Does light have mass?

  • 153 Replies
  • 78348 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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.
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 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 [nofollow]

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
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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 »
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 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 [nofollow]


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
  • ***
  • 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 »
 

*

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Does light have mass?
« Reply #75 on: 29/07/2008 00:35:02 »
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.

What happens then when you use a piece of transparent glass sheet as the reflector as any reflection with a glass sheet can also produce an almost perfect image, no metallic reflector there unless silica is classed as metallic. A loss would be expected because of the inverse square law and would be measurable.

Sorry, I still have problems understanding the basics and I would like to know where I am getting it wrong. Truly, I need to know!

Getting back to the crooks radiometer, what happens if it was in a total vacuum?

It seems odd to me now that I had one when I was a child.




*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #76 on: 19/09/2009 15:44:46 »
does it?

If it has a mass in kilograms, it would have an obsurd value of 10^-51.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Dimi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
  • Prone to rambling
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #77 on: 20/09/2009 00:33:19 »
Does all light have heat?

Or is it possible to have cold light?

I don't know much about the subject and I got lost reading most of it ~ but is it possible that instead of viewing it with having a mass, how about it causes a chemical change due to the heat?

Would heat have a mass instead or is it just a chemical change?

Don't grill me :P
The devil came to me in my sleep and asked me to work for him

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Does light have mass?
« Reply #78 on: 20/09/2009 07:47:31 »
This is one of those subjects that one can argue endlessly on. The most important thing to remember here is that you first have to decide what the definition of the term mass you are choosing to use. After that is determined then one can then easily prove whether light has mass or not.  It is clearly and demonstratively a matter of the record that there are two definitions of the term mass in usage in the physics literature today. Some authors’ use the term “mass” to refer to “proper mass” while others it to refer to “relativistic mass”. Relativistic mass reflect the sum of the following properties of matter
Inertial mass – This is the property of light which determines its momentum                   
Active gravitational mass – Light can generate a gravitational field.
Passive gravitational mass – Light is affected by gravity.
The following is list of relativity textbooks which employ the definition of of mass which gives it mass

Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological, Rindler, Oxford Univ., Press, (2001), page 120
According to Einstein, a photon with frequency n has energy hn /c2, and thus (as he only came to realize several years later) a finite mass and a finite momentum hn/c.
From Introducing Einstein's Relativity, Ray D'Inverno, Oxford Univ. Press, (1992), page 50
Finally, using the energy-mass relationship E = mc2,, we find that the relativistic mass of a photon is non-zero and given by
m = p/c.

Combining these results with Planck's hypothesis, we obtain the following formulae for the energy E, relativistic mass m, and linear momentum p of the photons:
E = hf             m = hf/c2            p = hf/c
Special Relativity, A. P. French, MIT Press, page 20
Let us now try to put together some of the results we have discussed. For photons we have
E = cp
and

m = E/c2

(the first experimental, the second based on Einstein's box). Combining these, we have
m = p/c


*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #79 on: 20/09/2009 13:08:53 »
Does all light have heat?

Or is it possible to have cold light?

I don't know much about the subject and I got lost reading most of it ~ but is it possible that instead of viewing it with having a mass, how about it causes a chemical change due to the heat?

Would heat have a mass instead or is it just a chemical change?

Don't grill me :P

Think of it as a unit of heat/energy which can differentiate due to something it inherently has as a wavelength. The higher and the lower the wavelengths give the particle its given intrinsic energy. It is the smallest unit of energy known on the standard.

But suffice to say, the photon should not have a mass due to relativity. I could give you loads of math on the subject, but it depends on how savvy you are on calculations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Dimi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
  • Prone to rambling
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #80 on: 20/09/2009 14:34:37 »
The math wouldn't mean anything to me :) I can calculate all I want but I have no where to apply it to.

I'll just leave it to those who are capable and I'll keep making crazy ideas up XD
The devil came to me in my sleep and asked me to work for him

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #81 on: 20/09/2009 19:00:37 »
Does all light have heat?
Nothing can *have heat*. Heat is not a property of bodies, but a kind of energy transfer between bodies.

*

Offline Dimi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
  • Prone to rambling
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #82 on: 20/09/2009 23:48:26 »
An uneducated guess ~

Then its impossible to have cold light. So the pile up of energy [which causes the heat?] could be the reason for the supposed weight ~ just an idea, but could it be expanding the apparatus?

So a single busrt of energy would do nothing, but with a pile up it would be enough to create a change in the surrounding air itself?

Of course I have no idea what I'm talking about :P
The devil came to me in my sleep and asked me to work for him

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #83 on: 21/09/2009 02:29:17 »
An uneducated guess ~

Then its impossible to have cold light. So the pile up of energy [which causes the heat?] could be the reason for the supposed weight ~ just an idea, but could it be expanding the apparatus?

So a single busrt of energy would do nothing, but with a pile up it would be enough to create a change in the surrounding air itself?

Of course I have no idea what I'm talking about :P

So --- what you seem to be asking is if you gather enough energy to a given region of spacetime (or some part of the vacuum perhaps?) - does this effect the surrounding spacetime (instead of air?), because if this where the case, then is sounds a bit like general relativity where matter [and] displace space and time through causing distortions.

You're right though about weight being changed, only if there is a specific change in density to suit it. The density is inversely related to weight, and thus so is its volume. If you gather enough energy in the universe, you could potentially create loads of fasinating different things, from exotic objects as black holes, to even possibly wormholes.

But the technology required far exceeds what even possibly earth could even supply. We would need to reach energies which satisfy what are called in physics ''Planck Energies'', and at this energy, we can literally make a rip in the fabric of space and time itself. But whilst these energies cannot be harnest, more problems exist. You would need an antigravity substance called ''exotic matter'' to keep some of these objects stable. Even negative regions which seemed to expand the space and time around them into infinity.

But if none of this covered what you meant, then i never had clue :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Does light have mass?
« Reply #84 on: 21/09/2009 09:45:44 »
Quote from: paul.sr
does it?
Let’s discuss whether photons have mass or not. In my opinion the best and most rigorous way to define the term “mass” (which I’ll label M and reserve “m” for proper mass) is to define it as the M in p = Mv where p and v are the photons 3-momentum and 3-velocity respectively. Since neither p or v is zero it follows that the mass of a photons is not zero.

There are many good reasons for defining it this way. Here are two

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

Quote from: ukmicky
But the only other type of mass is relativistic Mass but that isn't really Mass in the correct sense of the word so therefore a photon has 0 Mass
The “correct sense of the word” is determined by how the term is defined. For example; a study of the prominence of the use of relativistic mass in relativity texts was done and the results posted in an article  locater here http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504111

Relativistic mass was used in a large fraction of those texts. To assert that the “correct sense of the word” is as you say it is very misleading for the reasons given above.

I myself wrote an article on the subject which is oneline at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687

*

Offline Dimi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
  • Prone to rambling
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #85 on: 21/09/2009 10:26:07 »
So --- what you seem to be asking is if you gather enough energy to a given region of spacetime (or some part of the vacuum perhaps?) - does this effect the surrounding spacetime (instead of air?), because if this where the case, then is sounds a bit like general relativity where matter [and] displace space and time through causing distortions.
I don't think light/heat could affect space... What would you describe space to be? If space is the absence of an element does it mean its considered 'dead'? [But it can't be an absence because if elmeents can pass through it, then it has to be composed of atoms itself right?] I think before looking into the weight of light, maybe space itself needs to be understood.

Actually would space have energy or is it completely dead?

Too much to consider!

I don't think its possible to weigh light on earth because there would be the constant pressure of something!

And if we gave light a mass ~ we would more than likely feel it and its destructive path, I think the fact that its massless gives it the ability to move at the so called speed of light.

But I think that light would just be causing a chemical reaction to all surrounding atoms by giving them a 'light' .. or is light just a perception given by our eyes and no actual reaction occurs to anything?

I wouldn't have a clue regardless, haha. I think I went too far off tangent.
The devil came to me in my sleep and asked me to work for him

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #86 on: 22/09/2009 00:25:53 »
So --- what you seem to be asking is if you gather enough energy to a given region of spacetime (or some part of the vacuum perhaps?) - does this effect the surrounding spacetime (instead of air?), because if this where the case, then is sounds a bit like general relativity where matter [and] displace space and time through causing distortions.
I don't think light/heat could affect space... What would you describe space to be? If space is the absence of an element does it mean its considered 'dead'? [But it can't be an absence because if elmeents can pass through it, then it has to be composed of atoms itself right?] I think before looking into the weight of light, maybe space itself needs to be understood.

Actually would space have energy or is it completely dead?

Too much to consider!

I don't think its possible to weigh light on earth because there would be the constant pressure of something!

And if we gave light a mass ~ we would more than likely feel it and its destructive path, I think the fact that its massless gives it the ability to move at the so called speed of light.

But I think that light would just be causing a chemical reaction to all surrounding atoms by giving them a 'light' .. or is light just a perception given by our eyes and no actual reaction occurs to anything?

I wouldn't have a clue regardless, haha. I think I went too far off tangent.
Energy can be thought of a heat radiator. Lots of packets of energy contains what is heat; they are the heat being radiated.

But morever, this energy, but not especially the value of heat, causes disortions. A photon, even though massless, still distorts the space and time around it as it moves through spacetime. This ''distortion'' couples to gravity, and that is why photons themselves can be deflected by gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Dimi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
  • Prone to rambling
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #87 on: 22/09/2009 02:56:52 »
I would of thought that heat is an energy in its own form, since energy would be radiation in essence ~ so when a subject recieves energy, the result would be heat.

Because heat isn't a solid tangable thing (you can't hold it), it passes through the atoms as a wave ~ and a wave would be an energy.

So in space, energy can't possibly affect anything because there is no solidity there at all? I would of thought the space would be a gas ~ and some gas can be heated up.

Other wise, is there no heat at all, and heat is only a reaction caused by our ozone layer?

So does the energy from the sun is just pure energy, the ozone layer transforms this energy and gives it heat or something, then we feel its effects.

I think I should stop soon, I really do not have a clue what I am talking about hahaha
The devil came to me in my sleep and asked me to work for him

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #88 on: 22/09/2009 14:39:44 »
I would of thought that heat is an energy in its own form, since energy would be radiation in essence ~ so when a subject recieves energy, the result would be heat.

Because heat isn't a solid tangable thing (you can't hold it), it passes through the atoms as a wave ~ and a wave would be an energy.

So in space, energy can't possibly affect anything because there is no solidity there at all? I would of thought the space would be a gas ~ and some gas can be heated up.

Other wise, is there no heat at all, and heat is only a reaction caused by our ozone layer?

So does the energy from the sun is just pure energy, the ozone layer transforms this energy and gives it heat or something, then we feel its effects.

I think I should stop soon, I really do not have a clue what I am talking about hahaha

Heat can be construded as a form of energy. For instance... what do we think about when we talk about ''temperatures'' in spacetime? The temperature itself is formed of a background heat because of photons; the fundemental unit of spacetime.

At zero-point energies you would expect that motion would cease, because all energy should be frozen - in fact, motion does not cease, and a massive amount of energy for any quantum oscillator at a zero-point region - so its impossible to freeze the vacuum completely. So when talking about temperatures, we can certaintly infer to the existence of energy itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #89 on: 22/09/2009 14:41:50 »
Heat or energy can be a form of diffused matter so its true that energy has no tangibility like a solid matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Dimi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
  • Prone to rambling
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #90 on: 23/09/2009 13:41:16 »
So there is no possibility of weighing energy then? What I don't understand is how come not all energy can pass through solid mass.

You can pass radio waves through, but not sunlight? The heat will slowly crawl to the other side but it can't pass through. So is there only 1 type of energy, or are there variations?

Then is there ANY energy that could be weighed? Wouldn't that be another contradiction? I thought if something were to be massless, then it wouldn't have difficulties going through solids.
The devil came to me in my sleep and asked me to work for him

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #91 on: 23/09/2009 19:55:18 »
So there is no possibility of weighing energy then?
Any *fixed* region of space containing an energy E has a mass E/c2.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Does light have mass?
« Reply #92 on: 23/09/2009 21:01:05 »
Quote from: Dimi
So there is no possibility of weighing energy then? What I don't understand is how come not all energy can pass through solid mass.
I suspect it is because certain wave lengths of energy like to play with particles and structures within the solid mass. Other wave lengths do not find suitable playmates. Them that don't play pass right through. Them that play stay in the mass for awhile.


*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #93 on: 23/09/2009 23:12:42 »
So there is no possibility of weighing energy then? What I don't understand is how come not all energy can pass through solid mass.

You can pass radio waves through, but not sunlight? The heat will slowly crawl to the other side but it can't pass through. So is there only 1 type of energy, or are there variations?

Then is there ANY energy that could be weighed? Wouldn't that be another contradiction? I thought if something were to be massless, then it wouldn't have difficulties going through solids.

They are much smaller than most subatomic particles, which gives them an easy way to move through atoms. Another thing involved is absorption, which only occurs with an angular momentum (THE thing we associate as its spin). In this process, energy it gained, and sometimes lost, but sometimes with different energy results. For instance, the appearance of a photon inside an atom can excite the existence of other particles: so it may create new particles and less energy is released... so, conservation remains in this sense.

Energy can be absorbed so easily though. The tangibility of matter is not necesserily due to weight. Lightarrow is partially true as when you are inviting massless radiation, we must invoke gamma into the equation. This reduces its mass to zero, but is intrinsically-related to its energy-momentum which is inexorably non-zero.

Energy seems to have an energy itself, strangely enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #94 on: 24/09/2009 15:23:51 »
Lightarrow is partially true as when you are inviting massless radiation, we must invoke gamma into the equation. This reduces its mass to zero, but is intrinsically-related to its energy-momentum which is inexorably non-zero.
No, maybe you haven't understood very well what I wrote. I was talking about proper = invariant mass, not about 4-momentum.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #95 on: 24/09/2009 16:19:11 »
Lightarrow is partially true as when you are inviting massless radiation, we must invoke gamma into the equation. This reduces its mass to zero, but is intrinsically-related to its energy-momentum which is inexorably non-zero.
No, maybe you haven't understood very well what I wrote. I was talking about proper = invariant mass, not about 4-momentum.

Making that distinction does make a difference.

Invariant, or rest mass is always associated to something which has inertial mass - photons though, may have a finite inertia. Question is, should we allow the photon to have an inertia, or should that be reserved only for material bodies?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #96 on: 25/09/2009 07:55:53 »
Lightarrow is partially true as when you are inviting massless radiation, we must invoke gamma into the equation. This reduces its mass to zero, but is intrinsically-related to its energy-momentum which is inexorably non-zero.
No, maybe you haven't understood very well what I wrote. I was talking about proper = invariant mass, not about 4-momentum.

Making that distinction does make a difference.

Invariant, or rest mass is always associated to something which has inertial mass - photons though, may have a finite inertia. Question is, should we allow the photon to have an inertia, or should that be reserved only for material bodies?
This is a different concept. Inertia is possessed even from objects which don't have invariant mass (photons).

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #97 on: 25/09/2009 20:16:22 »
Lightarrow is partially true as when you are inviting massless radiation, we must invoke gamma into the equation. This reduces its mass to zero, but is intrinsically-related to its energy-momentum which is inexorably non-zero.
No, maybe you haven't understood very well what I wrote. I was talking about proper = invariant mass, not about 4-momentum.

Making that distinction does make a difference.

Invariant, or rest mass is always associated to something which has inertial mass - photons though, may have a finite inertia. Question is, should we allow the photon to have an inertia, or should that be reserved only for material bodies?
This is a different concept. Inertia is possessed even from objects which don't have invariant mass (photons).

I know this, but inertia is not very well defined in physics. For instance, i don't actually believe there are any explanation to what causes inertial effects any further than invoking Mach's principle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Does light have mass?
« Reply #98 on: 28/09/2009 21:24:17 »
Inertia is truly strange as it seems to be existing in any observable system inside SpaceTime. As like you traveling your space-rocket, changing your course will give you inertia if I got it right. Why?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does light have mass?
« Reply #99 on: 29/09/2009 00:35:33 »
Moreover, let us assume everyone thought what lightarrow did. With that, relativity becomes a damn-sight harder to understand when inertia is taken into respect. From that line of thinking, relativity states that gravitational matter is the same thing as inertial effects. Then we specifically know that photons do not possess a gravitational mass, so they cannot be the same thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶