Light is most likely not a massless particle.

[Vmedvil]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

What has "anti-gravity" got to do with anything. (Although, by this definition of "anti-gravity", my chair is an antigravity device.) The thread is about whether photons have mass. 

Yep. Spacetime. Can we get back to photons now. If you want to start a thread on why you think relativity is wrong, please do so.

Well, this was about that until you started to debate with me on it, Higgs Bosons give stuff mass, photons don't have them, special relativity doesn't allow things to go faster than C, Electrons generate photons as Cherenkov radiation when going faster than C's speed in a medium, which is in a tachyonic domain at that point for that medium.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, this was about that until you started to debate with me on it

Just pointing out your errors to make sure others don't get as confused as you!

 

 

[Vmedvil]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Just pointing out your errors to make sure others don't get as confused as you!

 

 

Ya, but I am trying to renormalize this stuff, as Timespace and Higgs have a different medium either Einstein or Higgs are right, but not both..... which has nothing to do with this post.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

either Einstein or Higgs are right, but not both....

FFS. The Higgs mechanism is part of the Standard Model which is built on special relativity. Just stop posting nonsense.

[Vmedvil]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

FFS. The Higgs mechanism is part of the Standard Model which is built on special relativity. Just stop posting nonsense.

yes but when both are put into the same medium it causes two different states for Timespace to appear, one that allows tachyonic stuff one that doesn't

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

yes but when both are put into the same medium it causes two different states for Timespace to appear, one that allows tachyonic stuff one that doesn't

Obviously not. You are saying the standard model is inconsistent with  ...  the standard model.

Please just stop posting this nonsense.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Strange

[Vmedvil]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Obviously not. You are saying the standard model is inconsistent with  ...  the standard model.

Please just stop posting this nonsense.

Then plug a imaginary mass into SR and see what happens, if you get a answer that is sensible which the Higgs mechanism says they have for a short time.

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Then plug a imaginary mass into SR and see what happens, if you get a answer that is sensible which the Higgs mechanism says they have for a short time.

No it doesn't. 

[Vmedvil]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

No it doesn't. 

it says this is the source of that Michael E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder (1995). An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Perseus books publishing. 

We are about to find out why it says that then.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Under no circumstances do any excitations ever propagate faster than light in such theories—the presence or absence of a tachyonic mass has no effect whatsoever on the maximum velocity of signals (there is no violation of causality).^[6]

 

  Quote

it was soon realized that Feinberg's model in fact did not allow for superluminal speeds.^[6] Instead, the imaginary mass creates an instability in the configuration: any configuration in which one or more field excitations are tachyonic will spontaneously decay, and the resulting configuration contains no physical tachyons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_field

And, of course, this happened 13 billion years ago ...

 

Just now, Vmedvil said:

it says this is the source of that Michael E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder (1995). An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Perseus books publishing. 

It says what? That the standard model is not based on SR? That the standard model is inconsistent with itself?

As neither of those are true, I can only assume you have misunderstood it.

[Vmedvil]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

It says what? That the standard model is not based on SR? That the standard model is inconsistent with itself?

As neither of those are true, I can only assume you have misunderstood it.

The term "tachyon" was coined by Gerald Feinberg in a 1967 paper^[7] that studied quantum fields with imaginary mass. Feinberg believed such fields permitted faster than light propagation, but it was soon realized that Feinberg's model in fact did not allow for superluminal speeds.^[6] Instead, the imaginary mass creates an instability in the configuration: any configuration in which one or more field excitations are tachyonic will spontaneously decay, and the resulting configuration contains no physical tachyons. This process is known as tachyon condensation. A famous example is the condensation of the Higgs boson in the Standard Model of particle physics.

In the standard model, at temperatures high enough that electroweak symmetry is unbroken, all elementary particles are massless. At a critical temperature, the Higgs field becomes tachyonic; the symmetry is spontaneously broken by condensation, and the W and Z bosons acquire masses. (This is also known as electroweak symmetry breaking; EWSB.)

A tachyonic field, or simply tachyon, is a quantum field with an imaginary mass.^[1] Although tachyons (particles that move faster than light) are a purely hypothetical concept, fields with imaginary mass have come to play an important role in modern physics^[2][3][4] and are discussed in popular books on physics.^[1][5] Under no circumstances do any excitations ever propagate faster than light in such theories—the presence or absence of a tachyonic mass has no effect whatsoever on the maximum velocity of signals (there is no violation of causality).^[6]

 

I don't care either way, but this made me think I had to make corrections for Tachyonic Fields in SR with imaginary masses.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

The term "tachyon" was coined by Gerald Feinberg in a 1967 paper^[7] that studied quantum fields with imaginary mass. Feinberg believed such fields permitted faster than light propagation, but it was soon realized that Feinberg's model in fact did not allow for superluminal speeds.^[6] Instead, the imaginary mass creates an instability in the configuration: any configuration in which one or more field excitations are tachyonic will spontaneously decay, and the resulting configuration contains no physical tachyons. This process is known as tachyon condensation. A famous example is the condensation of the Higgs boson in the Standard Model of particle physics.

1. You are continuing your annoying habit of never giving references for your quotations (and annoying images).

2. From that same page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon for those who are interested):

Quote

Because the group velocity for such a field is superluminal, naively it appears that its excitations propagate faster than light. However, it was quickly understood that the superluminal group velocity does not correspond to the speed of propagation of any localized excitation (like a particle). Instead, the negative mass represents an instability to tachyon condensation, and all excitations of the field propagate subluminally and are consistent with causality.^[5] Despite having no faster-than-light propagation, such fields are referred to simply as "tachyons" in many sources.^{[1][6][26][27][28][29]}

The linked page on tachyon condensation points out that "imaginary mass" has no physical meaning, it just indicates that the system is unstable.

So no imaginary masses, no faster than light travel and no inconsistency of the standard model with itself. 

[Vmedvil]

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. You are continuing your annoying habit of never giving references for your quotations (and annoying images).

2. From that same page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon for those who are interested):

The linked page on tachyon condensation points out that "imaginary mass" has no physical meaning, it just indicates that the system is unstable.

So no imaginary masses, no faster than light travel and no inconsistency of the standard model with itself. 

Good that means I don't have to change anything which means I am right either way. So, No photons don't have Mass

They would have to go into a Tachyon Condensation to get mass which they don't.

"all elementary particles are massless. At a critical temperature, the Higgs field becomes tachyonic; the symmetry is spontaneously broken by condensation, and the W and Z bosons acquire masses."

Edited December 5, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Well handled Strange my hats off to you.

[Vmedvil]

I think I am going to stop taking both sides in arguments like in the DM post and this one because it gets me way too down-voted.