Do Photons Have Mass? - Debate & Questions

[duu57f]

Many people have been arguing for a long time that it doesn't. Of course, they couldn't actually give solid proof for this. They based their theory on the fact that if photons had mass at rest than many laws and theories we know today would be wrong. But the question still remains, if photons have no mass at rest, then why is light sucked into black holes. I mean, if light has no mass at rest, then the concept of gravity doesn't apply to it. Also, where does all the energy and momentum come from. I know about the concept of relative mass, but still, even with this, the energy has to come from a source and in my opinion that source has to be an initial mass.

 

[Parlyne]

It is not known absolutely for sure that photons do not have mass. However, there is an experimental upper limit on what that mass could be; and it's pretty darn small.

Additionally, if photons had mass, there should be a third possible polarization for light, and electrostatic potentials should fall off as \frac{1}{r} e^{-\frac{m_\gamma c r}{\hbar}}.

To understand the statement that even light can't escape from a black hole, you have to understand a little bit about how general relativity describes gravity.

General relativity says that the presence of mass (or energy or momentum or pressure, etc.) actually bends the fabric of space and time. When the path of a particle is affected by gravity it happens, not because the particle is feeling a force, but because the particle is traveling along what is effectively a straight line path on a curved surface. When you think about it this way, it seems natural that even light should be affected.

A black hole is simply the case where space and time are so bent that every single straight line path that exists leads to one single place. (Of course, to be exact, we should say that every path that exists inside the event horizon leads to one single place. Outside the event horizon, there are paths that don't lead into the black hole.)

 

[FunkyDwarf]

When the path of a particle is affected by gravity it happens, not because the particle is feeling a force,

this isn't entirely true as gravity does exert a force. in the example you used youre correct, but if that applied everywhere then two masses at rest relative to each other would feel no gravitational force as there is no inital motion, which I am pretty sure isn't true (correct me if I am wrong anyone)

photons are said to have no mass, or specifically no rest mass, for two reasons. well really theyre the same one but anyway. firstly because an inertial observer can never catch up with a photon and view it at rest. secondly because mass addition requires something traveling at the speed of light to have infinite mass (as a product of its initial mass) which requires an infite amount of energy to accelerate to c. thus nothing with mass can get to speed c, but because the mass addition is a product value something with zero rest mass can.

 

[ZapperZ]

But the question still remains, if photons have no mass at rest, then why is light sucked into black holes. I mean, if light has no mass at rest, then the concept of gravity doesn't apply to it.

If that is such a glaring evidence for light having a mass, then would something as obvious as that be missed by the whole physics community. I mean, let's get real here. How dumb do you think physicists are to miss such a thing?

This issue has been discussed to death in several threads in both the Quantum physics forum, and the SR/GR forum. Please do your search there and figure out how gravity is a spacetime curvature, and why light follows the "geodesic" of that spacetime curvature. It has NOTHING to do with light having a mass.

Zz.

 

[pmb_phy]

Many people have been arguing for a long time that it doesn't.

The argument is not about the physics of whether photons have mass. Its a debate about the definition of "mass" which will give either a yes or no according to the definition.

There is a possibility that a photon has a finite rest mass. The best of current measurements of the photon's proper mass does not have the precision to detect any photon proper mass.

I mean, if light has no mass at rest, then the concept of gravity doesn't apply to it. Also, where does all the energy and momentum come from. I know about the concept of relative mass, but still, even with this, the energy has to come from a source and in my opinion that source has to be an initial mass.

The concept of mass that you speak of here is not proper mass but inertial mass and passive gravitational mass. And yes. The photon has both

Best wishes

Pete

 

[MeJennifer]

But the question still remains, if photons have no mass at rest, then why is light sucked into black holes.

It seems you are mistaken in thinking that gravity only works between objects that have mass, that is not the case.

Suppose we have an object with mass. It will curve spacetime and as a consequence all inertial paths are curved in its neighborhood. So any other object nearby, regardless whether it has mass or not, will be subject to these conditions of spacetime.

Consider flat spacetime. Each particle that is inertial for a given time interval shows a straight line segment, and each particle that is not inertial for a given time segment shows a curved line segment.

Now an object that has mass influences the curvature of spacetime.

Then it follows that near an object of mass anything else that showed a straight line segment before does not longer show a straight line segment and the curved line segments are also different. And by the way not only the spatial dimensions of spacetime are subject to curvature, the time dimension is subject to curvature as well. At low relativistic speeds the time curvature is actually stronger than the spatial curvature.

Now with regards to black holes sucking in light, it depends on the direction of the light, most light paths will simply approach and then leave the vicinity of the black hole. But some light paths will encounter such curvature that it will be directed to go to the center of the black hole.

 

[pmb_phy]

It seems you are mistaken in thinking that gravity only works between objects that have mass, that is not the case.

Why not? The development of GR was based on the hypothesis that all objects have mass (whether inertial or proper mass). If this is not true then there would be no justification of the Equivalence Principle and hence particles without any kind of mass would not follow a geodesic. To see that this is the case I would suggest that one follows the development of GR from the beginning and leave out the postulate that all objects must have passive gravitational mass. That isn't an easy task by far. But it would be highly instructive. In fact I intend to do that myself soon.

Now an object that has mass influences the curvature of spacetime.

Its quite possible that an object with an extremely high energy density and an extremely hi tension would have a zero active gravitational mass. This would yield a zero spacetime curvature outside the body. Geodesics would then be straight. However the topology of the spacetime could be changed such that these straight geodesics would intersect. Such an object is postulated to exist and the topology would be that of a cone. E.g. a straight cosmic string is just such an example.

Pete

 

[pervect]

I've said this once or twice or ten times before, but in GR, gravity is not based on "mass", but on the stress-energy tensor. In fact, mass is only defined in GR under special circumstances, such as asymptotically flat space-times, or stationary space-times.

 

[gonegahgah]

Mass is usually used as a comparative measure. Further, the more mass a space object has the more 'gravitational influence' that space object presents.

In this respect for any other object, be it light or a space ship, their mass is not relevant as we all know things fall at the same speed. So whether light has almost no mass and a spaceship has greater mass, all things fall at the same rate.

What does affect the apparent rate of fall over ground distance covered is velocity. If the spaceship is traveling faster sideways then it will fall to the ground at a greater distance. Give it enough distance and it will miss the Earth all together and continue falling (also called orbiting).

The same with respect would go for light if it has mass. Light travels extremely fast so it should be bent from its path much less than the rocket which is traveling much slower. It is not because light weighs less but simply because it is going faster. Hence why we need stars and galaxies to gain noticeable bending of light as they need to exert greater gravitational influence to overcome the light's speed in sufficient time.

But the key difference for light, if it has mass, is frequency. Frequency represents the oscillation of light through a point of space as it passes through. We have already established that it does not matter how much mass the light has so if higher frequencies were say heavier than lower frequencies then this would make no difference to the path of either frequency as their mass is inconsequential.

However I mentioned frequency because frequency represents how quickly the crests and troughs of the light pass through a point of space. The faster the light rises and falls (the higher its frequency) through its oscillations should effect the path of the light around a gravitational body.

Higher frequency light which is oscillation faster should bend less around a gravitational body than should lower frequency light which is oscillating slower. This effect would be similar to the effect found when passing light through triangular prisms.

However according to science light is achromatic. This means that the different frequencies are not supposed to bend different degrees around large graviational bodies.

 

[pervect]

Mass is usually used as a comparative measure. Further, the more mass a space object has the more 'gravitational influence' that space object presents.

In this respect for any other object, be it light or a space ship, their mass is not relevant as we all know things fall at the same speed. So whether light has almost no mass and a spaceship has greater mass, all things fall at the same rate.

What does affect the apparent rate of fall over ground distance covered is velocity. If the spaceship is traveling faster sideways then it will fall to the ground at a greater distance. Give it enough distance and it will miss the Earth all together and continue falling (also called orbiting).

The same with respect would go for light if it has mass. Light travels extremely fast so it should be bent from its path much less than the rocket which is traveling much slower. It is not because light weighs less but simply because it is going faster. Hence why we need stars and galaxies to gain noticeable bending of light as they need to exert greater gravitational influence to overcome the light's speed in sufficient time.

But the key difference for light, if it has mass, is frequency. Frequency represents the oscillation of light through a point of space as it passes through. We have already established that it does not matter how much mass the light has so if higher frequencies were say heavier than lower frequencies then this would make no difference to the path of either frequency as their mass is inconsequential.

However I mentioned frequency because frequency represents how quickly the crests and troughs of the light pass through a point of space. The faster the light rises and falls (the higher its frequency) through its oscillations should effect the path of the light around a gravitational body.

Higher frequency light which is oscillation faster should bend less around a gravitational body than should lower frequency light which is oscillating slower. This effect would be similar to the effect found when passing light through triangular prisms.

However according to science light is achromatic. This means that the different frequencies are not supposed to bend different degrees around large graviational bodies.

This is basically misguided and somewhat reminiscent of argumentative arguments that heavier objects must fall faster than lighter objects.

Just as light and heavy objects fall at the same rate, different frequencies of light are not chromatically aberrated. They both essentially follow geodesics.

Like the case of light and heavy objects falling, this argument iignores the back reaction effects.

The clearest argument is this. If you drop a light and heavy argument, the Earth "may move" (note that it won't move as a point mass!). However, the light and heavy object will both arrive at the same point at the same time. It's just that the Earth will move, and stretch by a totally insignificant amount.

Similarly, if you send a high frequency and a low frequency light beam around a black hole, the black hole "may move" by a totally insignifcant amount. But there will be no relative deflection of the high frequency vs the low frequency beam if they are sent at the same time.

 

[student85]

so sound waves are affected by a curvature in space?

 

[Zelos]

everything is

 

[gonegahgah]

God pervect

Do you actually read anything I write?

Nothing I wrote in my post that you quoted disagreed with what you rehashed. I'm sorry that I don't use meaningless scientific words.

I really don't know where you get the idea that I argued that heavier objects fall faster than smaller objects.

I did deliberately ignore the "back reaction effects" as I didn't think this necessary to help the original poster. I apologise that you felt its absence. These "back reaction effects" are that while one body A falls towards another body B; body B will also fall towards body A; and this affects the combined closure speed. If you have two massive spheres of lesser density then they will fall together at a slower speed than two massive spheres of greater density. Simply because both denser spheres will experience greater acceleration towards each other than will the less dense spheres towards each other.

Think before you speak please before telling me that I'm presenting flat Earth principles.

 

[stone1]

One related question, which may be less ambiguous, would be "What happens to the mass/gravitational field of a black hole when it sucks up more photons?"

From my casual readings, I have to agree with Pete that the issue is more about what the question really means rather than what the answer is. A photon is a quantum object and terms like "stationary" mass (and "constant" momentum for that matter) are not well-defined. My understanding is that an answer like "The stationary mass of a photon is equal to X" is wrong even if you make X = 0.

 

[pmb_phy]

One related question, which may be less ambiguous, would be "What happens to the mass/gravitational field of a black hole when it sucks up more photons?"

The mass of the black hole increases. Nobody who understands GR has any doubt about that regardless of whether they believe that photons have mass or not (i.e. regardless of how they define the term "mass").

Pete

 

[W.RonG]

Does a photon have mass? in a word, No.
Light is not a substance; light is electromagnetic energy.
a "photon" is a unit of measure of that energy. a photon is no more a particle of light than a phon is a particle of sound.
rg

 

[pmb_phy]

Does a photon have mass? in a word, No.

Whether light has mass or not will depend on how it is defined. Without stating a definition then its impossible to say whether light has mass or not.

Light is not a substance; light is electromagnetic energy.

Light is, by definition, an electromagnetic wave. It has energy. It cannot be said to be energy. Also, perhaps there are people who wish to think of light as not being a substance. When this is the case then such people will seek out a definition of the term "substance" such that light is not a substance. As of now the term "substance" is an undefined term in physics. It is only used loosely. Einstein himself referred to electromagnetic fields as being "matter" and as such I'd hazard to guess that he'd also refer to light as a "substance." Einstein referred to light as matter in his 1916 review article on the foundations of general relativity.

a "photon" is a unit of measure of that energy. a photon is no more a particle of light than a phon is a particle of sound.
rg

I disagree. By definition a photon is a quantum of light. A photon is not energy. It merely has energy. Your analogy regarding phonons and photons is flawed because you are thinking of it in a way which is inconsistent with how it is defined in physics.

Best wishes

Pete

 

[JoeBachofen]

Way back in 10/14/06, FunkyDwarf said:

“photons are said to have no mass, or specifically no rest mass, for two reasons.
...firstly because an inertial observer can never catch up with a photon and view it at rest.
secondly because mass addition requires something traveling at the speed of light to have infinite mass
(as a product of its initial mass) which requires an infite amount of energy to accelerate to c. thus
nothing with mass can get to speed c, but because the mass addition is a product value something
with zero rest mass can.”

The first point is incorrect. If you could “catch up” to a photon you would still measure its velocity as c, the speed of light, because c is an invariant. You would, however, measure its frequency as 0 due to red shift.

The second point is correct but misses the point. The point is that anything that travels at the speed of light can ONLY travel at the speed of light. It can never be “at rest” because it IS light and the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant. Therefore, the “rest mass” of a photon is NOT zero; the photon has no rest mass because it can NOT be “at rest”.

I know this is an old thread and my response is to a 2 year old post but the thread, in total, has helped me think through some basic issues in a concise way.

The discussion about photons being E&M waves versus being or having energy has nothing to do with “rest mass” and is more metaphysics (or semantics) than physics. Interesting and correct, but not on point.

The point is: photons are light, light travels at an invariant speed, c, in a vacuum and cannot be at rest; therefore photons cannot have “rest mass” which does NOT mean the “rest mass” of a photon is zero.

Incidentally, it is not a "theory" that the speed of light in vacuum is invariant; it is an axiom.
It is the foundation on which both Special and General Relativity are built.

 

[Steven.D.N]

hmmm

 

[Steven.D.N]

according to Einstein E= mc^2
photons deffinatly have energy
this is soemthign no one can deny
so let's say the photon has a standard unit of 1 where energy is concerened
so
1 = mc^2 when dealign with a photon
therefore its mass when in motion is m = 1/c^2
if a photon stops moving under this model it has 0 energy and 0 mass
and cannot exist
it can only exist if it is in motion

at least logically anyway, but then again nothing works the same in the quantum world anyway , but it still leaves the question why doesn't it have infinate mass when it is in motion , using it as a standard for 1 unit of energy would certainly show it has a mass.

 

[OB1]

Let us suppose light has mass. Take the usual Lagrangian density with the Maxwell field interaction term and add a massive term:
<br /> \mathcal{L} = - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}- \frac{1}{2}m^{2}A_{\mu}A^{\mu} <br />
It turns out you need to add another couple of terms, otherwise the Lagrangian is not invariant under gauge transformations, so you end up with:
\mathcal{L} = - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}- \frac{1}{2}m^{2}A_{\mu}A^{\mu} - \frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi +mA^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\phi
Now you have added a scalar field to correct for gauge invariance. That is okay so far, but it has a number of problems (including a massive scalar field we should have observed a long time ago), and I am fairly sure its predictions are irreconcilable with our current observations.
As to why light gets "sucked into" a black hole - if you take a look at the solutions to the Schwarzschild geometry inside the event horizon, you will see that the form of the metric effectively switches the space and time coordinates. Don't go reading too much into this, this is simply a mathematical consequence of taking r<R, where R is the event horizon. Because the time coordinate CANNOT go backwards, even for light, inside the black hole, you get that the position of light cannot go backwards, so it must keep going forward and forward in black hole geometry means into the singularity - so it never "escapes". This phenomenon has nothing to do with the "mass" of the light. The only mass term that appears in the Schwarzschild metric is the mass of the black hole.
As for the post above mine, E^{2}=p^{2}+(mc^{2})^{2}. Light has momentum and energy, just not mass.

 

[Count Iblis]

...but it has a number of problems (including a massive scalar field we should have observed a long time ago), and I am fairly sure its predictions are irreconcilable with our current observations.

It is not ruled out, as pointed out here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306245

 

[stevmg]

I am a novice to these parts but it is my understanding that photons themselves do NOT have mass. They appear to be packets of compressed electromagnetic waves:

-->-------\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/--->---------\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\---->---------\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/-->

the above is a depiction of a light ray or any electrometic ray moving to the right at a speed of c (300,000 km/sec)

The curvature of llight around the sun (as depicted by Ettinger in 1919 and some others later) was and is because of the warping of what would be a homogenous space-time frame work (i.e., 4th Dimension) by the masses in the universe, and in Ettinger's case, that mass would be the sun (and maybe even the moon as it traversed to sky above the observers.)

Since we do live in a 4-D world with time being the unseen coordinate, then the geodesics would be created due to the mass-energy effect of all bodies which have mass (and that is everything.) The universe is not homogeneous in energy-mass. Also,time, no matter what frame of reference one uses, always marches on. It never stops. There is no universal central point of time clock but in each frame of reference, the t-component is always getting longer and longer. Every world line in every frame of reference will always bend a little (meaning acceleration) and this is gravity because the world lines of "stationary" objects is always moving along the geodesic.

With regards to the black hole gravity, that would probably mean that the curvature in spacetime in that locale is so great that even the speed of light cannot escape it.

That is just my take.

 

[K^2]

I am a novice to these parts but it is my understanding that photons themselves do NOT have mass.
[...]
mass-energy effect of all bodies which have mass (and that is everything.)

Hmm?

Anyways, there is a difference between relativistic/gravitational and rest mass. Photons have former, but not later. I'm sure that's been mentioned in this thread already. No need for wild speculations.

 

[OB1]

It is not ruled out, as pointed out here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306245

I stand corrected.

 

[stevmg]

Hmm?

Anyways, there is a difference between relativistic/gravitational and rest mass. Photons have former, but not later. I'm sure that's been mentioned in this thread already. No need for wild speculations.

Interestigly enough that if a photon does have a mass at light speed as depicted above (relativistic mass) in a mathematical sense this could be possible.

Any "real" object not in motion does have a rest mass. There is no way such an object could ever be "pushed" to relativistic speed by the now famous equation:
m = m₀/\sqrt{(1 - v^2)/c^2)} = m₀\gamma. Hence, any object at relativistic speed cannot be "derived" from any object that has mass and "lives" in subrelativistic speed because its mass would be infinite at light speed.

Any object with a mass m at subrelativistic speed mathematically an infinite mass at relativistic speed = \infty. Any object that exists at relativistic speed with a mass of m₀ would have a zero mass at subrelatistic speed. Photons only exist at the speed of light. They would have no mass subrelativistically:

\infty \bullet 0 = any number you want.

Remember gravity is caused by the spacetime curvature so it would appear as there is bending of the world line which means acceleration and implies mass to light or any other electromagnetic "ray."

Geroch, General Relativity from A to B

 

[lennyf]

Does a photon have mass? in a word, No.
Light is not a substance; light is electromagnetic energy.
a "photon" is a unit of measure of that energy. a photon is no more a particle of light than a phon is a particle of sound.
rg

if that is so then please explain the black hole phenomena.

 

[stevmg]

Does a photon have mass? in a word, No.
Light is not a substance; light is electromagnetic energy.
a "photon" is a unit of measure of that energy. a photon is no more a particle of light than a phon is a particle of sound.
rg

if that is so then please explain the black hole phenomena.

Never experienced it...

 

[zeegod]

Many people have been arguing for a long time that it doesn't. Of course, they couldn't actually give solid proof for this. They based their theory on the fact that if photons had mass at rest than many laws and theories we know today would be wrong. But the question still remains, if photons have no mass at rest, then why is light sucked into black holes. I mean, if light has no mass at rest, then the concept of gravity doesn't apply to it. Also, where does all the energy and momentum come from. I know about the concept of relative mass, but still, even with this, the energy has to come from a source and in my opinion that source has to be an initial mass.

I have had these questions for a longtime.
1. Is it the photons that travel at such speed or is it that they are pulled by gravity?
2. if photons are pulled by gravity how do they retain such speed in space where G is negligible?
3. Anything that has a shape should have mass or am i simply arguing?
4. when photons collide with each other coming from straight opposite sources/directions will they disintegrate because of such enormous speeds?
5? where does all the light go if they don't have a mass they can't be sticking with something or absorbed and they should always travel if they do have mass then we can should be able to contain them. either way i still wonder where all the photons ever produced went to?

 

[ZapperZ]

First of all, photons are not "pulled" by gravity, and certainly not in the way that other objects with mass are pulled. This has already been explained in the FAQ thread in the General Physics forum. So maybe you want to start there.

This is also a rather OLD thread.

Zz.

 

[zeegod]

First of all, photons are not "pulled" by gravity, and certainly not in the way that other objects with mass are pulled. This has already been explained in the FAQ thread in the General Physics forum. So maybe you want to start there.

This is also a rather OLD thread.

Zz.

"photons are not "pulled" by gravity, " Amazing and i like the way you said it and will start from where you directed though:)

 

[Astro9154]

I came upon your forum and found the discussion on whether photons have or do not have mass stimulating.

I’m not a PHD physicist, just an elderly amateur astronomer who has always enjoyed physics, I’m not an expert on either, however, I wanted to share a small comment with the group on the subject of photons.

On one side (General Relativity), photons are said to be mass-less, on the other side, Quantum Physics (Hawking Radiation), photons, neutrinos, and electrons are said to have mass.

Recently, Brian Green release his new book “The Hidden Reality” in 2011, in that book there’s a section titled “Hawking Radiation”, in it he states the following:

“But proper treatment of matter and radiation of particles like photons, neutrinos, and electrons that can carry mass, energy, and entropy from one location to another requires quantum physics.”

So, on one hand we have mass-less photons and on the other hand we have photons that have and can carry mass.

Please forgive my lack of presentation on the subject, several years ago I fell victim to numerous strokes that resulted in a significant loss of memory, mathematics, and musical abilities, don't be too hard on me if I have it too terribly wrong.

Thank you for allowing me to post this comment.

Bob

 

[ZapperZ]

I came upon your forum and found the discussion on whether photons have or do not have mass stimulating.

I’m not a PHD physicist, just an elderly amateur astronomer who has always enjoyed physics, I’m not an expert on either, however, I wanted to share a small comment with the group on the subject of photons.

On one side (General Relativity), photons are said to be mass-less, on the other side, Quantum Physics (Hawking Radiation), photons, neutrinos, and electrons are said to have mass.

Whoa! Back up a bit. Where in "quantum physics" did it say that photon has mass?

Recently, Brian Green release his new book “The Hidden Reality” in 2011, in that book there’s a section titled “Hawking Radiation”, in it he states the following:

“But proper treatment of matter and radiation of particles like photons, neutrinos, and electrons that can carry mass, energy, and entropy from one location to another requires quantum physics.”

Nope. You need to separate out what is accepted and verified, versus theories that are still (i) being worked on (ii) unverified (iii) still speculative.Zz.

 

[stevmg]

It would appear that light, as a radiant energy has two simultaneous formats (if you will)

1 - as a wave with no mass traveling through some medium - not the "ether" as disproved by Michelson & Morley in 1887 because there is no difference between light speed no matter what direction you look and the Earth is moving at 30 km/sec and there should be some shift

2 - as a particle as shown with the photo-electric effect (Einstein's Nobel Prize)

These two phenomena exist simultaneously and the energy in the electromagnetic wave can be translated into mass by the e= mc² relationship.

Of course, the "crystallized" energy is NOT moving at the speed of light.

 

[sjw40364]

First you must realize that E = mc2 is not what Einstein originally wrote.
The correct equation is E subscript 0 = mc2.

In the first equation m depends on energy (on velocity) and the photon has mass.
In the second equation m is constant and the photon has no mass.

Over the years his orginal equation was changed from E subscript 0 = mc2 to E = mc2.

 

[stevmg]

First you must realize that E = mc2 is not what Einstein originally wrote.
The correct equation is E subscript 0 = mc2.

In the first equation m depends on energy (on velocity) and the photon has mass.
In the second equation m is constant and the photon has no mass.

Over the years his orginal equation was changed from E subscript 0 = mc2 to E = mc2.

Yea, you are correct , p. 47 "General Results of the Theory," Section XV Relativity, Einstein AE.

He derives that using a Taylor (I believe) expansion.

 

[xienohp]

There are theories proving photon mass are bounded by some extremely small numbers, however, the mass here means rest mass, not effective mass.
For reference, you may follow classical EM's deviation of what would happen if photon has mass, with fields as the tool.

Photon must follow by geodesic of the space-time, with its "time" being nullified.

 

[Wez]

I agree I can't explain why yet, but I believe the photon has a mass which defines it's limit at C what is really interesting recently at CERN something is potentially traveling faster than C so is it's mass less than a photon, does it shape shift between matter and anti matter, and if there was an anti matter phono could it travel faster than C in our universe, I still believe what ever particle it is , it must have a mass equivalent, which gets "considered" in the fabric

 

[yoron]

I think I agree with, was it Pervect? Saying that it is the geometry of SpaceTime that trace out the 'geodesics'. If I imagine that we can backtrack it all to 'energy' then SpaceTime is 'energy'. Don't mistake that for our older concept of a 'absolute space' though. I don't think there is any such 'quantity' existing, it's all frame dependent.

Anyway, if 'energy' is what describes a 'SpaceTime', then it stands to reason that a 'photon', or a 'wave,' will follow those geodesics, as they do not 'accelerate'.

The only thing that breaks a geodesic is expending energy, and light does not do that. But I'm not totally sure if this definition covers it all. Can anyone think up a example of something not expending 'energy' breaking a geodesic?

For example, a tunneling? Is that breaking a geodesic?
Or a spontaneous particle creation?

What I mean is if there is some point where you in the transition can say that 'this is not a geodesic.' It's difficult to define that one.
==

You might want to turn it around, and ask yourself if there can be a accelerative effect that does not 'expend energy'? And by that I mean anything creating a change to the former geodesics, relative what it gets after it.

Ah well :)

 

[SinghRP]

I have joined in this very late. I tried to read all of the above, but ...
This is what I understand.
A photon has mass, but not real mass, only effective mass. In reality, the effective mass is due to its momentum = E/c.
Here is what Wigner argured. If a photon has mass, you can acclerate it or de-accelerate it. But you can't. Poor photon is stuck with its c. (Slowing down of light in water is something else; don't be confused here.)
Similar logic with its spin. Its spin = 1, but no zero polarization! (A particle with a mass and spin 1 has three polarizations: +1, 0, -1.)
What do you think?
I have introduced a new topic: Gravity's effects. Can someone answer me there.

 

[yoron]

No, a photon has a momentum as I see it, not a 'mass'. a photon only exist in its annihilation. All measurements of a 'real' photon comes from the definitions made in it annihilating. any other definition involving 'paths' etc is theoretical, no matter how many points, and times, you measure those 'identical' photons in. That we use conceptual descriptions do not guarantee that path you think you see. And a geodesic is 'gravity' defining paths of 'no energy expenditure' to me.

It's a quanta of light.
==

What you might want to ponder is that, assuming that space's metric is gravity, there can be no point uninfluenced by that. So even in a 'geodesic' there must be 'gravity'. Therefore don't tell me that it 'propagate', I'm perfectly happy with it choosing to exist in 'geodesics', no matter where you measure it, from the conservation laws alone.

 

[MVesseur]

Seeing as this thread is more than 5 years old, might as well get it into its sixth year ;). I am no physics student, but questions on the subject keep popping up in my mind, one of them being the question that started the thread.

I've always tried to help myself with models from the "Newtonian world" to try and understand what is going on. Light is/consists of waves and we know that because it has frequencies (I suppose there are other ways to prove it). Yet it arrives in small quanta that can be measured. There is no smaller unit of light than a quantum. That creates what appears to be a contradiction - if it consists of "packages" it has to be particles, but it behaves like waves. Apparently something like that applies to electrons as well - I'd love to know the difference between photons and electrons, by the way.

But to my point: doesn't sound, which to my understanding is waves in matter, arrive in packages? Is there a smaller unit of sound than the smallest particle of matter it moves through? If so, couldn't sound also be considered as transferring or converting energy quanta on impact? Yet we would never consider sound to be particles.

Also the particles of the medium sound moves through do not itself need to travel for sound to move with a specific speed. It's the wave that is moving, not the medium. In a similar vein: would light require the transporting particle (not the photon, but the photon-carrier) to actually move? Could it be that the universe is filled with a mass-less or nearly mass-less medium?

Do I understand correctly that a photon is only the smallest amount of light energy that can be transported, but is not necessarily a particle in itself (if there were another particle that acts as its carrier/medium)? Can these supposed light-transporting particles even be mass-less, seeing as the speed of light is limited? Why is the speed of light what it is? Why isn't it faster? What is slowing it down? Could it be the mass or inertia of the proton-carrier, as yet unnamed?

I read above that the "ether"-theory was countered with the absoluteness of the speed of light. The moving light-emitter does not add to, or subtract from its speed. But isn't there something like a Doppler-effect in light, just as in sound? Also, a moving sound-emitter can not alter the speed of sound either, it only alters its frequency. In that way the speed of sound is as absolute as the speed of light, it seems - supposing the sound-transporting medium is always the same and always has the same density and temperature.

Sorry to troll into this forum, but my simple mind is hoping to get some answers and as a side-effect encourage the bright minds of this world to phrase their understanding in a digestible manner, thereby explaining things to the other ignorant but knowledge-hungry Googlers that land here.. and maybe even clarify things in their own mind.

Thanks!

- Marinus Vesseur

 

[nitsuj]

Seeing as this thread is more than 5 years old, might as well get it into its sixth year ;). I am no physics student, but questions on the subject keep popping up in my mind, one of them being the question that started the thread.

I've always tried to help myself with models from the "Newtonian world" to try and understand what is going on. Light is/consists of waves and we know that because it has frequencies (I suppose there are other ways to prove it). Yet it arrives in small quanta that can be measured. There is no smaller unit of light than a quantum. That creates what appears to be a contradiction - if it consists of "packages" it has to be particles, but it behaves like waves. Apparently something like that applies to electrons as well - I'd love to know the difference between photons and electrons, by the way.

But to my point: doesn't sound, which to my understanding is waves in matter, arrive in packages? Is there a smaller unit of sound than the smallest particle of matter it moves through? If so, couldn't sound also be considered as transferring or converting energy quanta on impact? Yet we would never consider sound to be particles.

Also the particles of the medium sound moves through do not itself need to travel for sound to move with a specific speed. It's the wave that is moving, not the medium. In a similar vein: would light require the transporting particle (not the photon, but the photon-carrier) to actually move? Could it be that the universe is filled with a mass-less or nearly mass-less medium?

Do I understand correctly that a photon is only the smallest amount of light energy that can be transported, but is not necessarily a particle in itself (if there were another particle that acts as its carrier/medium)? Can these supposed light-transporting particles even be mass-less, seeing as the speed of light is limited? Why is the speed of light what it is? Why isn't it faster? What is slowing it down? Could it be the mass or inertia of the proton-carrier, as yet unnamed?

I read above that the "ether"-theory was countered with the absoluteness of the speed of light. The moving light-emitter does not add to, or subtract from its speed. But isn't there something like a Doppler-effect in light, just as in sound? Also, a moving sound-emitter can not alter the speed of sound either, it only alters its frequency. In that way the speed of sound is as absolute as the speed of light, it seems - supposing the sound-transporting medium is always the same and always has the same density and temperature.


Thanks!

- Marinus Vesseur

I hear the term "propagate" used for EM.

I think it speaks of how light "travels" from point A to point B.

Perhaps how all waves travel.

 

[Mentz114]

Very briefly, the 'light-quantum' only appears when energy and momentum is (are ?) exchanged between light and matter. Such as when an atom or ion absorbs or emits light, or light interacts by 'bouncing off' a particle, changing its momentum ( the Compton effect).

Propagation is wavelike apart from these instances. Einstein wrote a brilliant ( and straightforward) paper in 1916 showing for the first time that momentum *must* be exchanged when emission or absorption happens, or the black-body spectrum discovered by Planck would be different.

 

[MVesseur]

Right, "propagation", I remember. Funny, to use a word from horticulture.

Now, how is the 'light quantum' that much different from the 'sound quantum' when a swinging molecule of the propagating medium hits an absorbing molecule? Kinetic energy is transformed into heat (or is that kinetic energy too?).

Talking about sunlight, for example, as a product of the processes on or in the surface layer of the sun. It leaves in all directions at various frequencies as electromagnetic radiation in small packages we call quanta (correct me if I'm wrong). Why in quanta? Because it itself is a "something" that contains that much energy, or because it is propagated by a universe filled with a "light-propagating medium"? That is my question. How, essentially, do sound waves differ from light waves?

Very briefly, the 'light-quantum' only appears when energy and momentum is (are ?) exchanged between light and matter. Such as when an atom or ion absorbs or emits light, or light interacts by 'bouncing off' a particle, changing its momentum ( the Compton effect).

Propagation is wavelike apart from these instances. Einstein wrote a brilliant ( and straightforward) paper in 1916 showing for the first time that momentum *must* be exchanged when emission or absorption happens, or the black-body spectrum discovered by Planck would be different.

 

[niklaus]

Also a brief answer: The quanta of sound waves are called phonons (at least when they occur in condensed matter). They also exhibit some particle-like properties.

 

[Goodison_Lad]

This argument crops up all the time. It usually seems to settle on the the meaning of 'mass'. Photons have no rest mass, but they do have relativistic mass. As pointed out, Eddington and Bondi spoke about energy having mass, but the term mass is now basically reserved for 'rest mass'.

I've seen this somewhere (can't remember), so here's my best guess at what it said:

1) A box of mass of 1kg contains, in addition, 0.5kg of matter and 0.5 kg of antimatter. Total mass of box and contents: 2kg.
2) Box is on scales, registering weight of approx. 20N.
3) Box is infinitely strong and has perfecetly reflecting inner surface etc. etc. - nothing can escape.
4) Matter and anitmatter come into contact and annihilate, producing photons which, because of (3), can't escape and aren't absorbed by the walls
5) What is the reading on scales now?
6) Has the inertia of the box changed?
7) Has the mass of the box and contents changed?

 

[Austin0]

This argument crops up all the time. It usually seems to settle on the the meaning of 'mass'. Photons have no rest mass, but they do have relativistic mass. As pointed out, Eddington and Bondi spoke about energy having mass, but the term mass is now basically reserved for 'rest mass'.

I've seen this somewhere (can't remember), so here's my best guess at what it said:

1) A box of mass of 1kg contains, in addition, 0.5kg of matter and 0.5 kg of antimatter. Total mass of box and contents: 2kg.
2) Box is on scales, registering weight of approx. 20N.
3) Box is infinitely strong and has perfecetly reflecting inner surface etc. etc. - nothing can escape.
4) Matter and anitmatter come into contact and annihilate, producing photons which, because of (3), can't escape and aren't absorbed by the walls
5) What is the reading on scales now?
6) Has the inertia of the box changed?
7) Has the mass of the box and contents changed?

Great set up.
SO what's the consensus??

 

[MVesseur]

..
1) A box of mass of 1kg contains, in addition, 0.5kg of matter and 0.5 kg of antimatter. Total mass of box and contents: 2kg.
2) Box is on scales, registering weight of approx. 20N.
3) Box is infinitely strong and has perfecetly reflecting inner surface etc. etc. - nothing can escape.
4) Matter and anitmatter come into contact and annihilate, producing photons which, because of (3), can't escape and aren't absorbed by the walls
5) What is the reading on scales now?
6) Has the inertia of the box changed?
7) Has the mass of the box and contents changed?

Interesting problem.

You'd think the mass would have to be the same - how could energy lose its mass? But will it show on the scales? Is it the kind of mass that is attracted by Earth's gravitation?

If not, can the cause be explained or illustrated?

 

[Goodison_Lad]

I think the answers are:
5) 20N
6) No
7) No