Light is most likely not a massless particle.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

Cherenkov Radiation equation and n is the index of the material.

Then your equation can't be correct. c is a velocity (m/s), n is dimensionless and t is time so it fails dimensional analysis.

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Then your equation can't be correct. c is a velocity (m/s), n is dimensionless and t is time so it fails dimensional analysis.

That is not my equation that is,  Sergey Vavilov and Pavel Cherenkov.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

That is not my equation that is,  Sergey Vavilov and Pavel Cherenkov.

Well, either they got it wrong or you copied it wrong. Can you give your source?

There nearest I can find here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation is: v_em = c/n. (Which is basically the equation for refractive index.)

Edited December 4, 2017 by Strange

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, either they got it wrong or you copied it wrong. Can you give your source?

Oh, I am missing an X, (n /x_em t) = C , (n /x_em t)² = C²

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

Oh, I am missing an X, (n /x_em t) = C , (n /x_em t)² = C²

I guess you mean: n x_em/t = c. What is the point of squaring it?

I not sure how this is related to SR though ...

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I guess you mean: n x_em/t = c. What is the point of squaring it?

I not sure how this is related to SR though ...

Ya, that.

(n x_em/t)² = c²

The Index goes above 1 slightly because of time dilation in the reference frame for space.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

The Index goes above 1 slightly because of time dilation in the reference frame for space.

I'm confused. What is "the reference frame for space"? 

The refractive index of all materials is greater than 1. Are you saying the refractive index of the vacuum can be more than 1? For some frames of reference? How does that work?

[Vmedvil]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm confused. What is "the reference frame for space"? 

The refractive index of all materials is greater than 1. Are you saying the refractive index of the vacuum can be more than 1? For some frames of reference? How does that work?

Start at index of refraction equation. C =  299,792,458 meters per second , v =  299,792,459 meters per second

 

(n x_em/t)² = c²

What is Change in time in that frame.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

v =  299,792,459 meters per second

But that is impossible so ...

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

But that is impossible so ...

No, its not because Higgs Bosons do it.

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm confused. What is "the reference frame for space"? 

The refractive index of all materials is greater than 1. Are you saying the refractive index of the vacuum can be more than 1? For some frames of reference? How does that work?

Keep probing. +1

[Vmedvil]

Do you see how it absolutely changes the c of SR to a higher amount, then vacuum C in that frame, if (n x_em/t')² = c²

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Higgs Bosons do it

Do they? 

There was a huge fuss when it was (mistakenly) thought that neutrinos, which are nearly massless, travel faster than light. I assume there would have been even bigger headlines if a really massive particle travelled faster than light.

Do you have a reference for this?

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

Do you see how it absolutely changes the c of SR to a higher amount, then vacuum C in that frame.

No. I have never seen anything saying that c can change. Reference?

[Vmedvil]

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Do they? 

There was a huge fuss when it was (mistakenly) thought that neutrinos, which are nearly massless, travel faster than light. I assume there would have been even bigger headlines if a really massive particle travelled faster than light.

Do you have a reference for this?

No. I have never seen anything saying that c can change. Reference?

Well, it has Tachyonic states let me find the article. 

he Higgs mechanism was incorporated into modern particle physics by Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam, and is an essential part of the standard model.

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.)

Fermions, such as the leptons and quarks in the Standard Model, can also acquire mass as a result of their interaction with the Higgs field, but not in the same way as the gauge bosons.

Higgs Critical

That is why on the dark matter post, I said it was impossible for it to be charged with electric charge as Electroweak breaks before neutrino, because I thought the wiki said that Sterile Neutrinos were charged.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

Right. But nothing there about Higgs bosons going faster than light. 

[Vmedvil]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Right. But nothing there about Higgs bosons going faster than light. 

what does tachyonic mean strange? Like, I said the Index becomes tachyonic or field, the field of SR is that C. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

Quote

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 ...

9 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

the field of SR is that C.

Huh?

[Vmedvil]

Well, the first C_vaccum , V_Medium ,   The Second C²_medium  The one in SR, so it is based on how the medium effects these things particles if the medium is different then that would be different being the field that the particle interacts with in time-space. I am just saying how SR is messed up, if the field is tachyonic then the C² is different. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

No. c is always the same. SR is based on that. It isn’t based on the speed of light in a medium. 

[Vmedvil]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. c is always the same. SR is based on that. It isn’t based on the speed of light in a medium. 

Yes, it is based on the medium Time-space, 

The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

The theory of special relativity explains how space and time are linked for objects that are moving at a consistent speed in a straight line. One of its most famous aspects concerns objects moving at the speed of light. 

Aether theories (also known as ether theories) in physics propose the existence of a medium, the aether (also spelled ether, from the Greek word (αἰθήρ), meaning "upper air" or "pure, fresh air"), a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic or gravitational forces.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

There is no aether.

3 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Aether theories (also known as ether theories) in physics propose the existence of a medium, the aether (also spelled ether, from the Greek word (αἰθήρ), meaning "upper air" or "pure, fresh air"), a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic or gravitational forces

There is not, and never has been, any evidence or necessity for a mythical aether.

[Vmedvil]

No, not the aether that GR proved wrong which was light moved in a certain direction faster, but GR is still a type of aether, and there is nothing mystical about that in physics it just means has a medium which is time-space. The Aether of GR is Time-space have you ever heard that term? Otherwise, what is curving.

 

When trying to reverse engineer Einstein you gotta listen to his terms.

Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

No, not the aether that GR proved wrong which was light moved in a certain direction faster, but GR is still a type of aether, and there is nothing mystical about that in physics it just means has a medium which is time-space. The Aether of GR is Time-space have you ever heard that term?

Yes, Einstein used that as a metaphor for space-time in a speech. It is normally only repeated by anti-relativity cranks.

Quote

Otherwise, what is curving.

Erm... space and time. (Or, more precisely, the geometry of space and time.)

Quote

Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support.

Because it is generally considered confusing and misguided to reuse a term that had a well-established meaning for something else. It would be like calling oxygen phlogiston because, you know, fire.

[Vmedvil]

Well, we all know how to do "anti-gravity" so obviously not what I am talking about, Meissner effect of superconductors which is an magnetism property is "Anti-gravity".

My point is there is a medium that he was referring to when he wrote this stuff.

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, we all know how to do "anti-gravity" so obviously not what I am talking about, Meissner effect of superconductors which is an magnetism property is "Anti-gravity".

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. 

Quote

My point is there is a medium that he was referring to when he wrote this stuff.

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.