck here in our thinking process.
>
>For example, I love my wife. While that love exists in my heart and mind, and I live inside of matter I am more than that and that love is neither matter nor time. It can exist apart from either of those and so, in some small sense, it can be said to trannscend both time and matter.
>
>The problem we seem to have Larry is that we tend to get stuck in a matter-only thinking process. I assert that there is more and, therefore, something that will outlast both time and matter. Others do not so think.
>
>Still, this whole business of light being of a greater spee dthat thought is no surprise to me. I think, for example, that gravity is faster than light but I also think we have a long way to go before we will begin to understand gravity.
>
>Best,
>
>DD
>
>
>>Doug,
>>You bring up an interesting point but I have to disagree on the basis that everything is not made up of atoms. Matter is. But light (and quite possibly time) is energy. While Einstein says that the two are interchangable, they are not the same.
>>
>>>Larry,
>>>
>>>There are some very interesting theories around that take the position that time (and light) are both slowing down. It actually makes some sense. Remember, everything is made of atoms. Atoms degrade. We use this degradation to measure the age of 'stuff'. We call that atomic decay. If time is a function of the movement of heavenly bodies (ie. Sun & Moon) and these bodies are composed of atoms - atoms which decay or slow down I think a fair case can be made that light itself is slowing down.
>>>
>>>I know as I get older it seems to speed up. <g> I take this as evidence that I am slowing down. <g>
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>DD
>>>
>>>>Scientists have done it. They have broken the TIME barrier! Let's all walk through some cesium gas and see if we can get "disperesed" in this way. *bg*
>>>>
>>>>>I'm no scientist, but this isn't making sense to me...
>>>>>
>>>>>It takes 0.2 nanoseconds through a vacuum, but through their chamber, it taks 62 nanoseconds _less_ than that? So it takes -61.8 nanoseconds? What am I missing?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>Michelle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thought you might find this interesting: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000719/nj_nec_sup.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DD