Does light have a mass?

Photons have mass through the Higgs mechanism. Same way protons and neutrons do. Mass don't work without the Higgs field. Protons and photons both get their mass in the same way.

Electromagnetism describes how particles interact with photons. In a similar way, the weak force describes how two other entities, the W and Z particles, interact with electrons, quarks, neutrinos and others. There is one very important difference between these two interactions: photons have no mass, while the masses of W and Z are huge. In fact, they are some of the most massive particles known.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But that doesn't address the Higgs field I mentioned. W and Z also get their masses thorugh the Higgs interaction. everything does. Photons interact with the Higgs field, giving them mass by the same mechanism. If you're not familiar with the Higgs interaction I could toss out a few links. Judging by your post count though I'd assume you are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Q,

I associate the force that light exerts on objects the result of mass in the photons. If you wan't to believe this force is the result of leprechauns, fairies, or magic, that is up to you. If it bothers you that much, you can replace the mass of the photons with this photonic force in the formulas I provided. It all comes out to same thing, anyway.

Tom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am still waiting for a good argument against the quote. James R gave a nice traditional explanation, he didn't disprove it, he actually said it himself that it is correct. In the mean time everyone seems still to be very sure about it that particle acceleraters prove that objects with rest mass can never reach c, but nobody says what the relevance of my post is in this. My post does not say whether photons have mass or not, let this be clear.

 

I associate the force that light exerts on objects the result of mass in the photons. If you wan't to believe this force is the result of leprechauns, fairies, or magic, that is up to you.

I thought you might avoid the issue. You can't account for the mass of the photon. Big flaw.

If it bothers you that much, you can replace the mass of the photons with this photonic force in the formulas I provided. It all comes out to same thing, anyway.

Now you're saying that the alleged mass of a photon is a'photonic force'. That is what I believe to be the result of leprechauns, fairies, or magic.

How does it come out the same?

 

Q,

""If it bothers you that much, you can replace the mass of the photons with this photonic force in the formulas I provided. It all comes out to same thing, anyway."

Now you're saying that the alleged mass of a photon is a'photonic force'. That is what I believe to be the result of leprechauns, fairies, or magic.

How does it come out the same?"

The formulas I illustraded in my previous post are referring to the force photons exert on objects that they hit.

I believe this force is the result of mass, you believe it is not. But regardless of what you or I think, this force does exist. Since this force is a result of a particle that travels at light speed, the force itself travels at light speed. And as I already illustraded, the forces' effect on the electron decreases as the speed of the electron increases giving the impression that the mass of the electron is increasing.

Tom

 

You'd be better off using quantum mechanics. Particle interactions are ruled QM and not relativity.

Actually, it should be E^2=P^2 c^2 + 1/2 m^2 c^4, the invariant form.

It's not that simple. A free electrons and photons wave functions could interfere or it might not. All that is transfered is energy.

If the above was correct then a new particle would be formed, it is not.

The electron does not necessarily start moving. It gains energy and it can loose it be emitting a photon. How do you explain this in your theory?

You are also saying the v2 = sqrt(E_{product of mass}). This should be the invariant kinetic energy I posted above at the very least and a sum, not a product.

Tom and IggDawg, using your theory how do you explain synchrotron radiation. That a free electron accelerated in a <b>B</b> field emits photons. Where does the extra mass come from to make photons with mass and how does an electron remain an electron while gaining mass and loosing it.

Experiment contradicts this. The electron can and does absorb the full energy of the photon. Again, it does not necessarily start moving.

Why are you suddenly dividing by 2, you didn't before!

No it is not, even within your model. You say that only a partial velocity transfer takes place. Your maths assumes a 100% transfer. By your argument the amount of energy/velocity transfered depends on the velocity of the electron. At the very least you need a function depending on the velocity of the electron, &sigma; (v) say.

Plus, and a big plus. The resultant velocity is LARGER as you are subtracting a low velocity from mc^2.

No, that is very wrong.

First you took a product of the mass times c sqaured. Now you subtract individual masses times c squared.. Why? The equations do not even resemble each other.

The sign of any good theory is that it uses the <u>same</u> mechanism for identical events. You are arbitrarily changing the maths as it suits you.

Sorry, the maths <u>supporting</u> you is not even internally self consistent and makes no sense.

There you go, changing the maths again.

you are making this as you go along.

Not even close. That is the weakest mathematical and physical evidence I have heard in a long time. Total baloney.

You are, in more ways than one.

 

Thed, are you saying the Higgs interaction doesn't exist? Are you saying it doesn't effect the photon?

I'd love to take credit for discovering the Higgs field and being able to call it a theory of my own, but alas someone else seems to have discovered it first.

 

Now you really are showing total ignorance.


The EM forces between electrons stop the ball and any interactions. EM forces are stronger than gravity.

{about particles bouncing off each other}

What about neutrons, no electrical field.

Please explain why a photon decays into an electron and anti-electron pair?

Quote the ignoramus, aren't we. It is a fact that photons have no rest mass. That is plugged into the models and confirms behaviour. As Q said, if photons had mass you'd get a Nobel prize for it. Disproving accepted wisdom is the job of science.

Is there no end to your stupidity.

If true every particl would have a mass as a multiple of some figure.

<b>what do you propose is the mass of photon?</b>

""This is why the photon would only transfer it's momentum to the electron, instead of ripping it apart."

but you said momentum is not independant of mass. Changing your mind again. Where does the photon's mass go?

Because there is no physics involved.

 

Iggdawg

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That is too much.

Forces and mass are not interchangeable. I learned that much at age 14.

BTW, what happens when a photon hits a photon. They are not charged, they have mass according to you and IggDawg. Why do you get interference and not a new particle.

 

Frankly, I don't know much about the Higgs field. Never got around to researching it in fine detail. Chances are it does affect the photon and is respondible for the inertial/gravitational mass I posted earlier. Does this change the fact that a photon has zero rest mass, no!

Who discovered it then? Last I heard CERN posted a retraction that is was not found at the expected energies. The Tevatron operates at higher energies and has not found it.

But please answer the question. How does an electron gain mass in a <b>B</B> field and give off a 'massive' photon while staying an electon?

Dragging a more complicated theory into the discussion to muddy the waters doesn't cut it with me. Are you a sock puppet of joeblows?

 

I think I'm going to just step out of this one for a while. I must not be phrasing myself right. Its been known to happen.

Q & Thed, I 've read your posts here and in other threads, so I know you guys know your stuff. Please know I'm not challenging you here. I'm here to learn, so I don't mind being wrong. I was wrong once before (back in '82) so it could happen again.

What I'm trying to say is that the photon is effected by the higgs interaction. The higgs interaction is what gives particles mass. Not weight, mass. It may be too new to be common knowledge yet, but the theory has been around for at least a year, and I figured it was well known. The Particle Data Group includes it in their works.

Q - The Higgs interaction an interaction carried by the Higgs boson, and acts on all particles with mass. It would be another interaction in addition to the 4 you list.

Thed - They have coffee :bugeye: . Sorry. I'm at work. Taht's all I can muster at the moment.

 

It happens

Damn, I'm often wrong. But I know how to correct a mistake.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have no problem admitting I am wrong. I have a problem with other people sticking to their guns when they are obviously wrong.

Actually, the idea has been around for a few decades. The W and Z particles Q mentinioned rely on a higgs interaction for their existence.

Arggh, particles with mass, yes. But what about particles without mass.

Coffee! I understand. Being borderline ADD, I understand.

Coffee, find coffee!

 

Thed, oddly enough it looks like they do not have coffee, and in fact they may produce Higgs pairs:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0105/0105070.pdf

I thought I remembered reading something about this. I, however, will still have coffee.

 

Thed,

You completely misunderstood my post. I tried to explain the reaction between a photon and electron using classical physics. After all, photons and electrons are both considered particles, and classical physics applies to them to a certain extent.

Secondly, I am not talking about an electromagnetic photon, I'm talking about an electric photon. By electric photon I mean the particle responsible for the electric reaction(stable electric fields).

But your right about my formulas, they are messed up. I was in a hurry trying to post my message during my 15 minute break at work and this forum sucks in regards to posting formulas.

So if you understood what I was trying to explain in my previous post, then I am happy for you. If you couldn't understand this simple concept, I feel sorry for you.

Tom

 

:bugeye:

 

IggDawg,

You appeared confused as to what I said about "electric photons". You see, photons are electromagnetic and they oscillate both electric and magnetic fields at certain frequencies. The frequency of a photon determines the energy of the photon. Unfortunatly, there are stable electric and magnetic fields that do not oscillate:such as the electric field of an electron, or the magnetic field of a magnet. I don't know what the names are of particles that are resposible for these stable fields. Actually, I don't think the scientific community has given them a name. I refer to these particles as "electric photons" and "magnetic photons" since they are different than electromagnetic photons.

Tom

 

Q - The Higgs interaction an interaction carried by the Higgs boson, and acts on all particles with mass. It would be another interaction in addition to the 4 you list.

A photon, which is massless, is a spin 1 particle which has two transverse polarized states while a massive spin 1 particle has an additional longitudinal polarized state. The massless vector boson is identified with the photon while the other is identified with the elusive scalar Higgs boson.

However, the Higgs boson couples with particles in proportion to their masses. The Higgs boson is a scalar boson specified by mass, speed and magnitude, with no direction while the photon is a massless vector boson based on velocity that is specified by magnitude and direction.

btw- I briefly read your linked article. I'll go over it a bit more when I have some time. Thanks.

 

Aight. thanks for bearing with me, Q. Its been an interesting day. What you're saying is making sense.