Massless "particle?"

[Capiert]

There is no such (physical) thing

as a zero mass particle,

because that (so called) thing

is a figment

of your imagination (=fantasy, science_friction)!

 

A photon has mass

(no matter how small it is)

because it has momentum mom=m*v.

 

If a particle does NOT have mass (at all)

then it does NOT exist,

& is only a virtual (hypothetical) point

(created by you, as a man_made fantasy)

(with zero dimensions).

 

(Otherwise we could call it

(at least) a phenomena

because it is happening

with real (physical) mass.)

 

Any wave,

is carried by a (massive) medium (=mass),

so mass must be involved.

 

What makes you think otherwise?

 

(Massless particle? that's like saying military intelligence, they don't intersect. Is destruction intelligent?

 

You are implying a "zero" mass particle (with (the word) "massless")

but everyone knows "less" still means it has mass,

instead of none at all.

 

So it's rediculous to claim a photon has no mass.

E.g. You've approximated,

& rounded to zero.

Is that the truth?)

 

(Charge can NOT exist without mass,

it's always a mass to charge ratio.)

Edited May 11, 2017 by Capiert

[imatfaal]

...

 

What makes you think otherwise?

...

 

Because we know and understand the physics.

[Function]

I am no physicist at all, and I know nothing about the deep fundamental theorems aimed at in this thread. But I've understood that indeed, waves are massless. Is that consensus? Or has it truly been proven that photons are massless?

[imatfaal]

I am no physicist at all, and I know nothing about the deep fundamental theorems aimed at in this thread. But I've understood that indeed, waves are massless. Is that consensus? Or has it truly been proven that photons are massless?

 

It is next to impossible to prove experimentally that anything is zero. We have shown in a lab that the mass is less that 10^-13eV/c^2 and via observations of galatic magnetic fields that the mass should be less than 10-27 eV/c^2. But you cannot prove a zero - because there are always experimental imprecisions and errors; this will lead to error bars and your figure could lurk in the error bars.

 

Theoretically big portions of modern physics would fail - quantum chromo/electro-dynamics would fall over and no longer be re-normalisable and thus no longer give the astonishingly accurate results that it does.

[Function]

 

It is next to impossible to prove experimentally that anything is zero. We have shown in a lab that the mass is less that 10^-13eV/c^2 and via observations of galatic magnetic fields that the mass should be less than 10-27 eV/c^2. But you cannot prove a zero - because there are always experimental imprecisions and errors; this will lead to error bars and your figure could lurk in the error bars.

 

Theoretically big portions of modern physics would fail - quantum chromo/electro-dynamics would fall over and no longer be re-normalisable and thus no longer give the astonishingly accurate results that it does.

 

But it is accepted that it has zero mass? Or is there a consensus for an infinitesimal small mass?

[swansont]

There is no such (physical) thing

as a zero mass particle,

because that (so called) thing

is a figment

of your imagination (=fantasy, science_friction)!

 

A photon has mass

(no matter how small it is)

because it has momentum mom=m*v.

 

If a particle does NOT have mass (at all)

then it does NOT exist,

& is only a virtual (hypothetical) point

(created by you, as a man_made fantasy)

(with zero dimensions).

 

(Otherwise we could call it

(at least) a phenomena

because it is happening

with real (physical) mass.)

 

Any wave,

is carried by a (massive) medium (=mass),

so mass must be involved.

 

What makes you think otherwise?

 

(Massless particle? that's like saying military intelligence, they don't intersect. Is destruction intelligent?

 

You are implying a "zero" mass particle (with (the word) "massless")

but everyone knows "less" still means it has mass,

instead of none at all.

 

So it's rediculous to claim a photon has no mass.)

 

(Charge can NOT exist without mass,

it's always a mass to charge ratio.)

 

 

What is your model, and/or what are your testable predictions based on this idea?

 

We know, for example, that the momentum of a photon with a wavelength of 780 nm is 8.5 x 10^28 kg-m/s

 

What is its mass and how fast is it moving?

[Strange]

A photon has mass

 

 

Any evidence for this?

[swansont]

 

But it is accepted that it has zero mass? Or is there a consensus for an infinitesimal small mass?

 

It is accepted that is has zero mass. The experimental upper bound is quite small. As imatfaal has stated, that upper bound is the experimental uncertainty. However, to show that there is mass, you need to exclude zero, i.e. zero has to fall decidedly outside of the experimental error.

 

Unfortunately, for a photon at 780 nm, the mass (if it were traveling near c) would be 1.59 eV/c^2, which is many, many orders of magnitude above what has already been experimentally excluded.

[Capiert]

What is your model, and/or what are your testable predictions based on this idea?

 

We know, for example, that the momentum of a photon with a wavelength of 780 nm is 8.5 x 10^28 kg-m/s

 

What is its mass and how fast is it moving?

 

You know that,

the medium speed is c.

m=mom/c

m~8.5*(10^28) [kg* m/s]/(2.97*(10^8) m/s), at 780 nm,

according to you.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Capiert

[swansont]

You know that,

the medium speed is c.

So its mass is 1.59 eV, while it can't have a mass greater than ~13 orders of magnitude smaller.

 

How is that possible?

[Capiert]

So its mass is 1.59 eV, while it can't have a mass greater than ~13 orders of magnitude smaller.How is that possible?

How did you get the momentum?

[swansont]

How did you get the momentum?

From the parameters used in laser cooling. Since we know photons can exert a force on atoms in a predictable way, we know the equations work.

[Lord Antares]

You are implying a "zero" mass particle (with (the word) "massless")

but everyone knows "less" still means it has mass,

instead of none at all.

 

If this is your reasoning for this conclusion, then in addition to learning physics, you need to learn English as well.

 

Adding -less to the end of a word negates the word. Like in the word ''senseless'', meaning ''no sense''.

[Handy andy]

There is no such (physical) thing

as a zero mass particle,

because that (so called) thing

is a figment

of your imagination (=fantasy, science_friction)!

 

A photon has mass

(no matter how small it is)

because it has momentum mom=m*v.

 

If a particle does NOT have mass (at all)

then it does NOT exist,

& is only a virtual (hypothetical) point

(created by you, as a man_made fantasy)

(with zero dimensions).

 

(Otherwise we could call it

(at least) a phenomena

because it is happening

with real (physical) mass.)

 

Any wave,

is carried by a (massive) medium (=mass),

so mass must be involved.

 

What makes you think otherwise?

 

(Massless particle? that's like saying military intelligence, they don't intersect. Is destruction intelligent?

 

You are implying a "zero" mass particle (with (the word) "massless")

but everyone knows "less" still means it has mass,

instead of none at all.

 

So it's rediculous to claim a photon has no mass.

E.g. You've approximated,

& rounded to zero.

Is that the truth?)

 

(Charge can NOT exist without mass,

it's always a mass to charge ratio.)

 

Mr Plank wrote E=hf and Mr Einstein wrote famously E=mc^2 (not including momentum) giving the equivalent mass of a photon. Energy is equivalent to mass but does not mean actual mass as could be weighed on a set of kitchen scales.

[DanTrentfield]

 

It is next to impossible to prove experimentally that anything is zero. We have shown in a lab that the mass is less that 10^-13eV/c^2 and via observations of galatic magnetic fields that the mass should be less than 10-27 eV/c^2. But you cannot prove a zero - because there are always experimental imprecisions and errors; this will lead to error bars and your figure could lurk in the error bars.

 

Theoretically big portions of modern physics would fail - quantum chromo/electro-dynamics would fall over and no longer be re-normalisable and thus no longer give the astonishingly accurate results that it does.

I dun goofed.

Edited May 11, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[swansont]

Hypothetically nothing is truly zero because zero is the infinite absence of anything. As such the only way you could ever say something is truly zero is by saying it is 0 in the same fashion you can only say that something is truly infinity when it is infinite. You can count up all your life and never reach infinity, and you can count decimals down without going into integers your entire life without reaching zero. The reason why infinity is infinite is because it is infinitely far from the origin (0). However 1/0 and 1/∞ are distinctly different in how they function though they are both undefined. As such, 0 =/= ∞ though they have a number of similarities which may make them seem to be the same. I must also stress that you can get as close to you want to 0 or ∞ but the law of limits prevents you from reaching either with decimals. We commonly think of 0 as an easily achievable number, when in fact we can be no farther from the truth, the only exception to this being arithmetic, one of the few places where the law of limits does not usually apply. As such, you can say that a massless particle is like 0, and you're trying to reach it with decimals, the law of limits lets you make the particle have as little mass as you want, but you never truly reach 0, as 0 is nonexistence. So unless your "massless" particle is nonexistent it is not massless. Photons are nearly massless, but that they have mass is evident in the fact that they are susceptible to gravity and interact with electrons much like matter with mass, as such they are not massless (Not truly 0) however small their mass may be. However an interesting thought: Massless particles could be the ghosts that make your spine shiver when you visit the Paramour Manison

In a word, baloney.

 

There is no valid science here; it's all hand-waving.

[DanTrentfield]

 

Mr Plank wrote E=hf and Mr Einstein wrote famously E=mc^2 (not including momentum) giving the equivalent mass of a photon. Energy is equivalent to mass but does not mean actual mass as could be weighed on a set of kitchen scal

 

In a word, baloney.

 

There is no science here; it's all hand-waving.

 

Godd****t I forgot photons are massless. I seem to remember reading that they had a mass that was incredibly near to zero but not actually zero. Ugh

Edited May 11, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[swansont]

Godd****t I forgot photons are massless. I seem to remember reading that they had a mass that was incredibly near to zero but not actually zero. Ugh

Neutrinos were thought to be massless until relatively recently. As noted above, photon mass measurements are zero within experimental error, which places very tight constraints.

[DanTrentfield]

Neutrinos were thought to be massless until relatively recently. As noted above, photon mass measurements are zero to with experimental error, which places very tight constraints.

Well... In reality massless particles shouldn't exist so I still think that photons have some form of mass albeit unmeasurably small, however you might as well say they are massless. Question is is there any way to prove photons have a miniscule amount of mass, Perhaps a stream of condensed photons that impacts a silicon wafer nanometers across in a magnetic bowl (Antimatter trap)? If it moves more than a control object being put through the same experiment without the stream of photons then it would be provable through thousands of more tests that photons have miniscule amounts of mass? I personally think they do have a miniscule amount of mass as something without mass shouldn't really exist. However I could be wrong...

[Capiert]

Well... In reality massless particles shouldn't exist so I still think that photons have some form of mass albeit unmeasurably small, however you might as well say they are massless. Question is is there any way to prove photons have a miniscule amount of mass, .. I personally think they do have a miniscule amount of mass as something without mass shouldn't really exist.

I tend to agree with you.

Ignoring the slightest,

is no excuse for denial.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Capiert

[imatfaal]

Well... In reality massless particles shouldn't exist so I still think that photons have some form of mass albeit unmeasurably small, however you might as well say they are massless. Question is is there any way to prove photons have a miniscule amount of mass, Perhaps a stream of condensed photons that impacts a silicon wafer nanometers across in a magnetic bowl (Antimatter trap)? If it moves more than a control object being put through the same experiment without the stream of photons then it would be provable through thousands of more tests that photons have miniscule amounts of mass? I personally think they do have a miniscule amount of mass as something without mass shouldn't really exist. However I could be wrong...

 

The way I understand it (and this is really beyond my comfort zone) is that some parts of physics might work with an absolutely tiny mass (ie within the bounds I posted above) but others just would not. Quantum electrodynamics is incredibly accurate, underlies much of our present ideas, and just does not work if mass is non-zero. The presence of zero mass allows certain things to be also set to zero - but any non-zero amount for the mass of the photon means that these parts of the calculation boom up to infinities. So it is not that some theories loses a tiny bit of accuracy - it is that one of our most accurate and predictive theories cannot work if mass is non-zero . I think the same is true for quantum chromodynamics (as the gluon must also be massless), and clearly any of the unifications between the strong, the electromagnetic and the weak.

 

No physicist would be categorical that there is no possibility of a non-zero value because empirical data rules everything and you cannot prove a zero in these terms. But claiming a non-zero mass is a positive statement - and it is a huge claim - thus some evidence other than a a feeling of unease at the idea of masslessness and a misunderstanding of high school equations must be given to back that claim up

[Capiert]

Neutrinos were thought to be massless until relatively recently.

It seems opinions are changing.

What was said in the past

is not true now.

(What a mess.)

As noted above, photon mass measurements are zero within experimental error, which places very tight constraints.

Is it possible

we don't have enough accuracy yet?

[imatfaal]

 

But it is accepted that it has zero mass? Or is there a consensus for an infinitesimal small mass?

 

Consensus is that theory says zero mass and experimental evidence does not contradict zero mass.

[Capiert]

Any evidence for this?

..(photon suppose to have mass).

Only the basics physics

m=mom/c

of the photon's momentum mom

per light's_speed c;

but we have to dissect

Swansont's presentation

to get to the bottom

of it.

 

In my book (=opinion, perspective)

mass m=F/a

is a coefficient (effect)

for the rate of (inverse) acceleration

(in Newton's force equation).

Both F & m are virtual

but you have made something of it (=mass)

which you do not define further

except as a thing.

In German mass is a measurement

of length,

perhaps applying

to the "inverse"

of your mass_spectrometer's

(electro)magnetic deflection (distance).

 

But we know

momentum

mom=m*v.

I cannot imagine

momentum

without a (physical) mass m

(& speed v).

That is its definition,

or should I ignore that?

It is accepted that is has zero mass. The experimental upper bound is quite small. As imatfaal has stated, that upper bound is the experimental uncertainty. However, to show that there is mass, you need to exclude zero, i.e. zero has to fall decidedly outside of the experimental error.

 

Unfortunately, for a photon at 780 nm, the mass (if it were traveling near c) would be 1.59 eV/c^2, which is many, many orders of magnitude above what has already been experimentally excluded.

Would you please explain that exclusion method a bit?

I'm not clear yet.

 

E.g. What fraction of an electron's mass

do you anticipate (=assume)

the photon's mass should be?

(To get anywhere near into the correct range.)

Edited May 11, 2017 by Capiert

[Strange]

Well... In reality massless particles shouldn't exist

 

 

Why?

It seems opinions are changing.

What was said in the past

is not true now.

(What a mess.)

 

 

It is not a mess. It is the way science progresses.