Gravitational lensing? Gravity is a two-way effect necessarily: if the photon couldn't gravitate it couldn't be deflected by gravity in turn. The force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses (or mass-energies in this case!) - the formula does not contain any statement of one object being preferred over the other. (That goes back to Newton - he realised that while the earth pulls the apple down, the apple in turn pulls the earth up, ever so very slightly - and the generalisation to mass-energy obviously is Einstein.) Hence any measurement of gravitational lensing is proof that the photon exerts gravitational attraction to (in this case usually) a distant galaxy or black hole. If something is 'pulled by' gravity, i.e. coupled to the gravitational field - then it in turn 'pulls' by definition.

Everything with mass-energy gravitates - that's the definition of gravity, the attractive force between objects of mass-energy,

Gravitational interaction exerts between two masses (interaction mass-mass) in the order of the group symmetry MLM. The same symmetry predicts the interaction mass-light that in the current scientific literature is defined deflection of light or gravitational lensing. The symmetry predicts besides the interaction light-mass (Rancourt effect) that consists in an action of light, composed of photon, on gravitational field generated by a mass. The Rancourt effect is proved by numerous experiments performed recently by Louis Rancourt.

Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that every object bends light rays through its gravity. This is called gravitational lensing. The first gravitational lens was found in 1979 by Dennis Walsh, Robert F. Carswell and Ray J. Weymann, who identified the double quasar Q0957+561 as a double image of one and the same distant quasar, produced by a gravitational lens.

Michael,   It should not be surprising that there are no physical experiments that demonstrate that light generates gravity. Suppose that we had access to a very powerful laser that could generate a 3 x 108 watt beam. This beam would have energy of 1 joule per meter which would be equivalent to about 10-17 kg/m. Imagine how difficult it would be attempting to measure the gravitational effect produced by a wire with mass of 10-17 kg/m. Now add in all the noise associated with a 108 watt laser beam. Good luck making the measurement.

However, it is possible to prove with a thought experiment that if light does not generate gravity, it would be possible to violate the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. Suppose that we could setup a laser near the surface of a cold neutron star. The laser axis would be generally horizontal. However, because of the strong gravity, the laser beam would be bent slightly. This means that the two laser mirrors would have to be aligned in a way that accommodates the bending of the laser light. The photon pressure on the mirrors would exert photon pressure perpendicular to the mirror surface, but because of the bent beam, the tilted mirrors would receive a downward force component. For example, if the laser beam was 3 x 1010 watts and the mirrors were separated by 1 km, then a gravitational acceleration of 1012 m/s2 would cause the downward force component on the mirrors to be 1 N. This is the weight of this laser beam on this neutron star. If the laser beam is merely following a geodesic without exerting an offsetting gravitational attraction force on the neutron star, then this would be an unbalanced 1 N force on the neutron star. This unbalanced force would cause the neutron star to accelerate in violation of the conservation of momentum and the velocity change would violate the conservation of energy. Therefore, light must exert gravity to avoid these conservation violations.

John, according to your example, there are no physical experiments that demonstrate that you generate gravity, because your mass is so small compared to the mass of the Earth . Why you cannot fly then?

Hello and good day.

Please see our newly published papers in 2016.

  N. K.  Your comment is difficult to understand. The gravitational acceleration produced by the earth forms an unwanted background which must be nullified by the experiment. For example, the Cavendish torsion balance experiment had a horizontal torsion bar with two lead balls at the ends of the bar. The effect of the earth's gravity was largely eliminated by generating a gravitational force in the horizontal plane using a third lead ball. The point of my last comment was that even an extremely powerful laser beam is equivalent to a very small mass. For the example given, a 3 x 108 watt laser beam would be the equivalent of a very fine wire with mass of about 10-17 kg/m. This light beam would produce an effect about 1018 times smaller than a typical lead ball and would not produce a detectable result.

It's difficult, for practical reasons. It is possible to show that sufficiently strong electromagnetic fields lead to the formation of black holes that are electrically charged-the Reissner--Nordstrom solution. However it's quite hard to detect them in practice. 

Photons follow the deformation of our living space. Thus gravitational lensing proves that our living space is deformed. It does not prove that photons are affected by gravitation due to a non-zero mass. At small enough scale all photons move with the same speed c that is known as the light speed.

Before you start explaining what photons are, it is sensible to consider some contradictions in the current knowledge about photons.

Photons are known to be able to travel billions of light years and can then still be detected by relatively small photon detectors. Waves are not capable of performing that trick. Wave packages disperse when they move. Single waves spread over space and their amplitude diminishes with increasing distance from the source.

The EM field relies on the nearby existence of electric charges. It cannot act as a stable and constant carrier during long distance trips of photons. Thus, quite probably photons are not vibrations or excitations of the EM field. 

However, the set of solutions of multidimensional homogeneous second order partial differential equations cover more than waves. For odd numbers of participating dimensions solutions exist that can be considered as shape keeping fronts and in one participating dimension these solutions also keep their amplitude. These last kind of solutions can travel over huge distances without losing their integrity. 

A significant difference exist between these solutions and EM waves. Also the carrier field will differ. That field must always and everywhere be present. A good candidate is our deformed living space. That field comes closer to the field that we know as gravitation potential.

Photons are constituted of strings of solutions of the multidimensional second order partial differential equation that describes the behavior of the field in which the photon travels.

Michael, originally you asked about 'gravitational attraction'. However, generally speaking, gravity is not a force. Gravity just affects space structure and indicates  the actual path  between two space points for moving objects, whether they have mass or not. If you mean the possibility of the gravitational field of photons, this is quite different question. 

Michael, I do not understand what you mean by saying that the "equivalence principle" is not an answer. To my naive way of thinking photons do not have inertial mass and therefore do not have gravitational mass and therefore do not create a gravitational field of their own but respond to gravitation by, as you state above, following a geodesic in Einsteinian spacetime. I further don't understand why you would expect photons to "exert gravitational attraction"? The photon, as it is, gives us the visible Universe; why ask more of this poor overbudened and often misconstrued entity?

In our papers , we have completely answered to these questions based on the structure of the photon. Please study and ask me questions for further discussions.

John Wheeler's paper on "geons" is relevant here.

Photons don't have inertial mass-but they do carry energy and momentum. Gravity means that sources of energy and momentum affect the spacetime metric and are affected by it, since the energy-momentum tensor of the fields is the right hand side of Einstein's equations. This, of course, is a classical statement, so it pertains to classical gravity and refers to classical electromagnetic fields, that are superpositions of states comprising a macroscopic number of photons.

Understanding of what actually happens requires the application of a trustworthy mathematical model that relates fields and the artifacts that disturb their continuity.

http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0101

Dear Hans,

"The EM field relies on the nearby existence of electric charges. It cannot act as a stable and constant carrier during long distance trips of photons. Thus, quite probably photons are not vibrations or excitations of the EM field. "

I totally agree with you. The photons are the offspring of transitories of the EM field. Vibration of an EM field is the variation of an electric or magnetic field which also gives birth to EM waves. The generic "resistance" of  EM fields to  variations (in time) consists in the emission of EM radiation.

At least two basic fields exist. One is our living space, which gets deformed by the presence of massive particles. The other is a symmetry related field that is deformed by symmetry related charges. These charges are located on the geometric centers of the platforms on which elementary particles reside.

Photons are solutions of the homogeneous second order partial differential equations. These equations hold for all basic fields. Our living space exist always and everywhere. The amplitude of the symmetry related field depends on the nearby existence of the platforms on which the elementary objects reside. Each of these platforms has its own parameter space and the geometric center of that parameter space floats over a background parameter space. 

In almost empty space these platforms are only sparsely present.  

Photons are constituted of strings of solutions that extend in a single dimension. The solutions keep their shape and they keep their amplitude. These strings feature a single frequency and a fixed speed.

http://www.e-physics.eu/ThouShaltConstructInAModularWay.pdf

On reflection I suppose that, although I don't like the idea of photons reflexively contributing to the gravitional field through which they pass, that unless there is something fundamental that forbids photons from contributing to gravitation their participation is mandatory however small. I think it was Einstein who noted "What is not forbidden is mandatory."

Dear Michael,

there is an experimental evidence that affirms that photons are not particles on which the gravitational field can perform a work.

Article THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ENERGY OF PHOTONS IS AGAINST THE...

Chapter Gravitation, photons, clocks

Here one, I don't know why the attachments cannot be visualized

Article THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ENERGY OF PHOTONS IS AGAINST THE...

Chapter Gravitation, photons, clocks

Why is it so difficult to imagine and to accept that our living space is deformed and that photons have no other choice than following this deformation?

It is similar to understanding what gravitation means. It is possible to see the gravitation potential as something that influences massive particles, but on the other hand the particles influence the gravitation potential. Another interpretation is that the gravitation potential is nothing else than a blurred description of the location density distribution of the massive artifacts. Each point-like artifact influences the field via the Green's function of the field, which is also the Green's function of the second order partial differential function of the field. Mathematically the field is the convolution of the Green's function with the location density distribution of the point-like artifacts. The Green's function represents the blur.

Massive elementary particles are represented by coherent swarms of potential detection locations. These locations correspond to the landing points of a hopping path. 

In order to complete my preceding comment I would want to specify the symmetry MLM is a group symmetry that predicts four interactions: 1. interaction mass-mass (Newton's law): 2. interaction mass-light (Einstein second effect); 3. interaction light-mass (Rancourt effect); 4. interaction light-light (Parvin effect). In the symmetry MLM single interactions have a physical explanation that is different whether from the Newtonian action at distance or from the Einsteinian deformation of spacetime. In the symmetry MLM the fundamental concept is the vector gravitational field that was unknown to Newton while Einstein preferred make use of the scalar tensor mathematical model. In this context through numerous experiments the Rancourt effect proves light has an effect on the gravitational field generated by a mass M producing a change of weight on a test mass m.

For widenings I woud want to advise the following papers:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Louis_Rancourt4

It is well known  the nice field theoretical mechanism of mutual gauge type  relationship of  the fermionic electron and bosonic photon fields which gives rise to   the Coulomb  interaction law between charged particles. So, it is naturally to guess that  this field analogy should work also  also in explaining the gravity...

Mainz, Germany

Dear Smith,

Perhaps your question is better understood as whether there is any direct empirical evidence that radiation exerts gravitational force. It seems unlikely, since it would be so small an effect.

Of course, there is plenty of evidence for Einstein's theory of gravity which has met every empirical test to which it has been subjected. But according to the GR account, it is mass-energy which tells space-time how to curve, so that evidence supporting GR might well be regarded as indirectly supporting its untested consequences. For example, gravitational waves were predicted on the basis of GR, for about a hundred years before gravitational waves were detected. This in spite of the fact that the prediction was sometimes in doubt over the period after 1917. Measurements of the loss of energy of binary pulsars constituted indirect evidence for gravitational waves--inspiring a great deal of confidence in their prediction.

It would seem that one wouldn't want to look for gravitational effects of single photons, and the thing to do would be to look for gravitational effects of large high-density concentrations of radiation. What comes to mind, e.g., are the observed jets, reaching out over many light-years and associated with active galaxies. One might imagine looking for gravitational lensing effects associated with such jets. 

I think you have to ask, too, even lacking direct evidence of gravitational effects of radiation, what would remain of the Einstein equations if the gravitational effects were denied. What would the resulting theory look like? Would it be equally viable?

There are grounds contemporary physicists have for doubting of GR, and what comes to mind under that heading is the frequent rejection of the consequence of gravitational singularities. As massive particles come closer and closer, one expects that the effective attraction between them continues to increase, but at some point, usually the Planck length, one might expect quantum fluctuations to come into play and interfere. But would any of the current proposed modifications of GR in the interest of quantum gravity tend to favor the rejection of gravitational effects of radiation? It seems that is a question one might want to pose.

One last point. As I recall, in QCD the binding energy holding together quarks adds significantly to the mass of the resulting nucleons. That additional mass would be expected to have gravitational effects, however small. (What empirical evidence is involved here?) This seems an additional reason to emphasize the equivalence of mass and energy, which is already present in special relativity. Presumably, the gravitational relevance of radiation came into GR by its incorporation of SR? 

H.G. Callaway

The field that represents our deformed living space differs fundamentally from the field that is interacting with electrical charges. However both fields feature the same homogeneous second order partial differential equations. Thus the difference is located in the inhomogeneous part of the full second order partial differential equations. That part describes the interaction between the field and neighboring discrete artifacts. The homogeneous part controls the vibrations of the field.

At least two different  second order partial differential equation exist. Only one of them supports waves. Both equations support fronts that keep their shape during travel. These operate in odd numbers of participating dimensions.

Einstein used tensor equations, rather than plain partial differential equations. The tensor equations describe change along coordinates (in a possibly curved coordinate system). The terms in the partial differential equations describe chance in the direction in which that part of change takes place. This description can be more elucidating than the description via tensors.

Often the parts of partial differentials are given special names and are also treated as fields. This can be very confusing. Further in the equations progression is represented by different notions of time. One represents coordinate time and the other represents proper time.

Mainstream physics does not use the most smart representations. May be you must be a genius like Einstein on order to be able to live with a badly selected representation.

http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021

You write  

(From the many answers to my question I gather the many cannot discriminate between experiment and theory. I also do not dispute that matter creation/destruction/transformation creates/distorts gravitational waves, but this is not evidence with regards to photons)

But there is evidence that light changes weight of a 100g or 200 g mass. This is not laser tweezer effect because we use a bigger mass, Is it a distortion of gravity field ( still a concept) or a real interference between light and what exerts a force on object ( called gravity). When looking directly at the resu;lts of those experiments, I prefer to think there is a real physical interaction. How to explain that? I do not know; Maybe we have to look at matter and light with new eyes and new theories...

Louis

The first results were published in PHYSICS ESSAYS, IN 2011 under the title (

Effect of Light on Gravitational Attraction )

The second series of experiments were published in

Applied Physics Research; Vol. 7, No. 4; 2015

ISSN 1916-9639 E-ISSN 1916-9647

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

under the title ( Further Experiments Demonstrating the Effect of Light on Gravitation)

Louis

Thanks for your ideas. Since a mass of 200 g was sometimes used and there was a very noticeable difference in weight difference, one cannot just ignore it and say it is imposible to measure. I will accept such a statement only from someone who tries a similar setup  with all the precautions needed and can prove there were no effect at all. The experiment does work and the delta weight cannot be caused by changes of temperature or humidity. Just make the calculations of how much one degee would affect the buyont force on a 100 g brass mass and you will be convinced.

Nasa never answered me when I mentionned the results. Maybe you have better contacts.

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Those reading along might like to take a look at the abstract of Rancourt's paper:

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/212-16-pdf-louis-rancourt-effect-of-light-on-gravitational-attraction.html

Here is the second paper mentioned above:

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/48836

H.G. Callaway

Here is a rough calculation of what the buoyant force of air would change the weight of a 100 g mass. Since the light rays were at 90 degees compare to the force, a vector analysis shows that it did not affect the object at all.

( Change caused by air rise in temperature on weight

Buyont force on 100 g bronze mass for a 1 degree increase in air the change in weight due to buyont force of air change would be about 0.004%.

The temperature change was not more than 0.3 degree, giving a change of .0013%

The change in weight observed was of .1446% which is about 100% higher than the change that could be caused by the force of air. One has to find another cause for that change in weight when a light beam is present. It make sense to assume the light had an effect on the weight change. )

Louis

Also remember the effect is both an increase

or a decrease in weight depending on the positio of the test mass... air buoyancy can not cause that...

hope some lab is equiped for that...

I have a great respect for the important scientific work of NASA, but I think this experiment, for confirming the Rancourt effect, cannot be performed by NASA on ISS. In fact experiments performed by Rancourt and Tattersall have the aim of proving an action of light on a gravitational field through the variation of weight of a test mass. It is well-known that ISS stations work practically in the absence of weight and gravity. This experiment therefore is one of little experiments that cannot be verified by NASA in space. It needs instead to equip duly laboratories that are on the Earth. With regard to thermal influence I know Rancourt and Tattersall considered that problem and they adopted necessary tactics and the experiments prove different variations of weight when mass is under or over the panel of light and it would have to remove that doubt. Anyway the general rule of science is to repeat experiments in different places and in different times.

Dear Micheal,

the experimental evidence denies a variation of the energy of radiation crossing gravitational potentials. There should be an interaction of the background with photons but only for momenta of photons. Radiation cannot enter the stress tensor also because there would be no solution for some quantum experimental evidences.

Article Radiation power invariance across gravitational potentials

Matter affects the direction of the radiation not its intensity. Radiation does not affect the structure of the background (expressed by the metric), the background is a wave guide which does not alter the content of the radiation.

It seems radiation does not exert gravity on the object when a ray passes close to the object but the object weight does change. That seems to indicate radiation changes something because the force of gravity does change on the object. I have the impression from many direct observations of that fact that the horizontal laminar light beam does affect what is the source of the gravitational force on an object. Maybe a variation of Lesage theory.

Louis

The Rancourt effect consists in the interaction light-mass, i.e. in the action that light exerts on a mass m. In the Rancourt-Tattersall experiment that effect is verified through the action that light exerts on a test mass m that is into the Earth gravitational field and this acts like an intermediary. The performance of that experiment into an ISS has to consider the fact that the Earth gravitational field is absent practically in the work conditions of the ISS. In that case then the experiment would have to verify the direct action that light exerts on the test mass without the intermediation of the primary gravitational field of the Earth. It would need therefore a modified experiment.

To repeat the experiment in an equipped laboratory on the surface of the Earth, producing a good vacuum, it would be certainly an interesting experimental fact.

Let's see. The only light-made gravity is a relative mass focus in respect of curvature apparently accelerated from out of the convex side of light ray. it's compensated at every turn of the curvature. When light is trapped in the closing path, orbit, there is an apparent acceleration increase for all observers outside. Hence, the mass and the curvature of spacetime and the gravity are all the same phenomenon: the inertia, the time.

Is there some problem with my chain of reasoning?

And yes, there is some experimental evidence that a trapped light radiation increase mass and of course gravitational attraction at the same time. Really, the mass needs always the matter / particles which energy states can be tuned, the light alone cannot gravitate.

For example Steve Carlip has analyzed the experimental data:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

A heating just increases the trapped light energy and the mass at the same time.

Physical phenomenon for which different shapes of energy, light or heat, trapped into a mass produce an increase of mass is well-known. The Rancourt effect describes a different physical phenomenon: the interaction light-mass that happens without contact of light with mass. The R-T experiment proves there is an interaction without contact between light and gravitational field of a mass. It cannot be explained by ordinary knowledges and it involves a theoretical widening based on the concept of interaction. Obsolete concepts of action at distance and of deformation (curvature) of spacetime aren't able to explaim new theoretical and experimental facts.

I retreat to my original answer. The photon possesses momentum but does not possess either inertial nor gravitational mass but it follows the geodesic defined by the gravitational field of a massive body. It is the carrier of the electromagnetic force as distnct from the gravitational force. I would therefore contend that it neither exerts gravitatinal force or responds to gravitational force except to the extent that gravity distorts the space through which the photon travels. I suggest that the experimental evidence is provided by the observed trajectories of light (photons) in the Einsteinian spacetime of the universe.

I see a few persist in giving no importance to Rancourt-Tattersall experimental work. This position is incorrect from scientific viewpoint because it would need to prove the inconsistency of that experiment repeating it instead basing criticism on old and obsolete concepts that prove nothing. 

Photons can interact with massive particles. In this way they can indirectly sense gravitation effects. Photons cannot deform the field that carries them. However, they vibrate the carrying field and they follow the deformations of that carrying field. The carrying field must be always and everywhere present. The EM field cannot fulfill that requirement. It depends on the nearby existence of electrical charges. 

Photons can travel billions of light years and then they still have sufficient energy left in order to trigger a relatively small photon detector. Waves cannot perform that trick. Thus photons are not waves or wave packages. Still they are solutions of the homogeneous second order partial differential equations that describe the behavior of the carrying field. These equations offer also other solutions than waves. For example they offer solutions that represent shapes that keep their front and keep their amplitude and travel with a fixed speed. Photons feature a frequency that is proportional to its energy. Thus photons might be constituted of strings of equidistant shape and amplitude keeping fronts that each carry a bit of energy.

Hans,

What do you mean be "massive particle"? Yes, the earth reflects light received from the sun but gravity per se is not involved. Photons are the electromagnetic field that carries them. A photon "vibration" if you will, is called a "light wave". The electromagnetic field of a charged particle propagates to "infinity" carried by photons traveling at the speed of light and thus, to all extents and puroses, pervades all space. If the detector is a radio telescope it detects waves (long-wavelength electromagnetic radiation) not photons. Yes, the energy of a photon is hν where ν is the frequency and h is Planck's constant, And we also have c = λν where c is the speed of light (i.e., photons) and λ is the wavelength of the photon so that λ = c/ν and thus the photon is a "wave" of frequency ν and wavelength λ. Why do we need strings when we already have photons that do all of the things that photons need to do including being waves when the situation demands it?

Dwight,

You just follow the general trend without taking critical remarks seriously. The behavior of photons conflict with the fact that they are waves and conflict with the assumption that the EM field is the carrying field. The photons feature a frequency that is proportional to the energy that they carry, but that does not mean that they are waves.

If photons are constituted of strings of equidistant shape and amplitude keeping fronts and each of these fronts carry a bit of energy, then all photons must have the same length. If they all have the same speed, then emission, passage and absorption take the same duration. (Red shift spoils this clean picture). The carrying field (the field whose behavior is described by a homogeneous second order partial differential equation that offers the fronts as part of its solutions) must be always and everywhere existing. This must also hold in large regions of "empty space" that are crossed by the long range travelling photons.

Accept that your lecturers have learned you some false concepts. Trigger your analytic mind.

Radio waves are EM waves, but photons are not radio waves.

A theory must be able to explain the facts. The two papers published to show that light did affect gravity did not mentitonned all the facts discovered during experimentation. These facts are now written on GRAVITYFORCES.COM under the title  more facts on light and gravity. Hope someone will be a le to explain them.

Louis

Dear Hans,

You are correct "Radio waves are EM waves, but photons are not radio waves". BUT, with all due respect, radio waves are photons!

A problem here, methinks, is that it is hard to grasp the concept that (in physics) "waves" and "particles" are not mutually exclusive entities. Think of a photon as a wave packet traveling with a group velocity c whose component waves destructively interfere at either end of the packet but continually constructively interfere at the center of the packet as the wave packet (photon) proceeds on its way. This schematic Fourier decomposition of the photon as wave packet depends on the photon energy which then gives us the frequency and wavelength of the traveling photon wave.

Photon is a light quantum that covers a smallest band of frequency in the EM spectrum. In postmodern physics all EM energy is represented by photons but it generates only confusions in the absence of further explanations. The Theory of Reference Frames makes use of the term "energy quantum" that covers a largest spectrum of frequency from infrared rays to delta-Y rays. Photon in this spectrum represents in actuality only the visible band. All energy quanta are EM nanowaves, includimg photons. Radio waves are instead EM waves whose spectrum of frequency goes from long waves to short waves, including microwaves. Between microwaves and infrared rays there is a smallest band of frequency of transition that indicates the passage from the continuous nature of EM energy (radio waves) to quantum nature of EM energy (nanowaves).

Dwight,

The carrier fields of photons and EM wave differ. The carrier field of EM wave is the EM field. The carrier field of photons is the same field that gets deformed by the presence of massive particles. In fact elementary particles and photons are just two forms of the same thing. These forms can convert into each other during particle creation and annihilation processes.

The two fields are fundamentally different, but they are intimately connected via the platforms on which elementary particles reside. Both EM waves and photons feature a frequency. However, where the artifacts that disturb the continuity of EM fields can be attractive or repellent will the artifacts that disturb the continuity of the other field type only attract.

Daniele,

The frequencies of the photons and the frequencies of radio waves partly overlap.

The radio waves are the result of vibrations of electrically charged particles that at least have the "size" of elementary particles. The top frequency of photons is reached when a rather massive elementary particle annihilates. That frequency is much higher than EM waves can reach. The annihilation converts a hopping path that corresponds to a coherent swarm of hop landing locations into a linear string of equidistant fronts that each carry a bit of energy. Since the energy of the photon is proportional to its energy, the number of involved fronts must be proportional to that frequency and the hopping path will contain that many hops. The hop landings all contribute to the deformation of the field and that deformation is directly related to the mass of the elementary particle. This is reflected in Einstein's famous E=m c² and Plank's E=ℎ ν

Dear Hans and Daniele,

I am at a loss for words. Your views of photons and electromagnetism appear to be at complete odds with all that I have ever learned about these subjects. I do not say that your interpretations are wrong but they do depart from what I consider to be "mainstream" physics. I am curious to know the source of your iterpretations. I don't see how you arrived at them from any standard physics textbooks.

Dwight,

The foreword of "The Hilbert Book Test Model" offers some idea of the backgrounds of my personal research project. During my career as a developer of night vision and X-ray image intensifier devices I got unique insight in the behavior of photons and elementary particles. I am now 75 and use my experience and insight in order to correct physics at places on which it is in my opinion not completely correct. Physics offers many chances for repair actions because it did not yet dive deep in the foundations of physical reality. I base my approaches on solid mathematical methods and I use results obtained by scientists that to my opinion were/are on the proper track. I found a good start in the mids of the turmoil at the start of quantum physics that happened in the first decades of the twentieth century.

"The Hilbert Book Test Model" is configured as a textbook. It contains many sections and appendices that elucidate the methods and structures that are applied.

I am open to any criticism on this text. I regularly update the text when I find shortcomings or obscure formulations. I extensively use the excellent revision service that vixra.org offers.

http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021

Dear Hans,

Thank you so much! I Have downloaded the file and will read it!