Does light have a mass?

Status
Not open for further replies.
the end of a thread

James R,

I enjoyed this thread immensely...thanks for sticking with it. I will respond and close and leave you to the last word if you wish. I am sure similar lines will be bantered on other threads. Since topic hopping is the name of the game, I am impressed that you were brave enough to keep up the faith, so to speak and test yours and my ability to dialogue.
I suspect our point of disagreement is more subtle than you think, since you keep coming back to something I have agreed with you about several times already.
Click to expand...
As stated before, some of the proponents of relativisms use the subtle to flit back and forth to assure that there is no grounding in real and apparent. I have recently included Max Born, Einstein's buddy, and his On the Theory of General Relativity 1962, in my erading to see what this defender has to say. Basically, he is your alter ego, or vice versa. It is fascinating that he uses arguments which follow the line - Of course there is a proper, a real measurement, but that doesn't matter. - or - The tiresome questions of the simple-minded about whether the effect is real or not.- Countless times he uses specious arguments to a priori paint questioners and doubter or even legitimate inquirers into relativistic claims as cranks.
No. That is something different. Since there is no preferred frame of reference, you cannot say that one observer is more correct than another observer when you're talking about relativity. There is no test you can do which will show who is "really" right.
Click to expand...
And I take four tracks 1]Earthlings developed earth-based measurements and use them as a standard. Based on this standard, we develop understandings of physical interactions. The mathematics tools are of a different order - a system which is not affected by physical realities. We use mathematical tools in conjuction with physical measuring devices and we attempt to find the standard laws of physics which are equivalent in every FOR. The faster an object goes, the more it is spread out over an amount of space, i.e., it takes a smaller and smaller time interval, approaching zero, for an object to occupy its 'proper length'[Max Born usage]. Given this reality, the formulas used to prove the contraction of rods, does not seem to take into account the relative expansion, or increasing, smearing out of an object in space the faster it goes. Proof of which is real is in the development of formulas which correct for Relativistic Distortins. 2] The highest order of relativists admit that there is a proper length and a proper time - that the measurement distortions[my word] are proof of the entire range of relativistic claims. The self-defeating argument is that a) there is a claim that no one can tell which measurement is the real and true one, then b) when the real FOR system of relativistic consequence arrives to the non-real relativistic affected FOR is compare we now see that one was real and one was not. So even by your own arguments there is a real and an apparent affect. 3] My personal cataloguing goes on regarding some of the roots of SR and GR and they are shakey...there is a large body of legitimate critiques...BUT this does not mean that I or others discard Relativity in toto as some relativists think they are doing with all physics prior to SR & GR [minus the 'important' pre-Einsteinian contributors, of course.] Someday, I may complete the cataloguing, but I have to make a living to, and cannot spend a lot of time...alas. 4] The claim of contraction of rods and the time dilation are two different order of claims which need elaborate examination.
What we disagree about in that example is whether the observation of bending is something "real" or not. I say it is; you seem to be saying it isn't. I say that what an observer sees is "real". You try to divide the world into reality and illusion.
Click to expand...
And this is the impasse which leads me to end my participation in this thread. If you cannot see the difference between a optical apparent image of a bent physical system and the real physical system which is not bent, then no logic or illustration will ever convince you otherwise. Yet, I must try once more.
Let us say your friend the refractive bent arm sends a message that he is coming to visit you, and you decide to knit a turtle neck sleeve.
You look at the refracted image and note its bendiness, angles and size and knit up the most wonderfully bent turtle neck sleeve ever knitted for him.
He arrives and at first you do not recognize him because he is straight and you hesitantly hand him the present of the bended sweater.
He raises a monobrow at you and says,
'Why in the world did you make a bend in this, my earthbound friend?'
Then he procede to teach you how to correct for the optical illusion created by a refractive index differences between his world's dual atmosphere and earth.
Perhaps. I say that we will probably never reach the "end" of what's knowable. There is room to disagree with me on that.
Click to expand...
I agree with this too. Otherwise, someone gives the big all-knowing Eureka and we all put our sliderules down and start planting turnips.
Two observers will agree as to whether salt forms or not. Their reasons for where, when and how the salt forms may well be different. If they are in different reference frames, there is no experiment you can do which will tell you whose explanation is the "real" one. Both are real.
Click to expand...
&
Yes it can. The times and distances involved change depending on the motion of the observer. Whether the physical process happens or not does not change.
Click to expand...
I assume you ARE saying that the % of c contraction is real and can effect the formation of salt, then. With this thought, I will be corresponding with whatever chemists and relativists are willing to responds. My interest is in whether a chemical bonding is affected by a real proximity change, not about event timing in this case. If the contraction is real, there is a REAL arena for the experimentation and usefulness of relativistic effects. Basically, relativistic effects may ultimitely be low cost 'catalysts' for chemical bonding -if they prove to be real.

Take care and see ya round!
137
 
137,

<i>I enjoyed this thread immensely...thanks for sticking with it. I will respond and close and leave you to the last word if you wish.</i>

Ok. :) I've enjoyed it too.

<i>It is fascinating that [Born] uses arguments which follow the line - Of course there is a proper, a real measurement, but that doesn't matter. - or - The tiresome questions of the simple-minded about whether the effect is real or not.</i>

I disagree that there is a proper, real measurement, if by this he means some kind of absolute truth.

<i>1]Earthlings developed earth-based measurements and use them as a standard. Based on this standard, we develop understandings of physical interactions.</i>

The laws exist independent of that standard. A measurement standard is necessary, but arbitrary. Most of the laws of physics are formulated in a unit-independent way.

<i>2] The highest order of relativists admit that there is a proper length and a proper time...</i>

The term "proper" in relativity has no connotation of "correct" or "real". It means no more than "in the rest frame of the thing being measured".

<i>The self-defeating argument is that a) there is a claim that no one can tell which measurement is the real and true one, then b) when the real FOR system of relativistic consequence arrives to the non-real relativistic affected FOR is compare we now see that one was real and one was not. So even by your own arguments there is a real and an apparent affect.</i>

(b) is false. There is no "real FOR" to compare to, in the sense that the "real FOR" is any better than any other FOR.

I said: <i>I say that what an observer sees is "real". You try to divide the world into reality and illusion.</i>
You said: <i>And this is the impasse which leads me to end my participation in this thread. If you cannot see the difference between a optical apparent image of a bent physical system and the real physical system which is not bent, then no logic or illustration will ever convince you otherwise.</i>

This is the same conclusion I previously reached, so I agree this is a good place to end the thread. If you cannot see that an optical image is due to a real physical effect, just as a bent object is due to a real physical effect, then no logic or illustration will ever convince you otherwise.

<i>Let us say your friend the refractive bent arm sends a message that he is coming to visit you, and you decide to knit a turtle neck sleeve. You look at the refracted image and note its bendiness, angles and size and knit up the most wonderfully bent turtle neck sleeve ever knitted for him. He arrives and at first you do not recognize him because he is straight and you hesitantly hand him the present of the bended sweater.</i>

Suppose he sends you the photo of his bent arm and you nothing of the refraction in the photo. How, then, are you to determine that the bend is not real? For you, it is very real. Until you learn of the refraction, you have no way of "mapping" the bent to the straight, and no reason for doing so. You and your friend are both right about the bend or lack of it, until you compare notes. The situation in relativity is very similar.

<i>I assume you ARE saying that the % of c contraction is real and can effect the formation of salt, then.</i>

Yes. It will affect the rate of formation, as observed by a "stationary" observer.

<i>With this thought, I will be corresponding with whatever chemists and relativists are willing to responds. My interest is in whether a chemical bonding is affected by a real proximity change, not about event timing in this case.</i>

The two go together.
 
light can't have a mass because:

sry for not reading the total of 20 A4 sheets you lot created, but I do want to give you my view on the subject.

When I see light can give pressure, thus having impulse, I would THINK light has a mass.
If you combine the two questions "has light got a mass?" and "what is the speed of gravity?" though, this is what follows:

IF light has a mass AND gravity moves at lightspeed, every photon would seem to me to have a gravitational equivalent of the sonic boom Also every photon will have no forward directed gravity.
that probably won't be it then

IF light has no mass AND gravity has the speed of light, there will be no problems with gravitational booms or whatever, as the 2 don't interact.

IF light has got a mass AND gravity moves instantanuous, there also would be no problem, although it would mean that space itself is one big 'whirlpool' of small gravitational fields 'created by' photons.. It actually doesn't seem likely to me either.

of course there are more options, but it seems to me that thinking about it this way shows light has no mass and gravity most likely travels at the speed of light (as is proven?).
 
Hey ppls, this is my first post and I just want to present a cpl of my ideas to you guys for any comments, as from what i've read you guys know what your talking about.

My main theory basically ties in gravity, space-time curvature, objects not being able to reach the speed of light, and photon mass and stucture, into a TOE.

I present to you that there is not one universe, but two mirrored universes seperated by a plank-scale buffer consisting of a 'springs' analogie, which seperates the matter and anti-matter universes. These springs are not infinetly strong but have a set strength. A black hole is an example of when the springs are breached, and the matter & antimatter universes merge resulting in matter/antimatter being sucked in from either side (mirror analogie). This would explain Hawking radiation that is emitted from a black hole.

This theory also takes steps towards explaining gravity, i.e. when a dense mass is formed, that mass is so dense that its attraction to its mirror opposite, presses into the 'springs', curving space-time fabric, thus all surrounding matter seeks the weakest point to the mirror universe, thus moving towards the massive object, resulting in what we know as gravity. But what I propose is that gravity as we know it it is not relative to the massive object in question, but to the mirror opposite, antimatter conterpart. Thus gravity is no more then the attraction we observe between matter & antimatter, but on a much more universal scale.

Well this posts geeting pretty long so I'll continue my theory in future posts. Please feel free to comment on any of my ideas. Thnx D.P.
 
ÐiGi†äL þR¿/\/ \é8,

Welcome to sciforums!

This theory also takes steps towards explaining gravity, i.e. when a dense mass is formed, that mass is so dense that its attraction to its mirror opposite, presses into the 'springs', curving space-time fabric, thus all surrounding matter seeks the weakest point to the mirror universe, thus moving towards the massive object, resulting in what we know as gravity.
Click to expand...

I see that assume that gravity is the result of curved space, which is the result of antimatter-matter attraction. You complicated the situation because where there was one force, now there are two.

The problem is that the curved-space model excludes the explanation of the other long distance interactions (magnetic and electric interactions). I think the curved-space model will have to be abandoned in order to create a true TOE. It is very likely that gravity will be found to be similiar to the electric and magnetic interactions, than completely different as suggested by Einstein.

How does your theory explain the speed of light and the mass and structure of photons?

Note: I would recommend that you change your alias, so that you aren't stuck with it forever. :)

Tom
 
Enqrypzion,

IF light has a mass AND gravity moves at lightspeed, every photon would seem to me to have a gravitational equivalent of the sonic boom Also every photon will have no forward directed gravity.
Click to expand...

Maybe, photons don't travel faster than c because their forward-directed gravity diminishes to 0 at c.

Tom
 
Hey again, second addition to my theory.

I've already established in my earlier post that I believe that there are two mirrored universes, matter & antimatter, and the attraction between the two, results in bending in space-time, each pressing into a plank scale buffer.

Now I will try to establish the structure, mass, and quantum properties of a photon. It is a well known fact in the physics world, that when a matter particle and an antimatter particle are placed apart and at rest, they will spontaniously move towards each other, and anihilate producing two gamma ray beams, each with the energy contained in one matter/antimatter particle, that was anihilated. To me, this suggests that when the particles anihilate, each splits in half, and merges with an opposite half of an opposing particle (Please don't be offended by the simplicity, but this was the simplist analouge I could think of.

After I thought of this, I had a brainwave, for an object to move at the speed at, it must have an exact balance between matter & antimatter, thus an exact opposing balance resulting in it moving instantanly at the speed of light from the point of anhilation. The antimatter half acts as the propellant energy for the matter, and the matter acts as the propellant energy for the antimatter.

Light in this form would not be influenced by gravity, and would not interact with space-time fabric, thus staying true to relativity. These light photons still follow the bends in spacetime (bending past massive objects, being caught in black holes where the space-time in follows is destroyed).

Photons in this structure could explain Einstein's predictions that no object could move at the speed of light. I would expand this by saying no mass can travel at the speed of light, unless exactly balanced in merged state between matter & antimatter, where it would exist as a photon.

Non photon objects can never exist at the speed of light in their current states, as the process of an mass gaining velocity is the application of energy, now recall what I said (scuze the spelling mistakes its 2am) how photons are half normal - half anti mass, so when photons are applied to this normal mass, the ratio of anti to real dictates its closeness to the speed of light, but consider this, for the object to reach c, there must be a balance, but consider that the mass the energy is being applied to is real, and so is half the photon, thus resulting in the rise of an objects mass as it increases velocity. This suggests that as photons are applied the mass of the matter increases, as does the mass of the antimatter portion from the photons, but as the mass of the antimatter increases, the mass of the matter increases, resulting an infinite relationship, which means a non-photon object can never reach c.

Please feel free to comment on, (try to) discredit, or add ideas.
Thnx D.P.

_______________
(¯`·.,¸¸.·´ÐiGi†äL þR¿/\/\é8`·.,¸¸.· ´¯)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
 
ÐiGi†äL þR¿/\/ \é8,

After I thought of this, I had a brainwave, for an object to move at the speed at, it must have an exact balance between matter & antimatter, thus an exact opposing balance resulting in it moving instantanly at the speed of light from the point of anhilation. The antimatter half acts as the propellant energy for the matter, and the matter acts as the propellant energy for the antimatter.
Click to expand...

I had a similiar idea a while back, but my idea wasn't based on matter-antimatter. I've concluded that what makes photons "special" is that they have a dipolar gravitational field, unlike regular matter which is unipolar. The gravitational field of the photon is facing forward, and the antigravitational field is pointing backwards. This causes the propulsion. Once the photon reaches c, which is very quickly due to it's small mass, it stops accelerating because the speed of it's gravitational and antigravitational fields is equal to c. In other words, an object can only move as fast as the speed of the force pushing or pulling it.

Tom
 
Yeah, I heard about lights dipolar gravitational property a while ago. And in my view it ties in with the matter/antimatter structure of the photon.

This structure could account for the wavelike pattern followed by a photon, in simple terms it is a two and fro, between the opposing merged halves, eaching aiming for dominance over the other, thus creating the wave motion. (Simple theory, plz correct me if one already proven).

A while ago on another forum, a moderator tried to discredit my theory on the matter-antimatter structure of light, saying 'This theory cannot be true, as when an electron stream travells through a fillament, light is emitted without any antimatter being involved' (one less you guys can use on me ;) ) This question stumped me for a while until I had the idea, yes, antimatter was involved, the fillament didnt spontaniously create the light as the electrons frictioned through it, but the photons the electrons had absorbed at the generator, was transfered to the fillament, which then emitted them, resulting in the light we see. Thus staying true to the mattter-antimatter structure.

D.P.
 
Something for you guys to ponder 'If photons have no mass, how can they carry widely differing energy, whilst still remaining at the same speed?'

I.M.H.O. Photons do have mass, and this extra energy they carry is their momentum, as according to m = hf/c.c, the higher the frequency, the higher the mass, the more the momentum.
p = h / (wavelength)

D.P.
 
Non photon objects can never exist at the speed of light in their current states, as the process of a mass gaining velocity is the increased presence of photons absorbed by that mass. Now recall what I said how photons are half matter - half antimatter, which says to me that for something to travel at c the mass must be half matter half antimatter, a perfect, yet opposing balance. Thus the ratio of antimatter to normal matter dictates the velocity/energy of a mass, reaching c when the ratio is equal.

Let us look at a mass of matter, studying its velocity as its internal energy increases. The fact is that as a mass's velocity increases, it's mass increases, thus pertaining to the mass of the photons which are absorbed by the mass, providing the energy for the velocity. Lets consider the structure of the photon, its matter half can be considered the 'dead weight' stopping the antimatter side from reacting with normal matter, but the antimatter half is what provides us with the energestic abilities of photons. But our problem in exeeding c, lies in the fact that the antimatter portion of the photon, our energy, is equally balanced by the dead weight matter. So thus when we apply photons to a normal mass attempting to propell it past c, that mass of 'dead weight' matter portion, will add to the mass of objects matter, thus never attaining a balance with the antimatter, thus never reaching c but always increasing in mass to infinety. Even in the case of an object moving at 0.999999999999 c, the mass of the original object would be utterly insignificant, to the mass of the absorbed photons, but would still push the scales in favour of the matter, preventing the non-photon object from ever reaching c. (Loud exhale)

Please feel free to comment on, (try to) discredit, or add ideas.
Thnx D.P.
 
ÐiGi†äL þR¿/\/\é8,

Welcome to Sciforums. I have a few questions:

Does your theory make any testable predictions?

What predictions make your theory different from "standard" theories, such as relativity?

What experiments could be done which would allow us to experimentally test your theory against standard theories to see which one is right?

Do you have a mathematical description of your theory? Does it make any quantitative predictions?
 
ÐiGi†äL þR¿/\/\é8 , your theory assumes a second universe

if you just explain the same stuff that another theory, which doesn't assume this universe, also explains, then yours goes to the bin

I know it is a very small reply in regard to your long posts, but the most important remarks are mostly small ones. and if we follow Crisp's point of view (correct me if i'm wrong crisp :) ), then what we can't measure and see simply does not exist for the scientist

If we see effects in this world which are caused by an unobservable cause, then we have a problem - or at least, your theory has.
 
so it is gravityspeed, not lightspeed

Originally posted by Prosoothus
Maybe, photons don't travel faster than c because their forward-directed gravity diminishes to 0 at c.

Tom
Click to expand...

that way the speed of light is dictated directly by the speed of gravity :bugeye: sounds cool :)
would it be true then that light travels at an infinitely small amount less than the speed of gravity, thus preventing a sonic boom like effect on sub-atomic scale?
Also, would we be able to see the effect of two neutron stars twisting around eachother so fast that they create the expected (not yet proven?) gravity waves? What effect would those have then?

I'll be thinking about answers on these questions, as you see many have risen to me :eek: :D

Ramon
 
The basic particles have no mass. However, there is no doubt that real world objects have mass. So, what is mass? Mass, that means here the inertial mass, is the direct consequence of the finite speed by which any occurrences of a field are propagated.


An elementary particle is built by at least two basic particles which are bound at distance r to each other. If there is a force acting on one of the basic particles, this particle will start to move as a reaction to the force, and the other particle will follow. However this will not happen instantaneously because it will take the time (chng of time = r/c) until the other particle will get notice of this motion and will move as well. For this time D t there is still the unchanged binding field of the other particle present with acts against that motion.

To calculate this effect quantitatively it is necessary to know the exact structure of the binding field between both particles.

this is word for word from http://www.ag-physics.de/
 
There may be currently existing theories which state that massive objects press into space-time fabric, and gravity is caused by these wells. But what my theory explains is what causes these wells and forces.

Think of it this way, we have a whole, which represents equillibrium, pure energy, photons, then imagine this whole is ripped in two, one half representing matter, the other antimatter, each resting on its own space-time fabric, sepretated by the plank scale p-branes. As these halves existing in a high order state, they want to tend towards simplisity, i.e. moving towards each other and merging into photons. The pressure each half exerts on the space-time, trying attain a lower order state, and thus all surrounding matter seeks the weakest point to the other side, thus the gravity we know.

Put a heap of marbles on a trampolene, they roll around and bump into each other, but don't fall to one point. Now place a weight on it, and all the marbles fall into, as they are trying to seek the weakest point to the other side, where they can merge and gain simplicity.
 
explain me this

Digital Driller, I understand our theory and I find it interesting (not acutally beieving in it but hey). I would like to know how you explain the following.

By measuring the particles that were created by the impact of muons (coming from e.g. background radiation, supernovas) in our atmosphere, scientists were able to measure the speed of the muons. This appeared to be around 20 million km/s (no typo here!). Their explanation is the fact that time slows down for the particles moving at that speed, thus from the muons frame it's going just below lightspeed and at our timeframe it's moving far beyond. (I will try to look up the link but if anyone else has it please post it).

Would your theory stand up for these kind of events?
 
Enqrypzion,

My theory takes this into account, as its main purpose is to describe & provide the reasons for the phenomina we observe (gravity, black holes, photons). As the object has obtained a high concentration of captured photons to attain such a speed, their mass would add the meson's thus warping space-time, thus slowing down time for the meson, allowing for it to attain a 2e10ms-1 velocity, relative to vacuum. If we were able to speed up time for the meson, to vacuum standard, we would observe that the meson has not reached c, as it has attained a balance.

Thnx, D.P.
 
I have read several pages of this thread and something occured to me. If you have a particle in a particle accelerator, and you are using energy which cannot move faster than the speed of light, then the particle will never reach the speed of light just do to the fact that there is going to be some of the energy rebound.

Now I probably am showing myself to be ignorant but I thought I'd run this past you incredibly intelligent guys.:)
 
Originally posted by lowefly
I have read several pages of this thread and something occured to me. If you have a particle in a particle accelerator, and you are using energy which cannot move faster than the speed of light, then the particle will never reach the speed of light just do to the fact that there is going to be some of the energy rebound.

Now I probably am showing myself to be ignorant but I thought I'd run this past you incredibly intelligent guys.:)
Click to expand...

good thinking, though there's a flaw. If you stand next to a road and a car drives by and you throw a ping pong ball (or tennis ball, whatevah) to the car at a slow speed, it will be thrusted forward at a speed larger than the car or the ball originally had. What I'm saying is that when you have an object twice the weight of another one it'll speed it up by the square root of 2 (correct me if I'm wrong, doing this from the head). As long as it's heavier than a the target particle (more impulse), a particle moving slower than the light speed COULD speed it up to more than lightspeed.

idea: try hitting a single electron with a car :D (must be a flaw somewhere :D )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top