What proof is there that light has zero mass?

[morphemes]

I think these three hypotheses are even more interesting
(Y≡∞)
(Y≡{})
({}≡∞)

I think the obvious implications of such a hypothesis is enormous. No matter how we stack it, modern scientists are playing a dirty trick on us in failing to adequately distinguish Law from Theory. However, I think there is a very well established scientific law that further reinforces the hypothesis that ({}≡∞).

Within the laws of thermodynamics we find the conservation of energy. Which we all know states that energy can not be created or destroyed. This is interesting because it implicates that the physical universe is an isolated system. No energy in & no energy out. However, what it does not imply is the structure of such a system. WE may imagine an isolated system to be like a seed or an egg. Within such a system energy is stored but not exchanged with the outside world. However, what is not commonplace is to imagine the inversion of such a system. A perpetual empty set ({}) that is infinite (∞) in scope. By virtue of this empty set, we can more accurately explain the existence of our physical (massive) universe.

If we have an empty set, however difficult it is to imagine, we have the necessary ingredient needed to create an event similar to the 'big bang'. We have an absolutely perfect vacuum. Which means that the event that triggered the spontaneous combustion of our physical universe would have encountered zero resistance, thus accounting for its expansion.

However, what is lacking is an explanation for the existence of mass. Quantum mechanics are on the way to providing just such an explanation. Elementary particles are theorized to be orbits. Not particles, necessarily, but force orbits akin to shock waves. Perhaps of a higher dimensional form, but pure orbits nonetheless. These orbits could only arise if given enough space to travel through. Perhaps at one time they did have mass, within their respective elements, but those elements have dissolved, leaving only the reverberation of their motion. This is energy, and it could be everywhere all the time. These elementary particles will easily replace the 'big bang' theory once we have knowledge necessary to prove their nature.

However, what else implied here? Well, we have a natural polarity of energy which is observed in the application of electronics. Positive and negative forces. In the case of light, I believe our science overlooks the significance of dark. We have suburb descriptions of 'white' and 'black' but we have failed to expand upon them.

If we observe the night sky, cloudless and spectacular. WE see stars scatted on a vast darkness. Physicists speculate the existence of 'dark matter' however, the darkness could be described as the opposite polarity of our suns light. Moving away from the sun, the light appear bright when one faces it, but turn around and you cast a shadow. This shadow may not necessarily be what we imagine it to be.

We know that high velocity particles move right through us on a daily basis. If light travels as fast as it is theorized to travel, what is holding it back from moving right through us? Well, other questions arise, such as the fact that light doesn't appear to travel through objects, however, this can be accounted for if light is an infinite force with negative and positive polarity. Within a surface that reflects light, if we are to imagine ourselves inside, we see darkness. However, light travels through it's self. In the case of magnetic force, positive and negative are repulsed. This is absolutely true with light as well, only in a slightly different way. If light always dominated dark, then the stars in the sky would illuminate the entire sky, however they do not seem to do so. If we imagine light as a clockwise orbit & dark as counterclockwise, perhaps we may begin to understand.

However, we want proof of light having no mass. Well, the current mass of light is calculated by its luminosity and the space it contains, which is completely backwards if light is to have mass. We do not measure the mass of a water molecule by the size of a body of water and its dampness. The current mass of light equation already implies that light is without its own mass. Which is interesting.

Possible proof arises if one speculates an experiment where one is able to extract a photon from a volumeless container or the inversion. Which seems impossible. However, 'impossible' has long been the bane of scientific advancement.

Simply, we have no proof. Only a strong hunch.

 

[Galap]

Currently, our best experimental evidence for light being massless is that within extremely small margins of error, we have measured that it travels at C.

 

[humanino]

There is a very nice discussion about light mass in Feynman's lectures on gravitation, paragraph 2.2 (difficulties of speculative theories). If you are interested in the question, I strongly urge you to read this paragraph. Nowhere else have I ever read a more lucid and enlightening discussion on this matter.