The effects of gravity on light are well-known and described by the standard GR variant of Maxwell theory. Which is essentially nothing more complicate than to write the Maxwell equations in a four-dimensional Lorentz-covariant way and then to replace the Minkowski metric by the gravitational field. "Action equals reaction" is not a problem, the EM field has also a well-known energy-momentum tensor, thus, according to the Einstein equations of GR, is also the source of a gravitational field.

This field is for usual light a very weak source. But so what, this does not create a problem with the principles.

Dear Hossein,

The gravitation produced by the energy or the momentum of light is very small, almost nothing. But the light trajectory curves under the influence of a big gravitational body due that the light must follow the Riemann curvature of the space-time associated to such body. The interaction of light (or electromagnetic field) with the gravitational interaction is not known or it doesn't exist, another thing is that the electromagnetic field has an associated energy-momentum tensor which can produce a Ricci curvature (on the space-time) using the Einstein's equations.

Dear Daniel

I agree with you that "The gravitation produced by the energy or the momentum of light is very small..."

But I disagree with you that "The interaction of light (or electromagnetic field) with the gravitational interaction is not known or it doesn't exist..."

WE can describe the gravitational redshift (and blueshift) without using general relativity.

See: Photon-Graviton Interaction and CPH Theory

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308890409_Photon-Graviton_Interaction_and_CPH_Theory

The effects of gravity on light are well-known and described by the standard GR variant of Maxwell theory. Which is essentially nothing more complicate than to write the Maxwell equations in a four-dimensional Lorentz-covariant way and then to replace the Minkowski metric by the gravitational field. "Action equals reaction" is not a problem, the EM field has also a well-known energy-momentum tensor, thus, according to the Einstein equations of GR, is also the source of a gravitational field.

This field is for usual light a very weak source. But so what, this does not create a problem with the principles.

Dear Hossein,

Sorry but your theory has basic wrong concepts as

m c2 = h f

where f is the frequency. Left formula is only valid at rest and for the photon that is zero, i.e. the rest mass of the photon is zero. The red-shift needs general relativity or at least you needed to explain how the coupling between light and the gravitational potential is done, but not with the previous formula which is obviously wrong.

Dear Ilja

You are right.

The question is how we can describe the interaction between light and gravity without using GR?

Dear Daniel

Your last comment is written based on textbooks. Seems you are not read the last my discussion:

See:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_moving_photon_has_the_mass_that_is_given_by_mE_c2_if_the_photon_is_massless_where_its_mass_come_from/1

Also see: Mohamed Hassani comments

Are photons really massless?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hossein_Javadi/contributions

Dear Hossein,

In the pag. 3 you almost start presenting the formula that I have told you that is wrong:

The Pound–Rebka experiment

A photon with mass

............

Photon-Graviton Interaction and CPH Theory. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308890409_Photon-Graviton_Interaction_and_CPH_Theory [accessed Jan 09 2018].

if this is the basis, I thought that it was not necessary to read much more.

Dear Daniel

With your old approach, yes, you do not need to read it.

Dear Hossein,

I can describe the interaction between light and gravity also based on my own general Lorentz ether theory (see http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity ), but there will be no big difference. Except maybe in the words used, and that harmonic coordinates will be used as preferred coordinates (while they can be used in GR too). The differences between GR and my theory do not influence the interaction with the EM field.

You can, of course, describe it based on other theories of gravity too. But you need, of course, some theory of gravity to describe the interaction of light with gravity.

ِDear Ilja

I saw your site. Description the interaction gravity and light helps to understand and explain the quantum fluctuations;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312586008_Review_and_analyzing_the_evidence_of_the_existence_of_quantum_fluctuations

Dear Botan

Thank you for comment.

I know which formula is referred to rest mass and which formula is a general form. For detail see my last post.

Dear Hossein,

Again the formula mc2 =hf is wrong even if the photon is in motion and no at rest. This formula only is true if you have a particle with rest mass different than zero.

Dear Hossein,

I disagree, the EM field in GR is a completely classical theory, nothing quantum necessary to handle this.

If you want to consider quantum effects, ok, but as long as you don't care about quantum gravity, this is also standard theory, QFT on curved background. A lot of mathematics, with Hawking radiation the most well-known (and nonetheless dubious) result. But it does not help to understand quantum theory completely.

All what QFT on curved background gives is the understanding that the fundamental objects are not the particles, but the fields. (And this understanding you will also get only if you care about what is the fundamental object, instead of following the usual positivism).

Dear Daniel

Sorry, you are wrong, because in quantum mechanics, only moving photon has mass that is given by E=mc2.

see https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Elementary-Particles-David-Griffiths/dp/3527406018

If I wrong give me the correct formula.

Dear Hossein,

The photon has rest mass zero, isn't? That is independent of quantum mechanics, the photon is particle. And you know by relativity that

m= m0 \gamma

and obviously, independently of the value of gamma (i.e. states of motion for the observers or the sources) this is always zero. Zero for other number always gives zero!

After 1906 Einstein have derived the second postulate of special relativity the constancy of the speed of light by assuming that the light quanta that he proposed in 1905 were massless particles.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8507

Relativistic energy and momentum is given by; see figure

Einstein wrote in 1951: “All these fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering the question, what are light quanta?”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0602036.pdf

Please note that the photon massless is only an assumption. It not supported by experiment.

However, “A photon-like wave-packet based on novel solutions of Maxwell’s equations is proposed. It is believed to be the first ‘classical’ model that contains so many of the accepted quantum features”.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609156.pdf

Good discussions. Regards

Dear Hossein,

Special Relativity determines very well the dispersion law of a massless particle

E=pc or E=-pc

These particles are obligued to move on the cone light surface. No problem at all! What is impossible is that you give it mass just for moving it. The concept of mass is not such a thing !

In relativity the mass transforms as a product

m= m0 \gamma

which is always zero if m0 . But there is more information, if this particle of mass zero move at velocity c, then it means that it is not determined what wants to say that you have applied badly the Lorentz transformation. You cannot pass continously from the timelike zone to the lightlike zone of the spacetime due to find topological singularities. Lorentz group is not simply connected !

ِDear Daniel

I have explained the relation

m = m0 \ gamma

in my last comment.

Contrary to your view, the mass and physical nature of the photon is very important.

New theories show:

There are no particles (even photon) and there are only fields

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312372328_If_there_are_no_particles_and_there_are_only_fields_what_are_fields_made_up_of

Also, a photon has shape and is 4 meters long:

Review the time-resolved scattering of a single photon by a single atom

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311511253_Review_the_time-resolved_scattering_of_a_single_photon_by_a_single_atom

I repeat again, old theories (belonging to a century ago) can not solve today's problems of physics.

The old theories are all the Physics which is working experimentally !!!!

Dear Daniel

This is your personal opinion which is not compatible with experimental facts. For example:

“Scattering of light by matter has been studied extensively in the past. Yet, the most fundamental process, the scattering of a single photon by a single atom, is largely unexplored. One prominent prediction of quantum optics is the deterministic absorption of a travelling photon by a single atom, provided the photon waveform matches spatially and temporally the time-reversed version of a spontaneously emitted photon”. (figures)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.08020

Never against "old Physics" as you says...I could show you many new things published just some months ago, but absolutely in agreement with the old physical laws.

Relativity cannot allow you to base mc2 =hf. This is not a problem of new or old physics, this is a question of if you know relativity or not.

Dear Hossein,

Article Photons, Clocks, Gravity and the Concept of Mass

here it is written what you are looking for.

As Daniel says, it is not known the interaction between gravitation and light beyond the gravitational lensing, unless under the assumption that energy is conserved.

It is quite difficult to assume that space has a back-reaction on light.

Dear Daniel

I told before (in my previous posts) relativity does not we use mc2 =hf, but quantum mechanics does.

Relativity is not all of physics.

Consider that we need to describe physical phenomena.

We are not the guardian of relativity.

No quantum mechanics doesn't too. There are not contradictions between quantum mechanics and relativity, in fact both are joined in a commun theory of Dirac.

Dear Stefano

Yes, the gravitational lensing and converting the gravitational potential energy to electromagnetic energy and vice versa.

These are enough to describe it well.

Dear Luay

According to general relativity, you are right.

But it should be noted that the gravitational effect bends space.

Also, where the intensity of the gravitational is weak, the bending of space is less.

Dear Daniel

You are wrong, see de Broglie wavelength

And: The Quantum Theory of Radiation

A. Einstein, 1917

http://inspirehep.net/record/858448/files/eng.pdf

And: Generalization of the Dirac's Equation and Sea

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303988070_Generalization_of_the_Dirac%27s_Equation_and_Sea

Quantum theory of radiation is in absolute agreement with relativity and also de Broglie wavelength is not in problems with Lorentz transformations, understanding properly what is the meaning of this wavelength. Nobody has found a problem to introduce this concept within quantum field theory, i.e. quantum mechanics + relativity.

Dear Daniel

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab keeps a list of the various methods to measure mass and charge of subatomic particles, including photons at:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2017/listings/rpp2017-list-photon.pdf

From that data, real photons have real mass of various amounts.

Also, a physical model of a photon with substructure and mass is presented that satisfies all known properties and characteristics of photons.

http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0359

I do not know why you insist on deal with science like belief.

Science progresses step by step.

I insiste in what is well known and accepted in Physics. If you find new experiments that are against these theories, for instance, special relativity then you can publish it: special theory is wrong, all the physicists since more a century were wrong. This is a fundamental discovery!!! Where is such important discovery published (serious reviews please) and how is possible that many people (all physicists that I know are ignorantly following working with these important concepts)?.

Daniel Baldomir

I think you did not understand what I mean.

I do not say that relativity (special and general) is wrong.

I say it needs to be completed, like all scientific theories in history.

Einstein himself emphasizes that the massless photon is just one assumption.

You said a moving photon has no mass and relation E=mc2, cannot be used for photons.

But in the pair-production, a photon with energy 1.02 MeV converts to an electron and a position that they have mass. I claim not only photon carries mass, even "Sub quantum space and interactions properties from photon structure to fermions and bosons" and vice versa.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237009789_Sub_quantum_space_and_interactions_properties_from_photon_structure_to_fermions_and_bosons

Dear Stefano

Yes, the gravitational lensing and converting the gravitational potential energy to electromagnetic energy and vice versa.

These are enough to describe it well.

Dear Stefano

In gravitational blue-shift, gravitational potential energy

turns into electromagnetic energy. I have described its mechanism. This approach was used to describe quantum vacuum without using uncertainty principle. See:

Making up of Universe by Tiny Energy Including Unique Features

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313164950_Making_up_of_Universe_by_Tiny_Energy_Including_Unique_Features

New reasonable evidence of CPH Theory's predictions

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311962908_New_reasonable_evidence_of_CPH_Theory%27s_predictions

Review and analyzing the evidence of the existence of quantum fluctuations

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312586105_Review_and_analyzing_the_evidence_of_the_existence_of_quantum_fluctuations

Dear Hossein,

Let me answer you step by step

1. As I said several times, having rest mass for the photon is against special relativity where the main assumption is that velocity of light is independent of the state of motion.

2. You have wrong sentence:

But in the pair-production, a photon with energy 1.02 MeV converts to an electron and a position that they have mass.

A photon cannot produce pairs of particles never. It is the scattering of two photons which can produce matter and the process is explained in QFT.

Dear Daniel

You have your own personal interpretation of relativity.

Einstein had plagiarized the constancy the speed of light from the electromagnetic wave equation of light derived by Maxwell.

In fact, a photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy.

Einstein wrote in 1951: “All these fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering the question, what are light quanta?”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0602036.pdf

There is no particle

“Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying it's also true of non-relativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields. Thus the Schroedinger field is a space-filling physical field whose value at any spatial point is the probability amplitude for an interaction to occur at that point”.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf

So, we have fields only, and a photon is a packet of electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other.

“The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015 recognises for their key contributions to the experiments which demonstrated that neutrinos change identities. This metamorphosis requires that neutrinos have mass. Its Standard Model of the innermost workings of matter had been incredibly successful, having resisted all experimental challenges for more than twenty years. However, as it requires neutrinos to be massless, the new observations had clearly shown that the Standard Model cannot be the complete theory of the fundamental constituents of the universe”.

https://www./nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/press.html

You have written: "A photon cannot produce pairs of particles never. It is the scattering of two photons which can produce matter and the process is explained in QFT."

When a photon strikes a heavy nucleus, it disintegrates and produces a pair of an electron and a positron.

I have analyzed this process in "Generalization of the Dirac's Equation and Sea"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303988070_Generalization_of_the_Dirac%27s_Equation_and_Sea

At the end, please be honest