« 'Venice.Art.Ubiquitous.' | Home | Gross Cakes Cookbook »

June 21, 2007

'The Shadow Goes' — Margaret Wertheim explains why light is pedestrian when it comes to the speed of nothing

20opart650_2

On yesterday's New York Times Op-Ed page appeared a passing strange piece by Margaret Wertheim about shadows.

Long story short: I haven't stopped thinking about it since I read it last evening, and probably won't for the foreseeable future.

Her essay follows.

    The Shadow Goes

    On Thursday, on the summer solstice, the Sun will celebrate the year’s lazy months by resting on the horizon. The word solstice derives from the Latin “sol” (sun) and “sistere” (to stand still). The day marks the sun’s highest point in the sky, the moment when our shadows shrink to their shortest length of the year. How strange to think that these mundane friends, our ever-present familiars, can actually go faster than the sun’s rays.

    I remarked on this recently to my husband as we sat on the porch with our shadows pooling by our chairs. Nothing can go faster than light, he insisted, expressing what is surely the most widely known law of physics, ingrained into us by a thousand “Nova” programs.

    That is the point, I explained: Nothing can go faster than light. A shadow isn’t a thing. It’s a non-thing. It’s the absence of light.

    Special relativity dictates that we cannot move anything more quickly than the particles of light known as photons, but no law says you can’t do nothing faster than light. Physicists have known this for a long time, even if they generally do not mention it on PBS documentaries.

    My husband looked troubled, as did my sister and some friends I regaled with the story that evening. Like the warp drive on “Star Trek,” faster-than-light travel is supposed to be a science-fiction fantasy. Isn’t it?

    They are right about the travel: According to relativity, no physical substance can exceed the speed of light because it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything to such a velocity.

    Yet the laws of physics pertain only to that which is. That which isn’t is not bound by relativity’s restraint. From the point of view of relativity, a shadow (having no mass) is a non-thing, an existential void.

    It’s quite easy to conjure up a faster-than-light shadow, at least in theory. Build a great klieg light, a superstrong version of the ones set up at the Academy Awards. Now paste a piece of black paper onto the klieg’s glass so there is a shadow in the middle of the beam, like the signal used to summon Batman. And we are going to mount our light in space and broadcast the Bat-call to the cosmos.

    The key to our trick is to rotate the klieg. As the light turns, the bat shadow sweeps across the sky. Round and round it goes, projecting into the void. Just as the rim of a bicycle wheel moves faster than its hub, so too, away from the source our bat shadow will fly faster and faster, a consequence of the geometry that guarantees the rim of a really big wheel moves faster than a co-rotating small wheel.

    At a great enough distance from the source, our shadow bat will go so fast it will exceed the speed of light. This does not violate relativity because a shadow carries no energy. Literally nothing is transferred. Our shadow bat can go 10 times the speed of light or 100 times faster without breaking any of physics’ sacred rules.

    My sister leapt to the heart of this apparent paradox: Why isn’t the light itself traveling faster than the speed of light? Isn’t it also rotating in space? Actually, no. The bulbs that produce the light are spinning, but the light particles leave the source at 186,000 miles a second, the vaunted “speed of light.” Once emitted, the photons continue to travel at this speed directly away from the source. Only the shadow revolves around the great circle. The critical point is that no object, no substance, defies light.

    My husband was right to object that you’d need one spectacular klieg to produce a detectable shadow thousands of miles out in space. Still, the theory is sound.

    The anthropologist Mary Douglas noted that all systems of categorizing break down somewhere, unable to incorporate certain forms. By standing beyond relativity’s injunction, shadows suggest the limits of all classification schemes, a tension that even modern science cannot completely resolve.

    In the terms recognized by relativity, shadows are non-things. Yet before the invention of clocks, shadows were the most important means for telling time. Weightless and without energy, shadows can nonetheless convey information — though they cannot, despite our giant klieg, be used for faster-than-light communication. That’s because the shadow’s location cannot be detected until the light, moving at its ponderous relativistic pace, arrives.

    “Here there be monsters,” said the medieval maps, signaling the limits of reason’s reach. As a map of being, physics is flanked by the monsters of non-being whose outlines we glimpse in the paradoxes of quantum mechanics and in the zooming arc of a shadow bat going faster than light.

    In Christian theology we are told, “God is that which nothing is greater than.” The scientific corollary might be, “Light is that which nothing is faster than” — a statement true both in spirit and fact.

....................

Hhi9ui9up9uuj

Margaret Wertheim, the director of the Institute for Figuring, a science and mathematics education organization, is writing a book on physics and the imagination.

June 21, 2007 at 05:31 PM | Permalink


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5dea53ef00e008c9a8598834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'The Shadow Goes' — Margaret Wertheim explains why light is pedestrian when it comes to the speed of nothing:

Comments

methinks the "fascination" with "voids" and "nothing"
is deeply embedded in the thoughts of the writer.

"what is hip?"

Posted by: gumshoe | Jun 22, 2007 10:15:26 AM

Google Plato's Shadow Analogy for reference if you don't know it already. This is what this article reminded me of.

Posted by: NotCreativeEnough | Jun 21, 2007 7:50:37 PM

i'm troubled by the assumption that shadows are described in the article as "non-things" and devoid of mass because of the extrapolation this may encourage.

one may say that shadows are relative and thus a phenomenon, lacking existence unless formed through a light source shining upon an object of physical mass. one may also say that a shadow is created when a light source has direction and when there is a surface upon which the shadow may be formed (example: think about a 360 degree light source shining through each other, with an object at the center - will there be a shadow?)

the reason why i'm troubled by the "non-things" assumption is that it may be too easy to then extrapolate the same definition to silence. silence is technically devoid of sound. however, silence itself may be the point of origin with sound as the phenomenal occurrence. on the other hand, shadow itself is never the point of origin as it is only a phenomenal occurrence.

it's a thought provoking article.

Posted by: Jane | Jun 21, 2007 7:36:50 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.