View Single Post
Mar16-10, 07:18 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Fredrik's Avatar
P: 9,540
Quote Quote by bcrowell View Post
If experimentalists find out tomorrow that the photon has nonzero rest mast, do you really think everybody will start using a different word for to describe it?
What you're saying here doesn't make sense. You can't find out that something that's massless by definition is massive. (And if photons are defined by QED, they are massless by definition). What you can find out is that there's a theory that makes better predictions than QED. If that theory is a QFT that's identical to QED except that the spin-1 field is massive, then it would make sense to call the particles corresponding to that field "photons". But it only makes sense to say that you have "measured the mass of the photon to be non-zero" if you defined the word "photon" using that class of theories instead of a single theory. I'm surprised you keep objecting to that. It's not exactly a radical claim.

Quote Quote by bcrowell View Post
I suggest that folks participating in this thread read at least the abstract of the Lakes paper, and then ask, "If I'd been the referee that this paper was sent to, would I have rejected it based on the views I've expressed in this thread?" If the answer is yes, then maybe the views you've expressed in this thread are wrong; either that or PRL messed up by accepting a totally pointless paper.
You seem to be replying to something very different from what's been posted in this thread.