Hello,

The mass-energy equivalence principle, as expressed by the equation E=mc^2, does not specify a minimum mass (m) or energy (E). In theory, any amount of mass, no matter how small, has an equivalent amount of energy, and vice versa.

However, in practice, there are limits to how small a mass we can meaningfully talk about. For example, the smallest known particle with mass is the neutrino, which has a mass so small that it was originally thought to be massless.

As for energy, the Planck energy (derived from fundamental constants such as the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant) is sometimes considered a fundamental unit of energy in quantum gravity theories, but it is not a "minimum" energy in the sense you're asking about.

In terms of the rest mass, it's important to note that rest mass is an intrinsic property of an object and does not change regardless of the object's speed or the observer's frame of reference. The relativistic mass, which increases with speed, is a concept that is less used in modern physics because it can lead to some confusion.

So, while there are practical and theoretical limits to how small a mass or energy we can meaningfully talk about, the equation E=mc^2 itself does not specify a minimum value for m or E.

Dear Alessandro Rizzo

“In terms of the rest mass, it's important to note that rest mass is an intrinsic property of an object and does not change regardless of the object's speed or the observer's frame of reference. The relativistic mass, which increases with speed, is a concept that is less used in modern physics because it can lead to some confusion.”

Does it mean that the "rest mass" of an object is constant no matter what speed it is moving at, similar to the relativistic invariance of its "electric charge"?We cannot define "rest ". If mass and energy are equivalent, how can such a conclusion be reached? Is energy also a fixed property of an object, independent of motion?

Best Regards, Chian FAN

Dear Preston Guynn

1) "Mass is not conserved, and even energy is not conserved, but the product of time and energy is conserved." could you provide a specific reference for this concept Can you provide a specific reference for this concept? Or a more detailed explanation?

2) "My research proved the fundamental basis for electron and proton mass is described by special relativistic rotational motion. " This is a good perspective for explaining the origin of mass, and perhaps it is indeed the case. However, it does not show that there should not be a minimum value for the rest mass, otherwise the mass would be the same for all inertial systems.

Best Regards, Chian FAN

Dear Chian Fan,

Ponder the fact that the intrinsic property we call "rest mass" remains constant, irrespective of the velocity at which an object travels. This fundamental postulate of relativity likens "rest mass" to the electric charge of a particle - it remains invariant, unaltered by the state of motion.

Consequently, it would be erroneous to confuse "rest mass" with "relativistic mass", which augments as speed increases. Owing to the potential misunderstandings this term can engender, its usage has been curtailed in contemporary physics. The term "energy" is now the preferred nomenclature when referring to the "mass" a moving object appears to acquire - a consequence of its kinetic energy. This change aligns with the principle of mass-energy equivalence, encapsulated in the renowned equation E=mc^2.

The energy of an object, however, does not remain fixed independent of motion. The total energy of an object, as perceived from a specific frame of reference, is the sum of its rest energy (mc^2) - which is a constant - and its kinetic energy, which varies with speed. Hence, an object's total energy can fluctuate with its state of motion.

Regarding the interplay between mass and energy, they are indeed equivalent but distinct. It is expedient to conceive of mass as a form of energy. The mass-energy equivalence principle postulates that a specific amount of rest mass corresponds to a certain amount of energy (mc^2). If the mass is propelled into motion, it gains additional energy due to its motion - kinetic energy - hence, the total energy of an object as perceived from a particular frame of reference escalates.

Sincerely,

Alessandro Rizzo

Dear Chian Fan

A point of particular interest about the confirmed lowest rest mass ever recorded for an elementary particle is that of the electron m0=9.10938188E-31 kg. Also confirmed from the electromagnetic perspective because only photons of energy exceeding 1.022 MeV, currently deemed to be massless, are known to be likely to convert to pairs of electron and positron, each of which made of 8.18710414E-14 joules (0.511 MeV, that is, half the energy of the initial photon.

The mechanics of such a conversion from the electromagnetic perspective is analyzed in this article published in 2013. All formal references are provided, including links to those that are directly available on the internet.

Article The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model

Best Regards, André

Chian Fan : "Spacetime" as an abstract geometrical construct presumably with tangible material, mechanical, metrical etc., attributes is a brain-cooked mathematical fiction and have no basis in objective reality. "Spacetime as a geometrical trick arising from equally fictitious Lorentz Transforms are outcome of the axiomatic premise of Einstein, that the velocity of light is a universal constant. Please see:

"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein’s Theories of Relativity and cosmology". INSPIRE: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

Mass is an invariant quality of matter. The concept of relativistic mass increase is also a fiction arising from axiomatic theory of Einstein's SR and have no basis in objective reality. The relation m=γm0 is wrong scientifically and absurd mathematically. The rest mass m0 of a photon is supposed to be 0 (zero). Substituting this value in the above relation give γ=m/0, an absurdity. What it means is that you are hiding a logical absurdity by using an alphabetic symbol instead of the relevant numerical value!

The notion that "The mass-energy equation E=mc^2 is a derivative of Einstein's special relativity", as you say; also have no basis. The idea of the equivalence of mass and energy is a very old one, please see the reference cited below. In more recent times, this relation arose from Kaufmann's 1901 -1905 experimental work and Abraham's model; before Einstein's SR. Kaufmann and Abraham already came up with this equation, but with a constant E=Kmc² . Einstein's contribution was to replace the constant K with 1, that's all - a simplification of which Einstein was a master of. The value of K is still unknown or undefined.

http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm

Dear Abdul Malek

You wrote: "this relation arose from Kaufmann's 1901 -1905 experimental work and Abraham's model; before Einstein's SR. Kaufmann and Abraham already came up with this equation, but with a constant E=Kmc² . Einstein's contribution was to replace the constant K with 1,"

Note that before 1905, it was current to represent the gamma factor with the letter k.

Replacing it with 1 for low velocities simply recovered the Newtonian rest mass for low velocities.

See the definition of the gamma factor as k with Equation (3) and its use in Equations (30) in Lorentz's 1904 article:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena

Best Regards, André

André Michaud : Hi André, it has been a long time since we met each other in RG. It seems that you have reduced your participation in RG and I am doing the same, since it is increasingly becoming a saga of endless repeating and scholasticism. Thanks for the link to Lorentz's paper.

My point is that the concept of mass energy equivalence has a long history and generally a complicated issue, which is not clearly understood yet. In some cases like in electron-positron annihilation, as you mentioned in your comment above or its opposite pair production; this equivalence seems simple enough and is well characterized. But in many other cases, like in the case of nuclear reaction, mass-energy relation seems to be different. In fact after Otto Hahn and Meitner's claim of mass to energy conversion in nuclear fission, Einstein initiated dismissed it as impossible; because for him the E=mc^2 was possible only through electrodynamics and relativistic consideration.

What is unfortunate in my view, is that Einstein arbitrarily and on an ad hoc basis idealized this issue through mathematical idealism and removed the role of experiments by many like those before and after Kaufmann going well into 1919; when GR became the craze and inertial mass replaced the relativistic mass and the real issue of the constant K or any other factors involved in this relation are completely forgotten and done away with. The simple, generalized and reductionist approach of Einstein is convenient and ideologically acceptable for official science, even though such reductionist ideas leads to paradoxes, mystery, fairy tales etc. As an individual Einstein hardly ever acknowledged or referred to contribution from others; because he thought that he is deriving all these scientific equations from "first principle" of esoteric axioms!

Official science opportunistically promoted Einstein (and still does so) simply because his reductionist but utterly confusing views, defying hard (experimental and empirical) science is in conformity with their ideology and theology.

On the mass-energy relation, in addition to the reference I cited above, please see the following section of a book, available online:

https://relativityoflight.com/chapter-32

The overwhelming advantage for official science is that they can show "experimental proof" (Arthur Eddington style) of any theory of their choice and uses it as a trump card against any opposition. They thrive in creating utter confusion and endless scholasticism by using one concept in some cases and the exactly opposite in other cases.. Take the case of relativistic mass (mass increase with velocity) m=γm0 as I discussed above. This relation does not make any sense in the case of light photons, and many physicists avoid using relativistic mass (including Einstein in his later years) in electrodynamics; but are very happy to use it (including my late friend Wolfgang Engelhardt) in the case of the particle accelerators! Official science uses this as the "proof" of SR!

For me mathematical idealism starting from Newton leading to Einstein's "thought experiments" has greatly undermined the scientific method in general. The fictitious and contrived gamma term (as I have shown in my publication on LTs) in particular since Einstein, is behind much of the crises in modern theoretical physics and cosmology.

Best regards,

Abdul

Abdul Malek

Hi Abdul

You wrote: "Hi André, it has been a long time since we met each other in RG. It seems that you have reduced your participation in RG"

Yes, it's been a while. But I have not really diminished contributing. Only less visible I guess since parasites Juan and Joachim have stopped following me around. I took measures. I keep on informing newcomers about electromagnetic mechanics as before when they raise related issues.

You wrote: "In fact after Otto Hahn and Meitner's claim of mass to energy conversion in nuclear fission, Einstein initiated dismissed it as impossible; because for him the E=mc^2 was possible only through electrodynamics and relativistic consideration."

This sounds strange to me, since he saluted as a proof of E=mc^2 that the mass of elementary particles was made of energy the discovery in 1932 by Cockcroft and Walton that some nucleon mass converts into energy by bombarding Lithium7,3 nuclei with protons (Hydrogen1,1), that resulted in the fusion of protons with Lithium nuclei, momentarily producing unstable Beryllium8,4 nuclei that immediately fissioned into two Helium4,2 nuclei, releasing a large amount of electromagnetic energy during the process.

Cockcroft, J.D. & Walton, E.T.S. (1932) Disintegration of Lithium by Swift Protons. Nature volume 129, page 649 (1932).

https://www.nature.com/articles/129649a0

He was very public about this. I seem to remember that there even is a video on youtube in which we can see him say as much.

Would you have a reference in which he is denying this?

You wrote: "For me mathematical idealism starting from Newton leading to Einstein's "thought experiments" has greatly undermined the scientific method in general. The fictitious and contrived gamma term (as I have shown in my publication on LTs) in particular since Einstein, is behind much of the crises in modern theoretical physics and cosmology. "

As previously mentioned, with respect to constant k, this was how they identified the gamma factor in late 1800's and early 1900's articles instead of the now familiar Greek "γ". From the electromagnetic perspective, it has nothing to do with time dilation and length contraction, but with energy induction in charged particles as demonstrated by the Kaufmann data and precision guidance of particle beams on curved trajectories ever since.

It is a fact that the level of knowledge has greatly diminished in the physics community since the 1950's, particularly about electromagnetic mechanics. Luckily the engineering community has kept the boat afloat. But in my view, Einstein is not responsible for this loss of knowledge. The neglect of popular textbook authors to refer to the papers of the original discoverers combined with the neglect of the community to translate these papers to English is the culprit. Now in process of being addressed.

By the way, about Arp and Marmet that you knew personally, their objections have not been ignored in the community, there is a whole chapter about their views in a book that I read recently that explains their main objections: Chapter 13 in "Physics before and after Einstein" edited by Marco Mamone Capria.

Best Regards, André

Abdul Malek

Hi Abdul, I just located the youtube video in which Einstein confirms his agreement with the Cockroft and Walton mass to energy conversion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITyBkCK74HQ

Best Regards, André

Chian Fan,

I have in my first book (Born:A universe, in my profile) shown how the elementary particles can be created out of vacuum through a quantum mechanical process. I found that if I described the paricles as built by a confined quantized field I arrive at the correct particle properties (mass, radius, spin g).

The mass is thus given by the energy content of the confined field. Since a moving field scales with the Lorentz factor we get the usal expression for the relativistic mass.

I would fine-tune that question to: 'Is there a minimum OBSERVABLE value of m in the mass-energy equation E=mc^2 ?'

I am relating this enhancement to the Heisenberg uncertainty principles. In the micro world an exact location cannot be pinpointed. It can be associated with a wavelength. Not knowing the exact location, a true M(0) does not exist. Along this line of thinking, the product error in (mass) * (location) of the observation is symmetrical per Heisenberg, whereby Planck's constant 'h' is the single natural constant in the equation.

Of course, this would set a minimum to the OBSERVABLE. Such does not imply a minimum to the actual world. However, any potential thing smaller is -by definition- theoretical, since there is no way to observe it.

PS: my (single) contribution to ResearchGate may shine some further light on where I am coming from :).

Dear Alessandro Rizzo

An elementary particle then has an " original mass ", to which kinetic energy is added when it moves. Is this " original " not equivalent to the initial state of " absolute rest "?

"Hence, an object's total energy can fluctuate with its state of motion." Does this mean that an elementary particle does not have absolute energy?

The two statements seem to be contradictory.

I'm sorry, I didn't fully understand.

Best Regards, Chian FAN

Dear Chian Fan,

Your questions are insightful and touch on some of the fundamental concepts of physics. Let me try to clarify these concepts further.

Firstly, the term "original mass" you used is equivalent to what we often call "rest mass" in physics. This is the mass of an object as measured when it is at rest relative to the observer. It is an intrinsic property of the object, much like its electric charge, and does not change regardless of the object's state of motion or the observer's frame of reference.

When we say an object gains kinetic energy when it moves, we are referring to the energy it possesses due to its motion. This kinetic energy is relative to the observer's frame of reference. For instance, a car moving at 60 mph has kinetic energy relative to a person standing on the roadside, but it has no kinetic energy relative to a passenger inside the car.

The total energy of an object, as observed from a specific frame of reference, is the sum of its rest energy (equivalent to its rest mass times the speed of light squared, mc^2) and its kinetic energy. The rest energy is a constant, while the kinetic energy depends on the object's speed relative to the observer. Therefore, the total energy of an object can vary depending on its state of motion relative to the observer.

Now, to your question about absolute energy: In the context of special relativity, there is no such thing as "absolute energy". Energy, like velocity, time, and length, is relative and depends on the observer's frame of reference. This is a direct consequence of Einstein's postulates of special relativity.

Finally, regarding your question about the "initial state of absolute rest", it's important to understand that in special relativity, there is no such thing as "absolute rest". All motion is relative. An object can be at rest in one frame of reference and moving in another. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference, whether the object is at rest or in motion.

This brings us to another interesting point related to your question about an "absolute frame of reference". The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is often considered a unique frame of reference, but it's important to clarify what we mean by this.

The CMBR is the residual heat from the Big Bang, and it permeates all of space. It appears almost the same in every direction we look, but there is a slight variation due to the motion of our galaxy (and our solar system) relative to the CMBR. This motion causes a Doppler effect, which shifts the frequency of the CMBR in the direction we're moving towards (a blueshift) and in the opposite direction (a redshift). By measuring this shift, we can determine our motion relative to the CMBR.

In this sense, the CMBR provides a "preferred" frame of reference, in that we can define our velocity relative to it. However, this does not make it an "absolute" frame of reference in the Newtonian sense. The laws of physics still operate the same way regardless of your velocity relative to the CMBR. In other words, while the CMBR provides a convenient reference frame for defining velocities on a cosmic scale, it does not violate or change the fundamental postulates of special relativity.

So, the CMBR can be considered a unique or preferred frame of reference, but it is not an "absolute" frame of reference in the sense that the laws of physics would look different from it than from any other inertial frame.

I hope this clarifies your doubts.

Best Regards,

Alessandro Rizzo

Dear Alessandro Rizzo

Thank you very much for your very patient and kind reply, your knowledge and views have already enlightened and helped me. I understand that if there is sufficient reason to deny "relative mass" and to regard mass as "mass charge", then the question will be adequately answered.

Also, on the issue of absolute frame of reference, I think it is appropriate to consider the "background" provided by CMBR as an absolute frame of reference, just as SR itself is based on light.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Alessandro Rizzo,

you are a bit wrong about the CMB. It is created when the galaxies build up as I have shown in my book Born:A univers IV (in my profile).

If light was sent out at the recombination in the Big Bang, it will be long gone by now. The galaxies were created after the atoms formed and since the light is ahead of us we cannot see it.

As I have shown when the atoms form in the galaxies fotons are created which due scattering against free electrons will end up in a distribution of a black body of 2.7K.

Dear Hans Gennow,

Thank you for sharing your views. The study of cosmology and our understanding of the universe are constantly evolving and it's always great to see diverse perspectives.

Your proposition that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is a result of galaxy formation is an intriguing one. Conventionally, the CMB is understood as a remnant radiation from the early universe, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. This is a period known as recombination, when the universe cooled down enough to allow hydrogen and helium atoms to form, making the universe transparent to light for the first time. The photons that we detect as the CMB are believed to be from this epoch, stretched to microwave wavelengths by the expansion of the universe.

However, you propose that these photons are actually produced during galaxy formation and are then scattered by free electrons to form a blackbody radiation equivalent to a temperature of 2.7K. This is an interesting hypothesis, and as with any scientific theory, it would need to be backed by observational and experimental evidence. It would be necessary to explain how this process could produce a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum and account for the observed anisotropies in the CMB.

Moreover, current models of Big Bang cosmology, including the recombination epoch and the existence of the CMB as a relic radiation, have been successful in predicting a wide range of phenomena, from the large-scale structure of the universe to the abundance of light elements. A new model would need to be able to explain all these observations at least as well as the current model does.

Also, regarding your statement, "If light was sent out at the recombination in the Big Bang, it will be long gone by now." It is important to note that the light from the recombination is indeed gone from its original location, but because the universe has been expanding since that time, that light is just now reaching us from distant locations. This is why we can still observe the CMB today.

Science is inherently a process of exploration and discovery, and theories are always subject to modification and refinement in the face of new data. Your contributions to this ongoing conversation are much appreciated. I look forward to hearing more about your ideas and the evidence that supports them.

Best regards,

Alessandro Rizzo

Alessandro Rizzo,

just read the book I mentioned and I you will have answeres to your questions.

The light from the Big Bang went straight out, it did not return (if so how?). Since the speed of the galaxies are less than that of light we cannot catch up.

I could mention that the experimen BICEP3 concluded that inflationary models are unlikely. It is mentioned in my book.

If you want to see the status of my predictions, have a look into my last book (V).

Dear André Michaud

You have provided literature that relates to the concept of rest mass and particle pair production. Article The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model

Can you give comments under the new topic?

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

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Quote: "There is no minimum value of m in the mass-energy equation E=mc^2."

The smallest consistently and effectively "measured" confirmed mass in all atoms in the universe is the mass of the electron: 9.10938188E-31 kg.

All smaller figures are only theoretical, including the Planck mass concept.

Dear Robert A. Phillips

Allow me to further clarify the concepts at hand.

When an object falls under the influence of gravity, it is experiencing a transformation of energy. This object starts with a certain amount of gravitational potential energy, which is tied to its position in the gravitational field. As it falls, this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, the energy of motion, causing the object to accelerate. The process doesn't require an additional source of energy, it's a conversion from one form of energy to another, in line with the principle of conservation of energy.

In the context of the energy-mass relationship, the rest mass of an object refers to the mass of the object as observed in a frame where the object is stationary. This is an inherent property of the object, and it's equivalent to the object's energy when it is at rest, according to Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2.

It's important to clarify that an object does not need to be accelerating for its rest mass to be determined. Indeed, the rest mass of an object can be ascertained in any frame of reference, whether it's at rest or in uniform motion. The rest mass is the mass that we typically measure in everyday situations, like weighing an object on a scale.

Even when an object is moving, its rest mass remains constant. What changes with the motion is not the rest mass, but the object's momentum and energy. The faster the object moves relative to an observer, the more energy and momentum it seems to have, due to the relativistic increase of its effective mass. This, however, doesn't alter its rest mass.

In simple terms, the rest mass is a fundamental property of the object and can be measured irrespective of the object's state of acceleration. On the other hand, the energy causing an object to accelerate in a gravitational field comes from the conversion of its gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy.

Maybe this explanation offers a clearer understanding of these complex concepts.

Regards,

Alessandro Rizzo

m = (hf)/(c^2)

Dear Preston Guynn

There are some questions in your view that I think need further explanation.

1) you say, "As a particular example, when an electron and proton combine to form a neutron", what is the basis for thinking that neutrons are composed of protons and electrons?

2) you say, "However, neutrinos are neither particles nor photons," what basis is there for thinking so? And what exactly is it? After all, multiple experiments ("Super-Kamiokande.") from https://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/sk/about/. ); "The Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory (JUNO)." (from http://juno.ihep.cas.cn/.) Both have detected neutrinos. It cannot be easily dismissed without solid evidence.

3) you say, "applies relativistic length (distance) contraction, and time dilation to rotational motion", which I also think is as it should be. "and find that there is a condition in which space time is quantized," I don't think there is sufficient justification.

4) you say, "My research proved the fundamental basis for electron and proton mass is described by special relativistic rotational motion." what is in rotational motion?

I hope these questions don't seem wrong.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Preston Guynn

Thank you very much for your long reply, and I admire from the bottom of my heart your dedication to physics research.

In fact, I agree with many of your points, such as the same belief that electrons have structure, that magnetic moment is correlated to the spin angular momentum, and the same doubts about some new physics concepts.

However, there is a great risk to deny the mature view of physics.

Physics believes that it is impossible to have an electron in a neutron because the electron scale is too large. The fact that a neutron decays out of an electron does not mean that there is an electron in the composition of the neutron; the fact that a neutrino arises from the decay of a neutron does not mean that it is not a particle, just as an electron transitions to produce a photon, and a photon is not a particle contained in an electron. The relationship between them is simply one of energy-momentum inclusion.

The 10 questions you gave me are questions that all physicists (and non-professional physicists) would like to answer correctly. The fact that there are no standard answers to these questions does not mean that we can thereby deny the basic principles of physics.

I do not intend to negate any proof. As long as it is complete and correct, it cannot be denied. But when you say "This model has value in science and technology that would be in the trillions of dollars." you are going beyond physics.

I have been asking you what is spinning, not how it spins. Maybe there is a problem with my English expression.

It is normal for everyone to hold his own opinion, but we must also be aware of the conflicts that exist between, for example, Preston Guynn (you) and André Michaud, Sergey Shevchenko 's opinions. you are different. Therefore, mutual questioning is an indispensable and effective means of improvement. I believe this is the consensus.

I will continue to read your papers and hope to understand and accept more of your ideas.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

You wrote: "It is normal for everyone to hold his own opinion, but we must also be aware of the conflicts that exist between, for example, Preston Guynn (you) and André Michaud, Sergey Shevchenko 's opinions."

Note that I personally am in conflict with nobody. I simply propose to the upcoming generation my deepest analyses of the experimental data gathered over the course of history about the subatomic level of magnitude for them to assess.

I do not really care whether or not current academia takes interest or not, which is why I propose my analyses when applicable in context of some conversations when logically applying, so that silent readers have access, but never try to "convince" anybody.

There is an aspect of the manner in which memories are stored in the neocortex, that was discovered by Donald Hebb in the 1940's that nobody seems to be aware of in the community, that causes some memories of conclusions that we draw to become so strongly imprinted in our neocortex as to underlie all of our individual world view in such an inextricable manner, that it becomes biologically impossible for us to question them, like learned reflexes that we cannot voluntarily control, unless deeply aware of this situation.

This makes it impossible for people to change their mind about issues that have become fundamental for their lifelong worldview establishment to make sense. So I don't waste time trying. So, the only way out for new complex developments to take root in the community is for them to be put at the disposal of people "before" they individually become too deeply convinced of previously established certainties.

So much the better if some in the current academia relate and understand my analyses, but there is this old French saying that always comes to my mind in context: "À l'impossible, nul n'est tenu", so I don't try.

If interested by this issue, this is analyzed and put in perspective in a different project finalized last year:

Article INDEX - General Neurolinguistics - Conceptual Thinking

and whose first overall explanatory chapter is available here:

Article Study on General Neurolinguistics and the Comprehension Ability

All 5 chapters and the explanatory intro are freely available.

Best Regards, André

Dear André Michaud

“I simply propose to the upcoming generation my deepest analyses of the experimental data gathered over the course of history about the subatomic level of magnitude for them to assess.”

Again, I admire the passion, effort, motivation, extensive knowledge, and achievements of everyone here for physics. I believe I have benefited. I hope that my attention and learning approach is appropriate.

“This makes it impossible for people to change their mind about issues that have become fundamental for their lifelong worldview establishment to make sense.”

I think I understand what you are saying, although haven't read the link you provided. I quoted the famous physicist Yang at https://www.researchgate.net/post/No9_Is_the_spin_of_an_electron_really_spin; "When we do something in physics, after the long range perspective fades into the background, and we may become blind to important a priori questions." The "fades into the background" here is probably similar to your "become fundamental". This is a difficult problem to overcome because the learning process is about building stable neural networks; and stable neural networks become fixed patterns that reject mismatched concepts.

I think your judgment is correct.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

You wrote: "This is a difficult problem to overcome because the learning process is about building stable neural networks; and stable neural networks become fixed patterns that reject mismatched concepts."

Yes. I would even say "impossible to overcome" ... unless we become deeply aware of the mechanics of engrams imprinting in our "living" neocortex neural network, and of the function of articulated languages in conceptual thinking, a combination of which allows us to regain control of the requestioning process that was natural to us in infancy, as suspected by Korzybski at a time when research was not sufficiently advanced to confirm.

Best Regards, André

Dear Chian Fan

Note that my main research project was on neurolinguistics. My physics project is just a side issue, meant to put at the disposal of the upcoming generation a demonstration – if eventually confirmed – that the requestioning mechanics can be kept permanently active even after infancy and can lead to clearer understanding of physical reality.

Best Regards, André

Dear André Michaud

"The mechanics of engrams imprinting in our "living" neocortex neural network" is a concept that I need to learn, but my intuition tells me that it is a much greater research direction than physics. Theoretically it would involve our understanding of "consciousness" and technically it could lead to an AI revolution. I admire the work you are doing in two completely different disciplines!

Best Regards, Chian Fan

my random guess the minimum is twice the electron mass energy which is 2x0.5 MeV. My guess is both of us agree that mass could be curled up photon. The lightest stable mass is electron and other lighter fundamental particles are unstable. So I suspect that a photon at 1MeV will have a wavelength shorter enough to curl up and release half of its energy and the rest half spinning up as localized photon with a structure showing a charge. But this argument violates the conservation of angular momentum unless we assign angular momentum to photon which I checked Wiki that photon has spin. My guess is the spin of photons are simple but spin of electro is complicated. So there still need angular momentum to make an electron out of photon.

Chian Fan

Dear Chi An Fan,

Yes. It is a direction of research way more important than physics. You may be surprised to learn that the mechanics of engrams imprinting in the neural networks of the neocortex was discovered by Donald Hebb already way back in the 1940's. The technique has been used ever since in AI programming without anybody becoming aware that the same mechanics applies to our own neocortex. The more an engram is "visited" the stronger the imprint becomes and the easier it becomes to be "visited".

The neocortex 6-layer neural network is however immeasurably more complex than any AI programmed network, but obeys the same imprinting and automatic correlating mechanics.

You wrote: "Theoretically it would involve our understanding of "consciousness"

No. It involves only becoming aware of the function of the verbal thinking mode in the establishment of conceptual thinking, as the means by which we generalize our sensory perceptions, from which generalizations we then establish each of our personal idealized worldview. Discovered way back in the 1930's by Pavlov, but to this day, never translated to English, and consequently never referenced in any English publication.

Unbeknownst to mainstream, due to the failure to translate the complementary related discoveries made in Germany, Russia, and France that were already available in languages other than English, all of this knowledge was already familiar in my community in the 1960's for anybody having access to these other languages.

Now regrouped and properly referenced and at the disposal of the upcoming generation, with references to all original formal publications.

No need for any admiration. Simple work of retracing and synthesizing the converging research that I had access to and relating it to recent confirming research. Project completed last year already.

Physics being less abstract as an attention getter for the upcoming generation, no doubt the physics project will attract attention more readily, which will eventually finally attract real attention the more fundamental but also much more abstract and difficult to become aware of neurolinguistics synthesis.

For our species to survive, my view is that the sooner the better.

Best Regards, André

Dear Jixin Chen

You seem to be on the right track to understand how 1.022 MeV photons can decouple into 2 x 0.511 MeV/c2 massive electron and positron.

But I found that it is not possible to understand the mechanics of decoupling without first mastering the trispatial vector geometry.

Put in perspective in this article:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Indeed, the vector tensors of 9 dimensions are too complicated for me to comprehend now.

Jixin

Dear Jixin Chen

Not "vector tensors of 9 dimensions". No tensors involved. Only straight well known standard mutually perpendicular ijk unit vectors of electromagnetism, but in an increased configuration.

Now a capital IJK major unit vectors set, each with its local internal minor ijk unit vector set.

Thus defining 3 mutually perpendicular 3D vector spaces joined at the IJK central junction.

If you think about this for a while, you will see that it does make sense, and you will begin to be able to see how the energy of a photon can become stabilized into such a 3X3D vector space.

Best Regards, André

Dear Jixin Chen

I agree with André Michaud ‘s remarks, which is why I have been pursuing the analysis of the "pair production" experimental results【see link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO8_Are_annihilation_and_pair_production_mutually_inverse_processes】 Although there is a fundamental difference between my views and André Michaud ’s on this, we are thinking in the same direction.

Pair production is a very beautiful physical process that is closely related to the formation of matter in the early universe, and the reason for the absence of antimatter.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan,

“…I agree with André Michaud ‘s remarks, which is why I have been pursuing the analysis of the "pair production" experimental results【see link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO8_Are_annihilation_and_pair_production_mutually_inverse_processes】 …..”

- in your post click on the link to “NO8” opens rather strange RG URL,

- and it would be strange to agree with André Michaud ‘s remarks, since the remarks are too strange, say, as

“…You seem to be on the right track to understand how 1.022 MeV photons can decouple into 2 x 0.511 MeV/c2 massive electron and positron.

But I found that it is not possible to understand the mechanics of decoupling without first mastering the trispatial vector geometry..….”

- e± pairs are created at interactions of photons with energy E>1.022 MeV with electric field of some electric charge, at that no any “decoupling of the photon” happens, while real the pairs creation fundamentally happens in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z),

of Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,g,w,e,s,ct).

More about what are particles and antiparticles see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model , two mains papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics.

If quite briefly – Matter is a simple logical system that is based on a binary reversible logics, and so the ultimate base of Matter is primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s spacetime above.

The utmost universal “kinematical” Matter’s space is the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) above; while everything in Matter exists and happens as some disturbance in the lattice, which are created at some 4D momentums impacts on some the lattice’s FLE. So the disturbances always constantly move in the lattice [correspondingly in the 4D space] with the 4D speeds of light.

All “particles” are close-loop algorithms that cyclically run basing on “FLE-hardware”, at that given type particles algorithms run in “direct code order”, the corresponding antiparticles algorithms run in reverse code order,

- correspondingly “particles” that have rest masses fundamentally are created if a the lattice’s FLE is impacted by momentums that are directed along cτ-axis, and move [if move also in the 3DHYZ space - partially] obligatorily in the cτ-dimension:

- particles move in the “positive” by convention direction, antiparticle in negative direction [since the cτ-dimension is used in mainstream physics as the time dimension; just so in mainstream QED the mystic “Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation” that “antiparticles move back in time” really is adequate to the reality.

Particles that are created by 3D space directed momentums haven’t rest masses, and move only in 3D space with the speed of light; now that really only known photons are; so can create having rest mass particles only at interactions with some other the lattice disturbances; really, as that is rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces that are Electric Force mediators “circular photons”, which aren’t particles, and also propagate only in 3D space, so the particles always are created as particle-antiparticle pairs [including e± pairs], which have sum of their 4D momentums cτ-components be equal to zero. The same happens at least at interactions when Nuclear Force acts, see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force .

Correspondingly that

“…Pair production is a very beautiful physical process that is closely related to the formation of matter in the early universe, and the reason for the absence of antimatter.…..”

- though pair production is a very beautiful physical process, fundamentally has no relation to the formation of matter in the early universe; just from the above the absence of antimatter in observed Matter is one of utmost fundamental problems in physics,

- which with well non-zero probability is solved in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2017 initial cosmological model, see the 2-nd main paper linked above, section “Cosmology”.

Cheers

Dear André Michaud

Your work on "the mechanics of engrams imprinting in the neural networks of the neocortex", is truly inspiring. We look forward to your next step forward.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

Thank you so much for the appreciation.

Note that my synthesis is now complete and has been formally published as a monograph in September 2022 At Scholars' press for English and other European university publishing houses for the other 3 languages.

Its contents is the integrated text of the 5 previously published articles on the various aspects of the project. All 5 articles were published in Open Access and are freely available on the internet, each of which corresponds to one of the 5 integrated chapters of the monograph.

The 5 original articles, as well as the final texts of the 5 corresponding chapters are available for download from this index:

Article INDEX - General Neurolinguistics - Conceptual Thinking

Note that the published Monograph is presented in the following resource, with complete Table of contents and complete text of the Foreword and Afterword of the book, that explain how this synthesis could be realized.

Article General Neurolinguistics

As you read the Foreword and Afterword, you are bound to be shocked at how much leading edge research in numerous domains still not translated to English is likely to have been left behind when English became the international language of scientific communication in the 1950's.

Hopefully, this will be addressed by the community before the sources of potentially major other discoveries become really lost until needlessly rediscovered only at some indeterminable time in the future. 60 years lost in the case of neurolinguistics.

Best Regards, André

History of E=mc^2

For those concerned about the history of the mass-energy equation, information is available in these two documents:

Ives, H. E. (1952). "Derivation of the mass-energy relation." JOSA 42(8): 540-543.

Sharma, A. (0000). "The past present and future of the Mass Energy Equation DE =Dmc2." http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm.

The mass-energy equations did not arise suddenly, but, like the theory of Special Relativity, and many of the discoveries of physics, underwent a full gestation process. This is exactly what happened in physics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The character of this era defines the splendor of this era.

The debate about the interpretation of the mass-energy equation has a long history. It can be reflected in the following literature:

Bondi, H. and C. Spurgin (1987). "Energy has Mass: A common misunderstanding is re-examined." Physics Bulletin 38(2): 62.

Peierls, R., J. Warren and M. Nelkon (1987). "Mass and energy." Physics Bulletin 38(4): 127.

“…History of E=mc^2

The mass-energy equations did not arise suddenly, but, like the theory of Special Relativity, and many of the discoveries of physics, underwent a full gestation process. This is exactly what happened in physics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The character of this era defines the splendor of this era..”

- in this case that “The character of this era defines the splendor of this era” is really not completely correct, and that would be more correct as “The character of this era defines the romanticism of this era”, when experimentally in a rather short period a number of principally new physical objects/events/effects/processes were discovered, and all that was – seems completely adequately to the reality - described in Maxwell ED and Lorentz-Poincaré theory and in essential Einstein contribution, who made really fundamental step

- while most of physicists thought that everything can be reduced to EM force interactions, including a number of “E~/=mc2” was in this case derived, Einstein assumed that for E=mc2 addressing to EM isn’t obligatory and that is valid in any case.

At that really, though the physicists didn’t understand what are “space”, “time”, “spacetime”, EM objects/etc., including, first of all “light”, they in those times didn’t pay some attention to this fact and were well satisfied by the results. That was not only with new “classical” mechanics of fast moving bodies, that was also, e.g. with the Bohr semi classical Hydrogen atom model, which was followed by rather successful Schrödinger-Heisenberg-Dirac QM, etc.;

- experimentally new and new earlier exotic and non-understandable thing were discovered and “explained” in the new physics, despite that this physics only described “how something exists and happens in Matter”, and by no means answered to the questions – for what reasons and how that is as it is?

However yet in 1930-th the romanticism decreased a bit, first of all that resulted in rather numerous attempts to answer to the last question concerning QM, and in a corresponding number of QM ,by some ways rationally, grounded QM interpretations.

Including, say, in

“….The debate about the interpretation of the mass-energy equation has a long history.:…..”

- but in this case in mainstream physics really nothing really rational appeared.

All that was – and is till now - because of that in the mainstream the fundamental phenomenon “Matter” was/is completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational; and so really everything in Matter – particles, fields, forces, etc., was/is completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational as well, so any attempts to answer to the questions “Why?” logically inevitably resulted only in some transcendent “explanations/interpretations”;

- note at that also, that in the mainstream also all other fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all, “Information”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy” and “Inertia”, are completely transcendent as well, while really all these phenomena/notions can be scientifically defined only together.

The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the SS&VT philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and in the SS&VT informational physical model [the links see the SS post July 5 above] the actualizations of the “Logos” Set elements “Energy” and “Inertia” in the informational system “Matter” are clarified: though the “Quantity” “Energy” remains be mysterious till now, however now it is clear, that it is fundamentally necessary to change any informational pattern/system because of the logical self-inconsistence of the “Logos” element “Change”.

Thus to change something it is necessary to spend some portion of “energy”, however that doesn’t eliminate the Change self-inconsistence completely, and so on some scale of changes the state of the changing something is uncertain – “illogical”. Just therefore that fundamentally happens on the QM scale; while the logical resistance to changes is just “Inertia”.

In Matter both “Energy”, i.e. energy “E”, and “Inertia” are actualized extremely universally, what, including, is written in the E=mc2 equation, where “m” is the introduced by Newton “measure of inertia” - “inertial mass”. At that “Energy” and “Inertia” are different Logos elements, which, nonetheless, both co-exist fundamentally simultaneously always together in practically every informational pattern/system, including “particle”, “body”, etc.;

- and though are linked by the equation above, however, say, the claim “mass is the source of energy” isn’t correct, , while at interactions and corresponding changes first of all “active” energy is used and re-distributed – with parallel re-distribution of inertial mass.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

The Romantic era, great! We all love that era of Abraham, Lorenz, Poincaré, and Planck!

Best Regards, Chian Fan

“…The Romantic era, great! We all love that era of Abraham, Lorenz, Poincaré, and Planck!….”

- again, besides the above in the quote Romantic era was at least till late 1930s; when, again, the successes at theoretical elaborations of mystic in those times experimental data really masked the fact that physics really studies really fundamentally transcendent for physicists things;

- so, say, it was as quite natural that really transcendent/mystic “light” for its speed constancy by some mystic way forced moving real bodies be contracted and moving real clocks tick rates be slowed in SR-1905, really mystic “space contraction” and “time dilation” in SR-1908, mystic absence of photons emission at electrons motion around atoms’ nuclei, etc., all that looked as quite normal things; moreover, the Bohr’s “your theory is crazy, but not crazy enough”, despite that was evidently rather strange claim, was in this era a practical tenet in physics.

And that really worked in those times, however yet in last 1940s experimental data related to so fundamental scales/levels in Matter, that corresponding developed the physical theories [QED] were “too crazy”, including since based on too evident mathematical tricks.

In last well more 50 years at the experiments really yet more fundamental objects/events/effects/processes were/are discovered, and the fundamental transcendence of everything in mainstream physics now completely determines the fact that recent fundamental physics – QFT, Standard particles and cosmological models, etc., really are systems of really scientifically ungrounded sufficiently postulates, numerous mystic constants that fit by mystic ways the theories with experiments, etc., while, say, the GR, which was rather natural in Romantic era, and applicable at application in weak Gravity fields, is till now the standard Gravity theory and top physical journals are flooded by fantastic “holes in spacetime”, “warped spaces”, etc., even despite that all these fantasies evidently violate conservations laws, again etc.

Again – that is direct and inevitable consequence from that the fundamental phenomena/notions are fundamentally transcendent in the mainstream; Romanticism is rather natural and permissible in an young age, but if that is at adulthood it tooo often isn’t adequate to the reality.

Though that relates to any/every mainstream science, and any/every science can now be really scientifically developed only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions are rigorously scientifically defined; what is possible, and is done, only in framework of the SS&VT philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception and in physics – basing also on the informational physical model, more see the SS posts above and links in the posts.

.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

"Your theory is crazy, but not crazy enough". Bohr was right, you are right. However, I still think that your theory is a bit too "crazy" for me to understand. I need too much time to try to accept it.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

“…Dear Sergey Shevchenko

"Your theory is crazy, but not crazy enough". Bohr was right, you are right…”

- that principally isn’t that is written in the SS posts above. Again – in the “Romantic era” in physics experimentally a number of objects/events/effect/processes was discovered, which were “crazy” in existent in those time physics; and were rather successfully explained by corresponding “crazy” theories – the 1905 and 1908 SRs, Bohr –Somerfield atom model, further the GR and QM, all of which were really based on by no means grounded “ crazy” scientifically postulates;

- however, despite that the postulates were/are either fundamentally wrong – as that are SR/GR postulates about some really fundamentally impossible interactions in systems “matter- Matter’s spacetime-matter” , or remained completely non-understandable, as that was/is in QM,

- since in the first case the SR, and in weak Gravity fields, GR, are based essentially on the again non-understandable, however extremely mighty and numerously experimentally observable Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, at least the SR was/is well applicable in everyday physical practice;

- and that was/is at QM application as well, though here is a difference – while the SR/GR application results have unique interpretations, QM till now has a number of interpretations, which, because of the real fundamental transcendence of everything, though are well different, all are quite legitimate in QM. Though Copenhagen interpretation looks as well rational comparing with the others; however even it doesn’t answer to question – why QM scale is as it is; and why it exists at all, though.

So, say, in the Romantic era “crazy” fantastic “space contraction”, “time dilation”, “spacetime curvature”, etc., were quite natural, however in XXI century from the much more than in first 1900s experimental data in physics and more thorough analysis of the theories the flaws of the theories becomes be quite evident,

- say, antiparticles fundamentally don’t exist in the SR, including in the SR fundamentally doesn’t exist “motion back in time” [of antiparticles], are postulated in this case again “crazy” Dirac’s really fantastic “sea of negative energies” and “Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation” in QED ; etc.; and that are only evident examples when the Romantic era crazy physics turns out to be too crazy yet in late 1940s.

Again, all that “too crazy above”, and what really happens in mainstream physics till now, where too numerous attempts to develop “new physics” that would explain more fundamental things in Matter, really are only really scientifically fantastic “crazy theories”, and that exists in the mainstream completely logically inevitably because of the transcendence above.

Again, really scientific physics development, and again completely logically inevitably, is possible only if the fundamental transcendence above is eliminated. What, again, is possible and done only in framework of the SS&VT philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, since the page turned for convenience repeat the link to recent version of the basic paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

So, miscoding, in that

“….. However, I still think that your theory is a bit too "crazy" for me to understand. I need too much time to try to accept it.….”

- the wording “is a bit too "crazy"” is principally incorrect. The SS&VT physical model contains nothing “crazy”, it is completely rigorously logically scientifically grounded; though yeah, to understand the conception and the model it is necessary to be able to think non-standardly, first of all to understand that the phenomenon “Information” is much more than mainstream’s completely instinctive “information is a data”; further to understand that in the conception it indeed completely rigorously proven that there exist nothing besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns – and at that understand – why this instinct in humans exists,

- further to understand that Matter is so nothing else than some informational system, and so the really two among utmost outstanding in physics von Weizsäcker and Fredkin-Toffoli findings, which in the mainstream are some “crazy” and by no means grounded assumptions, really are completely legitimate - while from all experimental data it follows that they are true,

- and, finally, to understand that the developed basing on the conception and these findings SS&VT informational physical model, where, say, Lorentz transformations, particles and antiparticles, Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation”, etc. - more 30 fundamental points in physics are either solved or well clarified, etc., looks as really scientific model;

- and, quite finally – to understand what is in the model concretely; to use the model at analysis of concrete physical tasks; and to develop the principles and initial concrete models that are in whole SS&VT model into corresponding theories. That’s all.

Cheers

Today's Quantum theory can "mathematically" prove that there need not be a minimum value of m in the mass-energy equation E=mc^2,,,,,,,,, But this might well be far beyond what truly objective empirical physics grasps at . . . . . . . .

REZA

Can the following conclusions be drawn from the mass-energy equation?

Let's go back to the mass-energy equation itself, E/m = c^2, which means that the relationship between the energy of matter and the mass of matter is only related to c; c is the coefficient of light c= λν and m is the coefficient of matter, which would be the same as the relationship between the energy and the mass of matter is only related to light (de Broglie has long argued that stationary mass correlates with a certain frequency [2]). If we set an object at rest, then its mass and energy are both deterministically constant. Mass can be expressed as m=E/c^2, which is how EInstein's original mass-energy formula was written. At this point, if light contains mass, i.e., c contains mass, the formula cannot hold. Because mass is the same thing, even if light has mass it must be completely transferred to m on the left, it should not be partially transferred and partially residual. If mass embodies the relationship between light energy and light, and the E of light is converted to mass m through the coefficient c, then E (E=hν) should represent all the light energy.

The mass-energy equation constructs a relationship between mass and light, so why not something else? If it is not directly composed of light, then what becomes the mediator between them? What better explanation could there be? It is important to realize that the mass-energy equation has different methods of derivation [8] and is a universal equation without any constraints.

So can we conclude:

1) Photons must have no mass*, when so in converting E, and should be regarded as light in propagation.

2) Matter must be composed of light†, and the rest mass must be determined by the energy of the light contained within.

3) The above two seemingly contradictory issues are not in fact contradictory; it is the "rest" that allows the energy of light to be converted into mass.

4) The concept of mass does not exist in a graviton unless it can be made to form a stationary form.

--------------------------------------------

* Light in free space has no mass, it is pure light. Photons cannot have the concept of rest mass. Forcing a photon to be stationary and forcing an electron to move is an anti-symmetric energy-momentum exchange action. However, research on the existence of mass in light continues [3-7]

† This is in fact the "electromagnetic worldview" that was so hotly debated by physicists at the beginning of the last century [1].

--------------------------------------------

References

[1] Battimelli, G. (2005). "Dreams of a final theory: the failed electromagnetic unification and the origins of relativity." European journal of physics 26(6): S111.

[2] De Broglie, L. (1923). "Waves and Quanta." Nature 112(2815): 540-540.

[3] Goldhaber, A. S. and M. M. Nieto (1971). "Terrestrial and extraterrestrial limits on the photon mass." Reviews of Modern Physics 43(3): 277.

[4] de Broglie, L. and J. P. Vigier (1972). "Photon mass and new experimental results on longitudinal displacements of laser beams near total reflection." Physical Review Letters 28(15): 1001.

[5] Goldhaber, A. S. and M. M. Nieto (2010). "Photon and graviton mass limits." Reviews of Modern Physics 82(1): 939.

[6] Haug, E. G. (2022). "Cosmological Scale Versus Planck Scale: As Above, So Below!".

[7] Tan, C. Z. (2015). "Imaginary rest mass of a photon in a dispersive medium." Optik 126(24): 5304-5306.

[8] Ives, H. E. (1952). "Derivation of the mass-energy relation." JOSA 42(8): 540-543.

I don’t see a reason why photon cannot have mass. The mass energy equation says all energy can be mass so does photon energy. It can travel speed of light and carry a mass and momentum. When photons interact with other mass it can obey both energy conservation and momentum conservation and no reason no mass.

“…Can the following conclusions be drawn from the mass-energy equation?...1) Photons must have no mass*, when so in converting E, and should be regarded as light in propagation.… * Light in free space has no mass, it is pure light. Photons cannot have the concept of rest mass. Forcing a photon to be stationary and forcing an electron to move is an anti-symmetric energy-momentum exchange action. However, research on the existence of mass in light continues..”, etc.

- that – and all the rest in the quoted post – is answered in SS posts in the thread, including essentially in posts July 5 and July 20 on page 5. So more see the posts and links in the posts, here only point, that photon completely in accordance with Newton definition of the [really absolutely fundamental] phenomenon “Inertia” and of “inertial mass” as the “measure of inertia” in his 1-st law of motion:

“A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force” - quite really remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force, and so has “inertial mass”.

That is another thing that photon cannot be at rest in 3D space, in contrast to having “rest mass” particles, bodies, etc., which can be at rest in 3D space, however in this case they move along the cτ-axis of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),

- where the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], is placed; while everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the lattice, which always move at constant 4D velocities in a 4D straight line, unless acted upon by a force, in the lattice – and so in the observed now [in mainstream physics as 4D spacetime] 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) that [velocities] have identical absolute values be equal to the standard speed of light, c [bold means 4D vector],

- what is determined by the main FLE parameters - FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” which are equal to Planck length and Planck time; c=lP/tP. Photons move at 4D velocities (0,c), in this case c is 3D vector.

“…2) Matter must be composed of light†, and the rest mass must be determined by the energy of the light contained within. … † This is in fact the "electromagnetic worldview" that was so hotly debated by physicists at the beginning of the last century [1]…..”

- really having rest mass matter cannot be composed of light, it is composed by all, four known now, fundamental Nature forces – Gravity, Weak, Electric, Strong, Forces, which act as particles exchange by the Forces’ mediators that compose the Forces’ fields in mainstream physics;

- at that in the mainstream it is postulated that the fields contain energy with concrete energy densities, including in the mainstream so there exist a few “electromagnetic masses of electron”, a full stop "electromagnetic worldview", etc..

What is fundamentally wrong, since violates the energy conservation law, the Forces fields, at least at statics principally don’t contain energy, so haven’t inertial masses, etc.; more see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale 2007 initial models of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces ,

- and 2023 initial model of Nuclear Force

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force .

Cheers

Dear Jixin Chen

Please move to the new discussion topic: "How the view of space-time is unified (1) - God's Gauge" How the view of space-time is unified (1) - God's Gauge "

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_the_view_of_space-time_is_unified_1-Gods_Gauge?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSJ9fQ

I hope this answers your questions.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Jixin Chen,

if photons have a mass the calculation of the bending of light goes wrong. See my first book (in my profile).

Dear Jixin Chen

We need to consider the question, does mass have a direction?

1) If there is mass in a photon, then it must be directional, because photons have a direction of propagation, regardless of the nature of space-time.

2) Normally we think of Fermions as having mass that is not directional. Is this theoretical or practical? Assuming the Higgs mechanism is correct, is the mass the same in all directions if the Higgs potential is not symmetric?

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan ,

I give it a think and I believe mass has no direction. It is defined in Newtonian system the resistance to change direction and in Einstein’s equation the total energy contained. Even if mass has direction, back calculations from energy removes it. I think you ask why photon has constant speed can have mass. I think if faster than light mass and faster speed is allowed, we can measure the change of photon speed to measure its mass. right now we can only estimate when it’s stopped or bent to estimate its mass.

Jixin

Dear Jixin Chen

I think your guess as to the cause of mass touches on the essence, trying to go faster than the speed of light! Perhaps this is the cause of all mass, the attempt to change the internal state of a particle from the outside. Let's assume the particle is a tiny “laser gyroscope”, then it will resist any attempt to change it, which creates the property of mass. In fact, any particle is indeed essentially an energy-momentum memory.

Best Regards, Chian

That

“…I think your guess as to the cause of mass touches on the essence, trying to go faster than the speed of light! Perhaps this is the cause of all mass, the attempt to change the internal state of a particle from the outside. Let's assume the particle is a tiny “laser gyroscope”, then it will resist any attempt to change it, which creates the property of mass. In fact, any particle is indeed essentially an energy-momentum memory.…..”

- looks as a rather vague interpretation of what exists and happens in Matter, and what is explained in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model , in this case mostly in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, which is based on the SS&VT philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where, first of all, it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the so absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; and the utmost general definition of the so absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is given:

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”.

At that the main fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Inertia”, “Information”, which are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences, in the conception/model above are rigorously scientifically defined, first of all in this case that Matter is absolutely for sure is some informational system/element of the Set.

That has made the really ones of utmost fundamental in XX Century von Weizsäcker and Fredkin-Toffoli findings in physics, from which follows that Matter seems is based on some binary reversible logics, completely legitimate, what is realized in the SS&VT model above as that in complete accordance with all really reliable experimental data:

- the Matter’s ultimate base is the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s correspondingfundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); and FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

The “Logos” elements “Space” and “Time” in accordance with their definitions in the conceptions are actualized in informational system “Matter” as the spacetime above. The “Logos” elements “Energy” and “Inertia”, which exist, as that is proven in the conception, because of that the “Logos” element “Change” is logically self-inconsistent,

- and so to change, including to create, something, it is necessary to spend some portion of “Energy” actualization - “energy”, while the logical resistance to changes is characterized by corresponding “portion” of “Inertia” actualization - inertia. So both these Logos elements, though are fundamentally different, their actualizations fundamentally always co-exist in everything, including in every material object.

Since Matter is a simple logical system that is based on a rather small set of fundamental laws/links/constants, both actualizations in Matter of “Energy” and “Inertia” are universal and so have measures by using etalons, energy, say, in J, “measure of inertia” is in physics “inertial mass”.

So practically everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the ELE-lattice, which are created at impact on some the lattice FLE by some [at least] 4D momentum, P, [bold here means 4D vector in the utmost universal 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z)] and after creation so the disturbance always move in the 4D space above [in mainstream physics, where the cτ-dimension is the time dimension – in 4D spacetime] with 4D velocities that all have identical absolute values; what is determined by the FLE main parameters above and so is c=lP/tP, i.e. with c. Since photons are specific disturbances that are created by only 3D space directed momentums, they move only in the space with the “speed of light”, c. That is a banal fact in the model, where, say, such things as “!” are superfluous.

If some infinitesimal momentum impacts on a lattice FLE, in the lattice a straight line of FLE-by-FLE “flipping point” starts to move, however if the momentum isn’t infinitesimal, since in the lattice the flipping point cannot move with speed more than c, so the impacted FLE starts to precess; and so the flipping point in this case moves along some 4D “helix”, composing so a close-loop algorithm that runs on ELE “hardware”, and ticks with frequency ω=Pc/ћ. The flipping by this way point is observed as a “particle”.

The radius of the “helix”, λ, is λ=ћ/P, so the flipping point has the 4D “angular momentum” be equal to ћ, which is observed in 3D space as “particle’s spin” and a particle is so some 4D [not “laser”, of course] “gyroscope”, the 4D “axis” of which is directed along P.

If creating momentum, P0, was directed only along the cτ-axis, the created particle has “rest mass”, and the particle moves only in cτ-dimension with c. If such particle is impacted by some 3D space , say along X-axis directed, momentum, p, the whole momentum P= P0+p rotates in the (X, cτ) plane on some angle; if particles compose a rigid body, they rotate the body as whole, and so the body’s 3D space projection is “contracted” comparing with the rest in the space case, what is called in physics “FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction”, etc., just so Lorentz transformations are as they are.

Etc.; more see the SS posts in the thread and links in the posts.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

Is this AI (Artificial Intelligence) at work for you? In a question thread, it's always "brushing screen" over and over again. It interferes with the normal discussion. Please let your AI answer questions efficiently. Don't post links to your papers repeatedly under a question thread．

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan,

- sorry, but that

“…Is this AI (Artificial Intelligence) at work for you? In a question thread, it's always "brushing screen" over and over again. It interferes with the normal discussion. Please let your AI answer questions efficiently. Don't post links to your papers repeatedly under a question thread．…..”

- looks as rather strange passage even we don’t mention a strange “Artificial Intelligence”. The SS posts contain always rigorously scientifically grounded answers/comments, however at that the posts relate mostly to really fundamental points in physics, what cannot be completely comprehensively considered in a RG post, and so in the posts quite naturally the corresponding links to SS&VT papers, where the points are considered in detail, are given.

In contrast to, say, your, commented in yesterday SS post, post page 6, 1 day ago now, where you wrote

““…I think your guess as to the cause of mass touches on the essence, trying to go faster than the speed of light! Perhaps this is the cause of all mass, the attempt to change the internal state of a particle from the outside…”

- all that above haven’t any scientific grounds and references to some papers where that is scientifically grounded/explained, i.e. contains only your completely bare declarations; so any reader must think that that is a product of your intuition, and, since that relate to fundamental problem “what is inertial mass”, your intuition is genial.

- while, besides, that in the quote looks as rather questionable at all - particles have inertial masses when are at rest in 3D space or move with speeds that are much lesser than the speed of light.

As well that

“…. Let's assume the particle is a tiny “laser gyroscope”, then it will resist any attempt to change it, which creates the property of mass. In fact, any particle is indeed essentially an energy-momentum memory.…..”

- is the same as in first quote, i.e. doesn’t contain any grounds/explanations – for what reason and by what way some “particle” is a “tiny laser gyroscope”? , and again is claimed only as the your intuitive “assuming”.

However really indeed particles are “gyroscopes”, at that these gyroscopes are created because of that particles are specific disturbances in Matter’s ultimate base - the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], etc.,

- where, including, the velocities of disturbances are determined by main universal FLE parameters and so all/every disturbances move in the lattice only with 4D speeds of light, etc. – all that is rigorously scientifically explained in SS&VT papers, say, see the SS post above - and that is written in rather numerous SS posts.

Including it looks as rather rational to assume that you read corresponding SS posts, but for some non-understandable reason you don’t refer to the SS posts and SS&VT papers when write something that is in the posts and papers…

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

I'm glad to see that this isn't AI discussing the issue. Sincerely welcome your criticism of my views.

Your papers are numerous and "crazy" in thinking (though not crazy enough compared to Wheeler*). Although I have browsed and commented on it, I have not yet read it carefully, and apologize if there are things I should have cited but did not.

Wheeler once emphasized** " No question, no answer". I hope that my question can serve as a "brick to jade"(抛砖引玉), and your paper is one of the "jade".

Best Regards，Chian Fan

--------------------------------

* Misner, C. W., K. S. Thorne and W. H. Zurek (2009). "John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information." Physics Today 62(4): 40-46.

** Wheeler, J. A. (2018). "Information, physics, quantum: The search for links." Feynman and computation: 309-336.

Dear Chian Fan,

“…Your papers are numerous and "crazy" in thinking (though not crazy enough compared to Wheeler*). Although I have browsed and commented on it, I have not yet read it carefully, and apologize if there are things I should have cited but did not. ….”

- in the SS&VT papers the informational physical model is presented. where more 30 fundamental physical problems are either solved or clarified on the level when possible ways of solutions become to be clear, i.e. the model is now the base for real physics development, which is possible only as the next step in its [uniquely scientifically possible] development “macroscale [“classical” physics]” →QM scale→Planck scale”.

At that nothing in the model is "crazy", all basic primary assumptions/postulates in the model are rigorously scientifically grounded – first of all as the development of the really outstanding and really rigorously scientifically grounded the first 1950s Weizsäcker “Ur-hypothesis” [“Ur” on old German is “bit”], and late 1960s Fredkin-Toffoly findings.

Though yeah, the model isn’t trivial, and to understand what is written in the papers it is necessary to be able to think really well logically, critically, objectively, and non-standardly.

As to

“…Your papers are numerous and "crazy" in thinking (though not crazy enough compared to Wheeler*)…. * Misner, C. W., K. S. Thorne and W. H. Zurek (2009). "John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information." Physics Today 62(4): 40-46.

** Wheeler, J. A. (2018). "Information, physics, quantum: The search for links." Feynman and computation: 309-336... ….”

- I didn’t read the first link, however from that was written by mainstream physicists, which really had fundamentally only some transcendent imagination about what are any fundamental phenomena notions, including, say, “Matter” , “Space”, “Time”, and “Information”, it correspondingly follows that what is written is rather probably in better case some too vague using of the only instinctively “understood” notion “Information”

– as that is, as I saw, in the 1990 Wheeler’s essay, which contains a number of standard examples of some allegedly fundamental applications of “information”, say, that molecular-kinetic theory can be formulated in framework of the standard “theory of information”,

- while really this “theory of information” relates to the phenomenon “Information” only partially, and, though is applicable in this simple case, however from this, again - nothing new appeared – the molecular-kinetic theory remained as it was in 19 Century.

- etc. – really in the references above quite logically inevitably no any really important physical problem were solved/clarified. . As that is also in innumerous now - after the SS&VT conception and physical model really have been well known – but not “officially”, more 60 submissions of corresponding papers were/are rejected by editors, moderators, etc. - other “informational approaches/theories/etc.” published in mainstream journals and pop-scientific media, though.

Cheers