Whether or not a particle can have mass and travel at the speed of light is a very important question, and lies at the heart of very important physics which has not been properly addressed until recently, when the question was once again raised and this time resolved in a paper on Photodynamics recently published in The Journal of Physical Mathematics, 2018, Vol 9, Issue 4.
The question lies at the heart of why the Universe is composed of just two types of particles as it is and does not deserve to be ignored. The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics, highlighting neutrino oscillation afforded much needed encouragement for that phenomenon, but unfortunately at the expense of, once again denying that massive particles can travel at the speed of light. Both theory and experiment back the possibility and actuality of massive particles traveling at the speed of light. We should all grow up, wash our hands of old ingrained errors, and admit the fact that this is the way the Universe was made.
Bob Martineau
In my paper witsh has been published in AIP journal you can find the answer in my equation NO. 5,,,
I can tell you that if you search for a solution by any old, classic method, you will not find a solution, but my hypothesis about a Fifth Dimension and inserting it into the Lorentz equation gave me 3 formulas to the problem of particles before the speed of light and at the speed of light and a final equation NO. 5 solved the problem of particles after the speed of light, and here the solution is not lying to the students when a professor stands up in his class and says to his students an answer to your question that the photon does not have a mass" massless", and this is a lie to science and to researchers, again look at the solution from my perspective because it is a solution outside the box, thank you.
Dear Mohamed,
I take it that your answer is that by the old, classic method, photons traveling at the speed of light do not have mass. I believe that that is the opinion of most physicists, and probably the opinion of Nobel Committee Physicists also. It would be nice to hear from you, and them also as to why that is the majority belief.
Thank you,
Bob Martineau
I am surprised that your response to my words would be this short, I am talking about a solution from outside the box and you do not comment and what you said on my tongue I did not say it " I take it that your answer is that by the old, classic method, photons traveling at the speed of light do not have mass" ,
I said it was a lie for scientists to say that the Photon travels at a speed of light because it has no mass, but I say the opposite is it has a mass, We just stop to solve the problem from the perspective of a lame equation called the Lorentz transform equation, and to consider the equations I mentioned in my paper and make them the ones adopted from now on.
Best Regards
Said Mohamed
Dear Mohamed,
In your second paragraph, I said and believe that most scientists say that photons have no mass because they travel at the speed of light, not the other way around. By the way, they are wrong here. In other words, most scientists believe that if particles have mass, they cannot travel at the speed of light. Just to be sure, what is your position on this?
I do not agree with most scientists on this issue. That is my point. I think and can prove that they can travel at the speed of light if they have mass, in fact they need mass to do this. Scientists have been wrong on this question for decades. All you have to do is correct a mathematical mistake they have made with their physical assumptions to come to the correct conclusion. namely that photons have mass and can travel at the speed of light at the same time without having to appeal to a fifth dimension to solve the problem. Just do the math correctly from the beginning and the problem goes away. If you solve the problem correctly from the beginning, you see that the Einstein equation , E = m(o) c^2gamma, is the wrong equation to use. The Einstein equations don't apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light. When you use the correct equations, those of Photodynamics, the problem goes away, and you discover that certain massive particles can go at the speed of light, some of these are the photon and the neutrino.
I think we agree. But the correct equations are those of Photodynamics which are not complicated at all. The equations of Photodynamics are very simple. It is the proof that the Einstein energy momentum equation is not valid for lightspeed particles that is more involved.
Take care,
Bob Martineau
Robert J Martineau
Dear Bob,
I have studied your works with great interest. You ask and answer basic questions. You say: "... photons, gravitons, gluons, and neutrinos are all relativistic massive particles." You are right. "No mass" means "does not exist"! But what do you call mass? You must give your definition of mass.
In your works, you analyze the Einstein equation E^2+c^2*p^2=m^2*c^4. But this is written for point particles. But all real particles are not pointlike. I believe that the neutrino is a toroidal vortex of the medium of the electromagnetic field. The photon is paired neutrinos (Louis de Broglie's neutrino theory of light, 1934).
There is no physical interpretation of the speed of light in your works. Why do particles move at the same speed - the speed of light? They move in an electromagnetic field environment. The smallest particles of this medium - gravitons - move at the speed of light. Moving particles are simply in thermal equilibrium with the environment.
About "Self-propulsion" You say: " Since a photon can travel at any speed between ... and the speed of light, why does a photon usually travel at the speed of light? It does this because any non-zero internal energy is subject to energy minimization causing it to quickly decay to zero and in the process to generate an internal force which accelerates the photon to the speed of light. This behavior is given by Eq. (14). We call this behavior self-propulsion because it occurs in the absence of any external force. So if a photon is emitted at a speed less than the speed of light, it will accelerate itself quickly to the speed of light."
Particles are vortices. They move in the dispersed medium of the electromagnetic field - the Faraday-Maxwell field. Electric and magnetic fields are only flows of this medium. The counterpart is wind and vortices in the air.
If you find time, then see my work "Electromagnetic mass and Gravity" in my profile, please. I drew a photon animation on the site http://gravity.spb.ru
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
Mr. Valeriy, I read your answer and it did not convince me, especially when you say: "So if a photon is emitted at a speed less than the speed of light, it will accelerate itself rapidly to the speed of light". Its mass and you were clear that what has no mass does not exist, and this is a brave saying of you, Sir, if you want to find a solution that does not have fraud, read my paper which I sent to Mr. Martineau, Greeting, Said Mohamed
Dear Valery,
Thank you for your kind words. It is true that I believe that not only photons, but all particles that travel at the speed of light have mass. That means that all particles have mass, although the nature of the mass for massive and massless particles is different.
Valery, it is not clear to whom you ascribed the sentence "So if a photon is emitted at a speed less than the speed of the speed of light, it will accelerate itself rapidly to the speed of light." I made that statement in the paper on Photodynamics and the one on Photogenesis. So when you continue saying, I think, that the statement is fraudulent, are you talking of Mohamed, me, or another statement made by you? In general, it would be nice to mention a person's name when you are following his thought process. In general, it is better not to mention fraud unless you know that the statement was so intended.
Dear Mr Martineau,
It is very clear, due to special relativity, that only massless particles, like photons, can travel at the speed of light. This happens due to the fact that for a massive particle, one needs infinite amounts of work to obtain that speed (see any book on SR or GR). However, QFT tells us that there is a probability that between two points, say x and y, these massless particles can get mass for a very short period of time. This is due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Nevertheless, their speed gets reduced to preserve the causal structure of the theory. This is the principle behind the so called virtual particles, which are produced everyday by big amounts at the LHC. So far, experiments have shown us that only massless particles can travel at the speed of light, in total agreement with the theory.
With neutrinos the problem is rather different. In the formalism that builds the standard model of particle physics, neutrinos are massless particles as they only interact via weak processes. However, experiments have shown that they oscillate between flavor states. A flavor state transition is for example an Electron neutrino going into a muon neutrino, as observed from the solar neutrino data. This transition can only be explained if neutrinos are massive particles, such that their mass is very tiny, taking values of at lest eV. As their masses are so low, they can travel at almost, but not totally, the speed of light. How to explain neutrino masses? It is a very hot topic in particle physics. If you want, I can give you more context on this topic.
The key in this discussion is that physical ideas and theories must agree with the experimental results, and viceversa. So, in the last 100 years many experiments have been performed to prove special relativity and so far no errors regarding Einstein postulates have been found. Perhaps in some years SR becomes an effective theory of a higher one. We actually do not know, it is the magic of physics.
Sir, Did you read my file, Can you give me your opinion about it? Does it give solution for problems of modern physics?
Greeting
Said Mohamed
Dear Mohammed,
So far, I’ve read a couple of pages and have found some mistakes regarding the metric. The first one is a when you define X5, you relate the time N and the speed V, it is clear that the product iNV won’t be a physical, linearly independent coordinate, as NV will give you a position that is then related to X, Y and Z. Then, you are saying that S is related to this X5, which is ok if You take into account that the arc length in any manifold depends on all 5 coordinates, so you are cancelling terms without having the full expression into account. Finally, when you find a differential transformation between V and T you get a constant value, which is dimensionless, unless k gets the proper dimensions. Thus, we would arrive that speed and time have the same dimension, and this does not happen even in crazy theories like ST.
Your idea of adding a new dimension seems pretty interesting. I would add a totally independent coordinate, and then suppose that Lorentz transformations do not affect this new coordinate. I will keep reading as your work is pretty interesting.
Gustavo Adolfo Ardila
Thank you for your good criticism, but I have a question: Isn't it better now because we have a Fifth Dimension that has a name and an output !!! I do not think that the correct result comes from a wrong hypothesis, and is it not better now when we have an equation No. 5 that deals with particles at a speed greater than the speed of light, and we do not rely only on a lame equation. The scientists stopped at it and praised the scientist’s imagination, around 100 years, did you not find that we are in the second equation that when it is K = 1 the equation turns to be Lorentz, meaning that in the presence of the K the curve is more compatible with the actual situation !!! I hear from you after you finish the paper completely and maybe I send you my last paper on the general theory.
Why we deny all this movement and try hard to defend what we know it will not take us to find answer for modern physics questions?
Greeting
Said Mohamed
Dear Mohamed
The problem is not the hypothesis but its formulation. Equation 5 is dimensionally wrong as you are putting V and N in the same ground, which at least by dimensional analysis does not make sense. That is the problem, is not a lame error but a very significant one. I finished the whole paper and you keep making the same mistakes. In addition to this, the fact that particles can move faster than the speed of light implies some serious problems such as complex mass values, complex energies. If you remember, we as physicists use complex numbers to facilitate our calculations, such that any possible observable has to take real values. Still, your idea is very interesting but as I told you, it would be better if you consider x5 to be independent of the position or any related quantity to it. As an example, you can take a 5D plane solution of the field equations.
I'm not denying this kind of motion but as a scientist I do believe on the experimental results. So far, even with the best technologies we have not measured particles moving faster than light, not even gravitational waves do so.
I remember that I was in a discussion with a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Colombia and when I started my words that I believe he stopped me and said, I believe it is not good in a scientific discussion, and when I spoke to him in the scientific term and asked him how to lie to your students when someone asks you: Why is the photon traveling at the speed of light, you tell him that A photon is massless, and you know that a photon has a mass !!! He said: I believe !!! So I told him, do you think from your side believe is science and from my side it is not, and here he said that my time is over, I do not like your belief because there are actually objects that go faster than light, including superluminal and also the photonite in the laboratory in California 1996, its speed was greater than light and finally the Neutrino, attached with my answer The opinion of the referees in my paper, which was published in 2 journals, and it has 9 referees, and I do not think that they believe in its error like you.
Greetings
Said Mohamed
As I told you, as a scientist I believe in the results shown in different experiments. Has any serious experiment found that the photon is massive? No! So far, experiments like the LHC have been trying to find this mass value, without any success, implying that the particle is non-massive so far. Secondly, all experimental evidence of superluminical particles has been ruled out due to errors in measurements and statistics. As a great example is the discovery of finding superluminical neutrinos a couple of years ago, which was then ruled out by the same scientists as they discovered calibration errors in their equipments. Third, can you please send me any information about the photonite? I haven't found any trustable scientific article about it. Fourth, I'm not disregarding your investigation, I'm pointing out that you have made simple mistakes, not in the mathematics but in the physical concepts and they lay in something as simple as dimensional analysis. In addition to this, you do not explain something very fundamental: How can we measure that this extra dimension really exists? Is it compactified such that it becomes accessible at very high energies?
If you authorize me, I can send your work to a colleague of mine who was a PRL referee for many years and has worked with theories that do not respect Lorentz invariance. Perhaps there is something that I'm not seeing, lets focus our discussion into making physics go beyond its current status. To finish let me give you a small sentence made by Einstein a long time ago: Theoretical predictions make no sense if they are not supported by strong experimental evidence.
Gustavo Adolfo Ardila
I like your discussion because it is good and is trying to find understanding between us, but I do not need to give you a laboratory confirmation that we have speeds greater than light for particles because in probability science, if there is a 1% probability that there is a particle probing faster than light, then we have to find a solution to it and not waiting for to find it and then you will look for how to deal with it.
And I am waiting for the opinion of the professor to whom you will send my paper, and I will be happy to prove my mistake, but in return if I am correct and I have found a solution outside the box, you must do what your scientific conscience dictates. This is all I hope for.
My greetings
Said Mohamed
Dear Gustavo,
Actually, in Special Relativity, we do know that certain stated results are wrong. Einstein's E = mc^2 does not apply to any massive particles. That does not mean that massive particles can not travel at the speed of light. Photons can and do travel at the speed of light and they are massive. The same thing with neutrinos.
Dear Robert,
I think I don't get your answer. The formula E=mc^2 (1) does hold only for massive particles, where m is the relativistic mass. This formula is closely related to 4-momentum conservation law E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4 (2). So, for photons it is well known that the energy is defined as E=pc, where p is the momentum of the wave packet. If you calculate the amount of energy needed to travel at the speed of light, for a massive particle, you obtain after using either (1) or (2) that an infinite amount of energy must be added to the system. Neutrinos are known to be massive particles with very tiny mass values, and experiments such as ICECUBE, SNO and SUPERKAMIOKANDE, have shown that they travel at 99.9999999999% of the speed of light, which is physically correct. Experimental evidence has found that photons are non massive particles! You can see the Particle Data Group Booklet, which resumes all the theoretical and experimental data that show this fact.
In addition to this, massive photons would then imply a serious violation in Maxwell equations, as a Yukawa-like potential has to be added to the theory. Obviously, there are many theories trying to consider massive electromagnetism, but experiments have shown, at least until now, that photons are massless particles. Secondly, a massive photon would then imply serious corrections to Quantum Electrodynamics and then to the SM. Once again, experiments agree with the massless photon idea up to 13 significant figures.
If you have any doubts into this topic, I'm attaching you the PDG booklet and some results on neutrino physics that show that they travel at least at 99.999999% c. Additionally, the electron neutrino is known to have a mass at least of 0.12 eV, which allows it to travel almost to the speed of light.
Article Precision measurement of the speed of propagation of neutrin...
https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article/2020/8/083C01/5891211
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
Gustavo Adolfo Ardila
Is there almost than 99.9999% of the speed of light? Why is everyone desperate to defend this matter as if it were a Bible book? Gentlemen, there are new solutions and solve the possibility that we are in the future, and I do not want to say now because I have found that everyone denies that there are particles traveling faster than light, but one day if we discover that, where is the equation that will solve this problem ?, The solution is in equation No. 5 in my paper, but If everyone continues to defend something that has passed for 100 years or more, intellectual and scientific rigidity is not desirable
If you analyze, protons collide at 99.999999% c at the LHC. My colleague is checking your work, but so far he agrees with the fact that K needs to have units such that the velocity and time have different dimensions.
Senhores,
Estou acompanhando a discussão, pois aprecio o tópico. Contudo vejo entendimentos se dispersando ao passo que colocaram as teorias individuais à frente da discussão. Interessante seria a conciliação teórica, até porque são abordagens diferentes mas com entendimentos comuns e a partir disso verificarem seja de forma indireta a resposta frente a dados experimentais e/ou comportamentos conhecidos. Não entendo que conceitos predefinidos na literatura possam desqualificar novos paradigmas, pois se assim for não há transformações, embora eles formem uma base até mesmo para se avaliar/aceitar o novo modelo, quer seja.
Vou acompanhar, não com certezas mas com interesse no entendimento que a discussão pode vislumbrar.
Dear Gustavo,
Einstein's E = mc^2 does hold for massive particles but only for massive particles that don't travel at the speed of light. These particles which we call atomic particles, obey the Einstein equation and don't go at the speed of light because they can't find the infinite energy they need. Thus, his equation does not apply to photons. The Einstein energy momentum theorem does not apply to photons since they travel at the speed of light. If you use the correct equations, those of photodynamics, you conclude that photons travel at the speed of light without needing infinite energy. If you try to get photons to go at the speed of light using Einstein's E = mc^2 , you find that you need infinite energy, that is why it can not be done. Because photons do go at the speed of light with finite energy, this proves that the Einstein equation is wrong for these particle.
Dear Gustavo,
When I said above that Einstein's E = mc^2 does not apply to any massive particle, I meant any massive particle that travels at the speed of light, like the photon or neutrino. See ans given 17 hrs
Gentlemen, stop talking about a science developed 100 years ago, and let's look at my equations in my paper. An equation that solves the problem of particles before the speed of light is better than the transformation equation for Lorentz and an equation that explains the state of the photon and that it is a special case, and an equation that solves the problem of particles after the speed of light. For the future with those equations, we are biased to something outside of the box to solve many of the problems of contemporary physics.
It is strange that none of you looked at my equations and tried to seek a solution in them, and I do not know why? Is it because we are old addict and easy to talk about it? Or is it because we believe that the temple has guards and must be killed in defense of it?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Elementary Particle Physics
- Particle