It's been vindicated, some photons have "mass!"

[Vmedvil2]

50 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

From Einstein’s 1954 letter to Michael Besso:

“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken...”

I see no problem with questioning the existence of photons especially since their origin was based on philosophical ruminations made prior to the existence of solid experimental results that we now have. Yes, I am familiar with Einstein’s photoelectric effect. I am not expecting anyone to accept my “crank” point of view but it is based on my understanding of those far better informed than myself such as the article below by Carver Mead. Here Mead contrasts the classical view of the photon with the current, evidence based understanding of light quanta and how they are exchanged. And Mead is far from alone with these views.

http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead - The Nature of Light - What are Photons..pdf

Some of Mead’s main observations are:

3. Every element of matter is coupled to all other matter on its light cone by time-symmetric interactions.

4. Matter interacts directly with other matter. The time-symmetric nature of these interactions make them effectively instantaneous

11. The “photon” transaction can be viewed as a brief entanglement of the quantum states of the two participating atoms.

 

 

Yes, Einstein didn't believe Quantum Mechanics was correct but over the last 66 years basically it has been proven correct with things like the LHC and other experiments. It was sometimes thought of Einstein's greatest folly him not accepting Quantum Mechanics as correct, he would have probably discovered the Grand Unified Field Theory that worked with General Relativity had he accepted it as correct.

Edited August 22, 2021 by VictorMedvil

[bangstrom]

8 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

Yes, Einstein didn't believe Quantum Mechanics was correct but over the last 66 years basically it has been proven correct with things like the LHC and other experiments. It was sometimes thought of Einstein's greatest folly him not accepting Quantum Mechanics as correct, he would have probably discovered the Grand Unified Field Theory that worked with General Relativity had he accepted it as correct.

I have no objection to QM and non-local entanglement is now a widely accepted part of QM. As Carver Mead explained, quantum entanglement offers a simpler and more elegant explanation for the exchange of light energy than photon theory. I am saying photons are conceptual with neither logic nor experimental evidence to support the view that they are real.

[Vmedvil2]

10 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

I have no objection to QM and non-local entanglement is now a widely accepted part of QM. As Carver Mead explained, quantum entanglement offers a simpler and more elegant explanation for the exchange of light energy than photon theory. I am saying photons are conceptual with neither logic nor experimental evidence to support the view that they are real.

https://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/08/05/whats-a-photon-and-how-do-we-k

[Dubbelosix]

On 8/22/2021 at 8:59 AM, VictorMedvil said:

Matter's closest synonym is Mass, Matter is  mass, though matter may not include things like Dark Energy since it isn't really of the same in properties as Dark Matter and Energy-Mass by not having a Negative Curvature. Mass-Energy-Dark Matter is equivalent to Tab while Dark Energy is equivalent to Λ. Photons still being equivalent to Tab are still considered "Energy-Mass" being Energy-Mass as their substance generated from, having a negative curvature under that definition however under the chemistry definition of "matter",Massless particles are considered "Not Matter" by not being made of atoms or things that constitute atoms having mass, which makes this very confusing to some. It Initially confused me however we do need to make sure we use Energy, Mass, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Matter correctly by what the term actually means and actually we don't know that dark matter has mass at all thus that could be a misnomer, however we do know that it is Energy-Mass with a negative curvature. A better way to describe all this is Energy versus Mass and Negative Curvature Versus Positive Curvature.

To my understanding, matter is a quantity of mass, but mass itself is not matter per strict definition. A good example, is we must accept if a photon has no matter, then it must contribute to a total mass. The reason why is well understood say, when a photon is trapped in a box with near perfectly cool reflecting mirrors. The box which has that photon is slightly heavier and had cobtributed to the mass. But if a photon has no matter, it can only contribute to the total mass but not intrinsic rest matter. Maybe we need to go back to relativistic mass vs. rest mass which once served well in physics, but some argued it complicated the issue which is why most textbooks have dropped it?

Edited August 24, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Vmedvil2]

5 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

To my understanding, matter is a quantity of mass, but mass itself is not matter per strict definition. A good example, is we must accept if a photon has no matter, then it must contribute to a total mass. The reason why is well understood say, when a photon is trapped in a box with near perfectly cool reflecting mirrors. The box which has that photon is slightly heavier and had cobtributed to the mass. But if a photon has no matter, it can only contribute to the total mass but not intrinsic rest matter. Maybe we need to go back to relativistic mass vs. rest mass which once served well in physics, but some argued it complicated the issue which is why most textbooks have dropped it?

I don't really have a good answer, I always used to use Rest Mass Versus Relativistic Mass however people said "Nah, That's Crank And Never Used Anymore". That is actually one of my favorite equations in Special Relativity the ones dealing with Relativistic Mass because it shows the increased Mass that is needed to move the object as it accelerates to near the speed of light.

Edited August 24, 2021 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Well it is very devided. Today while it's accepted that great minds used it, it seems, again, to have fallen out of favour bevause of a bias of complicating. But it might be argued without a sense of it, we cannot explain why a trapped photon adds to the total mass.

[Vmedvil2]

On 8/24/2021 at 2:23 PM, Dubbelosix said:

Well it is very devided. Today while it's accepted that great minds used it, it seems, again, to have fallen out of favour bevause of a bias of complicating. But it might be argued without a sense of it, we cannot explain why a trapped photon adds to the total mass.

Well I always thought relativistic mass was very useful in calculations because it shows that you cannot go faster than the speed of light using normal kinetic energy's acceleration without a sense of relativistic mass, you cannot really explain that concept based on our mainstream theories.

[Dubbelosix]

Well you cam? But mainstream is just a consensus of what's the best way to treat a theory. Other consensus creates a stronghold so that certain paradigms are not often challenged in fear of being called a crank or toiler. Part of the woo woo gang. I don't mind new theories so long as it has some good scientific basis and isn't so that your brains aren't dripping out your cranium.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[OceanBreeze]

20 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

Well I always thought relativistic mass was very useful in calculations because it shows that you cannot go faster than the speed of light using normal kinetic energy's acceleration without a sense of relativistic mass, you cannot really explain that concept based on our mainstream theories.

Some physicists are snobs and others just climb on the latest bandwagon to come along. I still use relativistic mass in some of my calculations and find it just as useful and sensible as the other explanation, about infinite energy, which limits everything to the speed of light.

[Dubbelosix]

Let's just be clear on something, Einstein can still be vindicated himself since its been mathmematically proven that non local hidden variables are strictly not prohibited by QM. And even in the Einstein and Bohr debates, Copenhagen ran amock and now it's starting to break down, such as the core of theory relied on indeterminism, and took the quantum leap as an absolute unchallangeable result of instaneous action breaking down cause and effect. We now know this isn't the case so one cornerstone principle had shattered Copenhagens original foundation.

 

Also be clear on thing, Einstein actually supported quantum theory, just not Bohrs interpretion. Bohr claimed the universe was intrinsically random whereas Einstein objected this and sought for a complete and rational theory. The attitude of Bohr was, if we can't test it, why bother about idiosyncracies? I still agree with Einstein. Nothing exists without reason and any absolutust notion quantum mechanics is without cause and effect, is just a bias rooted from the strange world of quantum behaviour. Just because its strange, doesn't mean that we need to make it stranger than what it is. I quote Einstein,

 

"A THEORY SHOULD BE KEPT SIMPLE, BUT NO MORE SIMPLER THAN THAT."

Edited August 30, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Vmedvil2]

On 8/27/2021 at 2:54 PM, OceanBreeze said:

Some physicists are snobs and others just climb on the latest bandwagon to come along. I still use relativistic mass in some of my calculations and find it just as useful and sensible as the other explanation, about infinite energy, which limits everything to the speed of light.

I have noticed that a bunch of physicists are snobs, I can think of hundreds of snob physicists off the top of my head.

Edited August 28, 2021 by VictorMedvil