[Chondrally (OP)]

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?

[alancalverd]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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?

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.htm

If you have any questions about it then please let me know.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Actually, in this case you can have your cake and eat it too.

E/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

[mad aetherist]

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?

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.htm
If you have any questions about it then please let me know.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Actually, in this case you can have your cake and eat it too.

E/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

I like this thread & comments. A photon has mass, a neutrino is made of a doubled photon & has twice the mass of a photon. Aether is annihilated in mass, & aether flows in to replace the lost aether, the acceleration of the inflow giving us gravity & mass. A photon is basically linear, hencely its gravity field strength varies with 1/R (at short range), whereas the gravity field of a say ball varies with 1/RR. At long range the gravity field of a photon varies more like 1/RR. Photons attract photons gravitationally (in addition to any other sort of attraction). https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/9055/file/pmnr_222.pdf
References i think suggest that two beams attract (probably gravitationally), & the attraction seems to be greater when the beams are anti-parallel. Very interesting, i will have to look into all of this.

[ernst39]

In the framework of the gravitoelectromagnetic description of gravity (GEM) a photon cannot be the source of a gravitational field because its rest mass is zero.

Indeed, from the first Maxwell-Heaviside equation it follows that the source of the gravitational field generated by an object is the rest mass of that object.  So a photon, being an object without rest mass, cannot generate a gravitational field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism [nofollow]

[guest46746]

A photon is a product of a particle and anti-particle annihilation. AS such, it contains the attributes of both.  Gravity and EM radiation interact to produce kinetic energy. An annihilation strips a particle of it's mass and charge, an annihilation strips a anti-particle of it's mass and charge. What remains are the conservation two Higgs fields. The concussion of annihilation causes two Higgs field to compress into a single location of S/T. This compression was confirmed at CERN with the creation of the Higgs Boson.

Containing both particle and antiparticle properties EM radiation is a self contained artifact of the Universe's Creation just as is Gravity. Would Light exist without Gravity ? Yes, but it wouldnot be limited by Gravity to the speed of light.
Does it emit it's own gravitational field? No, by itself there is no need for Gravity, it is self contained, it would exist without gravity.   lol

[mad aetherist]

The best explanation of gravity & gravity fields & photons & photonic mass (Ranzan calls it mass equivalence) is by Conrad Ranzan in his DSSU website. Lots of articles. Have fun finding this one.
The explanation involves aether. A gravity field is in effect a description of the acceleration of the aetherwind -- the velocity of the aetherwind is non-relevant.

I dont know how Einsteinians would go about explaining the gravity field due to a photon -- i guess that they would start by saying that a photon has zero mass & zero gravity field -- but some ovem might then say that a photon has energy & hencely has a rest mass or a virtual mass or a relativistic mass or something.  And that mass bends spacetime.
Hey, actually i seem  to remember that Alby said that a gravitational field had mass. Amazing stuff.

[Halc]

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

I agree that a photon has a gravi field.
Emission is a bit semantic -- aether is annihilated in mass (including in the photon's quasi-mass)(mass equivalence if u like) -- the acceleration of the aether inflow to replace the lost aether giving a field -- it duznt matter whether one calls it emission.
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.
Aetherists reckon that a photon has mass, & everything has mass -- a fixed absolute mass -- ie rest mass not needed. Except that praps mass depends on the aetherwind blowing throo the lab (ie affecting our clock-ticking & our metre-rod), ie creating an apparent mass (versus absolute true 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).

[Halc]

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.

You may dare say it all you want, but it would be a contradiction.

Aetherists 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.

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).

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/anit-neutrino, but that would contradict recent findings that neutrinos have proper mass.

Interestingly, neutrinos are measured from supernovas significantly before (hours?) the light arrives.  They move faster than the light, but not faster than c.

[Kryptid]

They move faster than the light, but not faster than c.

In case anyone is confused by this wording, I just want to clarify that the neutrinos arrive before the photons do because they can pass through the material of the dying star and its surrounding gas envelope without any trouble. Photons, on the other hand, have a lot of trouble getting through.

[mad aetherist]

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.

You may dare say it all you want, but it would be a contradiction.

Aetherists 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.

I dont understand much of physics, but i know a few buzzwords & sayings. Anything that annihilates aether has mass. I reckon that a free photon annihilates aether -- probly in-along the central (helical probly) body, & also in-along the photinos (em fields) that emanate from the central body (ie em fields have 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).

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.

Ranzan says that a neutrino is 2 joined photons -- the 2 sets of fields negate & thusly the neutrino has zero field. Anyhow, in reactions, isnt a neutrino associated with 2 photons -- a photon is not associated with 2 neutrinos.
I reckon that particles have proper mass -- particles are confined photons (& confined neutrinos)(if they exist)(giving dark matter). Some say that free photons & free neutrinos have quasi-mass or mass-equivalence (Ranzan) -- but i dont see why we cant just say they have 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).

Interestingly, neutrinos are measured from supernovas significantly before (hours?) the light arrives.  They move faster than the light, but not faster than c.

Yes that makes sense. I think that neutrinos might be slowed a little less than is light when near mass (ie in a gravi field) -- & that a neutrino is slowed much less than is light when in mass (plasma air water glass supernovas).

[Halc]

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 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.

[mad aetherist]

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 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.

Interesting. Re frame dependent mass -- aetherists believe in a true absolute mass (as observed by an observer sitting in the absolute frame)(ie aetherwind = zero kmps) -- but praps in a way aetherists do also have a frame dependent mass, which would be due to the aetherwind affecting ticking & length, ie affecting an observer's apparent mass (due to affecting clock & metre)(i aint sure)(these things tend to negate & hencely apparent mass etc = true mass etc)(i havnt thort it throo).

But i suppose that in any theory energy is frame dependent -- but i dont believe in relativistic mass.

[guest46746]

If a "bullet" is traveling at a slower velocity than an object intersecting it and moving at c, will the bullet pass through without damage to the object, will it deflect or will it puncture the object?  If the bullet passes through, if represents EM light bound by gravity having no effect on EM light at c. This implies that EM light at c, its "natural state", operates beyond the Law of Gravity.  If the bullet deflects, it implies that both Gravity and EM Light's kinetic energy are operating at stratafied levels that are impermeable to a degree and require different mathematical functions to calculate. If the bullet punctures the object it points to a Unified Theory, a single overriding mathematical function where physics are not altered by the variables entered into the equation. lol

does frame dependent mass progress or hinder a Unified Theory? lol

[guest46746]

"it" represents EM light "the bullet" bound by gravity, 

[mad aetherist]

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.

Interestingly Williamson i think (& i think Ranzan) says that a free photon has mass or mass equivalence, & that when a free photon bites its tail & forms a confined photon (an elementary particle)(electron quark etc) then the mass of the particle can be millions of times  the mass of the free photon. Apparently its to do with the tightness of the loop. Apparently a proton is much smaller than an electron & hencely has say 1000 times the mass. And someone said that a neutron is an electron with a (small) proton sitting inside.

This sort of stuff has an impact on our ideas re E=mcc. If all mass can reduce to photons, & if photons cant reduce to pure energy, then mass cant be annihilated, & thusly we cant ever achieve E=mcc.

And this all means that we definitely cant have conservation of mass.
And praps also that we might not have conservation of energy (not sure).

[opportunity]

Lets look at the forest for the trees.


The Planck equation is a simplification of atomic congress between frequency of EM radiation and mass. It just is. Its the most basic joining of those dots.


Here's something interesting: gamma radiation, 300 or so EHz, when plugged into the Planck equation, roughly gives the weight of a proton. In other words, the highest frequency pulse of light would represent the equivelent of completely destroying a proton or a neutron. Should that be any surprise if there is an equiveleance between mass and energy as per e=mc^2? No. No surprise. The surprise here for me is how gravity is brought into this discussion.

<< The precise calculation for 300EHz for gamma rays for the Planck equation is ~ 2 x 10^-32 g; slightly less than an electron mass. I'm anticipating the Hz that happens when a proton is completely annihilated into energy, upper upper gamma, is off our own scales. The point is clear. >>

[opportunity]

The real question that should be asked is how to virtually collapse the wavelength of light and convert it into matter.

[opportunity]

Such a thing requires a "theory" placed in all the known forces and equations to suggest such is possible.