Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is mass ?

  1. Aug 2, 2004 #1
    Almost a hundred years ago leading scientists were discussing the fact that if the most elemental constituents of mass all moved at the invariable speed of light, the phenomena of relativity would be a natural consequence. This, of course, required the classical space-time.

    Has anyone ever found a flaw in this? Einstein didn't attempt as far as I have been able to discover. H. Ziegler advocated this circa 1909.

    Albert Einstein, "Development of Our Conception of the Nature and Constitution of Radiation," Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 1909. Translated by Christian Holm. Jefferson Hane Weaver, The World of Physics, VOL. II, New York, 1987. Einstein discussed this with H. Ziegler, Max Planck, and Stark.

    Keep on chuggin !!

  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 2, 2004 #2
    All day; no takers :smile: So I'll make an assertion that should get some feathers up.

    I'll assert that H. Ziegler was correct, and that the most elemental constituents of mass do move at speed of light, and that is the fundamental cause of the phenomena of relativity.

    This was worked out in detail by several students and professors details at:

    Photon Theory Site My first attempt to post a link so I'll put a redundent try:


    Keep on chuggin !!

  4. Aug 3, 2004 #3
    The lightest fermion, the electron neutrino, does travel almost at the speed of light.
    Among the lightest bosons (photon, graviton, gluon) with mass=zero, only the photon is known to travel at light speed. There is no proof for graviton, gluon, W+, W-, Z0.
  5. Aug 3, 2004 #4
    In order to travel faster that light, the mass of the object must be negative. But what is negative mass?
  6. Aug 3, 2004 #5
    You should put "According to QM theory" because I don't think we've actually captured a neutrino to measure it's properties. If we think in terms of "Photon Theory" (everything is comprised of photons) then the neutrino must be some flavor of photon. It is a real problem for PT, possiby its doom.

    Keep on chuggin !!


    Photon Theory of Everything
  7. Aug 3, 2004 #6
    Neutrinos were detected from the supernova of 1987A.
  8. Aug 3, 2004 #7
    Yes; I followed the supernova of 1987A with great interest. They found neutrino signatures in their data after the supernova was discovered. I'm still looking for the case where a burst of neutrino discovery happens, then after that, the supernova is found by other means.

    I'm not suggesting that neutrinos don't exist; just saying we have not yet pinned down just exactly what the critters are.

    Thanks for your thoughts.


    Professor Thompson's Universe
  9. Aug 3, 2004 #8
    Do you think electron neutrino has mass?
  10. Aug 3, 2004 #9
    I've seen several QM theory accounts that suggest zero mass and some that suggest a very small amount of mass for the neutrino; whichever works for QM is ok with me.

    We haven't been able to make a neutrino model that would fit in photon theory. A single photon trapped in a resonant pattern would always be seen as a charged particle. A neutrino would need to be a photon maybe of a certain energy (frequency) or a certain spin poleriiaztion. Still, photon theory doesn't predict existance of the neutrino.

  11. Aug 3, 2004 #10
    Specific observations without generalization.

    Bosons with mass interact less than bosons without mass. This is true for W+, W-, and Z0 but not for photon. Not true for gravitons. True for gluons.

    Fermions with more mass interact more than fermions with lesser mass. True for electron neutrino. But is this true for muon neutrino and tau neutrino? True for hadrons: baryons and mesons.

    To make all these true, we need to introduce the concept of negative mass. This concept is not mathematical but physical in term of interaction probability. The interaction probabilities of positive and negative mass are unsigned absolute values
  12. Aug 3, 2004 #11
    The theory I am working on without fully understanding your photon theory is that everything is made of H+ and H- which include the vacuum itself.

    Fermions are made of odd multiples of H+ and H-. Bosons are made of even multiples H+ and H-. The vacuum is made of coupled odd-H+ with even H- and even H+ with odd H-.

    The neutrino, regardless of its generation or family, is made of 1H+ and 1H-. The photon is made of 4H+ and 4H-. The electron is made of 1H+ and 7H-. All the other particles can be made by combinations of H+ and H-. These concepts can calculate the mass and charge (color, electroweak, and electric) of all particles.
  13. Aug 3, 2004 #12
    Have you published your theory; or is it too early in the development stage?

    When you're ready you might try our publisher:

    http://photontheory.com/callpapers.html [Broken]

    Keep on chuggin !!

    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  14. Aug 3, 2004 #13
    I am not quite ready yet. But it can't hurt to ask you some questions for preparation purposes.

    I dont understand machine readable form. Can I incorporate LaTeX math type settings? Will it accept graphics file .bmp, .jpg, or .tif?
  15. Aug 3, 2004 #14
    If you can open it and look at it with a web browser; it's good to go.

    I can't promise anything; whether or not you can get published depends a lot upon how well the publisher can understand your work. I don't think they have LaTeX, not sure; images work. jpg .gif etc.

    Keep on chuggin !!


    Photon Theory Advocate
  16. Aug 3, 2004 #15
    Thanks a lot, Vern.
  17. Aug 3, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Strictly speaking, you would need imaginary mass for FTL. That's how the math works, anyhow.
  18. Aug 3, 2004 #17
    If energy has a real component and an imaginary component given by [itex] E = E_r + E_i i [/itex] then the square of energy is given by

    [tex] E^2 = E_r^2 + 2i E_r E_i - E_i^2 [/tex]

    if the real part vanishes then [itex] E = E_i i [/itex] is still imaginary.

    But if square of energy is the product of complex conjugates then

    [tex] E^2 = E_r^2 + E_i^2 [/tex]
  19. Aug 3, 2004 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I was thinking in terms of the four momentum expression

    [tex]E_R = \gamma\mathbf{mc^2}[/tex]


    [tex]\gamma \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}[/tex]

    To arrive at a non-imaginary value for [tex]E_R[/tex], both [tex]\gamma [/tex] and [tex]m[/tex] must be imaginary. If [tex]m[/tex] is negative, [tex]E_R[/tex] is a negative imaginary number, which makes my brain hurt.
  20. Aug 3, 2004 #19
    "What is mass?" Good question.

    I visited your site "The Photon Theory" from which I extracted the following 3 statements:
    (1) All forces in nature are transferred through the interaction of (electromagnetic) force fields. (you added the word electromagnetic before force fields in a later statement.)
    (2) The Photon Theory is a theory that explains mass and gravity in terms of electromagnetic waves.
    (3) If the above described photon is curled into an orbit, in which its wavelength exactly matches the circumference of the orbit ( 2*r = 2.43053*10-12 m = * ); the orbit is stable and the photon remains trapped in the orbit. .... The photon is then observed as an electron or positron depending upon the charge (positive or negative) on the outside of the bend.

    Statement 1: Makes sense. Will revisit this below.
    Statement 2: This implies that photons are electromagnetic in nature and/or behavior.
    Statement 3: This implies that electrons in atomic orbits are due to photons that met certain constraints and became trapped in those atomic orbits.

    I've seen lots of experimental proof that electrons are influenced by electric and magnetic fields (vectors, force fields...), but I've not seen any experimental proof that photons (any wavelength: gamma to radio) are influenced/deflection by electric or magnetic fields. I've read about photon entanglement, but that is not proof.

    My problem with "The Photon Theory" is that photons of all wavelengths (energies) are not influenced/deflected by magnetic or electric fields when those fields are inside a ultra-high vacuum container, but electrons when freed from an atom in UHV are easily influenced by electric and magnetic fields. This seems to be proof that photons do not become electrons in orbits and vice versa.

    Returning to statement (1), and the original question: "What is mass?"

    My current definition of mass is that: The mass of a collection of particles is equal to the sum total interaction of all electric and magnetic force fields contained within a collection of particles.

    Putting this into perspective: Gravity is equal to the sum of all electric and magnetic interactions of one or more collections of particles acting on another collection of particles. Inertia and friction are variations of gravity. All of these forces/force fields operate on a relative basis since everything is constantly moving.

    The question that then arises is: "What is a particle?"

    My answer is: a particle is a collection of electric and magnetic force fields with no real mechanical mass. To accomodate the existence of protons, neutrons and other particles, there are various types and numbers of these force fields within any given particle.

    Why do I suggest that a particle has only force fields and no mechanical mass?

    Well, let's look at hydrogen, since hydrogen accounts for 90% of the known particles within our universe, and since a single hydrogen atom has only one electron which by itself accounts for 45% of all known particles in the universe.

    I highlight the electron because, despite popular belief, we still have very little classical type knowledge about the makeup of an electron. For example: Does it have a real mechanical mass? What is the radius of the mechanical mass if it exists? What is the shape of the electric entity inside the electron? How does the electron produce +/- 1/2 spins? and so on

    Our best scattering experiments on the electron suggests that, if there is indeed a true mechanical mass at the center of the electron, then its' radius must be smaller than 10(-18)cm. On the contrary, classical experiments and quantum mechanical calculations have clearly revealed an "entity" that has a radius between 10(-11) and 10(-13) cm that we define as being an electrically charged entity. (The magnetic radius of the electron should also be in that range.)

    Since we have detected an electrical entity within the electron, and have a rough measure of its size, we know we have something that occupies space. We don't know its' shape, but we know it exists. Mechanical mass on the other hand, can be said not to exist because we can not detect its' presence by any known means. Therefore, if we choose to eliminate the idea that the electron has a real mechanical mass, then we can start to make progress on many fronts.

    In closing: It is my perception that the electric and magnetic force fields of any particle are permanent, not transient, and that they are inherently connected to each other. And since all particles are in relative motion at all times, we can safely speculate that all particles "at-rest" also have permanent electric and magnetic force fields.
  21. Aug 3, 2004 #20
    Hi (AE); why do you hide ??

    I like your post; don't quite agree with a lot of it. First off; photons ( light ) are electromagnetic creatures. This has been the classic view of photons for over a hundred years. So, I'm using the classic photon, classic space-time, and a little common sense. Just as you can't ask QM theory to explain a prediction of Photon Theory, you can't ask Photon Theory to explain a QM concept, like the statistical photon.

    Thank you for your interest; I am also interested in your ideas; but they don't quite fit the view of electromagnetics I developed during my 30 years of engineering in the field. But if something that works better comes along, I'll change my views.-


    Photon Theory Site

    Photons do interact with "changing electromagneitc fields" not static fields. This is shown in "Fundamentals of Photonics", Saleh and Tech published in 1991 by Wiley Interscience.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook