The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does light have mass?  (Read 77593 times)

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #50 on: 23/07/2008 11:49:00 »
No contradictions. Mass is NOT additive.

now do you see why Virial is so messed up?

All that energy and simply land locked and now you can see why the data from the spiraling galaxies do not meet the math of Virial; because of the exact statment you just made.

i.e... if i told you you won the lotterey; would you have more potential than if i told you you just lost your job.

simple exchanges of energy and a huge variation of potential

The energy upon mass has far more affect/potential than most comprehend.
Are you talking with yourself, maybe? It's impossible to understand anything (concerning physics) of what you've written.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #51 on: 23/07/2008 11:52:00 »
I agree!

I remember having as a child what looked like an upside down glass light bulb.

It had a small set of sails inside that were white on one side and black on the other and they rotated in sunlight or from a strong beam of light. Cant remember what it was called though.

I think that a photon is a particle that does have mass and its the gravitational force (wave) that propels it. I don't believe in the theory of any strong or weak forces.
Andrew, you remind me of another person in another forum, which believe physics is something like soccer's opinions. Physics IS NOT. If physics says that a photon's mass is zero, it's not an opinion. IT HAS BEEN MEASURED.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #52 on: 23/07/2008 11:54:19 »
Now I disagree as the mass holds my feet on the ground.
Thanks for that explanation Light Arrow.

If I remember the vanes in the glass bulb were in a semi vacuum.

Yes I still think light has mass and I also think that gravity is a wave and not produced by mass.

Time it does take and as there are many many gaps and assumptions in our current theories of mass, gravity and light that I think a unified field theory is hard to construct without taking a different approach.


The Crookes radiometer is well known to the physics student and in science shops as a fascinating toy (Figure 13). It is a rotator with vanes polished on one side and black on the other. These are placed on a free shaft in a glass bulb which has been evacuated to a pressure of 10-3 to 10-4 atmospheres. It was the first demonstration of the conversion of light into mechanical energy. There was vigorous debate in the 1870’s over how it worked1.  The traditional explanation involves collision of air molecules with the hot black surface causing it to recoil, but this is incorrect2.  Reynolds and Maxwell proposed an explanation involving ‘thermal transpiration’ but even today there is still no complete explanation of how this little toy works.

The vanes rotate very rapidly in bright sunlight making several thousand revolutions per minute. Crookes3 measured the ‘radiometer force’ and found it to be several orders of magnitude greater than the ‘light pressure’ anticipated by Maxwell. There has been no attempt to harness the rotational energy to measure the efficiency of conversion but I suspect that solar is converted into rotational energy with very high efficiency in the radiometer.
http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.co.uk/crooks_radiometer_and_otheoscope.htm
http://www.kbescientific.com.sg/science_demonstration.htm

http://www.genuineideas.com/HallofInventions/SolarFerrisWheel/solarferriswheel.html

On Ebay :) http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=Solar+Radiometer


And so? Does he say light has mass?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #53 on: 23/07/2008 15:13:05 »
If physics says a photons mass is zero it does not prove it is zero! Any more than saying water under normal atmospheric pressure in a single open ended tube will not rise higher than 10 metres which is also incorrect!

You remind me of the majority of people who read text and believe it without questioning how they arrived at it

I agree!

I remember having as a child what looked like an upside down glass light bulb.

It had a small set of sails inside that were white on one side and black on the other and they rotated in sunlight or from a strong beam of light. Cant remember what it was called though.

I think that a photon is a particle that does have mass and its the gravitational force (wave) that propels it. I don't believe in the theory of any strong or weak forces.
Andrew, you remind me of another person in another forum, which believe physics is something like soccer's opinions. Physics IS NOT. If physics says that a photon's mass is zero, it's not an opinion. IT HAS BEEN MEASURED.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #54 on: 24/07/2008 01:33:50 »
No contradictions. Mass is NOT additive.

now do you see why Virial is so messed up?

All that energy and simply land locked and now you can see why the data from the spiraling galaxies do not meet the math of Virial; because of the exact statment you just made.

i.e... if i told you you won the lotterey; would you have more potential than if i told you you just lost your job.

simple exchanges of energy and a huge variation of potential

The energy upon mass has far more affect/potential than most comprehend.
Are you talking with yourself, maybe? It's impossible to understand anything (concerning physics) of what you've written.
because you may not be aware of what physics are

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/virial.html

point being, that apparently you are not versus in what the math

which to me means you may be living off of the media; maybe a newsweek column

first reality is a photon in a perfect vacuum has never been produced.

second;    energy upon mass (photon) is entangled (gravitation)to it's source and environment. 

Energy has always been 'additive' to mass......

what you do not understand is what rolls through all of physics by the incorrect assessment of energy itself

that is why you had no idea what was meant about Virial
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #55 on: 24/07/2008 01:46:59 »
Light does not have mass but it contains energy that can be channelled and directed as per laser beam.

How do we overcome the fact that matter is  (crudely put) Frozen energy in the  form of mass and when this mass is converted into energy by an antimatter/matter collision it morphs into massless light.

Or am I just being silly?

Regards

Alan
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #56 on: 24/07/2008 01:55:15 »
Light does not have mass but it contains energy that can be channelled and directed as per laser beam.

How do we overcome the fact that matter is  (crudely put) Frozen energy in the  form of mass and when this mass is converted into energy by an antimatter/matter collision it morphs into massless light.

Or am I just being silly?

Regards

Alan

is that like slapping 2 magnets together and seeing a spark of light....

or can you explain a chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen....  where did the light come from?

point being, all energy upon mass is a photon of light in one fashion or another, as since no energy 'photon' is floating around without being within a field (associated) ever...

that is the problem many cannot realize

no vacuum... 


 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #57 on: 24/07/2008 08:21:07 »
If physics says a photons mass is zero it does not prove it is zero! Any more than saying water under normal atmospheric pressure in a single open ended tube will not rise higher than 10 metres which is also incorrect!

You remind me of the majority of people who read text and believe it without questioning how they arrived at it
Physics is not phylosophy or personal theories; if you want to discuss about them, you should choose another section.
Regards.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #58 on: 24/07/2008 08:25:30 »
No contradictions. Mass is NOT additive.

now do you see why Virial is so messed up?

All that energy and simply land locked and now you can see why the data from the spiraling galaxies do not meet the math of Virial; because of the exact statment you just made.

i.e... if i told you you won the lotterey; would you have more potential than if i told you you just lost your job.

simple exchanges of energy and a huge variation of potential

The energy upon mass has far more affect/potential than most comprehend.
Are you talking with yourself, maybe? It's impossible to understand anything (concerning physics) of what you've written.
because you may not be aware of what physics are

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/virial.html

point being, that apparently you are not versus in what the math

which to me means you may be living off of the media; maybe a newsweek column

first reality is a photon in a perfect vacuum has never been produced.

second;    energy upon mass (photon) is entangled (gravitation)to it's source and environment. 

Energy has always been 'additive' to mass......

what you do not understand is what rolls through all of physics by the incorrect assessment of energy itself

that is why you had no idea what was meant about Virial
So does Virial Theorem says that mass is additive? Probably you have to study physics a little bit more before talking about strange things.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #59 on: 24/07/2008 08:29:37 »

is that like slapping 2 magnets together and seeing a spark of light....

or can you explain a chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen....  where did the light come from?

point being, all energy upon mass is a photon of light in one fashion or another, as since no energy 'photon' is floating around without being within a field (associated) ever...
Can you explain the physics of those words, I couldn't understand them.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #60 on: 24/07/2008 14:52:21 »

is that like slapping 2 magnets together and seeing a spark of light....

or can you explain a chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen....  where did the light come from?

point being, all energy upon mass is a photon of light in one fashion or another, as since no energy 'photon' is floating around without being within a field (associated) ever...
Can you explain the physics of those words, I couldn't understand them.

and probably why physics is not your best subject 

i.e... 
Quote
So does Virial Theorem says that mass is additive? Probably you have to study physics a little bit more before talking about strange things.

quit pointing fingers monkey.....  read what Virial is and how kinetic energy is addressed within and then maybe do some homework

but no, i am not agreeing with you...... as it appears you are one of them monkeys on a board that rather than do the work, you bark at folk about how great you think today's material is, but all you are doing is quoting other folk....

i was a 15 year old kid working through equations you may still have not even observed  (i.e. Virial is like calculus to cosmology.... kind of basic 100 class)... 

that was over 25 years ago

energy has mass boy


here let's let someone else share a bit with you

Quote
This is a consequence of the Virial theorem, which mandates that in a stable system of gravitating particles there must be a proportional balance between the magnitudes of their kinetic and potential gravitational energies. The former must be equal to half the latter.

For example, as a stable, hot, compact proto-star forms from a cold, diffuse cloud of gas and dust, energy conservation ensures that gravitational potential energy is converted into an equal amount of other forms of energy. The condensing gas cloud heats up and radiates energy. In this process the virial theorem mandates that the internal kinetic energy added to the gas be only half the converted potential energy, if the proto-star is to form quasi-statically and not to oscillate. The balance of half the converted potential energy must be dissipated from the condensing star as radiant energy during the normal process of star formation.

In short, the virial theorem tells the star to shine, as it were; shine out into interstellar or ultimately intergalactic space, where plenty of room for emitted photons has been cleared by earlier condensations.

The relevance of the virial theorem to cosmology is the following. The real universe is lumpy. It is composed of a hierarchy of stable (on human time scales) compact astronomical structures, ranging from gas clouds, planets and stars through globular clusters and galaxies to clusters of galaxies. All these structures are thought to have formed by the gravitational condensation of more diffuse arrangements of matter.

Ultimately, all the radiation emitted by condensing matter over the estimated 13.8-billion-year life of the universe has been derived gravitational potential energy

so when you address me, you can call me sir............ boy

I have a real tough time dealing with ignorance

if you want to learn, then shut up and pull up a chair (ask quality questions as no one is going to put it on your lap)

if not then go lay by your dish



 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #61 on: 24/07/2008 14:56:42 »
sorry to the rest of the forum.....

the reason why the understanding of light having mass, or better still why energy is misuderstood, is because of the error in plancks constant

 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #62 on: 24/07/2008 21:03:38 »
Quote
So does Virial Theorem says that mass is additive? Probably you have to study physics a little bit more before talking about strange things.

quit pointing fingers monkey.....  read what Virial is and how kinetic energy is addressed within and then maybe do some homework
I studied Virial theorem at university, for the first time, in 1982, in the course of Mathematical Analysis II. So? Does it say that mass is not additive? Really I don't understand. ???
Quote
but no, i am not agreeing with you...... as it appears you are one of them monkeys on a board that rather than do the work, you bark at folk about how great you think today's material is, but all you are doing is quoting other folk....
Sorry, but it's not me  who should do the work: since you're stating a new theory, that is that mass is additive, than it's you that should do the work and show us your New Theory. I've read the paper you linked, where is written that mass is additive? Of course, in specific cases it is, otherwise what Chemistry is based on? But in general is not.
Quote
i was a 15 year old kid working through equations you may still have not even observed  (i.e. Virial is like calculus to cosmology.... kind of basic 100 class)... 

that was over 25 years ago
Ok, I admit it is very clever for a 15 y.o. boy. And what did you do then? Did you take a degree in physics, mathematics or else? Just to know who I'm talking to. I studied physics for 4 years at univ. but didn't take the degree, but I have never heard of your theory.
Quote
energy has mass boy
Only if you give it to (take it from) a stationary body.
Quote
so when you address me, you can call me sir............ boy
Certainly, when you will have shown that you really deserve it, not before.
Quote
I have a real tough time dealing with ignorance

if you want to learn, then shut up and pull up a chair (ask quality questions as no one is going to put it on your lap)

if not then go lay by your dish
Ok, some posts ago I made this statement:

<<Not only: while a single photon has NO mass, a system of two photons travelling in two different directions DO have mass!>>

and you replied:

"ooops...
i disagree, that is a math error, not reality
to see your 2 examples you can see the contradictions"

I can PROVE my statement:

E2 = (Mc2)2 + (cP)2

E = energy of the two photons' system = E1 + E2 = 2E1, with two equal photons, where E1 is a single photon's energy (energy is additive).
M = mass of the two photons' system.
P = momentum of the two photons' system = P1 + P2 where P1 and P2 are the momenta of the  photon 1 and 2, respectively.

A single photon's momentum is, in modulus: |P1| = |P2| = E1/c.

So, if the two photons are not travelling in the same direction:

|P| = |P1 + P2| < 2|P1| = 2E1/c

so

P2 = |P|2 < 4E12/c2   →   -P2 > -4E12/c2

(Mc2)2 = E2 - (cP)2 = (2E1)2 - c2P2 > 4E12 - c24E12/c2 = 0

so

(Mc2)2 > 0

that is

M > 0.

Can you prove it's false?


(P.S. Since a single photon's mass m = 0, that also shows that M ≠ m + m, that is, mass is NOT additive).
« Last Edit: 24/07/2008 21:12:02 by lightarrow »
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #63 on: 25/07/2008 01:55:04 »
OK


I have a few ways of addressing this but will keep it short.

Observing a photon as a particle is an incorrect idea.  Have you noticed I keep writing ‘per se photon’?

Energy itself is the electric and magnetic field upon mass or a line item f upon mass.

So to perform the system (experimentally capable), now each point of exchange much be addressed, rather than affixing a value to the ‘space’ itself as a particle.   i.e…. a guitar string carries a resonance, not a particle.

The correct model shares a value can be affixed but not as a point particle or a photon representing the energy.  Energy is upon the structures (mass).   i.e….  ever notice the field (magnetic/electric) is far greater in size than the dimensions of a particle.  Such that a radio wave is quite large in reference to a x wave length.

OR another way to observe that “e” is of a system is when isolating an electron, a system must be created to isolate the unit.  So there’s now an entanglement to that system to be addressed in which the state of the mass can be measured.

Let me give you an idea to think on;  if an asteroid was going roughly 65k mph, way out in space, you would not see much action, but if it hits the atmosphere, then we see a big fire ball.

When sending a particle through an accelerator, do you really think the speed is what is increasing the mass to the particle?   Remember all that energy surrounding that machine and all them fields are energy being cut through; at almost the speed of c. 

That’s your additive mass.

SO no matter how fun they make the math of today’s physics, you must remember; each set of theorem may have an experiment to match a portion, but be certain there is no math published that will stand up to all the experiments.

There is a huge change on the horizon and yours truly is working on how to release this mess without simply publishing the math.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #64 on: 25/07/2008 12:36:33 »

SO no matter how fun they make the math of today’s physics, you must remember; each set of theorem may have an experiment to match a portion, but be certain there is no math published that will stand up to all the experiments.

There is a huge change on the horizon and yours truly is working on how to release this mess without simply publishing the math.
First you say that a mathematical theorem: "Virial Theorem", proves your idea; now you say that mathematics doesn't count...
Furthermore, you still haven't answered my questions.
Sorry but I think I won't answer you anylonger.
Regards.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #65 on: 25/07/2008 15:22:48 »

SO no matter how fun they make the math of today’s physics, you must remember; each set of theorem may have an experiment to match a portion, but be certain there is no math published that will stand up to all the experiments.

There is a huge change on the horizon and yours truly is working on how to release this mess without simply publishing the math.
First you say that a mathematical theorem: "Virial Theorem", proves your idea; now you say that mathematics doesn't count...
  it shares how incorrect the foundations of energy are...... 


Quote
Furthermore, you still haven't answered my questions.
because like above yu be having reading and math trouble

if you read; then you will see what is being said

Quote
Sorry but I think I won't answer you anylonger.
Regards.
  probably the best way to for you to save face
 

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #66 on: 25/07/2008 18:22:19 »
OK


I have a few ways of addressing this but will keep it short.

Observing a photon as a particle is an incorrect idea.  Have you noticed I keep writing ‘per se photon’?

Energy itself is the electric and magnetic field upon mass or a line item f upon mass.

So to perform the system (experimentally capable), now each point of exchange much be addressed, rather than affixing a value to the ‘space’ itself as a particle.   i.e…. a guitar string carries a resonance, not a particle.

The correct model shares a value can be affixed but not as a point particle or a photon representing the energy.  Energy is upon the structures (mass).   i.e….  ever notice the field (magnetic/electric) is far greater in size than the dimensions of a particle.  Such that a radio wave is quite large in reference to a x wave length.

OR another way to observe that “e” is of a system is when isolating an electron, a system must be created to isolate the unit.  So there’s now an entanglement to that system to be addressed in which the state of the mass can be measured.

Let me give you an idea to think on;  if an asteroid was going roughly 65k mph, way out in space, you would not see much action, but if it hits the atmosphere, then we see a big fire ball.

When sending a particle through an accelerator, do you really think the speed is what is increasing the mass to the particle?   Remember all that energy surrounding that machine and all them fields are energy being cut through; at almost the speed of c. 

That’s your additive mass.

SO no matter how fun they make the math of today’s physics, you must remember; each set of theorem may have an experiment to match a portion, but be certain there is no math published that will stand up to all the experiments.

There is a huge change on the horizon and yours truly is working on how to release this mess without simply publishing the math.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as for once I feel like agreeing with you, but a few more commas would go a long way to helping get your ideas across.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #67 on: 27/07/2008 14:45:00 »

Please don't take this the wrong way, as for once I feel like agreeing with you, but a few more commas would go a long way to helping get your ideas across.

no offence taken

if i was perfect i would be walkin on water


an idea to convey that light has mass was just realized; when the life of a person is gone can they carry their own weight?
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #68 on: 27/07/2008 19:26:28 »
Nonsense. I suggest the moderator to close this thread.
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Does light have mass?
« Reply #69 on: 28/07/2008 00:20:19 »
Thanks Andrew K Fletcher for the info and link.

Now I know it was called a Crooks radiometer and are still made I will get me another. :)


Something I still have a problem with understanding.

If light acts like an electromechanical wave on the surface of a body and a shiny surface makes the electrons oscillate giving out EM radiation (reflection?)  then why doesn't a non shiny surface do the same. The actions of the wave I would have thought been the same in that they are exciting electrons on the surface whatever the case.

I hope that is not a stupid question.


 

lyner

  • Guest
Does light have mass?
« Reply #70 on: 28/07/2008 14:20:16 »
A metallic reflector doesn't absorb the energy as the electrons oscillate because it's a good conductor. A poor conductor will absorb some energy as the electrons move so it will not reflect as much energy.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #71 on: 28/07/2008 16:25:06 »
Mad man,

this interpretation by sophia is well off and please nobody follow that because it has nothing to do with reflection of light or photon exchanges.

Conduction is passing through and has nothing to do with reflections or refractions.

A metallic reflector doesn't absorb the energy as the electrons oscillate because it's a good conductor. A poor conductor will absorb some energy as the electrons move so it will not reflect as much energy.

look up the photoelectric effect (Einstein's Nobel) as well look up black body radiation.

by combining these 2 plus the ideas of the double slit experiment

then realize mass released energy when a threshold is met

it why the waves of light are shared to separate into bands as th energy can only release upon an energy threshold is reached for the mass that interacts with the light.

This is why certain mass (elemental structures) as used for each color of the spectrum.

remember; light exchanges based on the structures
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #72 on: 28/07/2008 17:05:46 »
Would the dark sail generate more heat and it is the heat rather than the light that causes the sails to rotate as it expands the air pushing against the small amount of air and the glass sphere? and could the light from the reflective sail also assist the heating of the dark sail? Would a thermal imaging device confirm this?

Must get one of these myself :)

Mad man your most welcome
« Last Edit: 28/07/2008 17:08:23 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #73 on: 28/07/2008 18:19:57 »
Would the dark sail generate more heat and it is the heat rather than the light that causes the sails to rotate as it expands the air pushing against the small amount of air and the glass sphere? and could the light from the reflective sail also assist the heating of the dark sail? Would a thermal imaging device confirm this?


maybe look up 'recoil' or even see how this is observed at MIT

http://www.rle.mit.edu/cua/research/project02/project02_recoil.htm


Quote
Photon Recoil in Dispersive Media

The momentum of a photon in a dispersive medium is of conceptual and practical importance. When a photon enters a medium with index of refraction n, the electromagnetic momentum changes from h/l to nh/l where, l is the vacuum wavelength of the photon, and h is Plank's constant. Momentum conservation requires that the medium now has a mechanical momentum corresponding to the change in the photon’s electromagnetic momentum. Recently, there have been discussions about what happens to an atom when it absorbs a photon within the medium. Is the recoil momentum nh/l, the electromagnetic momentum? Or, if one assumes no momentum is left in the medium is the recoil momentum h/l. We have measured a systematic shift of the photon recoil momentum due the index of refraction of a Bose Einstein condensate.
 
 

or even the old 05 publication

Photon Recoil Momentum in Dispersive Media

Gretchen K. Campbell, Aaron E. Leanhardt, Jongchul Mun, Micah Boyd, Erik W. Streed, Wolfgang Ketterle, and David E. Pritchard

MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics and Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

(Received 31 January 2005; published 4 May 2005)

A systematic shift of the photon recoil momentum due to the index of refraction of a dilute gas of atoms has been observed. The recoil frequency was determined with a two-pulse light grating interferometer using near-resonant laser light. The results show that the recoil momentum of atoms caused by the absorption of a photon is nk, where n is the index of refraction of the gas and k is the vacuum wave vector of the photon. This systematic effect must be accounted for in high-precision atom interferometry with light gratings
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #74 on: 28/07/2008 18:28:54 »
Quote
K Pachucki and S G Karshenboim

Max-Planck-Inst. fur Quantenoptik, Garching bei Munchen, Germany

Abstract. A new recoil correction to the Lamb shift of order ( mu 3/M2)(Z alpha )4 has been found. This correction depends on the nuclear spin, and is associated with the absence of a zitterbewegung term in the Breit Hamiltonian for spin 0 and 1 nuclei. 

that spin should be corrected to represent 'l' or an amplitude

i.e... if we have an atom at x state, then a y imposition will have a different value, then if x is less or greater than its original state

or simply; whether to put a coat on depends on the environment

Quote
Towards tests of QED in Lamb-shift measurements of highly charged ions
V. A. Yerokhin 1 2 *, A. N. Artemyev 3, T. Beier 1, I. A. Goidenko 2, L. N. Labzowsky 2, A. V. Nefiodov 4, G. Plunien 5, V. M. Shabaev 1 2, G. Soff 5
1Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, Planckstrasse 1, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
2Department of Physics, St. Petersburg State University, Oulianovskaya 1, Petrodvorets, St. Petersburg 198504, Russia
3Centro de Química Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVIC, Apartado 21827, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela
4Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, 188350 Gatchina, St. Petersburg, Russia
5Technische Universität Dresden, Mommsenstrasse 13, D-01062 Dresden, Germany
 
email: V. A. Yerokhin (yerokhin@pcqnt1.phys.spbu.ru)

*Correspondence to V. A. Yerokhin, Department of Physics, St. Petersburg State University, Oulianovskaya 1, Petrodvorets, St. Petersburg 198504, Russia.

Träger eines Humboldt-Forschungsstipendiums (holder of a Humboldt research scholarship).

Abstract
The present status of theoretical predictions for the Lamb shift in heavy few-electron ions is reviewed. We compare theoretical predictions with experimental data and discuss perspectives of testing quantum electrodynamics in a new region: the region of the strongest electrical fields available at present for experimental study. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 

basically measuring the 'state' of each before measuring the recoil


ooops... i just realized that last reference is from Russia......  does this site have preconditions for observing data from all over the world?

« Last Edit: 28/07/2008 18:31:06 by Bishadi »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Does light have mass?
« Reply #74 on: 28/07/2008 18:28:54 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums