0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Because E=hf and E=mc^2 it seems m apparent= hf/c^2. Is this correct and does light actually emit a gravitational field at the speed of light, and does light attract itself?
You can't have your cake and eat it.
E/c^2 is the mass that you would create if you converted a photon into a particle, and indeed this is the case.
Quote from: Chondrally on 01/01/2015 00:36:43Because E=hf and E=mc^2 it seems m apparent= hf/c^2. Is this correct and does light actually emit a gravitational field at the speed of light, and does light attract itself?Note: This is a very good question and as such should have been posted in the Physics Forum.Yes. Depending on how the light is distributed it usually creates a create a gravitational field. In fact I don't know of a case in which it doesn't. In 1931, Tolman, Ehrenfest and Podolsky published an article in the journal Physical Review called On The Gravitational Field Produced by Light. I put the derivation here: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_light.htmIf you have any questions about it then please let me know.Quote from: alancalverdYou can't have your cake and eat it.Actually, in this case you can have your cake and eat it too.Quote from: alancalverdE/c^2 is the mass that you would create if you converted a photon into a particle, and indeed this is the case.In this case if you have, say, a beam of light then it will create a gravitational field. The derivation for the gravitational field of a directed beam of radiation is on my website at:http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_light.htm
A photon has a gravitational field. It doesn't 'emit' one any more than a planet emits one.If the photon didn't have such a field, it would violate conservation of momentum when the photon trajectory is bent by something that doesn't in turn do a reaction acceleration.A photon has energy, but no rest mass. If it had rest mass, it would not move at light speed, and would not be light.
They move faster than the light, but not faster than c.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 09/11/2018 01:57:21I daresay that Einsteinians would be happy to call it emission -- & i suspect that they would be happy to say that that emission emanates at c.You may dare say it all you want, but it would be a contradiction.
I daresay that Einsteinians would be happy to call it emission -- & i suspect that they would be happy to say that that emission emanates at c.
QuoteAetherists reckon that a photon has mass, & everything has mass -- a fixed absolute mass -- ie rest mass not needed.What is the mass of a photon then? An Einsteinian (as you put it) would say it has no proper mass, and it otherwise has frame dependent relativistic mass. This would contradict what you just said about aetherists, but then you admit to not knowing your physics.
Aetherists reckon that a photon has mass, & everything has mass -- a fixed absolute mass -- ie rest mass not needed.
QuoteI reckon that there is no need for the idea that a photon moves at c due to having zero mass -- a neutrino (2 joined photons) we know has mass (double the mass of a single photon) & it has no trouble moving at c (they say).A neutrino does have proper mass, and so cannot be compared to the photon mass. You seem to be making up random facts when stating that a neutrino is 2 joined photons. I've see neutrino theory of light that says that a photon is a joined neutrino/anti-neutrino, but that would contradict recent findings that neutrinos have proper mass.
I reckon that there is no need for the idea that a photon moves at c due to having zero mass -- a neutrino (2 joined photons) we know has mass (double the mass of a single photon) & it has no trouble moving at c (they say).
Interestingly, neutrinos are measured from supernovas significantly before (hours?) the light arrives. They move faster than the light, but not faster than c.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 10/11/2018 02:04:38I dont believe in anti-neutrinos -- we dont have anti-photons. I dont think that a neutrino can annihilate another neutrino (likewise photons photons). Praps its ok to talk of anti -- but only in the sense that the helix is anticlockwise instead of clockwise (but i dont think that that would lead to any sort of annihilation).It is more like the helix. All neutrinos seem to be left handed, but they can (in the one theory) pair with a right handed neutrino (which doesn't annihilate it) to form a photon. This theory kind of fell flat with the discovery of neutrinos having proper mass. Your proposals don't account for photons having frame dependent mass.
I dont believe in anti-neutrinos -- we dont have anti-photons. I dont think that a neutrino can annihilate another neutrino (likewise photons photons). Praps its ok to talk of anti -- but only in the sense that the helix is anticlockwise instead of clockwise (but i dont think that that would lead to any sort of annihilation).
"it" represents EM light "the bullet" bound by gravity,
You can't have your cake and eat it. E/c^2 is the mass that you would create if you converted a photon into a particle, and indeed this is the case.