If so, then their light would be bent by the presence of mass and the amount of photon mass should be determinate by the amount of deflection. For example, stars behind the sun should be visible during a total eclipse of the sun due to the mass of the photon. Their light would be deflected by being bent by the presence of the mass of the sun. Mass of the sun and the amount of deflection of the photon passing the sun should be used to determine the mass of the photon.
Ok. And why is this in pseudoscience? Because it's actually scientific? "With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether." -- Albert Einstein, physicist, 1920
The reason this is in pseudoscience is that I hope we are going to get into the unknowable and immeasurable pretty quick. I want to discuss those aspects and I don’t know of a forum besides pseudoscience where ideas can be discussed that are not yet clearly protoscience. To become protoscience the idea of photon mass will have to be clearly connected to established science theory and proceed in a logical fashion to the idea of photon mass. The path is not clear and there are those who object to discussion in any other forum of alternative ideas that can’t be tested and which cannot be true under standard theory. Sometimes talking about the gap between pseudoscience and accepted theory serves to focus the nature of that gap to the extent that a clear resolution can be made as to if an idea is nonsense or protoscience. There is a difference between that and just calling it nonsense because it doesn’t agree with established theory which would be the fate of such an idea in any other forum. Anywhere besides this forum there may be an interest in nipping this thread in the bud instead of showing some physical picture (as opposed to math) that photon mass violates. So I have no interest in moving it out of pseudoscience. The physical picture in the OP is that the path of the photon is deflected by the mass of the sun. The cause of that deflection is the subject of this thread. The distance to the star beyond the sun and the mass of the sun gives us a finite mass for the photon that would agree with the deflection. This means that the curvature of space around the mass of the sun that deflects the light of a massless photon would show the same deflection as a photon with a finite mass being attracted by the gravity of the sun through an aether that enables the transmission of light and gravity.
Does the speed of light require a massless photon to explain how it could travel at the speed of light? Is that a catch 22? A single photon and the sun, the only two "objects" in the universe. The photon comes toward the sun at ... well ... at the speed of light Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. The path of the photon is deflected by the mass of the sun and the angle of deflection causes it pass the sun in a near miss. It continues on in a huge elliptical orbit and comes around toward the sun again. Einstein was able to calculate the path of the photon and could tell us the particulars of the orbit based on the mass of the sun and the angle of deflection as the photon passed the sun. The situation under general relativity is that the path of the massless photon is determined by the curvature of space caused by the mass of the sun. If there was no curvature of space, but instead there was a gravitational attraction between the photon and the sun, the tiny mass of the photon could be calculated that would give it the same path and orbit as the path and orbit calculated by Einstein. I have to presume that this has been done but I can't find any such calculations. Does anyone know?
There are some important implications to photon rest mass. Note in the first link the statement, “it is possible to consider some far-reaching implications of a massive photon, such as variation of the speed of light, deviations in the behaviour of static electromagnetic fields, longitudinal electromagnetic radiation and even questions of gravitational deflection.” Note specifically the statement, “even questions of gravitational deflection”. That is the subject of this thread, i.e. a photon with rest mass as opposed to curved space time. And from the second link, "A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19 electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass. Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction." Is anyone interested in this topic? http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/1/R02/ Liang-Cheng Tu1, Jun Luo1,3 and George T Gillies2 1 Department of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, People's Republic of China 2 School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA 3 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: junluo@mail.hust.edu.cn and gtg@virginia.edu Abstract. Because classical Maxwellian electromagnetism has been one of the cornerstones of physics during the past century, experimental tests of its foundations are always of considerable interest. Within that context, one of the most important efforts of this type has historically been the search for a rest mass of the photon. The effects of a nonzero photon rest mass can be incorporated into electromagnetism straightforwardly through the Proca equations, which are the simplest relativistic generalization of Maxwell's equations. Using them, it is possible to consider some far-reaching implications of a massive photon, such as variation of the speed of light, deviations in the behaviour of static electromagnetic fields, longitudinal electromagnetic radiation and even questions of gravitational deflection. All of these have been studied carefully using a number of different approaches over the past several decades. This review attempts to assess the status of our current knowledge and understanding of the photon rest mass, with particular emphasis on a discussion of the various experimental methods that have been used to set upper limits on it. All such tests can be most easily categorized in terms of terrestrial and extra-terrestrial approaches, and the review classifies them as such. Up to now, there has been no conclusive evidence of a finite mass for the photon, with the results instead yielding ever more stringent upper bounds on the size of it, thus confirming the related aspects of Maxwellian electromagnetism with concomitant precision. Of course, failure to find a finite photon mass in any one experiment or class of experiments is not proof that it is identically zero and, even as the experimental limits move more closely towards the fundamental bounds of measurement uncertainty, new conceptual approaches to the task continue to appear. The intrinsic importance of the question and the lure of what might be revealed by attaining the next decimal place are as strong a draw on this question as they are in any other aspect of precise tests of physical laws. Print publication: Issue 1 (January 2005) Received 11 July 2004 Published 23 November 2004 And there is this one: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html Number 625 #2, February 19, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein A New Limit on Photon Mass A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19 electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass. Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction. The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China (junluo@mail.hust.edu.cn, 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al., Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from Newton's inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra spatial dimensions) and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum effect in which nearby parallel plates are drawn together. (Luo et al., Physical Review Letters, 28 February 2003)
We've moved on a little in our understanding of relativity since 1920. You might like to update your calender and knowledge of physics. QW, if there is anything to your theory, give me a formula for the rest mass of the photon in terms of things like angle of deflection, mass of object about which a light path is deflected and initial angular momentum (or impact parameter) of said light beam. Then we can measure those things (already done) and get what your 'theory' predicts as the photon rest mass. Or do you still lack anything but vacuous wordy assumptions?
It is still vacuous wordy assumptions. I didn't use the word "theory", just ideas. I know we have moved on since the 1920's. Are you saying that if we use the mass of the sun and the angle of deflection of a fraction of a degree, and the distance to the light beam source, "then we can measure those those things (already done) and get what my [idea] predicts as the photon rest mass"? QWC predicts that the photon has rest mass. What that rest mass is is the question. Quantifying the quantum energy increment which is too small to detect might be aided by getting the photon rest mass. Google say the mass of the sun = 1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms. I'd need some help finding the distance to the light source and the angle. I'll start a search for that.
I'm still looking but I did find this interesting page which demonstrates the difference between Einstein's and Newton's theories on the angle of deflection. http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/lclens.html "Observations of starlight deflected around the Sun were made during solar eclipses beginning in 1919, and the measurements supported Einstein's model, not Newton's which predicts an angular deflection of half the size that was observed." If only they had given an example.
I guess everyone can see what I'm getting at here. There is a rest mass for a photon that will cause it to take the same path as it would take if it was following the path predicted by Einstein's field formulas in spacetime. There may be an answer to what that rest mass is and if so it will the smallest mass possible that can be detected as far as I know. My ideas about Quantum Wave Cosmology require the photon to have a tiny rest mass composed of at least two energy quanta. The minimum electromagnetic radiation components could be expressed by two interacting quanta that have the same reference frame. That would account for what causes them to be polarized. Each of the two quanta would be continually refreshing by the force of quantum action. The two quanta perpetually supply energy to form two high density spots in a mutual reference frame as they travel at the speed of light relative to their source. Each spot bursts into expanding spherical energy waves the immediately overlap and for two new high density spots; 100 % containment (full utilization) of the two quanta of energy with no emanating uncontained energy. If you have read QWC you know that the idea of gravity is partial containment of the structured spherical energy wave caused by the force of quantum action, with the contained part of the energy contributing to the maintenance of mass and the emanated portion of the quantum wave causing gravity. A photon pair of quanta with 100% containment would also explain why they feel gravity but don't exert gravity. There would be 100% containment of the spherically expanding quantum waves in paired quanta in their own frame so they don't exert gravity, but there are alternating high density spots that feel gravity. This configuration and motion would separate photon mass and distinguish it from mass of an object that emits photons but that also emanates gravity.
Photons would be composed of energy quanta where there is 100% containment. If we consider a photon with three quanta, all three working in unison repeatedly to produce three high density spots, the burst of those three spots and the immediate containment of 100% of the energy in those three spots into three new high density spots as they travel in their own frame at the speed of light. When they encounter objects the 100% containment of the repetitive quantum wave/quantum action cycle is interrupted and depending on the encounter, all or some of the energy will be transferred to the object and/or some will be reflected and/or some will pass through. Any act of observing the energy of a photon will cause the 100% containment to be interrupted. Prior to interruption it will be traveling at the speed of light and will be composed of a stable finite number of quanta in its own exclusive frame. Upon interruption the frame of the observer becomes as important as the frame of the photon in determining the number of quanta perceived. There is a reality to the number of quanta in the photon. When the photon was emitted the number of quanta emitted as a single photon depends on the energy level of the source. That takes place in the frame of reference of the source and the number of quanta is determined in that frame. The frame of the photon as it travels at the speed of light relative to the source has a real number of quanta. Upon interruption and observation there is a perception of that reality that will differ from the reality depending on the frame of reference of the observer relative to the frame of the photon.
Surely you have an equation which relates the rest mass of the photon, the mass of say the Sun, the impact parameter of a beam of light (as defined asymptotically) and the angle it's deflected? Neither Einstein or Newton needed to know specific values of those things in order to derive an algebraic expression relating them. Do you think Einstein needed to know the mass of an electron to say \(E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}\) ? No, he derived the result in generality. Physics is about finding algebraic relations between various physically measurable quantities. What is the algebraic expression which relates the photon mass to gravitational deflections in your (and I use the word in its loosest, vaguest and almost certainly quite inaccurate way) 'theory'. :shrug: Are you familiar with how relativity describes such phenomena? What I'm referring to when I say 'impact parameter'? Do you know the equation relativity gives? Obviously it's useful to be familiar with current and past models so that you can avoid their pitfalls or use some methods they employ in your own work. Well, I say 'obviously' but it's logic that its been my experience often escapes people peddling their own theories....
These are just ideas. You are the one that likes to refer to them as "theory", not me. There is a pretty complete record of QWC from beginning to present in various forums on the Internet developed with the help from people like you. Most anything pertinent is in my main threads here at SciForums which are not hard to find. Pick the ideas apart if you can but without your help I will develop the ideas as best I can. In this post on my Niche thread I mentioned the process I use to develop the ideas. Your reply follows it on that thread. You are repeating yourself needlessly. You offer nothing to attack the ideas. So far your posts on my threads are devoid of any meaningful content. Get with the program and say something useful. Just because you work on string theory doesn't mean that the simple ideas of QWC aren't better. Would you have too much to lose if QWC proved to be right? Does that explain why you don't attack the ideas but wave them off as unquantified and therefore meaningless? Does string theory have anything we could call a physical picture or something that can be visualized like QWC has?
Photon mass recap So let’s recap: No one has offered to do the calculation of the mass of a photon that would make it take the same path as it would take if spacetime was curved and a massless photon was passing the sun. But if the corresponding photon mass were known, and if mass is composed of energy, then the photon would be composed of energy in quantum increments under the ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology. The photon would represent the smallest observable mass as far as I know and a single photon would contain multiple energy quanta where the number of quanta is dependent on the energy and emission circumstances of the source. Stars emit photons across a broad spectrum of wavelengths and each wave length represents a particular configuration of quanta. Photons don’t emanate gravity because they consume their own gravity which means they retain their energy as they pass through space. The energy of the repetitive quantum action taking place between the quanta in the photon is 100% contained so there is no gravity emission. Photons feel gravity as they pass the sun. Gravity from the sun dominates what is going on in the aether around the sun. Mass continually emanates and absorbs the aether as a function of quantum action within mass. Aether emanates from mass and transmits gravity across space. The aether is effectively an extension of mass that moves and flows with the motion of the mass. An exchange of gravity from all bodies in space is accomplished by the way the aether from mass choreographs itself naturally. Gravity has an infinite reach and the aether nets out all gravitational forces from all mass at all points in space. The gravitational pull of mass from the sun affects the photon mass by deflecting its path as it passes the sun, thus the observed light from stars behind the sun will be deflected as observed when viewed during a total eclipse. These ideas are being considered as protoscience instead of pseudoscience so if you can attack them on content please do so.
