# Flannigan on Photon Mass

by Floyd Flanigan
Tags: flannigan, mass, photon, solved
 P: n/a I'm sorry.....gotta weigh in here. Light does have mass of sorts depending on what slant you take on it. Remember your theory from school. Floyd
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Originally posted by Floyd Flanigan I'm sorry.....gotta weigh in here. Light does have mass of sorts depending on what slant you take on it. Remember your theory from school. Floyd
Uh, sorry... maybe you should go review that theory, as you say. If your school taught you that light has mass, you really should burn that diploma and never speak of it again. There is only one kind of mass -- rest mass. There is no 'slant to take' on it. Light has no rest mass. If it did, it would not be an infinite-range force.

- Warren
 P: n/a Photons (which are the "particles" that make up light) have zero rest mass. To understand why photons "fall" into a black hole, you need to know a bit of general relativity. What general relativity says is that any massive object warps the spacetime around it. You can think of this with a simple analogy. Imagine a stretched rubber sheet that is completely flat. This represents the spacetime when there is no mass. Now, if you put a heavy ball in the rubber sheet, it will cause a distortion in the sheet. This is exactly what happens in space, except that it is in 3 dimensions instead of two. Further, a photon always travels by the shortest distance between two points. As spacetime is warped, the light appears to bend around a massive object. In reality, it is not that the object is attracting light, but it is just that the photons are traveling by the shortest distance in a curved spacetime. Around a blackhole, the distortion of spacetime is extreme. At the event horizon of a black hole, the spacetime curves into itself and as a result, light cannot escape from a black hole. At least this is the prescribed theory. I will conceed that there is no hard evidence at present but there is an effort afoot to find some. Remember the characteristics exhibited by the photon in lazer reflexion experiments where it appears to occupy two spaces at 90 degree angles from it's origin. When the light is measured in line it has x intensity. When split it has x+some intensity. Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.
 P: n/a It was proven long ago (1901) that light has kinetic (mechanical) energy. [1] Those Einsteinians who came up with the impossible massless photon ignored it. Since it has said mass, then, what is the mass of light? The minimum mass can easily be found from using Planck’s Equation E = h. (1) equated to Einstein’s (minutiae skipped as they are not in the same system) E = mc2 Planck’s Constant, h, only occurs in whole number multiples of itself. Therefore, what is the mass energy of a frequency of one single-cycle? One h! What amount of mass if transformed to energy, give this as ergs or result in light radiation of one single cycle/sec? Equating this energy to ergs to = h in ergs, for E in (2) then gives: 7.372615 x 10-48 grams. That is the smallest quantum of mass, the neutrino. Therefore, what is the mass for any frequency? m = . x m. (3) PROOF: What is the mass of the radiation given resulting from the annihilation of an electron “at rest”? 1.23 . . . x 1020 x 7.37 . . . x10-48 = 9.109 . . . x 10-28 grams. What would happen if this gamma ray was converted in toto back to mass? It would give the mass of the electron “at rest”. Simply, all mass is composed of multiples of neutrinos and is, hence, the source of mass and, hence, the source of gravity. Ergo, E . m. (4)
 P: n/a Actually the following analysis pertains to any particles whose rest mass is zero. If m = 0 then Eq. (E=mc2.3) is absurd, except in the rather useless sense that we may let become infinite. On the other hand, Eq. (E=mc2.14) works fine if m = 0. Then we just have - that is, the energy and momentum of a massless particle differ only by a factor of c, its speed of propagation. Although we cannot define because the massless particle always moves at c relative to any observer [this was, after all, one of the original postulates of the ], we can talk about its effective mass, which is the same as its kinetic energy divided by c2. Thus, even though light has no rest mass (because it can never be at rest!), it does have an effective mass which (it turns out) has all the properties one expects from mass - in particular, it has weight in a gravitational field [photons can fall''] and exerts a gravitational attraction of its own on other masses. The classic Gedankenexperiment on this topic is one in which the net mass of a closed box with mirrored sides increases if it is filled with light bouncing back and forth off the mirrors!
 P: n/a No offense intended.....I am a scientist and I am sure you are a very impressive student. But yo cannot take everything at face value. Many of the 'science religeous' encounter the proverbial dogma of their mentor's slant on things. Always have a questioning attitude.....even if it is right in front of you in black and white....It might not be true. Floyd W.FlaniganB.S.Nuc.H.P.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Originally posted by Floyd Flanigan At the event horizon of a black hole, the spacetime curves into itself and as a result, light cannot escape from a black hole.
Spacetime does not "curve into itself," whatever that means. At the event horizon, the escape velocity is c. That's all that happens there.

- Warren
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Originally posted by Floyd Flanigan The Super-Kamiokande detector
I have no idea what you think Super K and the solar neutrino problem have to do with the mass of light. Why are you spamming this forum with pages and pages of irrelevant, plagiarized stuff?

- Warren
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Originally posted by Floyd Flanigan E = h. (1)
Funny, I always thought there was a "nu" in there. Thanks for showing me the light.
 Equating this energy to ergs to = h in ergs, for E in (2) then gives: 7.372615 x 10-48 grams.
Yeah, that's excellent. I'm glad you understand that energy and mass are interconvertible. It doesn't mean light has mass. Light carries energy and momentum, but has no mass.

- Warren
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Originally posted by Floyd Flanigan Actually the following analysis pertains to any particles whose rest mass is zero. If m = 0 then Eq. (E=mc2.3) is absurd, except in the rather useless sense that we may let become infinite. On the other hand, Eq. (E=mc2.14) works fine if m = 0. Then we just have
I have no idea what "E=mc2.14" means, and I have the feeling you don't either. You're right, E = mc2 is not valid; it's a simplification of a larger formula:

E2 = p2 c2 + m2 c4
 Thus, even though light has no rest mass (because it can never be at rest!)
I find it ironic that the sources you cite agree not with you, but with me.

- Warren
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Originally posted by Floyd Flanigan No offense intended.....I am a scientist and I am sure you are a very impressive student. But yo cannot take everything at face value. Many of the 'science religeous' encounter the proverbial dogma of their mentor's slant on things. Always have a questioning attitude.....even if it is right in front of you in black and white....It might not be true. Floyd W.FlaniganB.S.Nuc.H.P.
Ad hominem arguments notwithstanding (you don't actually know *anything* about me), light still has zero mass.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the moderators respond.

- Warren
 P: n/a I am getting a sense of hostillity. Understand this, you are becomming defensive over a THEORY. No one is attacking your credentials here. No one is claiming you don't know what you are talking about. An alternate point of view has been presented. Nothing more. Nothing less. You obviously have some sort of chip on your shoulder and you need to understand that no one, least of all me, is trying to knock it off. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not a game of 'king of the hill'. If the presentation of varrying viewpoint/theory causes you to feel the need to become agressive, perhaps the foundation of your belief in what you have been taught in school is a bit shakier than you are willing to admit. Just because you have a pile of books at the ready to defend your position does not make you ruler of the roost. And as for plaigerism, look junior... did I once say any of that stuff was mine? Did I lay claim to any of the research? I get paid over $100K/year for DOING the stuff you are STUDYING in your classes. Research did not stop the hour they published your textbooks and hopefully it never will. And hopefully you will tone it down a little and be a bit less confrontational toward those who choose not to agree with you. Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuclear Health Physicist  Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 2,226 Floyd, this always comes up, but when a physicist says 'mass' without any sort of qualification he means 'rest mass'. Yes, we are fully aware of the concept of relativistic mass, but we are also aware that these days in physics it is a not very oft-used concept. Reading what you have posted so far, I have to say I doubt your claim that you are a physicist. Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 10,427  Originally posted by Floyd Flanigan No one is attacking your credentials here. Oh?  I am a scientist and I am sure you are a very impressive student... look junior... I get paid over$100K/year for DOING the stuff you are STUDYING in your classes.
Well, I'll be damned. Those sure did look like attacks on my credentials to me. I'll remind you again that you do not know me in any respect at all.

In any event, I have to agree with jcsd. Physicists, second only to mathematicians, need to be very precise with their terminology. There are no alternative views of 'mass,' because the word mass is defined to mean one, and only one thing. You can debate all day long about what mass means, but know these two things:

a) If you were a real physicist, you wouldn't be trying to get us to debate semantics.

b) No real physicist will bother to argue with you about semantics.

In short, you're making yourself look less and less credible with every additional word you type on this topic.

The word 'mass' has one, and only one meaning recognized by physicists. Light has no mass, according to this definition. If you'd like to say it has mass-energy, or equivalent mass, or anything else -- go right ahead. If you'd like to say that light has mass, you are simply wrong. There are mountains of experimental and theoretical evidence that light cannot (and does not) have mass. If you really were a physicist, you'd already know all about the myriad of incompatibilites that would appear between a massive-light theory and experiment.

Give it up.

- Warren
 P: n/a Sorry my posts aren't up to your expectations. As to my being a physicist, call Nuclear Management Company's HR department @800-216-1986 and ask them to verify my credentials. Also contact Trinity University @ Sioux Falls, SD and check to make sure my degree (B.S.Nuclear Health Physics) is the real deal. Admittedly I may not be up to speed on spme of the subject matter and my only excuse is that I have been concentrating my efforts elsewhere (utilizing BTU from spent fuel to create stored energy by elevating borated water and dropping it through a gravity turbine ala water fall and exacting viable electric production from heat we normally spend many dollars to get rid of via heat exchangers etc.) So my nuc. physics might be a bit Newtonian at present. I thought that's what this forum was about? Floyd W.Flanigan B.S. Nuclear Health Physicist
 P: 98 you guys know that there's a forum on the mass of light it's archived though, maybe you boths should look at what was posted http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...5&pagenumber=4 The link will take you to page four
P: 98
 Originally posted by chroot Oh? a) If you were a real physicist, you wouldn't be trying to get us to debate semantics. b) No real physicist will bother to argue with you about semantics. - Warren
That's a little redundant, repetitive, redundant and repetitive don't you think?

 Related Discussions Advanced Physics Homework 4 Special & General Relativity 12 Introductory Physics Homework 3 Special & General Relativity 78