I have been attempted to scrutinize the interface between relativity and quantum mechanics through a novel approach to the established physical events. Universal constancy of the speed of light undergoes the question whether the limit on the light speed originates from a natural event or not?

Regarding the phenomena of creation and decay of electron-positron pair, why do the related photons move at constant speed, but we could change the speed of matter and antimatter? What is the unique characteristic of matter which is convertible to photons that move with constant speed c (speed of light)? The idea that object/particle could not travel at superluminal speeds, originates from the structure of matter and the mechanism of interaction between field and mass; that with presenting a postulate we could generalize the constancy of speed from energy to mass.

In this view, the three major theories of classical mechanics, relativity theory and quantum mechanics relying on the law of conservation of mass - energy and momentum conservation, in the form of Newton's second law are combined. And thus the real and true definition of the photon mass will be presented. Such approach to the particles and forces are accenting on the mass as the intrinsic properties of elementary particles that we are indebted to classical mechanics. The energy has the mass is obtained from relativity and the mass variations in order to catch energy is acceptable and review able.

http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.jnpp.20120203.02.html

My current state of knowledge is that the independence of the vacuum speed of light on frequency is intimately tied with the the fact that Coulomb interaction is precisely an inverse square law. Were it not, then there would be dispersion in the electromagnetic spectrum. (My reference for this statement is Gehrtsen "Physik", 24th edition)

Dear Kai Fauth

I agree with you. My question is coming of a new look on mass and energy. My question is that why electromagnetic wave (or photon) is born with speed of light, and other particles do not? I think the constancy speed of light depends to inside law of matter.

This is a fundamental question. I think, I no have the answer, but I believe this limit is a consequence of the geometry of the current universe, ie, that this limit has not always had the same value.

Dear Rafael

You are right, it is a fandamental question, but resolving this question that why photon is born at speed of light? will be a step to develop our understanding of universe.

Photons have no mass (no interaction with Higgs field) so its no wonder their speed is constant. Then (I read long time ago about the form of Colomb low) this constancy brings the inverse square low and not vice versa as Kai Fauth thinks.

Why they have the same speed - because they are identicle as excitations of one field EM.

Dear Ilian Peruhov

As we know electromagnetic waves are formed by the vibrations of electric and magnetic fields. And light is made of discrete packets of energy called photons. Photons carry momentum, have no mass, and travel at the speed of light. (Let us leave that all light has both particle-like and wave-like properties in present discussion). Also, in pair decay, two fermions convert to photon.

I think there is results more than mass-energy equivalence in relation E=mc2. I hope my thought be considerable for you and other friends in group. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A photon becomes energy-laden by revolving. We know this because the electromagnetic fields around a "ray of light" are electromagnetic waves not static fields. Zoom on an electromagnetic wave. There are two electric field and magnetic field. These fields move with linear speed of c. But they have other motion that the paths of these motions are changeable.

In during the vibrations of electric and magnetic fields that a photon would form, properties of electric and magnetism fields transfer to structure of photon. And when photon converts to electron and positron, properties of photon transfers to electron and positron too.

If we will be ready to think beyond the QED concepts, maybe according to photon properties we could develop the QED concepts and resolve quantum field theory problems.

Hi Hossein!

I had a quick look at the paper. In section 8 it says that SR “no force could extend/transmit the object/particle’s speed faster than the speed of light” under SR due to the introduction of a Lorentz factor in equation (9)

Newtonian theory already showed the same basic behaviour in this situation, because Newtonian optics predicts a similar drop in coupling efficiency towards zero between a particle accelerator's coils and the particle being accelerated, as the particle speed approaches “c” wrt the accelerator.

This shows up in the Doppler equations for Newtonian emission theory, where the energy of a signal coming from an object receding or passing by at c is

freq'/freq = (c-v)/c

, and

freq'/freq = 1- (vv/cc)

“Transverse” redshift effects in pre-SR theory tend to be ignored (or rejected!) by SR textbooks, but seeing redshifts in a transverse-aimed detector seems to have been the default predicted behaviour in most old C19th theories.

The SR and NM equations both predict a limit of “cBackground” of the maximum achievable speed for a directly-accelerated body – where they differ is that with the NM equations, a body moving at 99.99% of the background speed of light is capable of emitting a daughter particle that initially travels at more than background lightspeed (which might not //necessarily// be greater than the local velocity of light in the vicinity of its parent particle, depending on how we develop the theory). NM has a velocity-addition formula, but the status of the formula is different to SR's – it generates an “equivalent” velocity for compound accelerations, whereas the SR v.a. formula generates a “real” velocity value.

This difference between the two types of lightspeed barrier regarding compound accelerations also shows up in the behaviour of gravitational horizons using the two equations – with GR1916 (based on SR) a gravitational horizon is an absolute one-way surface with a temperature of zero, whereas in the older Newtonian “dark star” models, there was still a gravitational horizon at the Schwarzchild radius of r=2M (John Michell, 1783), but the old Newtonian predecessor to the black hole allowed particles to be indirectly accelerated through the horizon by subsequent in-flight collisions. NM horizons were “acoustic” horizons – they fluctuated in response to events that could not be observed directly, but whose consequences had observable results. This means that descriptions of "Newtonian" horizons can use the same basic vocabulary as modern quantum mechanics for describing the behaviour of physics in a region containing a gravitational horizon – the Newtonian description includes a functional purely-classical equivalent of QM's “virtual” particle behaviour.

So dark stars exhibited a classical equivalent of modern Hawking radiation, although at the time we didn't understand the potential significance of the effect.

If we wanted to try to compare the two sets of equations against each other in a particle accelerator, then one way would be to accelerate massive particles to close to the background speed of light, have them decay in flight, throwing off lightweight daughter particles, and then look for an anomalously short flight-time for the daughter particles at a remote target. A possible complication is Cerenkhov-radiation-type effects, which might brake the daughter particles' speeds to less then cBackground, so the magnitude of the flight-time anomaly might not scale with the pathlength.

Dear Eric Baird

Thank you for you comment. You have expressed considerable and helpful hints. I also want to express myself opinion about the photon. Hope to see your opinion about it.

As we know electromagnetic waves are formed by the vibrations of electric and magnetic fields. And light is made of discrete packets of energy called photons. Photons carry momentum, have no mass, and travel at the speed of light. (Let us leave that all light has both particle-like and wave-like properties in present discussion). Also, in pair decay, two fermions convert to photon.

I think there is results more than mass-energy equivalence in relation E=mc2. I hope my thought be considerable for you and other friends in group. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A photon becomes energy-laden by revolving. We know this because the electromagnetic fields around a "ray of light" are electromagnetic waves not static fields. Zoom on an electromagnetic wave. There are two electric field and magnetic field. These fields move with linear speed of c. But they have other motion that the paths of these motions are changeable.

In during the vibrations of electric and magnetic fields that a photon would form, properties of electric and magnetism fields transfer to structure of photon. And when photon converts to electron and positron, properties of photon transfers to electron and positron too.

If we will be ready to think beyond the QED concepts, maybe according to photon properties we could develop the QED concepts and resolve quantum field theory problems.

The is a depp question, which calls for wider considerations.

1. All physical measures are related to the basic measures of lengths and measures of time, which involve fundamentally different procedures and instruments. The basic principles, of QM as well as classic mechanics, show that all quantities in a physical law should be unitless, or in other words, that there should be a universal constant to link units of legnths and of time. That is a speed.

2. One basic tenet of relativity (SR or GR) is that material bodies travel along world lines, and that they have a proper time (as measured by their clock). So it is legitimate to assume that there is some fundamental law which gives a way to go from one proper time to the other, and in relativity this is expressed by stating that the four dimensional velocity, with respect to the proper time, is a fixed constant for all observers. The intuitive meaning is that they travel all at the same speed. So we introduce the needed constant.

3. That light travels at this speed is a basic assumption, but this is less obvious. Besides SR it is not easy to define the "propagation" of a field (after all we know very little about it except for the electromagnetic field).

4. As Hossein I believe that there is a deep relation between c and mass, beyong the basic E = mc². In any model where the gravitational field is considered in the same footing as the other fields, it is not easy to define the gravitational charge, that is the intrinsic mass. It should not depend on the field. One way, this is just a gut feeling, to see it is that to come back to this unbelievable travel of material bodies along their world lines. There should be some cosmologic field which powers this motion, and as a result a kinetic energy. So one could imagine that there is a fundamental (cosmologic) gravitational field (replacing the cosmological constant), which is actually deformed locally by matter, and then the "intrinsic mass" is the kinetic energy as expressed in this fundamental field. But there are just guesses...

Hi dear all

I have tried to describe the summary of relativity, quantum mechanics problems, concepts that I have thought about, and solutions that I have for them. I hope this new point of view can help you to reconsider the concept of point particles in quantum mechanics.

Theories of relativity and quantum mechanics have been verified with experimental results. But both theories have problems and ambiguities. These problems cannot be considered as a weakness of the theories, but indication of scientific progress and the evolution of human knowledge.

Relativistic form of Newton’s second law shows the mass varies. And the infinite speed in classical mechanics is replaced by the infinite mass. Also according to general relativity, singularity, space and time exist with zero volume and infinite density. I never accepted zero volume and infinite mass or density.

For more see:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5482