The photons of light have zero mass. Photon momentum (P) = mass(m) * speed of light (c). If m = 0 (zero), then, P = 0 (zero). Then, there is no light energy. How?
Some answers to your question about photons and momentum are:
- Photons are elementary particles that are quanta of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves. They have zero rest mass, which means they have no mass when they are at rest (which is never, because they always travel at the speed of light)⁴.
- However, photons do have momentum, which is proportional to their energy and frequency. The formula for the momentum of a photon is p = E / c or p = h / λ, where E is the energy, c is the speed of light, h is the Planck constant, and λ is the wavelength¹⁵.
- The formula for the momentum of a photon is different from the classical formula for the momentum of a particle with mass, which is p = m v, where m is the mass and v is the velocity. This formula does not apply to photons because they have no mass and their velocity is always c¹.
- The formula for the momentum of a photon can be derived from a more general formula that applies to both massless and massive particles: m 2 = E 2 − p 2, where m is the invariant mass (also known as rest mass), E is the mass-energy, and p is the momentum. This formula follows from special relativity and can be proven in various ways³.
- For a photon, m = 0, so the formula becomes 0 = E 2 − p 2, which implies that E = p or p = E / c. This shows that photons have momentum even though they have no mass³.
(1) If Photons Have No Mass, How Can They Have Momentum?. https://profoundphysics.com/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum/.
(2) If photons have no mass, how can they have momentum?. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum.
(3) Photon - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon.
(4) Could any object have zero mass? - Physics Stack Exchange. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173790/could-any-object-have-zero-mass.
(5) Photon Momentum - Definition, Formula, Examples - BYJU'S. https://byjus.com/physics/photon-momentum/.
It’s amazing how many times people display their ignorance of special relativity. Energy and momentum are components of a 4-vector and a massless particle can have non-zero momentum. To’understand that requires learning special relativity.
It would be a good idea to study special relativity, it’s not a research topic for more than a century...
In physics, there are two kinds of rotational motion, spin rotation or orbital rotation. Earth’s motion in our solar system nicely illustrates these: The daily 360 degree rotation of earth around its own axis is ‘spin’ rotation, while earth’s yearly trip around the sun is ‘orbital’ rotation.
Photons have spin, but we can’t think of a photon as rotating on its own axis.
https://ece.umd.edu/news/story/somersaulting-photons
📷Preston Guynn
Your quote: No one in science today would relate photon spin to the rotation of the earth on its axis. - Chinnaraji Annamalai didn't relate photon spin to the rotation of the earth on its axis. He has mentioned that in physics, there are two kinds of rotational motion, spin rotation or orbital rotation, with example, Earth's rotation.
Photons have spin, but we can’t think of a photon as rotating on its own axis. Instead, the spin angular momentum (SAM) comes from the rotation of the photon’s electric field, and the SAM can only point forward or backward with respect to the beam direction. For more details:
https://ece.umd.edu/news/story/somersaulting-photons
https://scitechdaily.com/physicists-demonstrate-swarm-of-photons-that-somersault-in-lockstep/
Photons don't have rest mass because they can never be at rest.But the good news is that, following Einstein,they have relativistic mass equal to their momentum divided by light speed since they travel at a constant speed as seen by an inertial or stationary observer.
If instead of a photon considered an independent particle that moves through space, rather a series of energy transfers between (static) virtual photons in the quantum vacuum, the "photon" would have instantaneous mass at each virtual particle in the series: E = mc^2 = hf; m = hf/c^2. Reference: (4) If light has no mass, why is it affected by gravity (discounting the equivalence principle)? * | LinkedIn
Light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. If a particle has no mass and is at rest, then the total energy is zero - This represents that the photons of light can never be at rest.
Light has no mass so it also has no energy according to Einstein, but how can sunlight warm the earth without energy? Answer to the question: https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/
Chinnaraji Annamalai,
You are greatly mistaken and wrong.Light has no mass but according to Einstein has energy equal to Planck's constant h times frequency and that energy has an equivalent mass and this is known even to high-school pupils.
Issam Mohanna
What is my mistake? ... I think you are wrongly understood the question "Light has no mass so it also has no energy according to Einstein, but how can sunlight warm the earth without energy?" - This is the question on the above mentioned webpage (https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/).
Question and Answers provided by Dr. Christopher S. Baird.
Are you a child?. Open the web-link and study well. Then, write your comment on the public platform.
Chinnaraji Annamalai,
Christopher S. Baird provides answers to questions but he is not the one who ask them and in his answer he mentioned that light has no mass but has energy and this is found in textbooks and lecture notes and taught to schoolboys.
On the same link,you can even submit your own question.
“…Christopher S. Baird .. in his answer he mentioned that light has no mass but has energy and this is found in textbooks and lecture notes and taught to schoolboys. On the same link, you can even submit your own question.…..”
- that indeed is in textbooks [and, say, in references in Lyudmil Antonov's selected as the answer post], since that is postulated in the GR that light – i.e. flows of photons – hasn’t the GR “mass”, so, including, the evidently having energy light propagates between points with different gravitational potentials with constant energy/frequency.
What is fundamentally incorrect, photons are particles, which so – as that is rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics – as all/every other particle - fundamentally have energy and both – inertial and gravitational masses.
The GR postulate above is based on the other GR postulate - that. when “mass” creates some “spacetime curvature”, in the “curved spacetime” “time is dilated”, and this dilated time really slows intrinsic processes in bodies, so, say, “dilated” atoms emit photons that have lesser energy/frequency than these atoms would emit if are free or in a spacetime point with “lesser dilated time”.
Correspondingly, say, when atoms on Earth observe photons that are emitted on Sun, the last photons are observed as “redshifted” in the GR only because that they were just emitted already being redshifted on Sun, while the Sun’s gravity further doesn’t change their energy.
At that this GR postulate – and that so is in the references above - indeed looks as is in accordance with experiments, utmost known experiments are the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments where radiated by Fe-67 matter sample gamma-photons propagated through also Fe-57 matter sample that is on a height H on Earth surface, and the Mossbauer propagation curve had maximum that is consistent with the GR prediction.
Really gravitational effects are, of course – see the S&VT model, fundamentally nothing else than action of the fundamental Nature Gravity force , while 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), fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”,
- and, again, photons have, including, gravitational mass and so, say, photons that are emitted on Sun surface are really redshifted at propagating in the Sun’s gravitational field, nonetheless, at that, also the intrinsic processes in atoms that are in gravitational fields are really slowed – that is observed as “gravitational mass defect”,
- so in the experiments above really the sum of these effects was observed.
To test – what really is the just “gravitational time dilation” so it is necessary to make experiment where only one gravitational effect is, and such experiment is quite easy – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment, where only gravity acts on clocks;
- the result of which, if would be in accordance with GR prediction would be much more convincing confirmation of the GR validity than, say, PRS experiments
– or, the result would be two times lesser, i.e. in accordance with the SS&VT 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces
Despite that above and that the proposed 8 years [really by Clifford Will yet in 1986] ago experiment can be made in a couple of weeks and for ~ $100 000, it officially wasn’t made; though it looks as rather possible that was made, by not confirmed the GR..
Cheers
Light waves carry energy through a medium called the Ether(dark matter).
The medium of light waves has mass, and light waves have no mass.
It is similar to water, the medium of water waves.
If water waves are light waves, water, the medium of the waves, is the same as the Ether(dark matter).
In other words, the Ether(dark matter) that carries the energy of light waves has mass.
Photons therefore have energy only in the form of light waves.
Hyun-Chun Lee
You said: "The medium of light waves has mass, and light waves have no mass".
Light can travel in vacuum. Vacuum (void) has no mass.
Hyun-Chun Lee , light ether (luminiferous aether, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether) was a theory refuted long ago, before the birth of special relativity. Dark matter is a matter for which almost nothing is known except that it gravitates. Dark matter was discovered long after the luminiferous aether went to history. Recently, another characteristic of dark matter, its tendency to form filaments, gathers increasing amount of evidence. If dark matter forms filaments and is a medium for light, we'd see light filaments all over the cosmos. In reality, we don't see any.
Hi all.
Regarding the initial question and in view of Lyudmil Antonov's first answer, it may be useful to note the following. A key difference between physics and mathematics is that in mathematics, once a statement is proved to be true, it remains true forever. In physics, this is not always the case, since things that are considered true at a certain time may be revised, upgraded, even rejected at a later time. As a consequence, every physical formula holds within a respective physical theory and under specific assumptions. According to the current understanding, the formula momentum equals mass times velocity holds for velocities that are considerably less than the speed of light in vacuum. Then, in view of the fact that photons travel at the speed of light in vacuum, this formula does not hold for photons and if one applies it to photons, then he will probably reach a false conclusion, as it happens here.
Another point that is worth noting is that the formula energy equals Planck’s constant times frequency, which is mentioned in previous answers, is derived under the assumption that small particles have wave properties; thus it holds within quantum mechanics, and it does state that photons have energy. This formula is usually referred to as Planck or Planck-Einstein relation and of course is different from Einstein’s famous formula stating the equivalence of mass and energy; they are two different relations.
Spiros Konstantogiannis,
You are wrong.The energy associated with a single photon is given by E = h ν and it directly and clearly states that photons as particles carry energy. By equating E = mc^2 with E = h ν,one gets the relativistic mass of a single photon.
Chinnaraji Annamalai
It is possible that light can propagate in space because it is filled with the Ether (Dark matter). We think of outer space where light propagates as a vacuum, but the Ether (Dark matter) exists.
If you look at my thesis, you will be able to help a little to understand my thoughts.
Paper: “Beyond the Speed of Light – A Review of the Theory of Relativity and the Speed of Light by the Ether (Dark Matter)”
Lyudmil Antonov
Previously, the existence of the Ether was negatively thought through the Michelson-Morley experiment, but the wave nature of light waves cannot be explained without a medium.
If you look at my thesis, you will be able to help a little to understand my thoughts.
Paper: “Beyond the Speed of Light – A Review of the Theory of Relativity and the Speed of Light by the Ether (Dark Matter)”
Hyun-Chun Lee
Practically you are right.
Do you agree that light can also travel in empty space with zero mass and zero gravity?
Chinnaraji Annamalai
Light waves must have a medium to propagate.
The medium of that light is the Ether (Dark matter) with mass.
The space through which light propagates is no longer a space without gravity or mass.
Hyun-Chun Lee
For your information:
Light waves being non-mechanical waves do not require a material medium for their propagation. (OR) Electromagnetic waves/light waves differ from mechanical waves in that they do not require a medium to propagate. (taken from the website: https://science.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomy)
A material medium is a medium that consists of matter. The matter can be in any state, e.g. solid, liquid, gas, etc. Also, matter has mass and volume.
Hyun-Chun Lee, I read your paper. Some good points there, especially the involvement of dark matter.
Hyun-Chun Lee,
From your thesis,
7. CONCLUSIONS
We have shown that the ether(dark matter), which mediates the propagation of light, has an infinitely small mass. If the ether(dark matter) is a medium of light affected by gravity, the absoluteness of the speed of light is denied and the following two conclusions can be assumed.
#1: There can be particles(objects) or waves faster than the speed of light in the universe.
#2. We, who exist in an expanding universe of continuous time, cannot time travel to the past or the future.
?
Prof. Romeel Dave, University of Edinburgh says:
Dark matter is affected by gravity just like any other mass in the Universe. Gravity only cares about how much mass you have. There is nothing "special" about dark matter's mass, other than the fact that there is a lot of it in the Universe.
Chinnaraji Annamalai, Lyudmil Antonov
Thank you for your interest in my thesis.
The content of the thesis refers to the propagation of light and the existence of the Ether (Dark matter) as its medium.
In addition, the angle of refraction of starlight can be calculated by classical mechanics only when the Ether (Dark matter) exists.
The calculated value is more accurate than the calculated angle of Einstein's theory of relativity.
Expanding further, I dealt with the injustice of the special theory of relativity, which can only exist without the Ether (Dark matter).
In my opinion, given the theoretical and experimental results so far, the photon does not have mass. The following supports this conclusion:
We cannot say that photon has mass, albeit very small, by equating the formulas for energy of a photon $E=h \nu = m c^2$. This is because the formula $E=m c^2$ only applies to particles that are at rest, which means they have zero momentum. However, photons are never at rest, they always travel at the speed of light in vacuum, which means they have nonzero momentum. Therefore, the formula $E=m c^2$ is not valid for photons.
A more general formula that applies to both particles at rest and particles in motion is $E^2=(m c^2)^2+(p c)^2$, where $p$ is the momentum of the particle. For photons, this formula reduces to $E=p c$, since their mass is zero. This formula is consistent with the formula $E=h \nu$, since the momentum of a photon is related to its frequency by $p=h \nu /c$.
The mass of a photon is ordinarily assumed to be exactly zero in Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory, which is based on gauge invariance. If gauge invariance is abandoned, a mass term can be added to the Lagrangian density for the electromagnetic field in a unique way, but this would have some undesirable consequences, such as breaking Lorentz invariance and violating charge conservation.
Even purely experimentally, we know that the photon rest mass is so tiny that the corresponding wavelength is much longer than the radius of the Earth. The current upper limit on the photon mass is less than $1 \times 10^{-18}$ eV/c$^2$, which is about 18 orders of magnitude smaller than the electron mass. Therefore, it is safe to say that photons are massless to a very high degree of accuracy.
From a methodological point of view, relativistic mass is problematic, since it is used to relate formulas of Newtonian mechanics to those of special relativity and these two theories are fundamentally different, as they assume completely different things about space and time.
The following excerpt is from the book Special Relativity: A Heuristic Approach,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128104118/special-relativity
Einstein, who at the beginning of relativity theory talked about a “relativistic mass,” in a letter to Lincoln Barnett—an American journalist—dated 19 June 1948, writes, “It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M=m/1−v2/c2 of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ‘rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.
By definition,a massless particle is a particle that has a zero rest mass.Following Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, its total energy has an equivalent mass also called relativistic mass.
Issam Mohanna , physical formulas relate physical quantities. What is the physical content of the so-called relativistic mass for a photon? What does it mean physically?
Lyudmil Antonov is right; the mass-energy equivalence equation is derived under the assumption that the examined system is at rest. By using the equation for a photon is methodologically wrong.
Spiros Konstantogiannis and Lyudmil Antonov,
Both of you are wrong.Following Einstein,any form of energy has an equivalent mass and thus the energy of a photon has an equivalent mass which can be called relativistic mass or inertial mass or gravitational mass but not rest mass.
“…From a methodological point of view, relativistic mass is problematic, since it is used to relate formulas of Newtonian mechanics to those of special relativity and these two theories are fundamentally different, as they assume completely different things about space and time… ….Einstein… 19 June 1948 … “It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M=m/1−v2/c2 of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ‘rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion..….”
- that Newtonian mechanics and special relativity are fundamentally different theories as they assume completely different things about space and time is, of course, correct. Indeed, in Newton mechanics it is postulated that real Matter’s space-time is [mathematically] real Euclidian, and absolute, space-time, what is, of course, true; while in the SR it is postulated that real Matter’s spacetime is rather strange [mathematically] imaginary 4D Minkowski space – while nobody and never till now observed either imaginary space or imaginary time.
Including essentially correspondingly in the SR really strangely it is – seems yeah, yet from 1948 – postulated that “ relativistic mass is problematic” and so really there exist only one scientific “mass”, which really is the “rest mass” [“m0”], what was – and is till now in “the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion”; including that is since this “scientific mass”, m, is fundamental parameter of a body since is invariant in inertial reference frames.
What physically looks as again really strange action, since excludes from physics really existent in Matter and really fundamental, parameter of material objects “Inertia”, in contrast to again fundamentally correct introduction by Newton quite physical parameter “inertial mass” as the “measure if Inertia”;
- moreover, in the SR/GR – again in contrast to Newton, who understood that inertia and something that causes concretely gravitational objects/events/effects are fundamentally different things, and so he introduced the other parameter of bodies “gravitational mass”, which fundamentally differs from “inertial mass”,
- while in the GR these masses are postulated as are the same, and so, including, “massless” photons don’t change their energy/frequency in gravitational field, etc. – what is really practically for sure isn’t correct – see SS post on page 2., etc.
Really, as that is rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, the Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally real [mathematically] , fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [5]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), more concretely till now 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) is really observed;
- where all particles, bodies, etc. always move in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D velocities, that have identical absolute values be equal to standard speed of light, c, [“bold” means 4D vector], having 4D momentums P=mc, P= (mVcτ,mVX,mVY, mVZ), and energy E=Pc, just from this the “the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion” by Pythagoras theorem follows;
- where mis just the really physically existent “relativistic mass”, m=γm0, γ is the Lorentz factor, characterizes inertia of, say, particles; including – see above – particles that have “rest masses” always move in the cτ-dimension with the speed Vcτ, , which [the cτ-dimension] is called the “time dimension” and really is used in mainstream physics practice and in the SR,
- and so really the “rest mass” isn’t an invariant in relatively moving frames, however, since the speed Vcτ in the cτ-dimension is really by Pythagoras theorem is lesser than c in the γ-factor also, Pcτ=mVcτ=m0c.
So just the cτ-component of real momentum is Lorentz-invariant, moreover, it is constant, at any 3D space momentum impact on a body; while since the speed of light is real invariant also, that created in the standard SR the illusion of the “invariant mass” as the fundamental parameter of particles.
Correspondingly really photons have quite banal Newtonian inertial masses m=P/c, and move – – as that the Newton’s 1-st law states - unidirectionally with constant speed till on them no forces act, and differ from particles that have rest masses only in that the 1-st law,, besides the above, states also that if a body isn’t impacted by some force it is at rest, what is applicable to having rest masses particles, while isn’t applicable to photons since they always move in 3D space.
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts, SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_mass_energy_equation_and_energy-momentum_relation_E2_mc22_pc2_fundamental/3, on pages 1-3, 7 are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
All appearances seem to indicate photons are to have an epsilon of mass .........
It is a phony to divide by the presence or absence of mass even though it is divided by particle type. Since energy and momentum are essential,
From E ＝ c p the momentum of light is p ＝ m₉ c ＝ m₁ w ＝ h f/c
If we remove the time count f, m₁ w ＝m₁fλ＝hf/c → h/c＝⊿m₁⊿λ
It becomes the uncertainty relation between inertial mass and wavelength. This spreads without a fixed size unless the time is fixed.
Therefore, when the speed of light c and Planck's constant h are used as references, it is necessary to evaluate the momentum p of light.
Shinsuke Hamaji
You deem it necessary to calculate light's momentum . So then ? The momentum, 𝑝 , of a photon is equal to the Planck constant, ℎ , divided by the wavelength, 𝜆 , of the photon: 𝑝 = ℎ 𝜆 . Or are you saying we are to evaluate the momentum of a "ray" ?
Reza Sanaye , No, p ＝ hf/c ≠ ℎ 𝜆, There is no intrinsic uncertainty principle in energy or momentum.
Shinsuke Hamaji
Yes , , Yes , ,I agree with that ............. I had elsewhere proven that (even) Heisenberg's Uncertainty is NOT to be counted as much of true /Uncertainty ;;;;;;;;;; One does not really know full well whether you find it in yourself to finally some out of your defensive mood and we very openly start up a new physics ........ Seems you are a bit too hesitant or wavering for some unknown reason ;;;;;;;;;;
Respectfully
REZA
Reza Sanaye , The natural constant discovered by Max Planck himself in 1899, known as Planck's constant, attracted him because it remains invariant even when quantities such as time, space, and energy undergo changes as they are transformed from one moving frame of reference to another in accordance with the principle of relativity. This is explained in Armin Hermann's book "Einstein's Era" (published in 1993 by Chijin Shobo) in the second chapter titled "Special Theory of Relativity - Transformation of Space and Time." In other words, instead of returning to the classical theory in the limit at h→0, h/c＝⊿m₁⊿λ → When time is fixed, hf/c＝m₁w.
p = hλ begins with Planck's mistrust of his own quantum of action.
Shinsuke Hamaji
In the theoretical extreme case, this means that even in a perfectly outwardly isolated experimental setup, some spacetime states could become unsuitable for quantum mechanical experiments —simply because the system was on the GRUND manifold or the paths of the particles were unfavorably aligned. Specifically, the researchers led by Pikovski calculate that this would be the case for quantum objects as soon as they were a few micrometers in the unobserved spacetime size before the setup of the alignment.
Although this effect on/of spacetime could be experimentally verified in the near future, these dimensions are still very far from those that scientists currently handle in the laboratory. It may become more significant when researchers try to make very large objects interfere with each other and master very complex quantum mechanical systems such as quantum computers. However, the late Prof. Einstein is still not to blame for the death of Schrödinger's cat. OTHER INFLUENCES HAVE A MUCH STRONGER IMPACT THAN HIS GENERAL RELATIVITY.
Reza Sanaye , Yes, the inertial force is the force received from the surroundings (Mach principle), so Relative motion v²＝w²－c², (at)²=w²－c², Ft＝ m₀ at=m₀√(w²－c²). In temporal light theory, it is caused by the relative time dilation of the observer (c → w). Therefore the cause of the inertial force is the change in the speed of light.
Reza Sanaye , Therefore, thinking in SR is not a science, as there is no relative motion without a change in the speed of light.
Shinsuke Hamaji
you are correct , Dear Shinsuke
But two points remain to be propounded on my part :
You or I or anybody else cannot and may not break the boundaries ,push forward , and "UP" the scales in this absolutely fresh brand of the science of physics without being ready to spend at least some energy for swimming against the stream. When you and I are discussing these ground-breaking topics together here on this thread , it means that you and I have already started to swim against the "Establishment" . Just only that this has to be carried out :
1---to the very end ........
2---with NO embarrassment .
Shinsuke Hamaji
Now , relative motion in the true sense of the word is relative neither in SR nor in GR . Relativity as per relativity of frames in back-or-forth motion of physicalistic objects or of waves requires a new revision on the very idea of “Frame”…….Specifically Inertial Frame ………. The late Uncle Einstein had a very corrupt notion of what an inertial frame is. As a consequence , he was not at all in a position to be able to understand the said change(s) in the speed of light . Machian conceptualization makes it clear that “Absolute” and “relative” were explanatory concepts in theories of motion, which were philosophical accounts of a privileged state synonymously called real, true, objective, or physical motion. The state was privileged because physical theory was about it: in early-modern science, descriptions and predictions were about the true motions of bodies. To discuss relative motion in one or more dimensions, we ought to first introduce the concept of reference frames. When we say an object has a certain velocity, we must state it has a velocity with respect to a given reference frame : many a time , this turns out to be the inertial frame . Motion is by definition relative motion. They are identical and you can think of motion as a shorthand for relative motion.
IF ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE, HOW DOES LIGHT HAVE A FINITE SPEED?
reza
Reza Sanaye , IF ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE, HOW DOES LIGHT HAVE A FINITE SPEED? If all motion is relative, how can time have a finite speed?
It is also a means of physics to make the common point of the unknown into a principle. Light as Time. Let's separate the light energy from the light time.
Shinsuke Hamaji
light as time/time as light is also the true format by means of which wavespreads in QM can also be Meso- and Mega-physics' instrumentality to translate Quantic methodology into the Macro-World around us .........
Shinsuke Hamaji
Quote :
" Let's separate the light energy from the light time. "
The methodology of this one is the same for one- and two-dimensions
for 3D , it becomes different ............
- reza
Reza Sanaye , The electromagnetic field, which is the field of light, and the gravitational field are separated from the energy that mediates them. Conversely, if this is divided, there is no need to divide the energy by the presence or absence of mass.
Shinsuke Hamaji
plZZ pay attention to the fact that :
We are not dividing the energy by the presence or absence of mass.
We are differentiating Gravimetrics from Electromagnetometrics by calculating energy (flux) per Space Unit [ E(f)~SU ]. u × volume = u A c Δ t . The energy per unit area per unit time passing through a plane perpendicular to the wave, called the energy flux and denoted by S, can be calculated by dividing the energy by the area A and the time interval Δ t Δ t . S = Energy passing area A in time Δ t A Δ t = u c = ε 0 c E 2 = 1 μ 0 E B . That understanding often requires the use of forward modelling in order to predict the dynamics of radiative response of the energy front.
Shinsuke Hamaji
Moreover , An electromagnetic wave stores energy in the electric and magnetic fields. The total energy stored in an electromagnetic wave is equal to the sum of energy stored in the electric and magnetic fields : BUT they are not fifty-fifty . We have two related relationships in electromagnetics.
e = dφ/dt and e = L di/dt , therefore
dφ/dt = Ldi/dt and when we divide out the dt term we get
dφ = Ldi. which we can integrate both sides to get
φ = L I , which is what is needed to be known .........
What happens in 4D and 5D loops is that ; field-aligned 1D loop models that can resolve the relevant scales have to play a "Building-Block" crucial role in advancing our knowledge of energy flux inn energy fronts' manifolds. In recent years, driven in part by the spectacular observations from the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS), models have revealed many interesting features of "Fronts" .
Reza Sanaye , As long as we use E=c|P|, we don't need to separate the momentum and mass of light. It's just that the energy is expressed differently.
E = pc = mc² = hf.
Shinsuke Hamaji
How could setting m=0 in that equation give you E=pc whilst p appears in the equation and we know p=γmu? For instance , In the case of the photoelectric effect, the fact that the electron gains momentum when it is hit by a photon must mean that the momentum is transferred from somewhere.
Since the electromagnetic wave travels a distance c per unit time, the electromagnetic wave existing in the volume obtained by multiplying the unit area by the distance c runs through the unit area in a unit time. The value divided by the volume represents the "energy density" u of the electromagnetic wave. Therefore, the concepts of momentum density and energy density are replaced by the concepts of momentum and energy possessed by light particles. Assuming that there is a relationship of E=PC, there is no contradiction in explaining the results of previous experiments on electromagnetism. Such a definition is the same as the definition of mass.
Reza Sanaye , Since there is no Pauli exclusion constraint, light quantum has continuity like laser light. I don't get paid for my research, so I'm free to do it. So I'm only interested in what I think is right. Dissenting opinions are, on the contrary, encouraging.
Shinsuke Hamaji
We are , as a matter of fact ,comparing and collating dissenting notes . We two [ as , apparently ,the only people working on this thesis ] are NOT supposed to be frightened like little kids are by autocratic authority . I did write a similar thing to you on the theme of "Establishment" a couple of hours ago . I do not get paid for my "pure" research . I earn my living by neurosurgery and psychoanalytic healing sessions .
light-time domain simulations of the propagation of electromagnetic waves in non-homogeneous ( generally lossy ) manifolds indicate that within the manifold's boundary, e = e ƒ (x, t) and h = h ƒ (x, t) are the electric and magnetic components of the solution we are discussing . One associates with this system a response operator RT : ƒ ↦ ν ∧ h ƒ|∂Ω×(0,T), where ν is an outward normal to ∂Ω.The light-time setup of the inverse problem, which is relevant to the finiteness of the wave speed propagation, would then be induced by a material body with a boundary of the surface. Correspondingly , the potential energy, set by the field { Manifold} at the boundary can be written as an addition of potential times current to a contraction of the electromagnetic tensor over there . Lagrangian yields dynamic non-linear equations for moving three dimensional manifolds in electromagnetic fields. BUT I am not at all certain about loops on higher n ---ie , higher Dimensions' tangencies --- and I have not really spent enough of time on them , I have to confess .........
The photon has a mass, but it's not following E=mc²! Its mass is always constant, the photon starts with a relatively low velocity and is there after accelerating using the surrounding EM-field (within an atom, nuclei or any EM-field). The acceleration is so strong and the mass of the photon so small that the photon reach the light speed before leaving the surrounding EM-field.
JES
The scientific answer to the thread question is in SS post on page 4, May 20, so for those readers who really want to know what exists and happens in Matter in this case see the post and links in the post
Cheers
“…Photons are pure energy and do not follow E=mc2.…”
- in Matter there are no “pure” or " dirty” energies, and exist only one “energy”, E, which co-exist/relates to inertial mass as E=mc2. Including photons have inertial mass m, m=E/c2; more as the answer to the thread question see the SS posts above and links in the posts .
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Please list the good, better, and best energy and also bad, worse, and worst energy here.
E=mvc is the good formula for a particle with mass. But is this formula has been tested experimentally? My response is no! To test this formula people should determine experimentally the intrinsic energy of an electron. But till now this thing is not done. In fact people should detrmine λ for the electron. And should derive the correspondent v using the de Broglie equation v=h/mλ. To derive λ people should recour to the experimental results in muonic hydrogen an deuterium. But people don't uderstand these results! Determining the intrinsic energy of the electron should lead to a determining of the maximal energy of the electron. Which should be reach in the sun! And according to de Boglie equation the correspondent v should be about the speed of light. In fact E=mvc gives every thing for a particle with a mass so what is this E=mcc? and why Einstein equalise it with E=hf? I have the response! De Broglie should find a link between his λ and the Compton wavelength but he has not make it it is then a lacune for de Broglie equation. That is why Einstein understood this lacuna of de Broglie and profitate from it. Einstein equalises therefore E=mcc with E=hf? Till now this thing of Einstein don't let people to understand the good meaning of the λ of de Broglie. In fact what is the absolute meaning of λ? it is the wavelength of what? People say E=mcc is not to applicate for photons because they are massless. E=mvc should be use to estimate the energy of a particle at rest when v is near the speed of light which is v for an electron in the sun. It stay to applicate E=mcc for the energy of photons where m is the mass of a photon! Or an other solution considering E=mcc obsolete. For a particle with mass E=mvc where v
It is an error for the dynamic mass of a photon to be zero, while the static mass of a photon is zero. Otherwise, its dynamic mass will be infinite. But its dynamic mass does exist, and the calculation method is as follows: firstly, since the energy of a photon with frequency v is E=hv (where h is the Planck constant), its mass can be obtained from the mass energy formula as m=E/c2=hv/c2, where c2 represents the square of the speed of light. This method was first proposed by Einstein.
Dear all,
I think it would be better to look for the errors that Einstein left us instead of continuing to swallow everything he has said for over a century. This is how we will be able to progress science. There are fantastic experiments that can be the basis for testing formulas as well as discovering other things in physics. These are the hydrogen and muonic deuterium experiments. They contain a treasure trove of information for physics but people have trivialized them because they don't understand them.
E = (mc^2)/2 proved:Article Computation of Mass-Energy Equation from Lorentz Factor and ...
The photon is completely misunderstood today. It is not part of the EM radiation; the EM-wave is an oscillation perpendicular to its direction, this oscillation exchange energy between electric and magnetic fields but the direction of these fields is always the same. A photon has also EM-fields directed perpendicular to its velocity vector but its EM-field is rotating around its velocity! This means that the photon is not an EM-field itself.
There are also other problem, for example; an antenna is sending a signal of exact phase and amplitude, so if you place an obstacle to obtain a parallel beam, then this should be a LASER! This is not the case?
JES
Stellan Gustafsson
Light comes from the fire/atomic radiation. For example, sunlight. Sun is a kind of hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen bomb is a thermonuclear weapon or fusion weapon. Solar radiation is an electromagnetic radiation. So, photon is a quantum of light/ electromagnetic radiation/light waves/electromagnetic waves. What is wrong in this?
Chinnaraji Annamalai
The sun is sending EM radiation and Photons.
You can make a distinction; since photons can't have wavelength longer then some mm.
The photon with the longest wavelength detected at CERN had ~5 mm.
JES
Stellan Gustafsson
I can answer you if you show me H(hydrogen) or O(oxygen) separately, directly from water (H2O). If possible, please show me electric waves or magnetic waves separately from the electromagnetic waves.
Dear Chinnaraji Annamalai ,
you are confused by the concept of EM-fields. This is not the place to clarify such concepts. I suggest that you read the Daon Theory, in my profile.
It gives a clear and simple description of electromagnetics in general.
JES
Stellan Gustafsson
In the previous comment, you said: the photon is completely misunderstood today. It is not part of the EM radiation.
In the next comment, you said: The sun is sending EM radiation and Photons. You can make a distinction; since photons can't have wavelength longer then some mm.
My answer: since light has wavelength and frequency, photon has wavelength and frequency. p=hλ.
In the present comment, you said: you are confused by the concept of EM-fields.
Chinnaraji Annamalai
Both EM-radiation and photons have wavelength and frequency but that doesn't mean that they are identical. In fact that was the reason to believe that photons was making up the EM-field.
But, as I already said, the photon is a rotating entity whereas the EM-radiation is not. So, photons don't make up the EM-radiation.
JES
The angular momentum of light is a vector quantity that expresses the amount of dynamical rotation present in the electromagnetic field of the light. While traveling approximately in a straight line, a beam of light can also be rotating (or "spinning", or "twisting") around its own axis. This rotation, while not visible to the naked eye, can be revealed by the interaction of the light beam with matter.
There are two distinct forms of rotation of a light beam, one involving its polarization and the other its wavefront shape. These two forms of rotation are therefore associated with two distinct forms of angular momentum, respectively named light spin angular momentum (SAM) and light orbital angular momentum (OAM).
The total angular momentum of light (or, more generally, of the electromagnetic field and the other force fields) and matter is conserved in time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light
Chinnaraji Annamalai
If you want to discuss light beams; the first thing to do is defining what is your light beam; is it a monochromatic light beam, is it a mixture of beams with different phases,.....
You can for example, form the beam to "rotate" with a mixing of beams with different polarization.
So to simplify, you should examine an EM-radiation with the same frequency and phase.
JES
Stellan Gustafsson
Light is scattered in all directions.It traveling in any one direction in a straight line is called a ray of light. A group of light rays given out from a source is called a beam of light. Whatever it may be. Quanta of light are the smallest discrete packets of electromagnetic energy. Article Computation of Mass-Energy Equation from Lorentz Factor and ...
The scientific answer to the thread question is given in SS post on page 4, May 20, so for those readers who really want to know what exists and happens in Matter in this case see this post and links in the post; here only a couples notes to
“…Sergey Shevchenko
Please list the good, better, and best energy and also bad, worse, and worst energy here….”
- again, see SS post on page 7 above in the thread - in Matter there are no “pure”, " dirty”, “good”, “better”, “best” , “bad”, “worse”, “worst” energies, there exist only one “energy”, E, which fundamentally always co-exist with/relates to inertial mass, m, as E=mc2. Including photons have inertial mass m, m=E/c2=ћω/c2;
- including, so, say, any free photon moves in 3DXYZ space with constant speed along a straight line – as that was postulated by Newton at postulating of “inertia” and “inertial mass”. That is another thing, that since photons move only with velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, impacts on photons don’t change the absolute values, however at impacts on a photon by some having rest mass particle the momentum, p, conservation law acts provided that photons have inertial mass above, i.e. p=mc. All particles, though, have 4D momentums P=mc, [boldmeans 4D vector] and energy E=Pc.
And to:
“…Lyudmil Antonov's answer is really the best and correct.
→ Lyudmil Antonov May 19: In my opinion, given the theoretical and experimental results so far, the photon does not have mass. The following supports this conclusion:…..”
- that in the Lyudmil Antonov quote is incorrect, see above.
More see SS posts in the thread and links in the posts.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko You said: there exist only one energy.
How?
For your understanding, kinetic energy is a mechanical energy.
Einstein's energy is which energy?
A photon has no rest mass, but has momentum. Therefore, it does not have static inertia of rest, but has dynamic impulse inertia of motion I.
In this connection, the law E = mс ^2 does not exist for him. But due to the presence of dynamic impulse inertia of motion I for a photon, the law of equivalence of relativistic inertia and relativistic energy can be written in the form E = Iс ^2. The same law is true for any moving material object that has a rest mass. Only for this object, this law must be written in the form E = Iac ^2, where a (alpha) is the subscript that determines the angle between the direction of movement of the object and the direction of the external force acting on the object. Then in the last formula Ia there is the total relativistic inertia of a moving object, depending on the angle a (alpha). Ia is equal to the sum of the constant static inertia of rest Iо (o - subscript) of the object, which depends on the Lorentz-invariant rest mass of the object, and the relativistic dynamic impulse inertia of motion Ir (r - subscript), which depends on the speed of movement and therefore has a relativistic character. The introduction of inertia Ia determines for the electromagnetic field of a moving charge the longitudinal and transverse inertia of the electromagnetic field of the charge, which once at the dawn of the physics of electromagnetism were erroneously defined as longitudinal and transverse electromagnetic “mass”. I understand that what I am writing about here is extremely unusual and unexpected for many researchers. For details, everyone can refer to my article "On the theory of inertia and the law of equivalence of relativistic inertia and energy", which is available here on ResearchGate.
Sergey Shevchenko
Einstein's energy is the energy of motion. that's why I proved that
E =(mc2)/2. Article Computation of Mass-Energy Equation from Lorentz Factor and ...
because the energy of motion denotes kinetic energy.
The photon's (and the neutrino's) characteristics is completely miss understood; how do you think a photon is created by an electron, in its movement from a higher energy level to a lower. Such a change in energy can't be instantaneous! This means that the photon has to be still for a sufficient time to collect the extra energy. Then what happens? Is the photon immediately (by some magic) moving with the speed of light or does it obtain a strong acceleration to obtain its final velocity?
Obviously it can not obey the law E=mc².
JES
Chinnaraji Annamalai
Maybe you should have a look on what is a LASER.
JES
Stellan Gustafsson Dear Stellan, … „Is the photon immediately (by some magic) moving with the speed of light or does it obtain a strong acceleration to obtain its final velocity?“ …
neither nor … in iSpace theory (able to derive constants of nature from simple multiplicative integer geometric first principles) there is strong indication of a cell based medium assumed each cell to rotate with the speed of light c at cell border (exactly). Thats some hexagonal 6D charge „gear“ just like Mac Planck already depicted in his original paper (without the 6D, of course and hence was ridiculed by contemporary colleagues for that and hence soon was forgotten).
So the electron (or any charged particle for that matter) has an easy job at photon emission and likewise adsorption time as there is no need to accellerate (it, light) from near rest (ZPE Zitterbewegung) speed to speed of light c
The price is to accept some 10D (= 3D (space) + 6D (Calabi-Yau style LEGO discrete subspace) + 1D (discrete time)) spacetime model where for sure time is a discrete entity quantized in 1/6961 iSpaceSecond as shown and mathematically proven beyond any reasonable doubt in derivation of e, h and me contants in both kg snd eV in two fully different unit systems iSpace-IQ (exact Integer Quantun geometric unit. system able to do away with all human artifacts) and iSpace-SI (aka MKS/A-SI lab compatible).
Any other mechanism are unphysical at best, if not „unthinkable“. Nothing accelerates in zero time from zero to c. Nothing. And everyone knows that but still refuse to let go in the completely wrong models of GR, SR and QM (their primary geometric model, not their numerical predictions are wrong, ok!? ... at least for everything above 10^-13m or tge root of a0 to re (to be exact) where continuum ends and LEGO starts.
Stellan Gustafsson Stellan, all: forgot to include the link to iSpace derivation (proof) of quantum of time to be exactly 1/6961 iSpaceSecond:
Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...
Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis
Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...
Stellan Gustafsson
LASER stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
A laser is a unusual light source that emits light through a process of optical amplification based on the stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation. It is quite different from a light bulb or a flash light.
Neutrino is a subatomic particle that is very similar to an electron, but has no electrical charge and a very small mass.
Photon is totally different from an electron and a neutrino.
The electromagnetic spectrum is the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, ranging over a domain of frequencies and their respective wavelengths and photon energies.
Chinnaraji Annamalai Chinnaraji, with respect to „Neutrino is a subatomic particle that is very similar to an electron, but has no electrical charge and a very small mass.“ and iSpace theory I‘d rather say that Neutrino is somewhat similar to an electron (or any other charged fermion particle) - in that it is LEGO inherent exactness style is in so far like an electron, that it’s (very small!!) core mass constituents „11“ (decimal !!) are indeed strucurally similar to the integer exact electron mass „(10*(1+1111111+1))“ in iSpace-IQ unit system, but lack iSpace geometric charge factor of GoldenRatio in their purely first order multiplicative mass equation.
But check that wonderful simplicity and hierarchical organization yourself - the Neutrino with 3 (or even 4 when taking into account their base mass factor „11“) dynamic mass gwnerations looks like to be an exact part of the electron itself (it can throw away for impulse control, and sort of gather back later for required absolutely exact electron rest mass energy conservation requirement:
Judt follow line by line the 100+ lines of self documenting Mathematica code detibing e, h, me in eV and kg in both iSpace-IQ and from there exact iSpace-SI unit values (as are in the books fully SI lab compatible!), which mathematically can never be accidental due to using multiplicative base relations (!!):
Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...
Dear Christian G. Wolf
Anyone how believes in the existence of multi dimension higher than 3, must be a mathematician. A mathematician doesn't understand physics.
JES
Dear Chinnaraji Annamalai
A LASER is working on photons not EM-radiation.
I do feel that you don't reason but just repeat you lessons.
If you really want to learn something I'm at you disposal but, it doesn't seems so.
JES
Dear Stellan Gustafsson I'll give back your flat (and completely wrong aside of anything else to say on this) "argument" back to you in your own style: anyone who believes to know anything about physics without being able to describe constants of natures value and geometry from first principles should stop publishing any of their now century old wrong guesswork.
Dear Christian G. Wolf ,
Can you explain why a constant of nature (any of your choice) have the value it has?
JES
And aside of this - I am not a mathematician - I am an IT expert. And IZ experts by nature of the thing have a much better understanding about discrete systems than any experienced mathematician or physicist will ever get - in his lifetime. The universe does not care what physicists believe is the "proper" number of dimensions. Constants EXACTLY fit model, thats it!
Stellan Gustafsson "Can you explain why a constant of nature (any of your choice) have the value it has?" - of course I can - as I DID. Read my simple to understand papers (exact Mathematica based first order multiplicative only integer geometric math should not overwelm any phyciscist and surely not any mathematician). FIRST you read, please. THEN you comment. Thanks!
Stellan Gustafsson
Lasers generate electromagnetic radiation unique in nature: Their light is coherent, collimated, and monochromatic. Laser frequencies lie within electromagnetic spectrum that extends from the very far infrared to the vacuumultraviolet (VUV) or soft-X-ray region. Lasers as sources of electromagnetic radiation.
Dear Christian G. Wolf
I'm sorry to say that you are making the same error as Sergio Pellis, i.e. you are mixing already know relations with some constants + maybe pi or other numbers. You then pretend that this means something.
I'm sorry but there is an infinite number of possible combinations of numbers giving any other number you want.
To be credible, there must be a simple logical physical reason, for a given equation. This is not your case.
JES
Dear Eng. Stellan Gustafsson ,
What is your query/comment. Please brief here.
With kind regards,
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics