What is the current understanding of the nature of photons?

[Bright]

Can you explain how light is lensed by gravity if it has 'infinite inertial mass' ?

I already explained that.
There ate TWO component of Inertial mass of photon.

Tangential component of inertial mass, which is infinity, that means absolute speed of photon cannot be incresed.

Normal (to velocity) component of inertial mass, which is NOT infinity, that means directin of photon can be changed. This means light may be lensed in gravitational field.

 

[Mentz114]

How many masses do you need ? Is there a different mass for every value of the impact parameter ? This is imaginative but it doesn't clarify anything.

Predict the experimentally determined deflections, and I'll grant you have achieved something.

M

 

[ZapperZ]

In your response to Mentz114 query, please also include exact, peer-reviewed references to support your claim of the two component masses, keeping in mind the PF Guidelines on speculative, personal theory.

Zz.

 

[jostpuur]

In your response to Mentz114 query, please also include exact, peer-reviewed references to support your claim of the two component masses, keeping in mind the PF Guidelines on speculative, personal theory.

Zz.

To me it looks like he is doing something like this:

<br /> m := \frac{|F|}{|a|}<br />

In relativistic case this quantity will depend on the direction of the force, so he is getting different values for his mass for different directions.

 

[ZapperZ]

To me it looks like he is doing something like this:

<br /> m := \frac{|F|}{|a|}<br />

In relativistic case this quantity will depend on the direction of the force, so he is getting different values for his mass for different directions.

If so, then that would be rather absurd, don't you think? He's already arguing that a is identically zero. So how would m be any different for different direction of force? And since when is there a definition for the "transverse" component of a mass anyway?

Still, this is all rather moot since F=ma just doesn't apply to photons. If this is what is being applied here, this line of discussion is all wrong because it is based on a faulty premise.

Zz.

 

[jostpuur]

If so, then that would be rather absurd, don't you think? He's already arguing that a is identically zero. So how would m be any different for different direction of force?

<br /> m := \frac{|F|}{|a(F)|}<br />

a=0 only when the force is in the same direction as the velocity of the photon. a depends on the force, and gets non-zero values for other directions, since it is possible to change the direction of the photon.

Still, this is all rather moot since F=ma just doesn't apply to photons. If this is what is being applied here, this line of discussion is all wrong because it is based on a faulty premise.

This is why I used := sign to emphasize, that m merely became a new number with a new definition.

My opinion on the matter: Bright is underestimating the mainstream physics, and insists figuring stuff out his own way and using his own terminology. Not really the same as proposing a speculative personal theory, yet, though.

 

[Bright]

To me it looks like he is doing something like this:
...

I am not doing something like that...

My opinion on the matter: Bright is underestimating the mainstream physics

Wrong! I know what mainstream physics is.

... and insists figuring stuff out his own way and using his own terminology.

I have many published papers with figuring stuff out my own way and using my own terminology. One of them have more than hundred citation by other authors... Maybe half of my own terminology had been in 2 or 3 years after publication accepted by other authors... :zzz:

 

[Mentz114]

I have many published papers with figuring stuff out my own way and using my own terminology. One of them have more than hundred citation by other authors... Maybe half of my own terminology had been in 2 or 3 years after publication accepted by other authors...

So why on Earth have you not cited them, and the papers that cite your papers ? Your theories, expressed in this thread ( which you seem to have hijacked ) are not even wrong.

I suspect you lack the confidence to reveal yourself and cite your own work, because you know this.

 

[Bright]

Your theories, expressed in this thread are not even wrong.

Peter Woit said exactly the same words about String Theory and even published a book with that title. Thank you so much...

which you seem to have hijacked

What do you mean?

 

[Mentz114]

This thread was started by 'mephisto' with the question ' What is a photon ?' and you have turned it into a 'discussion' about mass vectors and other weird theories. That is what is meant by 'hijack'.

From an earlier post you say -

Ok! Below is a better proof. It is well established, that black holes has only mass (and sometimes momentun).

Instead of the box we have black hole. We drop proton and antiproton toward black hole. These proton and antiproton ADD mass to the original mass of black hole. Now, assume that inside black hole two our particles annihilate. This process CANNOT reduce mass of resulting (original black hole plus two our particles) mass of black hole. So, this is a proof that photons have gravitational mass.

P.S. Inertia mass of photon is more evident. Inertia is an ability of an object to RESIST to its acceleration (or deacceleration). Now, if speed of photon is v = c, there is NO WAY to make it faster or slower. That means that inertia mass of photon is INFINITY.

If this is what you call a 'proof' or even believable you are way off.

It is well established, that black holes has only mass (and sometimes momentun).
That's wrong for starters although not relevant to your 'argument'.

"Now, assume that inside black hole two our particles annihilate."
Why ? How do you claim to know what goes on beyond the event horizon ?

So, this is a proof that photons have gravitational mass.
Sheer nonsense. Energy gravitates as energy! There's no need to have any mass around at all.