For years, the neutrino, in the Standard Model, was said to travel at the speed of light because of experimental findings. In 2015 the Nobel Prize in Physics was given for the experimental verification of neutrino oscillation "which shows that neutrinos have mass." No errors were found with the previous measurements showing that neutrinos also travel at the speed of light. The physics community can only conclude, under these circumstances, that massive neutrinos travel at the speed of light, yet they refuse to.
There are no actual measurements of neutrino velocities or neutrino masses that could directly prove or disprove neutrino mass, although there are high precision experiments that are trying.
Neutrino oscillation seems to be proven, so the formalism requests a neutrino mass at rest, as small as it might be. A rest mass requests velocities < c. So the overall picture stays consistent, and, frankly speaking, nobody will throw that consistency away because of a single conference paper.
The neutrino oscillation probability is connected to mass. So although no direct measurement of the mass is available at the time, neutrinos must have mass.
As Christian wrote correctly, it's a matter of proportion. I think we can also measure neutrino energies in the high kev/MeV range, the neutrino rest mass is within the uncertainty of such energy measurements.
Another view is, neutrinos can only oscillate between different states if they experience time. If they travel at c, they do not experience time. Hence, for consistency, their velocity must be < c, but again, the difference is obviously very small.
Dear Christian,
If neutrinos can travel at any speed like electrons, then why have no slow neutrinos ever been detected. Where have all the slow neutrinos gone? Furthermore, as the experimental error in the measurements has been decreased by making better and better experiments, the precision in the speed of neutrinos has steadily increased until it is now 2x10^-9, that is 1.000000002 times the speed of light (see the references in my paper Photodynamics). Why are the measured speeds always the speed of light with greater and greater precision? What else would you expect if you are measuring the speed of a particle that is going at the speed of light? You will see the same thing if you are measuring the speed of a photon. Because the experiments are easier for photons, you have more zeros before you encounter the digits which are not repeatable, that is before you encounter the experimental error of the experiment, but ultimately the experimental error will limit the repeatability of the measurement. That does not mean that the photon is not traveling at the speed of light. In an experiment that is not the best available (which is true for any experiment), that does not say that the measured speed is not the speed of light, just because you encounter the experimental error. And even with measurements with different experimental errors, the digits that repeat before the various experimental errors are encountered are always in the same sequence for the speed of light. And you never see anything else.
If the speed of neutrinos is so incredibly close to the speed of light that the difference is not measurable, as you say, and within experimental error, then it makes more sense to say that they travel at the speed of light. That is what convinced physicists, decades ago, to say that neutrinos travel at the speed of light, and to put that down in the Standard Model. The experimental facts of the measured speed of neutrinos has not changed. Therefore my question. Why do physicists now say that neutrinos don't travel at the speed of light?
Bob Martineau
Dear Erik,
Please read my response to Christian. I agree with you and the Nobel Prize committee that neutrinos have mass. They also travel at the speed of light. Why do physicists bend over backwards to deny that they both have mass and travel at the speed of light.
Bob Martineau
Dear Robert,
having (rest) mass is not compatible with relativity. So there a 3 possibilities to avoid a contradiction:
a) relativity is not correct. This seems not very reasonable to me.
b) neutrinos have rest mass zero. This is not compatible with oscillating neutrinos, because the oscilkation frequency is depending on the mass.
c) neutrinos don't travel with c, but at a slightly smaller speed
Dear Erik,
I like your thinking, but instead of a) I would say that relativity is not being applied correctly. In particular, Einstein's E = mc^2 does not apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light. I prove this in my paper on Photodynamics. In my paper I derive the law of Photodynamics which replaces the Einstein equations for all lightspeed particles and shows that all particles have mass. So instead of a), it is better to say that presently relativity is woefully incomplete. As known, it applies only to atomic particles and must be supplemented with Photodynamics to make it applicable to all particle. This is very important since lightspeed particles constitute the vast majority of particles in the Universe.
So neutrinos do travel at the speed of light as measured and they do have rest mass as do photons. Please read my paper where this is all explained.
Bob Martineau
Dear Christian and Erik,
Perhaps a definition of what a measurement of the speed of light means would be useful here. If you measure the speed of a photon you get a given sequence of numbers until you reach the experimental error numbers which do not repeat, like the others, measurement to measurement. The sequence of numbers which stay the same are the speed of light. If you measure the speed of neutrinos, and the same sequence of numbers turn up until you reach the zone of experimental error, then the neutrino is traveling at the speed of light. If the experiment gets better as the years go by, and the sequence of numbers before experimental error is reached gets longer and matches those from the photon, then the speed of the neutrino can be said to be the speed of light to higher precision. It is wrong to say that measurements of lower precision prove that neutrinos don't travel at the speed of light. You can only say that, if a sequence of numbers, or even just one, shows up, in a repeatable fashion, that do not match the sequence you obtained from measuring the speed of a photon. That has not happened for neutrinos. The same sequence of repeatable digits, long or short are always seen. So neutrinos travel at the speed of light according to the best definition I can come up with. Does this make sense to you?
So my question stands. Why don't physicists admit the fact that massive neutrinos travel at the speed of light?
Bob Martineau
There are no actual measurements of neutrino velocities or neutrino masses that could directly prove or disprove neutrino mass, although there are high precision experiments that are trying.
Neutrino oscillation seems to be proven, so the formalism requests a neutrino mass at rest, as small as it might be. A rest mass requests velocities < c. So the overall picture stays consistent, and, frankly speaking, nobody will throw that consistency away because of a single conference paper.
RJM> “Why don't physicists admit the fact that massive neutrinos travel at the speed of light?”
Dear Robert,
You have raised an embarrassing question for official (establishment) physicists! They do not admit the fact of FTL neutrino because they deliberately do not want to! Because if they do, then their axiomatic, absolute, invariable etc., truth of c as an universal and absolute constant of the universe on which the virtual edifice of Einsteinian physics is based; will collapse!
According to this “truth”, particles moving at the velocity c must have zero rest mass and anything with any rest mass at all, can never attain that velocity. The issue came to a head when the OPERA Team at Gran Sasso in 2011 announced after long head-scratching and reluctance that they observed FTL neutrino; which they themselves did not believe but asked the physics community to find an explanation; they also asserted that they got consistently the same results over many months. We were following and discussing this issue over months (and additional claims by the OPERA Team that they still observed the same consistent results); and the drama that followed, in the Guardian hosted Blog “Life and Physics” by Prof, Jon Butterworth, Head, Physics at UCL and the leader of the British Team with the ATLAS detector of the LHC.
But soon the REAL drama started and ended very quickly as expected. The Nobel decorated, influential and God loving (by his own public/ press proclamation in connection with this issue) Carlo Rubbia intervened. A “loose connection” in the OPERA set-up was “discovered” (a set-up that gave such precision and consistent results for months), rival Gran Sasso experiments BOREXINO, ICARUS, LVD were commissioned, the OPERA Team head Antonio Ereditato "resigned” and the new OPERA Team repeated the same experiment. What was the un-surprising end of this drama? ALL these “experiments” found consistent results that “did not violate SR” – God’s universe was saved and secured and we can live happily ever after!
Dear Erik,
Now we are getting to the point. That is why I asked the question. The physics community, by and large do what you have done. You deny that the neutrino both has mass and travels at the speed of light because you want to preserve Einstein's E = mc^2. That is, since Einstein does not allow it, neither will you. Who cares what the experimental results are? Well, in this case you are wrong and the experimental results are correct. There is no contradiction between relativity (when applied properly) and the experimental results because Einstein's E = mc^2 does not apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light. Read my paper, Photodynamics, and go no further than my proof that the Einstein equations must be replaced for lightspeed particles. If you have any problems understanding the proof, please get back to me.
By the way, did you read my answer containing the definition of the measurement of the speed of light? If we don't agree on that, there is no need to go on until we do. So, an experimental measurement has never been made that shows that neutrinos do not travel at the speed of light, to experimental error, while numerous experimental measurements have been made that show that they do.
Also, the truth is not based on taking a vote on an issue. A thousand to one vote on an issue does not mean that the one opposing view is wrong. I know full well that what I say concerning the validity of the Einstein equations for lightspeed particles flys in the face of more than 100 years of accumulated understanding of the physics community on this issue, but I can prove that the historical belief is wrong, both theoretically, and experimentally. Again, read my paper and you might learn something that will change your mind. Again, pay particular attention to my proof. I would ask all readers to do the same. This is the reason why I asked the question in the first place. Neutrino oscillation of massive neutrinos at the speed of light is just one of the experimental proofs that Photodynamics is correct.
Finally, the truth can be found anywhere, even in a conference paper or in researchgate. It is the proof, both theoretical and experimental, that you should pay attention to, not who says it, or where it is found, or how many people believe it or don't believe it.. The paper is right here before your eyes. Just read it and tell me what is wrong with my proof. In the case of the findings in Photodynamics, they are being presented in conferences and in research gate, because scores of editors and physicists believe the findings cannot be correct, even though they can find nothing wrong with my proof. The findings can't be right. Damn it, they can't be right. If there were this much rot, at this level of Physics, it would have been found years ago. Physicists aren't fools!
Dear Abdul,
I just want everyone to know that Photodynamics has nothing to do with neutrinos either traveling or not traveling faster than the speed of light. I know you did not say it does. My question deals with physicists not wanting to accept the experimental fact that massive neutrinos do travel at the speed of light. We all know that they are doing this because they do not want to contradict Einstein's E = mc^2, when in fact they should for theoretical and experimental reasons presented in my paper Photodynamics. I think that what you are saying above is that like a lot of physicists who believed that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, and were wrong, there can be a lot of physicists who claim that neutrinos can't travel at the speed of light, and they can be wrong also. You have to look carefully at the evidence, both theoretical and experimental. I believe in this. Please read my last response to Erik.
Bob Martineau
Dear Peter,
Please read my response to Christian and Erik on measuring the speed of light. To me, the experimental measurements that to you indicate that neutrinos come close to the speed of light actually prove that they travel at the speed of light. As long as they only show repeatable digits that conform to those in the speed of light and none that do not before encountering digits that don't repeat in the zone of experimental error, then the particle travels at the speed of light. No measurement has infinite precision, even the measurement of the speed of photons. Just because the speed of neutrinos is more difficult to measure than the speed of photons, and their precision is less, that does not mean that they don't travel at the speed of light. If the measurement of neutrinos encounters digits that repeat measurement to measurement, and these digits do not correspond to those in the speed of photons sequence, then you can say that neutrinos don't travel at the speed of light. This has not happened.
Bob Martineau
Dear Peter,
No. You are wrong. And it doesn't matter how hard you try to put words into my mouth, and then refute them, because, in the process, you are only proving yourself wrong.
In order to compare speeds intelligently, you must have a good definition of the process. Let me repeat what I said to Christian and Erik, only this time I will make it as simple as I can so it will be comprehensible to you.
Definition: Make a measurement of the speed of photons and record the digits that repeat themselves, measurement to measurement, before coming to those that don't repeat themselves due to experimental error . Do the same thing for neutrinos. Now compare the digits that are repeatable, neutrinos against photons. If they are the same, then neutrinos travel at the speed of light, as best you can determine. If they don't, then neutrinos don't travel at the speed of light.
Is that comprehensible enough for you? Of coarse the precision of the measurement on photons will be greater than those on neutrinos. That does not mean that the particles travel at different speed. This is the error that is being made when the speed of the two particles are compared, the error I am trying to make people aware of.
In addition to this, doesn't it seem rather peculiar to you that slow neutrinos have never been seen. Electrons can go at many different speeds. Where are all the slow neutrinos?
Dear Peter,
I don't address your other statements because there is too high a chance that rare instances like that are bad science, like the experiments that reveal that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light. A comparison of the relative speed of photons from a distant source does not provide assurance that the two particles started at the same time, or were not re-emitted along the way. That is why I say compare the repeatable digit sequence (measurement to measurement) of the best experimental measurements of neutrinos to that of photons. These can come from anywhere. If there is a repeatable digit in the neutrino measurement that is different from that in the photon, you can say then say that neutrinos don't travel at the speed of light. Otherwise they do.
You continue to ignore my definition of how to make sound comparisons of speeds. Instead, you constantly push your evidence which is full of holes. I ask you again, what is wrong with my definition?
I am glad to see that you can't logically explain where all the slow neutrinos have gone. By the way, give me a repeatable instance where neutrinos have been shown not to travel at the speed of light using my definition,
Take care,
Bob
I asked you to present one example, following my definition of how to compare speeds in a manner that anyone (but you?) can understand. You do not present that example because you have none. If neutrons really don't travel at the speed of light, then such examples should abound. So name one. I dare you. Instead you put forward a one of a kind measurement, which could be wrong, and from that you say it happens all the time. You need only one repeatable counterexample that a digit in the neutrino measurement of speed does not correspond to that in the photon sequence of numbers to prove me wrong. Go ahead. Where is that one example that would prove you right? None has been found so far. The measurements that repeat are always that neutrinos travel very, very, very close to the speed of light, but not at the speed of light. The "but not at the speed of light" comes about because the neutrino measurements reach the experimental errors of their measurements before the measurements of the speed of photons reach their experimental errors. This does not prove that the two speeds are different. Do you agree?
In addition, we know that atomic particles can travel at any speed less than the speed of light. Isn't it strange to you that neutrons traveling at various slow speeds have never been found? Where are all the slow neutrinos if they exist?
You seem to cling, like a drowning man, to the notion that massive neutrinos can not travel at the speed of light. Let me ask you another question, which you will probably ignore like all the rest: Do you believe that massive neutrinos can travel at the speed of light? Don't attempt to talk your way out of the question.Yes or No? In either case, justify your response.
Bob Martineau
Dear Robert,
It seems to me that other than the experiments done on earth to measure the speed of neutrinos (which all showed velocity at least close to c), the only other clear evidence on the velocity of neutrinos came from the measurements of solar neutrinos and those coming from SN1987A; where for whatever reason, the neutrinos (at least in the case of SN1987A) arrived on earth before any EM (photons) radiation; showing that the speed of neutrinos is at least close to c.
Only short duration events like a supernova or gamma ray bursts (GRBs) can offer any comparison between measurements of the speed of neutrinos and photons originating at cosmic distance. The case of 2018 measurement from a Blaizer, as cited above by PB seems to be ambiguous. Blazers are violent entities emitting tremendous streams of radiation and other particles on a continuous or long-term basis, Even though a particular most violent event like GRBs (for example) on a Blazer can be identified, it would be very difficult to determine at what instant and what particles (measured on earth) originated at the Blazer. To me, it seems that any conclusion on the difference of the velocity of photons and neutrinos originating from any Blazer or from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) would be difficult, to say the least.
BTW: Some one in this forum may be interested to know about a related phenomena of SN1987A and some possible inferences in the measurement of the velocities of photons and neutrinos from the following passage of my work:
"Two sheets of dust near the Supernova deflected some light from the Supernova. The sheets of dust were observed as two concentric rings and were seen long after the star faded away, because the scattered light cover a longer path to reach the earth. The dust rings are about 470 and 1,300 light years away from the supernova center. Supernova 1987A belonged to a cluster of stars. It is possible to speculate that these dust rings existed along the quantized graviton orbitals of this star cluster and were made visible through the scattering of the intense supernova radiation by these dust shells. No explanation for this ring structure based on GR or any other hypothesis is available."
Article Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Gra...
Dear Abdul,
SN1987A to my understanding also is the best example of neutrinos traveling at the speed of light. The measured speed has a precision of 9 decimal places compared to the speed of light. I think you understand that this does not mean that the neutrinos are not traveling at the speed of light. Short of the definition I gave for a valid comparison of the speed, this is the best evidence we have put together with the absence of slow neutrinos, that neutrinos travel at the speed of light.
Keep up the good work,
Bob
Hi Peter,
Your question "What Does it mean then?" is answered this way:. Limited precision does not mean that the neutrinos are not traveling at the speed of light. In fact, they may be traveling at the speed of light. The greater the precision, the greater the likelihood that they are traveling at the speed of light. You constantly get confused by simple logic. By the way, where have all the slow neutrinos gone? They should be all over the place if neutrinos, like electrons, are atomic particles.You never answered this question, nor any other question I ask.
As I have told you numerous times, limited precision in the neutrino speed measurements does not mean that neutrinos do not travel at the speed of light. I apologize for using two not's in the last sentence and putting a strain on your ability to comprehend. In a post above, I gave you a workable definition of a way to make unambiguous comparison of speed measurement, and asked you to quote one instance that showed that neutrinos do not travel at the speed of light. I am still waiting for your reply, but I am not holding my breath.
As far as borrowing an argument, I can see that you have not read my paper on Photodynamics. If you had, you would have seen that I discuss the SN1987A measurements there and others. Abdul and I agree on its significance. By the way, you should read my paper. You may learn something. Then again, you may not.
By the way, when are you going to answer my questions in the post to you above. Pay particular attention to finding one example , using my definition, which would prove that neutrinos do not travel at the speed of light. I dare you. Finally, I asked you if you believe that massive neutrinos can travel at the speed of light. Yes or no. In either case, justify your answer. You didn't answer so I ask you once again. Don't dodge.
Your friend,
Bob Martineau
Dear Peter,
I assumed that you could read, but I could be wrong about that. I'm obviously wrong about everything else according to you. Most if not all your objections and replies are addressed in my paper on Photodynamics. It can be found on my site if you did not think of that possibility. Please read it before you continue your diatribe against me. As I said, you may learn something, then again you may not.
Your second to the last paragraph gets to the reason why I have asked all my questions. You are wrong. Massive particles (neutrinos ...) can travel at the speed of light.Your answer is the answer the physics community has offered for over 100 years, but it is wrong. I want all physicists to know and understand why it is wrong. Photodynamics is a huge discovery with far reaching implications which can begin to be exploited by those who read the paper and understand it. As I prove in Photodynamics, the Einstein equations do not apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light. You quote the Einstein energy momentum theorem above, and understand it properly, when it is applied to atomic particles. But that is the limit of your knowledge. You do not know that it does not apply to lightspeed particles which in fact constitute the vast majority of particles in the Universe. That forces you and the physics community not to entertain the possibility that massive neutrinos can travel at the speed of light. (All particles traveling at the speed of light have mass. Surprise! See Photodynamics.) It forces you to use tortured arguments that neutrinos don't travel at the speed of light. It forces you to rationalize the fact that no slow neutrino has ever been seen (there are no slow photons, and for the same reson).
When the neutrino oscillation hypothesis was put forward in 1967, it solved the the solar neutrino problem (see Photodynamics. Just go to my site and click on it). The only problem is that neutrino oscillation cannot happen unless neutrinos have mass. Neutrinos have been know for years, based on experimental measurements, to travel at the speed of light. That is why they were said for years to travel at the speed of light, and to have no mass in the Standard Model. This problem( massive neutrinos traveling at the speed of light) was known for years and justified the spending of millions of dollars (which continues to this day) to resolve it. This 50 year old problem was recently highlighted, and a challenge extended, by the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded for the experimental verification of neutrino oscillation "which shows that neutrinos have mass." Instead of meeting the challenge and explaining how massive neutrinos can travel at the speed of light, a difficult problem, the physics community reversed its historic position on neutrino oscillation and speed and now says that neutrinos are massive and don't travel at the speed of light, just very, very, very close it, hiding behind ever present experimental error. Using this reasoning, even photons can't be measured to travel at the speed of light. So the problem was not solved, only evaded, until Photodynamics was discovered.
So, Peter, you are completely wrong on this issue as most others, but you are in good company, this time. The fact that we have never seen slow neutrinos, which would be in superabundance if neutrinos acted like atomic particles, because we have not looked for them is nonsense, and you know it. I hope, after you read Photodynamics, that you realize that tortured arguments designed to prove that neutrinos don't travel at the speed of light are not needed, and a waste of time. Read the paper and catch up to the times.
Have to go for now,
Sincerely
Bob Martineau
You write in your paper "The photon has a non-zero rest mass, and can travel at any speed from zero to the speed of light, although it spends most of its time travelling at the speed of light."
So, in my simplistic view, you discard the neutrino mass with the argument that no one ever measured a neutrino velocity < c while you propose a theory that allows photon velocities < c, which also have never been measured. Sorry, this is far away from a breakthrough, or even 6 breakthoughs in different fields if I counted this correctly in your paper.
Sorry, I'm out. You are right that truth is no matter of vote. However, whether something is a "breakthrough" or not, is commonly judged by future generations, but I would rather bet on anything but Photodynamics.
Dear Erik,
Nice to see that you are back to this discussion. Unlike others who argue strenuously, at least you have read my paper. Unfortunately, there are so many strange and new things that you have to read it a few times before you understand what is going on. You have no idea how long I had to think about what was coming out of the calculations before I reached my present understanding. I even warned readers of this in my paper. Let me help you. I will always try to help people before I abandon them, especially the curious ones who read the paper and try to understand. Like I said, let me help you.
Your first paragraph is correct. Your second paragraph shows confusion as to what I said and meant. My point about not seeing slow neutrinos refers to the fact that if the neutrino were an atomic particle like an electron or a bullet (a number of atomic particles) then you would expect to encounter many, many examples of it traveling at a all types of speed much less than the speed of light. But you don't. That is why I ask the question "Where have all the slow neutrinos gone?" The obvious answer is that there are none, just like there are no slow photons just walking about, and for the same reason: they both travel at the speed of light.
Now to address your concern that no slow photons have been seen (although they may exist for a short while), remember that unlike atomic particles which normally exist with speeds much less than the speed of light, for long periods of time, lightspeed particles like the photon and the neutrino are immediately subjected to self-propulsion, which very quickly ( about 1/10^14 sec), and very strongly are accelerated to the speed of light. As shown in Photodynamics, self propulsion does not apply to atomic particles, so slow photons and slow neutrinos would be easily observed if they were atomic particles, and extremely difficult to find, as is the case, if they are not atomic particles. Hope this helps.
Better change your bets.
1) Photodynamics is a Breakthrough in physics, in relativity. It is a new Fundamental Law of Nature. It is now the only theory and set of relativistically invariant equations that govern the motion of all particles that travel at the speed of light. Before its discovery, for over 100 years, the Einstein equations were thought to govern all particles, both atomic and lightspeed, but they don't. They only apply to atomic particles.That is why Photodynamics is required. By the way, lightspeed particles constitute the vast majority of particles in the Universe, and before Photodynamics were largely misunderstood, if understood at all. It's very bad for physics if you don't understand most of the particles in the Universe, especially those that mediate the fundamental force of Nature (like photons, gravitons, gluons, etc.)
2) The proof that Einstein's E = mc^2 does not apply to any lightspeed particle is a Breakthrough in relativity. It proves definitively that the Einstein equations must be replaced for these particles. It also shows that relativity, the foundation of modern physics, is grossly inadequate and must be repaired. This finding has huge implications and consequences. It says that physics will never be the same again. It requires the discovery of the laws of photodynamics.
3) The phenomenon of self propulsion for lightspeed particles is a Breakthrough discovery in relativity and particle physics. It only applies to light speed particles, and explains how photons can be born at any speed less than the speed of light, and then quickly accelerate themselves to the speed of light and maintain that speed. This explains why photons are said to travel at the speed of light (as far as most people usually see).
4) The solution of the long standing CMB photon cooling problem is a Breakthrough in Cosmology. The mechanism by which these photons can lose energy for 13.8 billion years without slowing down has never been solved. This is no longer true with the advent of Photodynamics and self propulsion (see the paper).
5) The solution of the 50 year old neutrino oscillation problem, how massive neutrinos can travel at the speed of light, is a Breakthrough in Neutrino Astrophysics. This problem was recently highlighted by the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics, a challenge at the time to the physics community to come up with an acceptable solution. They failed, choosing instead to talk their way out of it, until now.
6) The discovery that all particles have mass is a Breakthrough in particle physics.
7) The discovery and explanation of why the Universe is composed of atomic and lightspeed particles is a Breakthrough in cosmology. This could not be explained before Photodynamics. In fact, the closest answer, that lightspeed particles have a zero rest mass is all wrong.
8) The discovery that the 100 year belief that photons have a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light is in fact wrong is a Breakthrough in particle physics and in relativity.
In conclusion, Erik, thanks for reading the paper and trying to understand. I wish all my followers an readers would do the same, before arguing with me. Please continue to reread and understand. It is well worth the effort. You might even put your money on the right bet after a while. Remember, I had to go over these concepts a number of times before I understood them. They are so new and unexpected, but they fit right in (are consistent) and solve so many unanswered and long standing problems, and previous inconsistencies, that after a while there is nothing you can do but understand and enjoy.
So enjoy. Let me know if there are any other questions that arise on the journey.
Sincerely,
Bob Martineau
PS: Always try to be proactive, and refrain from snide remarks. They are usually not deserved.
Dear Peter,
Please introduce your responses to me by Dear Robert so that readers will know who you are addressing. You don't have to mean it. I don't, but it keeps everything clear. In that regard you need coaching.
Concerning your first paragraph, I will not read my paper for you. I already know what it says. I wrote it. That is something you have to do. You should read it if you want to know what I said and the arguments and experimental proof that back it up. The paper is right on my site under my name Robert J. Martineau. You just click on the paper and read it (you don't have to do anything difficult like going away) or download it if you want to learn anything. Do you want to learn anything or just make snide remarks? By the way, I say what I want to say, unlike you and I don't need or want an explanation of what I said from you or anybody else who doesn't even know what I said, because you are too lazy to read the paper.
In your second paragraph, you say that the onus is on me to explain. I do just that in the paper, in fact I explain away all of your nonsense. Maybe that is why you refuse to read the paper. If you read the paper you would not say that it is impossible, in special relativity, for massive particles to travel at the speed of light. You would not say that I borrowed or stole the information on SN1987A from another post, when you see it referred to in my paper, before you said that I borrowed it or stole it from someone else. By the way, my paper has never been rejected in the process of peer review, just by editors who seem to think like you. Hopefully referees would read the paper before coming to a conclusion, unlike you. Concerning crank stuff, I don't think I should accept such a characterization from even an expert on the subject like you, especially since you refuse to read the paper and come to an informed conclusion on the matter. I recommend that you (and other readers to this post) read the response I recently sent to Erik posted above. If you want to become aware of several breakthrough findings in the paper, without reading the paper because you are too lazy, then read my response to Erik.
In your third paragraph I said that the conclusion in special relativity that massive particles can not travel at the speed of light is wrong. I repeat that assertion. In special relativity massive particles can travel at the speed of light. In fact, all particles that travel at the speed of light have mass, but the mas is different. It goes like 1/gamma, not like gamma (see the paper. I say this for other readers, not you.) You and the rest of the physics community come to the wrong conclusion because you insist on using the Einstein equations on lightspeed particles when they only apply to atomic particles. As I said many times, read my paper. Get off you lazy a.. and read the paper.
Seeing that you are too lazy, I will make an exception this time and summarize the proof that E = mc^2 applies only to lightspeed particles. In E = mc^2, the mass is the relativistic mass given by the equation m = m(0)gamma, where m(0) is the rest mass of the particle. If m(0) is not zero then E (and P which also has an m(0)gamma dependence) go to infinity as the speed u goes to c, since gamma = 1/(1-u^2/c^2) and is infinite at u = c. Then every photon would have infinite E and P. To avoid this, m(0) is made zero since 0x(infinity) can be finite. Since m(0) is zero then m is zero for all speed less than c since gamma is a finite constant, and zero times a constant is zero. Now we have E and P are zero for any speed less than the speed of light. This leads to the present position, held for over 100 years, that the photon has a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light. This conclusion is wrong as shown in the paper and as we will see here. Research gate is not MathType compatible so put up with me.
The conclusion is that E = mc^2 = 0 even if m(0) = 0 and Gamma is infinity (ie u = c), so all photons would have E =P =0, and this "solution" is not allowed. That is, Einstein's equations don't apply to the photon or any other particle that travels at the speed of light. This applies also to the energy momentum theorem since it contains the same E and P. The proof of this conclusion is as follows: write m(0) gamma = m(0)/ (1/gamma)= (0/0) in the limit (u=c). 0/0 is an indeterminate form and could, by itself be a constant other than zero. For example, x/x, x^2/x, x/x^2, sinx/x at x = zero are in the form 0/0 at x = 0, but the result is not indeterminate. These expressions are 1, 0, infinity, and 1 at x = 0. So expressions like N/D are indeterminate if N and D are only known to be 0, but if you have expressions for N and D, the form need not be indeterminate. For our particular case, (m(0)/(1/gamma) = (N/D), we have N = m(0) and D = 1/(gamma). To resolve such "indeterminate forms" we use 'Hospital's rule from college calculus. l'Hospital's Rule (check the internet) says, "to resolve such forms take the ratio of the derivatives of the numerator and denominator, both evaluated at the limit. In this case we have O/(d/du(1-u^2/c^2)^1/2) evaluated at u = c. This is lim (u = c) (0/(-uxgamma/c^2)) = 0 since gamma is infinite at u = c. Therefore, as we said at the beginning of this paragraph, E and P in the Einstein equations are identically zero. This means that the Einstein equations are invalid when applied to lightspeed particles and must be replaced with the another relativistically invariant expression valid for all particles that travel at the speed of light.
I have made an exception this time. I will not do so again. I did it for other readers I have not yet requested to read the paper, not for you. I doubt that the other readers are as lazy and rude as you. I would hope that all readers would read my paper, Photodynamics, on my site, and get back to me if they have any questions, like regular interested physicists.
So much for now,
Peter, have you learned anything? A yes answer is acceptable.
Bob Martineau
Dear Peter,
I was in the process in my last post of refuting your comments paragraph by paragraph, but you can generate more objectionable matter faster than I can respond, so I will address your last post. It shows that even though I went through the trouble of taking the argument out of Photodynamics, and typing it as a post, you still got it all wrong. Bye the way, what is so hard in getting to my paper, Photodynamics? It is posted on research gate under my name Robert J. Martineau. Just scroll up to the top of the page, type my name, and you are there. I know you can read, even if you can't understand.
In your second paragraph, it is not the size of the letters that is important, but the size of the brain trying to comprehend what is read.
In the third paragraph, you say the paper is not crazy enough to be accepted, just crazy enough to be wrong. I know you are an expert on crazy, cranky stuff, having spent your life reading and generating it. That may be your problem in understanding the truth when backed up with rigorous mathematics and experimental verification. Get use to it. Physics is not all crazy stuff. Learn to tell the difference.
In the forth paragraph you say that the Einstein equation is ambiguous for the photon. It is not ambiguous, it is wrong. You did not follow or understand my proof, even though I took the trouble to reproduce it for you above. At the point u = c, m(0) = 0 for the photon, E = P = m(0) = 0 so you get 0 + 0 = 0, for a photon that does not exist. The equation is not ambiguous. It is definitely wrong and useless for a real photon with E and P not equal to zero.You did not learn a damn thing by reading the proof, no matter where it is found. read the proof over and over again until you understand it, and there are no longer any "ambiguities".
In paragraph five, gamma is the Lorentz factor as it is everywhere else.
In paragraph six, in the equation E = mc^2, the relativistic mass m goes like gamma for atomic particles while it goes like 1/gamma for lightspeed particles. For simple minds, this means m = m(0)xgamma for atomic particles and m=m(0)/gamma for lightspeed particles. Read the paper or the post, or use your mind.
Later on you say that it is impossible for massive objects to accelerate to the speed of light and that we agree. True only for atomic particles. not true for lightspeed particles. We don't agree.
Later you say that the relativistic mass of the photon is zero. You are wrong. It is m = m(0)/gamma so it is only zero when u = c. This short paragraph shows that you have learned nothing from what I posted. Stop using the Einstein equations on the photon. You have to use a different energy momentum theorem which employs a different expression for the relativistic mass. You know, I am getting sick and tired of doing your thinking for you. I quite. Read my paper and quit bothering me.
Good Bye,
Bob Martineau
Dear Readers,
Please read the numbered statements in my last response to Erik for a summary of the breakthrough findings in my paper Photodynamics. A preprint of Photodynamics can be found on researchgate under my name.
Take care,
Bob Martineau
I personally prefer a certain humbleness in papers. But maybe I am spoiled from my own field and people like Chadwick, Hahn, Meitner, B2FH could have reached even more if they hadn't been so modest in their writing.
Dear Erik,
If I remember correctly, you are the one who was being modest about by findings. It might be better if you were modest about your own findings, which you are more familiar with.
As far as my findings are concerned, it's not a matter of modesty, but of telling the truth. That is why I listed the findings, so that the reader could read them himself and judge for himself how important they are. If you disagree that any of the listed findings is a breakthrough, please refer to it by number and tell me and the interested reader why you think that it is not a breakthrough. If your reasons are good, I will change my assessment. I like to tell the truth even at the cost of being called immodest if I do. To my mind, I can only be validly called immodest if I knowingly exaggerate my findings. So have a go at it if that is what you honestly think I did.
Erik, you do not know me, so be careful before you judge me. I prefer telling the truth to falsifying the importance of my findings in order to avoid being accused of being immodest. After all, I was just replying to your statement that Photodynamics was not a breakthrough. If it is not, I honestly don't know what could be called a breakthrough. As I said, go through the list by number and justify your opinion.
By the way, I am modest and could go into much more detail on why each finding is as important as I believe it is, if I were not concerned about people calling me immodest. And if it is not obvious by now, I love to tell the truth, and to be corrected if I fail at that. I would love it if the reader were to read my paper and inform me where I am wrong and not telling the truth.
Sincerely,
Bob Martineau
Dear Bob, I do not judge you, I judge your paper. And I notice that your proposed observables (photons with v
Dear Erik,
I like you. You are someone I can talk to and I believe reason with.
You say that photons with velocity less than c (even for a very short time as I claim) is not correct. How can a photon coming from a flashlight at rest get to the speed of light without going at any speed in between? And how can a photon, hitting a brick wall come to rest instantaneously? It is the present understanding that does not make sense. Just because many many people say the same thing, it does not make it correct. Photodynamics provides a mechanism which is theoretically correct and which explains what you see in nature. The same is true with massive neutrinos traveling at the speed of light. They do not defy Einstein's E = mc^2.
By the way, which of my claimed breakthroughs mentioned in a post to you above is not a breakthrough, and why?
Take care,
Your friend,
Bob
Peter,
I am only answering this last statement of yours because I am afraid someone will read it and get the wrong idea.
I said and showed in my paper that self-propulsion acts very, very quickly to accelerate all lightspeed particles to the speed of light, and then forces them to maintain that speed. I never said that photons and neutrinos can only travel at the speed of light. What I say is backed up in my paper. That is why you will never learn, and it is a waste of time to talk to you. You refuse to read my paper which is posted on this site, so you continue to waste my time by asking question which have already been answered, and making foolish remarks to try to justify them. My paper shows that a single photon can be and probably is well represented as a particle. Have you never heard of Planck's quantum of energy or of the subsequent photoelectric effect for which Einstein got the Nobel Prize? Do yourself a favor and read the paper. You might learn something.
I have never said that lightspeed particles, like the photon, can only travel at the speed of light. It is the physics community that has said this for over 100 years, but on this point they are wrong. As I showed you in an answer to you above on this point, and I made an exception in your case to rewrite the argument found in the paper which you refused to read, the historical understanding that the photon has a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light, originated in the effort to force the photon to obey Einstein's E = mc^2. As I proved to you, the effort does not work, even if the photon is made to have a zero rest mass, and to only travel at the speed of light.
Again, read the paper. Learn something. Quit making the same mistakes.
Bob
Dear Robert,
Are you aware of the fact that photon speed in electromagnetism is 1/sqrt( permitivity x permeability) of the medium?...which is for free space is 3x 10^8 m/s ?
Dear Bob,
I also will not judge on breakthroughs. I'll leave that to history, but as said, I've not much hope for any of your breakthroughs.
If the flashlight is off, there is no photon. It is not accelerated but generated. If it hits the wall, the energy is dissipated into infrared photons (still at c) and atomic vibrations.
Dear Erik,
By saying you have not much hope, you have judged. So what is your reason? Is it based on physics, or just your feeling on it being unlikely. That is why I asked you to explain your judgement, before and now again. Your inability to explain your judgement means you are probably depending on feelings. It is better to find sound reasons to justify judgements.
In the second paragraph, meet the question head on. Don't try to avoid it or talk your way out of it. Leave that for others. You never get anywhere that way or learn anything.
Now for your second paragraph. In the frame where the flashlight is at rest, the energy of the photon is at rest also. You turn on the flashlight and a photon comes out at the speed of light. How does the energy of the photon go from essentially zero to the speed of light if it is not accelerated and if it doesn't go at speeds in between? Same with stopping.
Take care,
Bob
Dear Robert,
You wrote" How does the energy of the photon go from essentially zero to the speed of light if it is not accelerated and if it doesn't go at speeds in between? Same with stopping."...
Photon is nothing but the envelope of two orthogonal mode of space vibration.. one mode is called electric field whereas other mode is called magnetic field.. Free Space csn vibrates with speed of light..The origin of permitivirty and permeability are due to pure quantum mechanical effect. .I am shocked to know that you have no basic understanding of Max planck black body radiation, wave mechanics, Bloch states which extensively used in periodic solids, specially in density functional theory.. .
Erik,
Since you subscribe to peter's nonsense above, you had better be ready to justify yourself, or be judged to be as hopeless as he is. You can understand where he comes from, because he refuses to read my paper and learn anything, but you have read my paper, so you have no excuse. Don't try doing him a favor by signing on to his nonsense, and if you do, you have to explain yourself and not hide behind his name. Why don't you do him a favor by asking him to read the paper, or perhaps waste some of your time by trying to explain to him the concept of self-propulsion of lightspeed particles. Although it is not the same, start with the example of how a rocket undergoes self propulsion in space by consuming its internal fuel until all its fuel has been used up and the rocket has reached its terminal velocity. The photon consumes its internal energy until it is all used up and it is going at the speed of light. You read it. Tell him. Don't encourage him in his nonsense by agreeing with him. That might help him to start thinking instead of starting with the ever present and easier NO. What ever you do, don't take him seriously on anything. I hope you are not agreeing with his nonsense because you have the same feelings and you are afraid of bringing the issue up with me. I explain my position to those who will honestly listen and try to learn. That's the way I learn.
By the way, I apologize for Photodynamics being a new fundamental law of nature. I apologize that it replaces the Einstein equations for lightspeed particles. I apologize that it governs all lightspeed particles, which, by the way constitute the vast majority of particles in the Universe. I apologize that it therefore has far reaching consequences in particle physics, relativity, cosmology, neutrino astrophysics, etc. I wish physicists all over the world were not so dubious over these findings because of the far ranging consequences, that they immediately doubt and discard them. Like a Nobel Prize winning Physicists said to me: "Bob, listen to what you're saying. If there were this much rot, at this level of physics, it would have been discovered a long time ago. Physicists aren't fools." So you are in good company. But you are still both wrong, and for the same reason. You can't see the truth, even after someone else has done all the work to find it for you, because you are too lazy to read and think about the truth, (however foreign it seems) that now lays in plain sight before your eyes. It's easier to say no and to just persist in your ignorance.
Bob
It is no feeling, it's metadata analysis. People that claim to know the truth are not more likely to know it than anyone else. Texts proclaiming breakthroughs are seldomly found in scientific literature but rather in the yellow press. Progress more often originates from discussion, not from dogma. Of course, this proves nothing, so there might be useful thoughts in your paper, time will show. I insist that this is not a judgement.
What would be the observable to indicate that there exists something like a "photon at rest"?
Dear Robert,
You wrote :
"start with the example of how a rocket undergoes self propulsion in space by consuming its internal fuel until all its fuel has been used up and the rocket has reached its terminal velocity. The photon consumes its internal energy until it is all used up and it is going at the speed of light"
Rocket get speed due to the conservation of linear momentum at each time-step.. (take a look in attached figure) ...Rocket move in unique direction ... You have only one rocket....
Photon emit by any source in all possible direction ....You have billions of photon in each and every direction.. It travel at the speed of light from it existence ...Whereas, rocket can not travel with same speed from it existence, because,.... a) Rocket move in the gravity field.. It require extra work to be done ON rocket it-self... Rocket fuel do this job .. b) there is only one rocket and only conservation of linear momentum will make sure that it speed can only be changed using rocket fuel ejecting in opposite direction of the rocket speed..
You think that you can apply an-isotropic concept (rocket movement in unique direction) to isotropic case (light source) as well .... No you can not...
Dear Gokaran,
Read my response to Erik again. I said they were not the same, a rocket and a photon. How can they be? The self propulsion of a photon is much more marvelous than that of a rocket, yet there are similarities which help you understand what is going on if you take a pro-active attitude and try to learn something new. Of course you can remain married to the past with all its errors and inertia and never learn anything new. Both rockets in space (no appreciable gravity to use to talk your way out of addressing the real problem) and photons born in space traveling at a speed less than that of light for a very very short period of time after being ejected have internal energy. The rocket's internal energy is its fuel, and the photon's internal energy is that fraction of its total energy which has not yet been converted to energy of motion. Both the rocket and the photon consume their internal energy (by different means, they are different objects and obey different laws of nature) until all their internal energies have been consumed and they each reach their terminal velocities. The rockets motion can be understood using Einstein's laws and that of the photon using the laws of photodynamics. By the way, this is all explained in detail in Photodynamics.
Have you read Photodynamics yet? I expect an answer. A simple yes or no will do.
Photons do not have a zero rest mass and they are not forced to only travel at the speed of light. This historic conclusion is wrong and was generate by trying to make photons obey Einstein's equations. They don't. Do yourself a favor and don't go any further in this field until you come to a definite conclusion about whether or not photons obey Einstein's E = mc^2. My proof is found in my paper Photodynamics.
Do you agree with my proof, or have you found an error in it? I expect a yes or no answer. If there is something wrong with my proof, what is it?
Sincerely
Bob Martineau@
Dear Erik,
I asked you a number of times to reread the answer I sent you above with the findings in Photodynamics which I consider breakthroughs in various areas of physics, and to which I assigned a number. I asked you to chose any of these by number and to tell me and other readers why that particular finding is not a breakthrough. That should be easy for you, since you are so positive that your judgement is correct. And none of this bullshit about metadata analysis. Give us a plain answer that is easy to state and defend.
The physics community has said for over 100 years that photons have a zero rest mass based on a faulty analysis of Einstein's E = mc^2 and they are wrong. They cannot defend that statement. The physics community has said for over 100 years that the Einstein equations apply to lightspeed particles, and yet they don't. You should have learned by now that the truth is not determined by how many people say something is the truth. So use this metadata argument as toilet paper and be done with it. Learn to think for yourself. Stand up like a man and defend yourself.
So I dare you again, before everyone: state one of my breakthroughs in words as I stated it or by the number I assigned it, and give us your best argument why it is not a breakthrough.
Sincerely,
Bob Martineau
PS, Go above and find a negative answer addressed to me, one which provides no analysis, and is all talk, no substance, and recommend it. That is easier then giving a sound reply to one of my statements out in the open, and defending it.
Dear Bob,
there is a lot of experimental evidence that supports the conventional picture, which is mainly consistent and which works very well in understanding what happens in my lab. You are right in the view that it is not satisfying that it is currently necessary to assume a neutrino mass > 0 (or velocity < c) of which currently is no direct evidence.
So you construct an alternative picture which is also mostly consistent. But it is based only on assumptions. You call your results "findings" but these are no findings to me until they are somehow coupled to evidence. You stress the existence of photon velocities < c, but this has never been measured. So what is the advantage of your theory over the conventional one?
"Stand up like a man" - Please stop this pathetic 19th century talk, this is not adequate. I am giving my arguments here but you refuse to name experimental evidence or even possible observables that could support your theory.
It makes no sense to numerate your breakthoughs because everything stays and falls all together. Either all of your breakthoughs are real (but I doubt this, as written above, and my doubt is still growing) or none of them.
Yes, truth is no matter of votes. But then, why are you so kean to convince everyone? Nobody can forbid you to believe in what you believe it's true. But to convince other people, you need more then only a closed formalism.
By the way, I already learned a lot in this discussion. That's why I still participate. But unfortunately nothing of the learned improved my physical world view.
Dear Gokaran, and everybody else.
Did you find an error in my proof that Einstein's E = mc^2 does not apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light? The proof can be found in my paper Photodynamics, on this website, researchgate.
For those who don't like math too much, think of a photon traveling through space at the speed of light, It has a constant energy, and therefore a constant mass not equal to zero. If it obeys Einstein's E = mc^2 = m(0)(gamma)(c^2), how come it doesn't have infinite energy? Its mass m(0) is not zero and gamma is infinite.
Dear Erik,
In your second paragraph, you say I stress the existence of Photons with velocities less than c. What I point out is that in photodynamics, it is possible that a photon can be born with a velocity less than c. In that case it is accelerated very, very, quickly to c and then forced (not absolutely) to maintain that speed. That means that Photodynamics eliminates the problem of simultaneous change of motion from zero to c or of motion from c to zero. That problem exists if you believe that photons can only travel at the speed of light. Notice that most photons would be seen to travel at c because they spend the vast majority of their time traveling at that speed.
Concerning your third paragraph, I am still waiting for you to defend your position that a claimed breakthrough finding is not a breakthrough finding. By the way, standing up to defend what you say is a good characteristic of both a man and a woman. I did not mean to sound sexist.
In regards to experimental evidence, you read my paper. Resolution of the CMB photon cooling problem is experimental verification of Photodynamics. So is resolution of the neutrino oscillation problem, recently highlighted by the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics, consisting of explaining how massive neutrinos, traveling at the speed of light, can participate in neutrino oscillation in defiance of Einstein's E = mc^2. Then there is the proof that Einstein's E = mc^2 does not apply to photons and other particles that travel at the speed of light. It is an experimental fact that a photon traveling at the speed of light has a constant energy, and therefore a constant mass. How is this possible if you use Einstein's E = mc^2 = m(0)gamma(c^2), where the constant mass m(0) is not zero? The solution of this problem by Photodynamics is another example of experimental verification of Photodynamics, etc., etc.
Bye for now. Will return.
Bob
Christian:
Of course, there a lot neutrinos with low energies (0...2 MeV) , originating from beta decay. However, these are more difficult to detect then high energy neutrinos.
Christian, yes, I totally agree. As you probably know, currently E_beta_max for Tritium beta decay is measured at Karlsruhe. If I remember right this experiment could possibly give an upper limit of neutrino mass in the eV range, and even this experiment is quite ambitious. To measure the complimentary neutrino spectrum would be even more difficult.
Dear Christian, and everyone,
The Einstein Equations do not apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light. This is a provable fact, both theoretically, and experimentally. Before going any further you should read my proof of this fact in my paper on Photodynamics which is presented in researchgate next to my name. A simple proof of what I say is given by any photon. A photon of given frequency has a give, fixed, non-zero energy, and therefore a fixed non-zero mass, and it travels at the speed of light. Einstein's E = mc^2 = m(0)C^2gamma says that this or any such photon has infinite energy at the speed of light. This proves the truth of my first sentence above. It also allows massive neutrinos (see 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics) to travel at the speed of light and allow neutrino oscillation. Since the Einstein equations do not apply to any particle that travels at the speed, they must be replaced for these particles. Photodynamics is the only relativistically available replacement, and it explains photons to a T. Read the paper. Have to go.
Bob Martineau
Dear Peter,
When M tends to zero then what will happens to P? Robert main question is that photon has non-zero mass therefore momentum can not equal to E/c....
Dear Christian, and others
If we refer to the Einstein equations, we should use m0 for the rest mass and m for the relativistic mass. Then m = mogamma. So m tends to infinity with velocity for atomic particles. For lightspeed particles in Photodynamics (read the paper), the relativistic mass goes like m = m0/gamma. So at lightspeed the relativistic mass of the photon is zero, and the rest mass is non-zero. It is given by the constant energy of the photon divided by c2, and is a constant, non-zero rest mass as I just stated. Obviously this is not consistent with Einstein's E = mc2 = m0c2gamma which does not apply to the photon or any other lightspeed particle. I say, over and over again, go over my proof in Photodynamics until you prove to yourself that Einstein's E = mc2 does not apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light. Otherwise you keep going around in circles and never get anywhere. Please send me an answer when you agree with me, and if you don't, tell me why.
Bob Martineau
Dear Peter, and all
In your third paragraph, you are wrong about what I said (as usual). I said that using Einstein's E = mc2 = m0c2gamma, if m0 is not zero than the particle can't get to the speed of light because that would take infinite energy which is more energy than exists in the whole Universe. I then said that for over 100 years other physicists have said, to avoid this, let m0 be zero and gamma be infinite. Then the product of 0 times infinity is indeterminate and could conceivable be the finite energy of a real photon. This stratagem supposedly allows the Einstein equation to be used for photons and has led to the common belief that photons have a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light. But this thinking is wrong as I prove in Photodynamics. This is the greatest discovery made in physics in a long, long time, and calls for the discovery of a new fundamental law of nature which governs the motion and properties of particles that travel at the speed of light, that is of the vast majority of particles in the Universe. Stop using the Einstein equations on the photon and other particles that travel at the speed of light. Do yourself a favor and read Photodynamics.
The photon and neutrino do get to c, theoretically and experimentally, and how they do that is explained before your eyes if you just go to my name on researchgate, and read Photodynamics. But you prefer to waste your time, and everybody else's time by going around in circles.
Sincerely,
Bob Martineau
Dear Peter, Christian, and everyone else,
It is not my argument to say m0 = 0, and gamma = infinity and everything will be OK. Then you can make Einstein's E = mc2 apply to the photon. This is the historical argument that has been used by the physics community for over 100 years to justify the fact that photons have a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light. IT IS WRONG. I have stated over and over again that this argument is wrong, and does not work, either mathematically or experimentally. Read my paper and answers above on this fact, repeated over, and over, and over again in this forum. You cannot make Einstein's equations apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light, no matter how hard you try. The only thing you manage to do is convince physicists, amateur and professional, that you can do this when you can not.
Notice that x/x, x2/x, x/x2 and sinx /x at x = 0 are all of the form 0/0 at x = 0, and yet give the determinate and correct answers 1, 0, infinity, and 1. For Heaven's sake use some math. Did you ever graduate High School or first year College? So m0gamma = m0/gamma-1 =0/0 at u = c can and does give a determinate answer which for the stated functions is zero. Read my paper Photodynamics. That is, using the Einstein equations on photons, you can get a determinate answer, but it is that the energy and momentum of a photon, using their approach, are always zero, something completely useless. You cannot use the Einstein equations to describe real photons. Get over it. Use equations that work. Use the equations of Photodynamics. Prove to everyone that you can learn new things, that you are not prisoners of the past. Do you still believe that the Sun goes around the Earth?
For Heaven's sake, read Photodynamics, learn something, and quit trying to fool everyone else.
Sincerely,
Bob Martineau
Dear Robert,
You may be interested to have a look at the following research on "superluminal light propagation", published in "Nature":
Article Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation
Neutrinos are moderated by the weak force that has short range, suggesting neutrinos must have at least a small mass at least part of the time.
If they are massless they must move at light speed, but if there is mass they might move very nearly at light speed when the energy is great.
Considering the popular theories like Higgs and weak force with regard to how mass is acquired, it seems possible that such small particles might be indeterminate or have alternative states.
Neutrino studies have suggested that neutrinos briefly change into different neutrinos and back again with an average of not more than a third of the time in the base state.
Uncertainty of state applies to the smallest particles.
Dear Jerry,
Thanks for your interest. Neutrinos participate in neutrino oscillation which requires them to have mass. This has been recognized recently in the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics for the experimental verification of neutrino oscillation "which shows that neutrinos have mass". This fact has been strongly suspected for 50 years since the suggestion of neutrino oscillation was made and so neatly solved the Solar Neutrino Problem. It immediately caused a huge problem, one which the physics community was reluctant and unable to confront, because neutrinos were well known, experimentally, to travel at the speed of light, and the motion of massive neutrinos at the speed of light is not allowed by Einsteins E = mc2 . The 2015 Nobel Prize, so stated with its emphasis on the fact that neutrinos have mass, can only be seen has a challenge to the physics community to face up to and to finally address the conflict between neutrino oscillation and E = mc2 .
Your second paragraph is wrong. It is an error that photons (for example) have a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light. This error is an historical error which has persisted for over 100 years because of invalid attempts to make photons and other lightspeed particles obey Einstein's E = mc2 . The Einstein equations apply to atomic particles but do not apply to any lightspeed particle as shown experimentally and theoretically in my paper Photodynamics (found next to my name in researchgate). The neutrino oscillation problem (massive neutrinos traveling at the speed of light) is thus solved by this important discovery that they do not have to obey Einstein's E = mc2 . In Photodynamics, I show that the relativistic mass of atomic particles (particles that can't go at the speed of light) is m = m0xgamma while the relativistic mass of lightspeed particles is given by m = m0/gamma, where gamma is the Lorentz factor which is infinity at lightspeed. The relativistic mass prevents atomic particles from achieving the speed of light, while it forces lightspeed particles to quickly accelerate themselves to the speed of light, and then to maintain that speed. For the details of self-propulsion see my paper Photodynamics.Thus, all particles have mass. In particular all particles have rest mass, even photons, while the relativistic mass of photons goes to zero at lightspeed, but not its rest mass. The photon's rest mass is the mas equivalence of the rest energy it picked up from the flashlight at rest relative to the flight axis, the same energy it has in the photon's rest frame as it accelerates to the speed of light, and the rest frame of the photon itself as the photon travels at the speed of light. It is always the mass equivalence of the photon's energy as measured in the frame in which the photon is at rest, no matter what speed it has relative to us. You can't deny that photons have energy, and therefore have rest mass given by this energy divided by c2 in the photons frame. This is the definition of rest mass for any particle.
Please read my paper to get all the details and important new findings in physics.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Take care,
Bob Martineau
Peter,
As usual, you are wrong about me and about physics. Telling the truth backed by theory and experiment that massive neutrinos travel at the speed of light is not hallucination, and all particles have rest mass.
Better luck next time, because it is luck you depend on.
Bob Martineau
Peter,
I am nearly 79 years old. I would rather spend what time I have on important things like trying to get people who are interested in physics to read Photodynamics where real physics is going on. Have you read it yet? Please answer.
Bob
Dear Peter, Gokaran,James,
Because you might learn something?
If you were not too lazy to read the paper, you would find the proof of all the supposedly false claims I make. But you continue not to make that effort, and so you don't ever learn why you are wrong. Maybe that is your objective.
First read and understand my proof that the Einstein equations don't apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light. I challenge you to find an error in that proof.
Next, having convinced yourself that my proof is correct, you will be driven to find the laws that actually govern all particles that travel at the speed of light (curiosity). You will therefore proceed to my derivation of the laws of Photodynamics. The derivation is not difficult. It takes only one step, a multiplication, so you should be able to handle that.
Next, try to answer a simple question. Take an photon moving at the speed of light with a fixed frequency. It therefore has a fixed, non zero energy. Because it is traveling along with the photon it is in the photon's rest frame, not yours, but the photon's rest frame. Divide this energy by c2 and you get the photon's non-zero rest mass. Therefore the photon has a non zero rest mass and travels at the speed of light in contradiction to Einstein's E = mc2 . But that is OK because the Einstein equations do not apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light as you learned after following my suggestion in my second paragraph. That is also why massive neutrinos can travel at the speed of light as repeatedly confirmed by experimental measurement ( and repeatedly denied, by those faithful to the old myth that massive particles just can't travel at the speed of light, even if you have to deny your own eyes forever because your brain can't keep up.
My suggestion to anyone reading these discussions: Read my proof and try to find an error in it. If you find an error please let me know. If you don't find an error, please let me know, and welcome to the club, the select club of those who understand relativity.
Bob Martineau
P.S. There is no absurd part to drop. Name it. Say what it is in one clear sentence and I will set you straight. But first, read my proof.
Dear Christian,
Thanks for being interested in this problem.
In the energy momentum theorem you quote, the Einstein energy is E = mc2= m0c2gamma. For m0 not equal to zero, Then E is infinite for any photon since gamma is infinite at u = c. That is why most physicists say that a photon has zero rest mass ans can only travel at the speed of light. Also putting m0 = 0 in the energy momentum equation give E = pc which is what they want for a photon. So they do use E = mc2 on the photon. However, this 100 year custom, which is used today is wrong, because as I prove in my paper Photodynamics, this line of reasoning is full of errors and cannot be used. It yields e =cp equals zero for every photon.
It is true that the Einstein energy momentum theorem is true and meaningful only for m0 not equal to zero, but it is still wrong for all lightspeed particles no matter what m0 is.
Photodynamics explains how massive particles can travel at the speed of light, exactly what is said in the title. Einstein's E = mc2 say that is impossible. That is why it does not apply to lightspeed particles, and another equation is needed. The energy of a lightspeed particle is given by E = mc2 =m0c2/gamma. Notice that this does not blow up at the speed of light. The relativistic mass m is different for atomic and lightspeed particles.
Take care,
Bob Martineau
Dear Robert,
it seems to me that unfortunately you're not replying to the (imho) most important part of Christian's remarks (and of others, analogously). Let me cite:
There are too many theoretical proposals out there to be able to follow them all, however good they might be (and I have seen quite a few that were no good imho and had authors nevertheless incredibly convinced about them). So to motivate "serious" people to look for a theory which invites for abandoning a well- established formalism (->3.) you should do yourself and potential readers the favor to provide an incentive for doing so (->1.) and specific reference to experimental data backing up your claim(s) (->2.).
Failing to do so will easily have others to conclude that it is probably not worth investing time in the subject. I tend to share that viewpoint and hope you can understand it.
Best,
Kai
Dear Robert,
You wrote
"Photodynamics explains how massive particles can travel at the speed of light, exactly what is said in the title."
Answer is, big "NO"... they can not. If they have any mass (this number could be any number, even if less than the electron mass which I don't know if any real particle exist which has smaller mass than electron ), then they have to travel less than the speed of any electromagnetic wave... Electromagnetic wave arises when space vibrates in two orthogonal mode of vibration...One mode is called electric field, whereas other mode is called the magnetic field..Space is continuous (perfectly connected in mathematical sense) and infinitely elastic .Also, space is stationary.. No dynamics can breaks the space property and Maxwell Equation ..Maxwell equation says that electromagnetic can only travel the 1/sqrt (u0 e0 ).. In perfect vacuum this turns out to 2.999 x108 m/s...
"Gravity is space-time-geometry according to GR"... and this will be precise reason why GR will be ABANDONED in near future..
"a black-hole, a crack in the universe" will be the another reason that why GR will DIE its own natural death ... There is NO crack in the universe, but there is definitely a crack in GR... in the same crack, GR will be collapsed and reach into heaven ...
Dear Christian,
Let us be clear about what this problem is. It has various manifestations.
Why do most physicists say that the photon has a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light. To my knowledge this false belief comes about by trying to put a photon into Einstein's E = mc2 = m0c2gamma. Unless m0 is zero, the energy is infinite for all photons since gamma is infinite at speed = c. Then they get m0gamma = 0xinfinity which is indeterminate. They say 0xinfinity could be the finite energy of a photon. and if speed of photon is not c then m0gamma is always zero if m0is zero. So they end up saying the photon and all particles must have zero rest mass and go only at the speed of light if it is to exist. This reasoning would apply to the neutrino also and did for years until neutrino oscillation proved that neutrinos have mass. This is the problem and history of the problem we are talking about. In short, how can massive photons and massive neutrinos travel at the speed of light in contradiction to Einstein's E = mc2?
So let me ask you a question. Is there a problem using Einstein's E = mc2 on the photon and other particles that travel at the speed of light if they have mass?. What if they don't have mass? Just answer these questions for now.
Bob Martineau
Dear Robert,
sorry to intervene (I reckon it's impolite to both, Christan and you. But I happen to be online...). You're replying with a question in return. If I was Christian, I'd say "OK, Robert, please go ahead first".
Please take a position with respect to the three points Christian raised. You find them reiterated in my post from three days ago.
Personally I have no problem with the situation that opinions about the propagation of neutrinos have changed as insight in their properties grew. It all started with a courageous postulate about their existence, after all.
Dear Kai, also Christian, Peter, Erik,
I might reply to the ihmo if I knew what the hell an ihmo was.
To get a better idea of what your (1) refers to it would be a good idea to read my paper on which all this discussion is based, or even the full title of the paper "Photodynamics: How massive photons, gravitons, gluons, and neutrinos manage to travel at the speed of light." The title alone says that the paper will explain how massive particles manage to travel at the speed of light. I apologize for putting the names of four lightspeed particles and making the subject so complicated. I must have done that because it is the same mechanism that works on all lightspeed particles. So that is the problem that my theory both addresses and solves: How massive particles manage to travel at the speed of light in defiance of Einstein's equations, and as verified in nature. (massive photons, and massive neutrinos traveling at the speed of light).
Now for your number (2). Every time the speed of neutrinos is measured it comes out to be c to experimental error. The same thing happens when you measure the speed of photons. Every experimental measurement has experimental error as I hope you know. The experiments measuring the speed of photons are easier to conduct than those for neutrinos, so the precision is greater, but both give the same numerical sequence up to experimental error. Also, you never encounter slow neutrinos or slow photons. This is the best definition you can give for a particle, photon or neutrino, traveling at the speed of light. If you understood that massive particles can and do travel at the speed of light and still be consistent with relativity if you use the right equations (Photodynamics instead of the Einstein equations), then you and others would not waste so much of your time trying to convince yourself that massive neutrinos do not travel at the speed of light in a vain and unneeded effort to save Einstein's E = mc2 .
Now for your number (3). It is not speculative, and it is not in conflict with relativity as explained above. Do yourself a favor and read my paper Photodynamics. You will learn something. It can be found on ResearchGate .I don't know why I have to say this over and over again to
Why do I think the experimental evidence about the speed of neutrinos is limited? It is simply due to the fact that it does not take much energy for a neutrino to go relativistic. We simply lack an experiment to measure non-relativistic propagation of neutrinos. And, as you correctly say, the precision of existing measurements is not good enough to separate their speed from c0 or to be affirmative about a violation of SRT.
This is why I would call a conclusion speculative.
Robert,
concerning your question, "Why do most physicists say that the photon has a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light.", my guess is that you might get different answers from different people.
Mine goes back to Maxwells finding of the wave solutions to "his" equations and their identification with electromagnetic radiation. In this context, this radiation has a frequency independent propagation speed in vacuum c0.
With this background, despite the fact that QM seems to us to talk about photons (quantized modes of the e/m field), it almost sounds funny to me to even think about "light at rest" (but for standing waves, maybe) and a corresponding rest mass.
As far as I am concerned, I don't know of any conclusive experimental evidence that photons should be associated with a rest mass.
- Badges
- Science topic