Thank you for sharing your question.I am now still working on a simple "digital" model of the universe in which I conjecture (by other means and arguments) that all elementary particle have non-zero rest masses (some of them very small and inaccessible for detection in the near future).

Dear Andrei-Lucian

In general, I agree with you that all elementary particle have non-zero rest masses. I think your approach to the non-zero rest mass (especially non-zero mass of photon) is a great step in physics. I hope success for you.

Without reavealing the surprise, I just want to anticipate and to suggest that the key solution to this question (in my opinion) may be a model of string (and generally brane) quantization. I hope to finish my article until March 2018.

Thank you for your good thoughts! I also wish you inspiration and impact!

Hossein, I'm again not immediately convinced by de Broglie's assumptions that energy equivalency means same-ness of the systems involved. Nevertheless, here's a weird little derivation along those same lines, which says to me:

In order for a massive object to reach v = c, its entire mass must be converted to energy.

This conclusion would not imply that anything at v = c can have rest mass. But see what you think.

As speed increases from 0, kinetic energy of a massive particle is the integral of momentum with respect to velocity.

E = integral mv dv = 1/2 mv^2, in classical mechanics.

As speed reaches relativistic speeds, replace m with mr / sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)

E = integral (mr * v / sqr(1 - v^/c^2) ) dv

Simplifying,

E = integral (mr * c * v / sqr(c^2 - v^2)) dv

Take constants out of integral,

E = mr * c * integral((v / sqr(c^2 - v^2)) dv

That indefinite integral can be found in tables of integrals, for lazy people like me, and is -srq(c^2 - v^2)

So, as speed increases from 0 to c, kinetic energy is the definite integral,

E = mr * c * (-sqr(c^2 - v^2) at v = c minus that same result at v = 0

E = mr * c * 0 - mr * c * (-c)

E = mr * c^2

I'm doing the same sort of algebra and calculus as others have done, and come to this conclusion. The entire rest mass must be converted to energy. So for example, assume the vehicle has some sort of fuel tank. It takes conversion of the entire mass, vehicle and fuel tank, into energy, to reach v = c. To reach c, the particle will have no rest mass left. All mass is energy.

Naturally, all of this assumes the correctness of the Lorentz transformation, and that it's valid to extend the classical physics equation for kinetic energy as I have done. But de Borglie did much the same sort of thing!

Dear Albert

You wrote:"In order for a massive object to reach v = c, its entire mass must be converted to energy."

I agree with you. But consider that in CPH Theory,

about energy, there is a symmetry between the positive and negative sub-quantum energies that are not in the material.

So, just in the case when the matter is combined with the antimatter, it reaches the speed of C.

Generalization of the Dirac's Equation and Sea

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303988070_Generalization_of_the_Dirac%27s_Equation_and_Sea

The genius de Broglie indeed understood that the frequency was in fact the key to the concept energy; the energy is representing mass, as several authors amoing which Poincaré suggested. De Broglie's concept can be seen as the vibration of aether.

The following concept is very useful:

For particles, the waves are self-trapped in a confined space, and their rotations are representing mass in some way. For light, the waves are not self-trapped, but they still vibrate locally and still represent a (non-local) mass.

Dear Thierry

Can it be concluded from your argument that photon has non-zero rest mass?

Dear Hossein,

I think that photons, as particles, don't exist, but that waves are vibrating tiny parts of aether, which then possess momentum and energy, and a propagation speed. Since the waves of light are not confined in a restricted space, they cannot be at rest, and not have a proper rest mass.

Think at a rope that is activated transversially. The mass of the rope is going up and down, but the momentum and energy is displaced along the line of propagation.

I think the same happens with light. There is no proper mass of the wave. The propagation velocity is v²=(E/V)/(m/V) , which give the tension and the mass density of the rope.

Dear Thierry

I agree with you on: " light cannot be at rest".

Particles and NR-particles:

There are two kinds of particles in physics:

1- Some particles like the photon moves only with the speed of light, in all inertial reference frames. Let’s call these kinds of particles as Never at Rest condition particles (NR-particle).

2- Other particles like the electron always move with the speed v

Interesting question. I follow up.

With my best wishes.

Adel

Photons are “particles” with momentum. A very tangible proof of this as everyone knows, is the “Photoelectric” Effect.

The other tangible effects attributable to photons as particles; are Compton Effect; “pair production”; a single photon pulse moving very very slowly through a "Bose-Einstein condensate" near absolute zero Calvin; line spectra of atoms; etc.

The wave/particle duality and some other quantum phenomena can be explained by considering the photons (like neutrinos) as particles of near zero mass:

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Dear Abdul

Thank you for the interesting comment. In addition, zero rest mass of the photon is an assumption only. It means we need review our understanding of rest mass of particles such as the photon.

Particles and NR-particles:

There are two kinds of particles in physics:

1- Some particles like the photon moves only with the speed of light, in all inertial reference frames. Let’s call these kinds of particles as Never at Rest condition particles (NR-particle).

2- Other particles like the electron always move with the speed v

The de Broglie wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of the particle, regardless whether it has mass or not.

Photons are the only thing we can see. So if anything in nature exists, it must be photons.

Dear Kåre

Does momentum mean without mass?

"Does momentum mean without mass?"

Dear Hossein,

Matter (mass) along with motion is an affront for modem official physics; because it violates the sanctity and the tranquility of “continuous fields" and leads to infinities and other kinds of problems and needs the trick of "renormalization" of the mathematical equations. So, “Matter is a Myth” is the loud slogan of modern theoretical physics, in line with the early Greek and Indian idealist philosophies, for which only the infinite "field of thought" is the reality and material existence is an illusion or Maya (Sanskrit).

For official theoretical physics, there is no matter, only “fields”. What we call matter particles are only the wavelets, the artefacts, or may be called “excitons” of the "fields", created when the heavenly tranquility of the “fields” are disturbed with the impact of violent force. Even if “matter” of some sort may exist as dark/black and invisible cosmic cats these do not concern us because physics deals only with their “smiles”, which are matter-less “fields”. So, we have “spacetime, gravitational, quantum, Higgs, quantum chromodynamic etc “fields” as the basis of objective reality!

This all started in modern theoretical physics with “spacetime” field of Minkowiski – Einstein. For Einstein, “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.

But the irony is that physics had to bring in “matter” through the backdoor and built this gigantic virtual edifice (Einstein termed it the “Castle in the Air” , near the end of his life), which has, as its foundation not even air (which has tangible “matter” particles”), but even more Holy “Fields”!

For the materialist dialectical World Outlook on the contrary; Matter and Motion are the primary attributes of any existence, "There can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter". G.W.F. Hegel.

Please see: “The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?:

https://www.amazon.fr/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

Dear Abdul

Thank you for your philosophical discussion.

Along with science, we also need philosophy.

But here, the focus is on physics, and physics is not possible without mathematics.

very useful question ... thank you for all

Dear Muthana

Thank you so much, your attention made me glad.

The de Broglie wavelength adds no value whatsoever to physics. It was an early device thought up by de Broglie to illustrate wave/matter duality in a simple way, but it has no real meaning nor value in the context of modern physics.

Surprisingly, it is sometimes confused with the wave function, and as such it does more harm than good.

I wish it would simply fade away, and never be mentioned again.

“physics is not possible without mathematics.”

Dear Prof. Javadi.

This statement is pure nonsense. I have demolished this idea in a long-running and popular forum initiated by Dr. W.W. Engelhardt; in debates against well known Professors, experts, authors of textbooks on GR and so on:

Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

I happen to represent a revolutionary trend of thought which has an epistemological and philosophical basis, the exact opposite and much superior to the one followed by (you lot) official and Einsteinian mathematical idealism based physics; which is in fact a justification of theological myths. If you see my publications & books (on astrophysics, cosmology, quantum phenomena, and to be published works on biology); my comments in the various forums of RG and more than decade long debate in the British newspaper “The Guradian” as “futurehuman” and specially in the Blog “Life and Physics” by Prof. Jon Butterworth – Head of Physics UCL and the leader of the British Team of ATLAS in LHC; you will see what I mean. The drum beating propaganda of official physics in "The Guardian" is folding up and a lot quieter now!

This revolutionary trend stands to undo Einsteinian mathematical idealism and theology in modern natural science, which is a pet project of monopoly capitalism and sustains it through the awards of fame, fortune and funds for its loyal scientists professing mysticism, fairy tales etc., and “proved” with contrived, deceitful experiments in mega-projects. This whole charade is run by trained and conformed troops of "Scientist Serfs", who depend on monopoly capitalism for their livelihood, career and crafts and who bring out only “expected" and “acceptable” results!

I saw (earlier) your various topics and projects in RG dealing with idle speculative and mathematics based abstractions of the abstraction of Einsteinian physics, which seemed totally senseless to me. So, I never participated before. I did it this time only to defend the material basis of modern physics against the comments of some scientist I know; as I did in my first comment and intended to wash my hands off and bother no more. I made my second comment only because a well known expert and representative of modern official physics Prof. Kåre Olaussen (whom I know from other forums of RG, specially the one of Dr. Engelhardt that I mentioned above) graced your forum with a comment!

This comment is not directed at you alone. I know that as a careerist you do what other physicists of the established order do and are trained to do. You are doing your job and what you are supposed to do, admirably well and I have no qualm about it. You are just a little fry in the pond; my comment was directed at the big sharks!

Unfortunately, this will be my last comment in this forum; Regards.

If interested in "real" physics, please see the comment I posted in RG just a while ago on a related topic:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Virtual_particles_can_produce_observable_effects

Dear Abdul

I said years ago that mathematics is not physics, but physics without mathematics is not physics.

But the main problem is that mathematics precedes concepts and explanations of physical phenomena.

For example, the Quantum Field Theory is just one mathematical tool.

Dear H Chris

Yes, some physicists believe: "The de Broglie wavelength adds no value whatsoever to physics."

But de Broglie wavelength is a wavelength, which is manifested in all the particles in quantum mechanics.

I would like to further qualify my comments above with the following comment I made on a similar topic in another forum:

[There is no secret link between mathematics and physics and there never was any. From the Sumerians onwards, mathematics was a (mere) useful tool in the hands of natural science and technology. This so-called mystical link is a mere phantasm of idealist thinkers from Pythagorus, Plato to Einstein et al and now accepted by bankrupt modern official theoretical physics as the a priori determinant of the universe (“Our Mathematical Universe” by Max Tegmark).

But this whole virtual edifice of Einsteinian physics is at the point of biting the dust, because of disappointing results from the LHC and the challenges to GR and the Big Bang theology. Einstein had the greatness to realize it himself near the end of his life, when he wrote the following to his friend Michelle Besso in 1954, “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics”. A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,]

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_secret_link_between_Mathematics_and_Physics

No, because the photon has no rest mass.

Dear Hossein,

You wrote:

"There are two kinds of particles in physics:

1- Some particles like the photon moves only with the speed of light, in all inertial reference frames."

I think that from the physical point of view, this claim is difficult to sustain for two reasons.

First reason: Particles are made of deBroglie waves in a close circuit. There should be a medium to support them. If not, there are no waves, but what allows then the particles to move at the speed of light, except in the case where a force is acting on it?

The second reason is a SRT problem, which I will not treat for now.

In gravitomagnetism, it is possible to prove straightforwardly that tiny particles at Planck scale, which are attracted in a gravity field, can reach the speed of light. The maximal speed depends form the particles' size.

I believe that this is a possible concept for neutrino's.

Article Relativistic velocity stabilization of particle sets in gravity fields

However, I think that it is impossible to get photons as particles.

If you wonder how a momentum can be reached with light-waves, you can consider the following: when one projects the line of view of the propagation path (one dimensional view) into the point of impact (almost zero-dimentional view), one doens't see the path but just a (physical) point of impact. That projected point consists in the total mass of the light-wave. In other words, the mass of a light-wave is situated in an almost zero-dimensional physical point of impact.

Dear Thierry

In general, particle or wave-packet is a great problem in physics.

“A photon-like wave-packet based on novel solutions of Maxwell’s equations is proposed. It is believed to be the first ‘classical’ model that contains so many of the accepted quantum features”.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf

“Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles?

As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental."

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf

Another example of a massless problem is the neutrino. “Neutrinos appear very strongly to travel at the speed of light and according to the afore-stated, they must be massless. Experiments appear to strongly suggest that indeed, neutrinos most certainly are massive particles. While this solves the problem of neutrino oscillation, it directly leads to another problem, namely that of “How can a massive particle travel at the speed of light”?

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2014122515125440.pdf

Generally, we have almost the same understanding and imagination of large objects (at the level of molecules and larger). But in the case of subatomic particles, there is no clearly defined and visualized concept, and there are many uncertainties, especially in the case of photon and graviton. Therefore, any theory offers certain understanding (such as loop and string) of these particles.

Dear Thierry

In addition, there is a limitation for speed in the universe, but it is not the speed of light.

Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes, Fundamental Journals publication, .2014,

DOI:10.14331/ijfps.2014.330075

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270276224_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes

http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/75_IJFPS_Dec_2014_114_121.pdf

Dear Hossein,

Thank you for your comments and your links. I agree with you that Maxwell's approach to quantum states is the right one. John. E. Carroll is developing a very interesting model, but the physical substantiation of retarded and advanced waves is missing. So, it is just an artificial model.

Personally, I would rather choose a resonance system between E and B fields.

You wrote: “Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles?” I would say: neither. Fields are not structured. They are either Electric or Magnetic, or Gravitational or Gyrotational (= second, velocity-dependent gravity field). Light is structured by the interaction between the Electric and the Magnetic field. It is a quasi-particle in the sense that it can only be seen as a projected, locally 2-dimensional structure. If it propagates in the X direction, the projection on the YZ plane gives a quasi-particle, due to the propagation structure of light. However, a real particle is independent, self-trapped light. So, I think that Art Hobson's paper is incomplete in that sense.

He also treats the double split experiment. The duality particle-wave can easily be understood by considering that the double split beaks up the electron's self-trapped light, and a detector reactivates the self-trapping of the light by adding energy.

You wrote about neutrinos: “How can a massive particle travel at the speed of light?” That is explained in my last post, in the article I linked: the self-induction between tiny particles that are falling in a gravity field makes the neutrinos accelerate until a high speed. The limit of particles at Planck scale allows to reach the speed of light.

Article Relativistic velocity stabilization of particle sets in gravity fields

Finally, when speaking about gravitons, the model of a gravitational interaction between particles can well be seen as a mechanical interaction between a particle (self-trapped light) and a massive graviton that orbits at the speed of light (the same way as with neutrinos). This is a purely mechanical Coriolis effect. The paper below treats this.

Article Is the Differential Rotation of the Sun Caused by a Coriolis...

You mentioned also : "Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes"

Personally, I think that the actual interpretation of space-time is pure nonsense, since SRT is pure nonsense. Time, length and mass cannot change, just by the effect of the light signals between inertial reference frames.

It is probable that the speed of light is defined by the properties of the medium ( ε and μ ), and connected to the superposition of the local gravity field amplitudes, including each of their velocity vectors in the Galilean way.

Dear Thierry

You wrote: "I would say: neither. Fields are not structured."

In CPH theory, energy is intensive field and matter is a dense energy.

In fact, the structure of photon and other the things we know as particles are taken from Fields.

See: Generalization of the Dirac's Equation and Sea

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303988070_Generalization_of_the_Dirac%27s_Equation_and_Sea

Sub quantum space and interactions properties from photon structure to fermions and bosons

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237009789_Sub_quantum_space_and_interactions_properties_from_photon_structure_to_fermions_and_bosons

Dear Hossein,

Thank you for the links to your interesting papers. Yes, I agree, fields are the basics, which I consider as density variations of the medium in the components 'E', 'B', (also 'g' and 'Bg'), at propagation speed "c".

Structured resonances between the components 'E', 'B' gives light, and when the structure is self-trapped, it becomes a particle.

Can you check if the eq(52) in your first paper doesn't contain a typo?

Dear Thierry

Thank you for attention and accuracy in my papers.

I have not found any problem in eq (52) because I have explained the relation between i and j according to the relative intensity electric fields and magnetic of electromagnetic waves E=cB , since color-charges and magnetic-colors are carrying electric and magnetic fields that they are countable.

What is the problem?

Dear Hossein,

I would expect: "rot E + c rot B = ..." , and I think the speed of light is missing in order to get the right dimensions, am I wrong?

Dear Thierry

No, you are not wrong.

What I understood from your comments and article:

Relativistic velocity stabilization of particle sets in gravity fields

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313658020_Relativistic_velocity_stabilization_of_particle_sets_in_gravity_fields

You have a deep look at light speed in the gravitational field.

But I am trying to describe the photon structure from Photon behavior in the gravitational field.

Particles that move at light speed have no rest mass. They have an amplitude to interact with gravity dynamically.

Dear Jerry

This old understanding of photon that is based on an assumption only. It is also a geometric approach to physical phenomena. The old approach is unable to answer new experiment and question. We need a new approach to solve physics problems. For more detail see: Are photons really massless?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321589753_Are_photons_really_massless

I have finally published my article, a digital vacuum toy model which predicts that all elementary quantum particles should have non-zero rest masses:

Article (DVTM - PSIJ - Short Research Article - 30.05.2018 - 19 page...