Electromagnetic waves

  • Thread starter inmyblood
  • Start date
  • #26
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,171
5,029
Why not? In a transparent material velocity is lower.

For one thing it would break a few well tested theories. On top of that, all experiments to date have shown that light travels at c and has no mass. It is possible that we simply haven't had the required accuracy to measure the mass of a photon if it does have mass, but it is not expected to.
 
  • #27
32
0
For one thing it would break a few well tested theories. On top of that, all experiments to date have shown that light travels at c and has no mass. It is possible that we simply haven't had the required accuracy to measure the mass of a photon if it does have mass, but it is not expected to.

If we consider photon as a particle with mass, then de Broglie equation applies to it: f=mc2/h. So, it becomes obvious that frequency expresses the photon mass or size and thereby there are various photon sizes. That’s why its mass is not defined yet.
My theory, whitch is not allowed me to present, matches the experimental results and explains almost everything.On the contrary,the prevailing theory leads to the acceptance of 70% dark energy (or is it 90%? who the measured and how?)
 
  • #28
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
25,956
5,263
There is a proverb which involves angel fearing to tread.
so it becomes obvious
is not a statement that can be readily applied to modern Physics theories.
How does your hypothesis tie in with relativistic effects, for instance? The existing one seems to do that very well and you would need to sort it out before being confident that your 'new' approach is at all valid. For instance, do you have any solid evidence to back it up (at the risk of getting the thread locked :wink:)?
 
  • #29
8
0
De Broglie equation has experimentally confirmed.Why we have to reject the hypothesis photon have a mass instead of the possibility being wrong the relativistic formula for energy?
 
  • #30
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
25,956
5,263
De Broglie equation has experimentally confirmed.Why we have to reject the hypothesis photon have a mass instead of the possibility being wrong the relativistic formula for energy?

I think its something to do with the the fact that the existing model explains more phenomena than your alternative one. You are proposing an idea that is so different that you would have to go through the whole of observed Science in detail, justifying it, point by point and showing where the present model is wrong. Just asking why it's not accepted, is not good enough.

Having just listened to a 'Scientist' on the radio, talking obout the principle of falsifiability, I guess I should say that I would be pleased if you managed to show you were right.
 
  • #31
8
0
I appreciate your condescension.Unfortunately,I am not a student and I have not free time to study in depth.That's why I threw the ball to you.
 
  • #32
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
25,956
5,263
I appreciate your condescension.Unfortunately,I am not a student and I have not free time to study in depth.That's why I threw the ball to you.

Sorry about my 'tone'. You seemed fairly well informed and a bit 'combative' (?) and I was a bit too ready to pick up my cudgel.
Any way, why should Photons have no mass?
I think that there is experimental evidence in which it has been attempted to infer their rest mass. This is based on splitting their Energy into two components
E = p2c2 + mrestc2
where p is the momentum (which can be measured)
Looking for a discrepancy between the measured E and the energy due to the momentum gives an upper limit of the mrestc2 component of 10-17eV, (very small but, of course, an experiment can't yield a totally zero value).
So that's a fairly good justification for assuming it's zero and it would seem to go along with relativity as a model.
This is a good link about it.
 
  • #33
8
0
They are referred to the "moving" mass to be zero:m=p/c.This is my point of disagreement.I think that mass cannot be completely vanished.It can be estimated by de Broglie equation:m=h/λc=hf/c^2. I believe that mass decreases with speed following a formula like this:m=m(rest)α^υ, 0<<α<1,υ=velocity, so it cannot be disappeared at all.Thank you for the link.I'm a mensa member just curious about physics.
 
  • #34
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
25,956
5,263
Not sure what mensa has to do with this but I guess it implies that you are competent to read around the subject in depth. If you do that then you may find that there is more to it than just the de Broglie thing. In any case, de Broglie's idea was introduced in order to deal with the behaviour of particles with Mass.
 
  • #35
39
0
so basically i was considering the speed of the charges inside wire defined by the drift velocity and speed of electric waves that's equal to speed of light..so my point is if electric waves don't carry any charge (as mostly light that we encounter from sun's radiation is em and since they don't carry any charge we don't get shock)so what do they actually carry..i was trying to figure out its resemblance to mechanical waves ..as mechanical wave don't itself carry any matter with it they only transfer energy..then so do the electric waves they can't carry charge but they must transfer energy in the form of you know electric waves..or could i say now that these electric waves are source of electric field..then thing that's confusing me is that if electric field propagates at speed of light(speed of electric waves)..then do the voltage that we define as eL or voltage or potential at a point is=electric field intensity * L(distance) then should the voltage drop or potential also varies accordingly or i could say that the potential also following the electric field intensity at the speed of light..but this is contradictory to our general observation in which we define particular time period and phasors which define variation of voltage that..so not at the speed of light..
 
  • #36
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,171
5,029
Light itself is an electromagnetic wave that carries energy with it, just like all waves do. As for the velocity of electric fields inside conductors, I believe that is less than c, but I don't know any details on it.
 
  • #37
WJE
1
0
Good day, i have a different question...

I need a core for an Electro Magnet which will be able to be as strong as possible when it has a current applied, but will not be attracted to a permanent magnet when the current is turned off. The core must lose its magnetic properties as soon as the current is removed so that it can be switched on and off.
(i.e. Steel can become a strong electro magnet, but will be attracted to a permanent magnet with or without a current, therefore I cannot use it.)
To make the experiment work as effectively as possible the core should be able to be converted to an electromagnet with minimal current, I thought about using Ferrite (Manganese Zinc) Round Bar? What will be the best gauge to use to get a strong magnet, but keep the current "voltage" as low as possible, even if is not as strong, i only require it to react with a neodymium magnet from a distance of at least 50mm - 100 mm. Do you have any suggestions on this topic?
 
  • #38
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,171
5,029
WJE your best bet is to make a new thread with your question.
 

Related Threads on Electromagnetic waves

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
857
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Top