Twice the speed of light.

[dart_ship]

is "virtual mass" potential?

 

[Ssssssss]

And when it strikes a surface?

Depends how much detail you are modelling the surface in though I have to say I think the paper you cited that had an imaginary mass has probably done something silly somewhere and I see that by the end of the introduction it's misrepresenting three of its references so I don't think it's the highest quality.

 

[Ssssssss]

is "virtual mass" potential?

It's something Write4U made up to avoid admitting he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Write4U]

is "virtual mass" potential?

Well yes, in one sense it could be posited that way. The word potential has several definitions.
In this case, it would answer to; Potential = That which may become reality.

It's something Write4U made up to avoid admitting he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Here is the wiki definition,

Added mass

In fluid mechanics, added mass or virtual mass is the inertia added to a system because an accelerating or decelerating body must move (or deflect) some volume of surrounding fluid as it moves through it. Added mass is a common issue because the object and surrounding fluid cannot occupy the same physical space simultaneously. For simplicity this can be modeled as some volume of fluid moving with the object, though in reality "all" the fluid will be accelerated, to various degrees.

The dimensionless added mass coefficient is the added mass divided by the displaced fluid mass – i.e. divided by the fluid density times the volume of the body. In general, the added mass is a second-order tensor, relating the fluid acceleration vector to the resulting force vector on the body.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Added_mass

 

[Write4U]

Depends how much detail you are modelling the surface in though I have to say I think the paper you cited that had an imaginary mass has probably done something silly somewhere and I see that by the end of the introduction it's misrepresenting three of its references so I don't think it's the highest quality.

This is not of the highest quality? Are you qualified to make that judgement?

Rest mass of photon on the surface of matter

Highlights

Mathematically the rest mass of photons is complex number when comes in contact with the surface of matter.
•
Mass depends upon scalar curvature of the surface of matter and wavelength of the photon.
•
Photon itself reveals illusion posing with mass on the surface of matter because of wave-particle duality.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379719330943#

 

[Ssssssss]

Here is the wiki definition,

Added mass

The best possible interpretation of you presenting that wiki definition of "virtual mass" is that you didn't bother to read it because fluid displacement has nothing to do with photons in a vacuum but frankly the more likely interpretation in my opinion is that you don't care whether what you are saying makes sense or not.

This is not of the highest quality? Are you qualified to make that judgement?

I already explained the basis of my judgement.

 

[Write4U]

This was the question.

Write4U said: ↑ And when it strikes a surface?

The best possible interpretation of you presenting that wiki definition of "virtual mass" is that you didn't bother to read it because fluid displacement has nothing to do with photons in a vacuum.

You keep avoiding the question and keep talking about the "vacuum". I am talking about the "surface", a physical object.

Answer my question;

Rest mass of photon on the surface of matter
Mathematically the rest mass of photons is complex number when comes in contact with the surface of matter.

How do you explain that?

I already explained the basis of my judgement.

Perhaps you may want to reconsider that hasty judgement.

 

[Ssssssss]

Perhaps you may want to reconsider that hasty judgement.

I've read the whole article now and no I do not want to reconsider and you might like to note that the article is over a year old and is cited exactly once and that citation is from its own authors and then there's this gem "Rest mass energy of photon [1] \(E=h\nu_p\) and \(E=m_0c^2\) then the frequency becomes \(\nu_p=\frac{m_0c^2}{h}\)" where they equate the energy of a moving photon with its rest mass. I suppose since this is in a journal it's fringe science not crackpottery but it's a close thing in this case.

 

[Ssssssss]

Annavarapu has a quite lengthy publication history in fields completely unrelated to photons and only three that I can see with anything to do with them all coauthored with Goray whose work seems to consist of these three papers the last two of which are the only ones by anybody to cite any of the three. No publication record isn't necessarily a bad thing because everyone has to start somewhere but this paper is using nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (which doesn't describe photons because they are relativistic) and general relativity (which doesn't describe photons because it's a classical theory) to try to describe photons (which are concepts in relativistic quantum theory).

 

[Ssssssss]

Answer my question;
How do you explain that?

...so to answer the question I don't think the paper you are basing it on is plausible so the question doesn't have an answer any more than "if I could fly by flapping my arms why do I take the train" has an answer.

 

[Ssssssss]

And speaking of avoiding the question Write4U where is that reference about Bohm's work that said that it "assigned an inherent potential that a zero value particle @ c
acquires mass, whereas the potential of a collapsing wave function @ c, converts energy into mass, however small"? Or you could just admit that this is more stuff you made up.

 

[Write4U]

And speaking of avoiding the question Write4U, where is that reference about Bohm's work that said that it "assigned an inherent potential that a zero value particle @ c acquires mass, whereas the potential of a collapsing wave function @ c, converts energy into mass, however small"? Or you could just admit that this is more stuff you made up.

What do you think I have been talking about? Whether we are talking about a particle or a wave function duality we are speaking of an encounter with a solid surface, such as in the double-slit experiment, no?

You are the one who is beginning to waffle now.

Again : Rest mass of photon on the surface of matter

Mathematically the rest mass of photons is a complex number when comes in contact with the surface of matter.
•
Mass depends upon scalar curvature of the surface of matter and wavelength of the photon.
•
Photon itself reveals illusion posing with mass on the surface of matter because of wave-particle duality

Is this incorrect, yes or no?

Is this flat out wrong, somewhat wrong, somewhat correct, or correct?

 

[Write4U]

...so to answer the question I don't think the paper you are basing it on is plausible so the question doesn't have an answer any more than "if I could fly by flapping my arms why do I take the train" has an answer.

Clever!

 

[Ssssssss]

What do you think I have been talking about?

There are no references to Bohm in the paper that you have cited and it says nothing about pilot waves so it no way addresses my request for a reference.

Is this incorrect, yes or no?

It's incorrect. (Edit: of course that's my reading of it but the point is that there are zero citations from anybody else so it looks like nobody else agrees with them either)

 

[Write4U]

There are no references to Bohm in the paper that you have cited and it says nothing about pilot waves so it no way addresses my request for a reference.

So, I am not allowed to introduce Bohmian Mechanics into the discussion because it isn't mentioned by someone else?
Yes, by all means, keep science fractured. Nothing relates to anything else.

It's incorrect. (Edit: of course that's my reading of it but the point is that there are zero citations from anybody else so it looks like nobody else agrees with them either)

And what are your qualifications?
I cited them. What do you know about my qualifications?

 

[dart_ship]

what, someone telling you what to write then you writing it??

 

[Ssssssss]

So, I am not allowed to introduce Bohmian Mechanics into the discussion because it isn't mentioned by someone else?

I asked specifically for a reference that Bohmian mechanics says something you claimed it does. You have not provided one. Are you going to do so?

And what are your qualifications?

A doctorate in physics.

What do you know about my qualifications?

What I've read here which says more than enough about your competence or lack thereof in the topic.

 

[Write4U]

what, someone telling you what to write then you writing it??

I am very accommodating. Just trying to keep everybody happy.....

 

[Write4U]

I asked specifically for a reference that Bohmian mechanics says something you claimed it does. You have not provided one. Are you going to do so?

OK. In Bohmian Mechanics, particles have no duality. A particle is a particle, always.

Assuming that De Broglie and Bohm knew what they were talking about, the problem I have is why the standard definition of a photon has to include the qualifier; "rest mass" = 0

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition to the wavefunction, it also postulates an actual configuration of particles exists even when unobserved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

Especially if a photon is never at rest and that definition is only theoretical.
If a photon never has any kind of mass, why not just say a photon has zero mass, regardless of momentum?
If momentum is the product of mass and velocity, so, by this definition, massless photons cannot have momentum.

The qualifier "rest mass" suggests that in motion this "rest mass" changes to "relative mass", no?

From stack exchange:

There are two important concepts here that explain the influence of gravity on light (photons).

(In the equations below p is momentum and c is the speed of light, 299,792,458ms.)

The theory of Special Relativity, proved in 1905 (or rather the 2nd paper of that year on the subject) gives an equation for the relativistic energy of a particle; E2=(m0c2)2+p2c2, where m0 is the rest mass of the particle (0 in the case of a photon). Hence this reduces to E=pc. Einstein also introduced the concept of relativistic mass (and the related mass-energy equivalence) in the same paper; we can then write mc2=pc, where m is the relativistic mass here, hence m=p/c

In other words, a photon does have relativistic mass proportional to its momentum.

De Broglie's relation, an early result of quantum theory (specifically wave-particle duality), states that λ=h/p, where h is simply Planck's constant. This gives p=h/λ

Hence combining the two results, we get E/c2=m=pc=hλc, again,

paying attention to the fact that m is relativistic mass.

And here we have it: photons have 'mass' inversely proportional to their wavelength! Then simply by Newton's theory of gravity, they have gravitational influence. (To dispel a potential source of confusion, Einstein specifically proved that relativistic mass is an extension/generalisation of Newtonian mass, so we should conceptually be able to treat the two the same.)

There are a few different ways of thinking about this phenomenon in any case, but I hope I've provided a fairly straightforward and apparent one. (One could go into general relativity for a full explanation, but I find this the best overview.)

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum

 

[Ssssssss]

If a photon never has any kind of mass, why not just say a photon has zero mass, regardless of momentum?

We do.

If momentum is the product of mass and velocity

It isn't.

The qualifier "rest mass" suggests that in motion this "rest mass" changes to "relative mass", no?

No as I have already said in this thread invariant mass (or rest mass if you insist) is a different thing from relativistic mass since \(\sqrt{|p_\mu p^\mu|}\neq |p_\mu u^\mu|\) in general.

Anyway from all that I take it that you have no reference for your stuff about Bohm "assigning an inherent potential". You could just have said that.