According to Plancks quantum theory, light is explained by discrete energy packet that is quanta. Quanta is considered to show the nature that it has mass but originally didn’t belongs to any mass

You can't apply Newton's gravitational equation in the extreme case of a black whole. Also photons have other than zero energy regardless of their zero mass. Use Einstein's field equations instead.

Dear Sudipto,

The mass does not increase according to the speed, the relativistic mass is a way of relating the relativistic moment and the speed, but that, in my opinion, causes confusion, what increases with the speed is the relativistic moment.

Gravity does not attract masses (Newton was replaced by Einstein), gravity is the curvature of space-time that causes light and matter to follow geodesic routes.

The photon has no rest mass and it cannot be found resting.

But it has a mass according to h*ny=m*c² when moving!

And a black hole is not exactly an object with much gravity, it is a singularity, a division between 0, we can measure curvatures as long as we have a differentiable surface, discontinuities in space-time we can not measure them, it would be like a "hole" in space-time

Dear Sudipto,

Your question is a paradox. But it is so only in our head, but not in nature. Photons have mass. "Without mass" means "without energy", means "does not exist." You talk formally. But you have to look at the essence of the phenomena. And here it is better to talk about inertness. The longitudinal inertness of the photon is zero. But the transverse inertness is equal to the longitudinal inertness of the electron. Read more about the structure of the photon in the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 1" in my profile.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Thanks.

The photon has longitudinal inertia corresponding to mc2 when moving, but only transverse inertia mc2/2

Ref: https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-0902.1000153

According to Plancks quantum theory, light is explained by discrete energy packet that is quanta. Quanta is considered to show the nature that it has mass but originally didn’t belongs to any mass

Sudipto, the mass of any particle is related to its energy and momentum by:

E2 = m2 + |p|2

where E is the energy, m is the mass, p is the momentum vector and |p| indicates the norm of the vector. For a photon, E = |p| so m=0. That mass is independent of speed for all particles so is sometimes called "invariant mass", the comment by Sergio is correct.

1，Insert a basic physical problem

***

The system is isothermal and exchanges heat with a large heat source to keep the temperature constant. Only volume changes are discussed.

The problem here is that the actual system is balanced and the second law of thermodynamics judges it to be unbalanced.

Dear George,

If in E2 = m2 + |p|2 you set m to zero, then p also goes down to zero, because m is embedded in the definition of p (p=γmv). So this equation (E2 = m2 + |p|2) can in no way be applied to localized EM photons, contrary to the general incorrect assertion.

Best Regards,André

photon has no mass to make m0/sqrt(1-v²/c²) operation impossible... maybe

Photons have no mass, they must obey E = pc and therefore get all of their energy from their momentum. Now there is an interesting additional effect contained in the general equation. If a particle has no mass (m = 0) and is at rest (p = 0), then the total energy is zero.

Dear Paul,

The gamma factor (1sqrt(1-v²/c²)) cannot be involved in defining the mass component of localized moving photons because their velocity is invariant at c in vacuum.

Best regards, André

dear Andre, in my opinion speed of light is not constant

Dear Supito,

you wrote: " they must obey E = pc and therefore get all of their energy from their momentum."

They do not obey E=pc, but E=hν, and their momentum accounts for only half of their energy. The other half is provided by their transversely oscillating electromagnetic other half-quantum:

Ref: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Best Regards, André

For some reason, this question gets asked all the time. Its answer can be found in all the textbooks on electromagnetism and general relativity.

Photons are massless due to the gauge invariance of electromagnetism.

They are affected by gravitational fields--that describe spacetime curvature--because the motion of any form of matter, in curved spacetime, is described by its energy-momentum tensor. The energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field doesn't vanish identically in curved spacetime. Like all particles, photons follow geodesics in spacetime and the geodesics in curved spacetime aren't, globally, straight lines. That's what ``bending'' means. Once more, it's not useful to confuse space and spacetime.

Interesting: Two well documented mutually exclusive assertions that apparently can be found in all the textbooks on electromagnetism and general relativity:

If one is conform to physical reality, then the other is an illogical and axiomatic pronouncement disconnected from reality:

"Photons are massless " and "They are affected by gravitational fields"

Sudipto Datta

Following top relativists and physicists Kip Thorne and Wolfgang Rindler, light or electromagnetic radiation behaves like a wave and like a particle called photon, based on Einstein’s discovery of wave-particle duality of light.

As a particle, a photon has zero rest mass. On the other hand, a photon as a wave, according to Albert Einstein, has a mass which is equal to the photon’s energy, given by Einstein-Planck relation E = hv, divided by the square of the speed of light.

Much more details can enjoyably be read in Thorne’s extraordinary book “ Black Holes And Time Warps-Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” and Rindler’s great book “Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological”.

It is unquestionably experimentally confirmed that gravity as spacetime curvature affects light whose quanta are photons in such a way that light gets bent when it passes near heavy objects such as black holes as correctly described by Einstein’s general relativity.

I think photons exist only at emissions and absorptions. The energy of light can be seen as the mass part of gravitational field where it is bent. If light managed bent 360 degrees it would be considered as a unstable bounded state for some observers - if bent two times 360 degrees (720 degrees) it's quantum spin state and bent multiple times 720 degrees it is part of a stable particle structure...

Good

It's very important

As I understand it, light in empty space simply follows the curvature of space (a null geodesic), hence it's path appears to be distorted when the path is approached by a very massive object (as in Eddington's confirmation of General Relativity: https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech-0529/ ). The photon's energy or momentum has no effect, whether it's a very long-wavelength photon or a highly energetic gamma ray. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity

Incidentally, and in reply to Esa Säkkinen, I got somethng of a 'pasting' when I argued on Stack Exchange Physics for photons only existing at emission and absorption, a couple of years ago. Some upvoted, some downvoted, and last time I looked the balance was -1 for my contribution to that thread.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273032/what-exactly-is-a-photon/273538#273538

EM- radiation (EM-waves) and photons are different phenomena. Light is made up by photons, whereas radiation is a "vibration" in the "space media".

A photon is created at low velocity and is then accelerated in an interaction with the surrounding media. The photon has no momenta but has a mass=E/c^2. It travels along a path corresponding to the density of the surrounding media and is therefore attracted by the surrounding masses. The photon has also no centrifugal force and is therefore bent twice as much a corresponding particle.

JES

Thanks

Stellan, can you clarify your statement that "a photon is created at low velocity", please?

As I understand it, different from your suggestion, EM-radiation and photons are different theoretical viewpoints of the same phenomena:

" Both the wave theory of light and the particle theory of light are approximations to a deeper theory called Quantum Electrodynamics (QED for short). Light is not a wave nor a particle but instead it is an excitation in a quantum field.

QED is a complicated theory, so while it is possible to do calculations directly in QED we often find it simpler to use an approximation. The wave theory of light is often a good approximation when we are looking at how light propagates, and the particle theory of light is often a good approximation when we are looking at how light interacts i.e. exchanges energy with something else."

From: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90646/what-is-the-relation-between-electromagnetic-wave-and-photon

Paul G. Ellis

The photon is created in some reaction, where the rest energy often is produced in form of photons (and other low energy particles), The photon has a mass (energy), so it can't immediately have a speed c. It follows that it must accelerate until some limit is reached (c). What concerns EM-radiation; that it's constituted by photons has never been demonstrated.

There is in fact a very simple experiment to demonstrate this: according to me photons emitted from an ion must have the same energy in all direction, independent of the velocity of the ion. Whereas an EM-radiation should have Doppler shift and therefore different energies depending on the angle relative to the ion beam. Such photon emission can be measured for example in a storage ring of heavy ions. There are probably already old data from such experiments, so it's just to dig them up.

JES

Stellan

That reads as classical-physics to me.

In your description, the light-cone would be narrowed close to emission points. Doesn't that invalidate the Lorentz transformation and suggest an alternative to special relativity? I imagine that should have observable consequeces - so dig out your data?

But I will stay with quantum electrodynamics for the present, thanks.

Paul G. Ellis

Yes, it can be easily shown that the relativity theories are wrong. It's just difficult to accept for mainstream physicists. The problem with relativity is just that the reference system is wrong; the mass growth, time dilation and space contraction are OK but just within a privilege system of reference.

The photon is a small rotating particle, it has a spiralling trajectory. Its E-field is surrounded by its B-field, both are perpendicular to its velocity. Your light-cone is non-existing.

JES

Gottit. Thanks.

The "photon" is not properly modeled. That is why different experiments suggest different properties. The STOE model of the photon satisfies all the experiments but disagrees with the standard concepts. Further EM signals are just small photos as suggested by experiment

Article Photon diffraction and interference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k&t=9s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU&t=31s

It might here be appropriate to explain Young's double-slit experiment for single photons.

A photon passing one slit will have a part of its surrounding potential cut-of. Some of that potential (which contain energy) will go through the second slit. When exiting from the slit, the potential energy will transform into EM radiation, having the same frequency as the associated wave of the original photon. So, if the slits are sufficiently close, you will have an interference pattern.

JES

I’m intrigued by the frequency with which mainly-retired engineers seem to fulfil their retirement by trying to ‘shoe-horn’ modern physics into classical frameworks, and publish on non-peer-reviewed platforms such as Academia.edu and ResearchGate. I've seen a number of similar efforts over recent years.

This is one way to scratch the mental itch afflicting those who are sufficiently intellectually curious to see the difficulties, but unwilling to make the – admittedly considerable – effort to learn fully the physics of the last 100+ years, on which the modern world (from solid state physics to computers and GPS to the prediction and recent detection of gravitational waves) is so successfully dependent.

Scientific social media seem to amplify this attempt to extend classical physics by enabling the like-minded to find each other and coalesce into intersubjectively self-confirming groups. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity .

If such groups truly believe their theories, they should present convincing cases to mainstream journals. Yes – they will encounter resistance; eccentric claims require strong evidence and a well-thought strategy to build acceptance – but if they are convinced, it is their duty to correct the beliefs of the rest of us who constitute a much larger (and similarly inter-subjectively self-confirming) group, which currently appears to possess the greater explanatory power of natural phenomena. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability

As well as being a worrying trend for those of us concerned with fake news, creationism and other anti-science viewpoints, this phenomenon makes a great case-study in one of the varied ways in which humanity attempts to structure its collective experience.

Dear Paul G. Ellis

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I think you missed a point.

Why are there so many different theories and objections against the mainstream theoretical physic?

First, we need to separate theoretical fundamental physics from the applied physic; the applied physics have made impressive progress, no critics can be made in this direction.

But, theoretical fundamental physics is completely different:

Electromagnetics: there is absolutely no understanding of what is an electric or magnetic field, even less of EM-waves.

Atomic physics: How and why are the electrons moving around the nucleus in magic probabilistic jumps?

Standard Model; if you ask a specialist in private, most of them don't believe in it!

Besides, what has this theory brought?

Gravitation and Cosmology: we observe but don't understand.

The relativity theories are wrong, which is demonstrated in the first paper linked in

"daontheory.com".

I proposed the above paper in several journals, with immediate refusals. The most interesting was Nature; The answer was "your article makes certain people think, but we can not accept....", so it seems that it's forbidden to think.

Are we back in the medioval times? I hope I will not be condemned to burn on the stake.

JES

Dear Paul,

It is not a problem if you know how to look.

Works full of words without developing any equation or with little and basic development, you already know that they are garbage, you do not need to look more. Of those there are many by RG.

On the other hand, you can do a very interesting test in any journal in pairs. Copy any work already published, change the title, names and institution and send it to the same magazine. The answer will make you want to vomit and will prove the reliability of their reviews.

Dear Stellan

In applied physics, much is easily modelled mentally, at least phenomenologically. But when thinking about the finer points of QM, SR & GR it is difficult, and I suspect we all have a tendency to fall back on everyday mental models, and then we find that they don’t quite work in modern physics.

So I suspect that we’re really concerned with difficulties in the interpretation and visualisation of concepts in the mind, rather than their use in predicting, via the maths, effects detectable via our external senses and the physical instrumentation we use to extend our senses.

Feynman is quoted in https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html :

“Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen."

And from the attached U. Illinois physics lecture “We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible ... courses.physics.illinois.edu › phys214 › check-file:

“Quantum mechanical entities are neither particles nor waves separately, but both simultaneously. Which properties you observe depends on what you measure.”

Having myself struggled long and hard with both the maths and the concepts of QM and SR/GR, I now believe that our brains aren’t necessarily capable of meaningfully modelling, in any detail, phenomena that are so far outside our evolved sensory capabilities, even with the aid of sophisticated instrumentation.

So, apart from the effective maths, any effort to understand "an electric or magnetic field" or the motion of "electrons moving around the nucleus" in terms of any mental imagery or other mode of everyday understanding is, IMO, not only pointless, but even misleading. Philip Ball's recent book Beyond Weird is good on this.

And I don’t think it’s forbidden to think: you won’t be burnt at the stake (at least as long as you don’t fall into the clutches of ISIS' offshoots or the new Hong Kong police state… :-> )

Regards - Paul

Dear Paul G. Ellis

I have an opinion opposite to yours, I think that it's now around 100 years that mathematicians have taken over physics. The result has been no or very little progress. The math has thrown away logic and understanding.

You are complaining about retired engineers, I'm convinced that some engineering logic could have a great influence on understanding fundamental physics.

When thing looks very complicated, it means that you have not understood!

JES

Good luck with these, then; many require advanced maths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

And thanks for the stimulus.

Paul G. Ellis

I'll finish adding two questions to your list:

The limiting local velocity c is relative to what?

In the law m v lambda = h, the speed is relative to what?

Dear Stellan

If I understand your questions correctly, then my answer has to be that I don’t see either of them as posing problems that would be recognised as such by the mainstream physics community.

I believe that all knowledge of material things is, at least in principle, provisional, so one cannot exclude the possibility that significant areas of mainstream physics will be revised at some point. But I very much doubt this will be the case for these questions:

1) You ask about “The limiting local velocity c is relative to what?”

As I’m sure you know already, the velocity of light in vacuo simply fell out of Maxwell’s equations as a function of two constants, with no dependence on coordinates or velocities. So c is not relative to anything (and is now used as a basis for definition of fundamental units.)

"In classical physics, light is described as a type of electromagnetic wave. The classical behaviour of the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations, which predict that the speed c with which electromagnetic waves (such as light) propagate in vacuum is related to the distributed capacitance and inductance of vacuum, otherwise respectively known as the electric constant ε0 and the magnetic constant μ0, by the equation

c = 1/sqrt(ε0μ0) "

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

2) As for De Broglie’s correlation of wave and particle properties, λ = h/p, you ask “In the law m v lambda = h, the speed is relative to what?”

Though I’ve never given it any thought, the velocity (or momentum) has to be relative to whatever measuring device is being used to estimate it.

I hope this answers your questions satisfactorily, and must now sign off, in order to get on with Xmas preparations.

From the timing of your replies I assume you’re Swedish or Norwegian, rather than American:

god Jul – Paul

(University of Uppsala, Sweden; and Beitostølen Summer Schools in Norway, 1972-74 ).