justafool @zeccano@qoto.org
Joined Nov 2019
Proving that light, a photon has no mass.
No rest mass and no relativistic mass.
There are two camps here, one classical and the other relativistic.
Both agree that the photon has no mass at rest.
Relativists claim that there is another value for mass called Relativistic mass, which allows the photon to possess momentum and be affected by inertia, and be affected by gravity. (spacetime curvature)
In keeping with Einstein’s and Classical physics rules, it is agreed that light speed in the following equations is speed of light in a vacuum, or c. Relativity always uses c in Einstein’s hypothesis.
Gamma (Lorentz transformation equation) is used uniformly throughout Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Gamma equation is
As we are only concerned about the photon here, which always goes at c, we have no variables to consider.
Therefore the value of gamma for the photon at c is simply 1. Gamma is 1, so that anytime we see gamma either as a multiplier or divisor of any value, we can ignore it, as the result will be unchanged. (45 x 1 is still 45, and 84 divided by 1 is still 84.)
To prove that there is no difference between the rest mass of something and the relativistic mass of the object, IF it is moving at c, we just need to do the math, the result is that both rest mass and the same mass at speed are equal. Actually, we get a math error of trying to divide by zero, which is impossible to do in Physics. Anything can be done in the imaginary world of theoretical mathematics, but not in Physics. The actual result is infinity, which is not a number.
Basing a fundamental law of Physics on a quirk of theoretical mathematics is beyond unreasonable.
In Physics, we demonstrate, not speculate when we make laws. For instance we can demonstrate division of 40 apples and 8 boxes. It is demonstrable. But its not rational or sensible to try to demonstrate 40 apples put into zero boxes. We cant demonstrate how division can work physically without the denominators, the boxes. And my calculator gives either “undefined error” or the infinity symbol, because the operation is nonsense.
And even if this were somehow true in physics when it comes to the photon, that means that every single photon has infinite mass.! Not even worth considering in Physics.
Now of course they (the relativists) try to claim that mass is really momentum So its not infinite mass but it is some relativistic value of momentum.
Please note here that it would have been simpler to just use the relativistic equation for converting rest mass to relativistic mass directly, which we shall address later
Pretending that Einstein really meant to say “momentum” when he wrote “mass” is really not going to help unless you think trickery is a valid way to do physics and we will now see why its invalid as well.
Momentum is simply p=mv.
They claim that the mass here is not normal mass, but relativistic mass….so they modify a perfectly good tried and tested equation with a relativistic friendly one in order to do a slight of hand with the maths, to “Prove” mathematically that black is really white, but only if you go fast enough.
Her is the relativistic equation for momentum.
p=γ*m*v
The mass here is rest mass.
So lets plug in the known values.
Lets see, the velocity is c so lets call that 300million
We are talking about photons so that still gamma which as we previously discovered, for photons gamma is 1
How can it be only 1, which is the same value we get for gamma when the velocity is reduced to a dead stop? That’s easy, this equation does not mimic reality, and this problem becomes obvious when we run the numbers.
So now we have the relativistic version of momentum giving the exact same result as the classical version of momentum because for a photon the gamma is 1. One times a value, the value remains unchanged.
So the momentum for a photon looks like this:
Momentum of a photon = zero*300million
= exactly ZERO.
But wait, some say that the m in the above equation means Relativistic mass, not rest mass… so what happens if we change the equation to use relativistic mass?
This is where we need to use the direct equation for converting rest mass to relativistic mass.
m_(rel )=rest mass divided by √(1-v^2/c^2 )
So plug the know values for rest mass (zero) and velocity of the photon squared is the same as c squared, so that equals 1…
Rest mass = 0 / sq root of (1 minus 1) =
Rest mass = 0/0 is … cant be anything else but zero.
AGAIN we show that the mass of a photon at rest or at c is always zero.
With this unsurprising, intuitive and mathematically perfect result for momentum of a photon, that also matches our observations of light, we go now to the relativistic equation we are trying to solve:
That is Einstein’s Equivalence of energy and mass equation, expressed in Relativistic terms.
Now we need to address the claim that the Energy -Mass equivalence equation can prove that a photon can have Mass but its magically disguised as “momentum”.
The full equation is:
.
E^2=(pc)^2+(〖mc〗^2 )^2
Apparently the variable m is supposed to be in relativistic terms, but its still ZERO which ever way you look at it as proven above.
Momentum of photon we know is zero, relativistic mass of photon is also zero, so (pc) squared is just zero…. And as mass is also zero we have square(m*300million) is exactly ZERO.
So zero plus zero then square it? Its ZERO.
E squared is exactly ZERO
Energy of a photon is exactly ZERO according to Einstein’s own formulas.
Or, the other way of looking at it, the photon has no mass, has no momentum and cant be imbued with any inertial from another object. The photon wont go at a diagonal as explained in my video.
Why is this so?
Simply because the mistake was made early on, when they continued to try to do math using an equation that requires a physical object that has necessarily got mass and size, they are weirdly trying to do a physical operation of something that is not physical.
If you have something that has no mass at rest, and no size, then that is the very precise statement that you don’t have anything physical that is going to obey any sets of physical laws!
Einstein’s equations REQUIRE physicality because the variables are properties that are possessed ONLY by things that have SOME mass and SOME size. Then he also mixes into this purely physical equation, light, which is not physical.
Mass, momentum, inertia, gravity, is never to be associated with light.
Here’s a good one for you to answer: “How much mass does TIME have?” How much does Time curve as it passes the Sun during an eclipse? How much stupidity can you put into a 1 liter container?
These are questions for Einstein.
Please address my math and explanations item by item, and not just make blanket statement. Explain where im wrong, and show the correct answer please.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
OK, later, those chickens call.. have a break, i may not get back to the computer till tomorrow
but i will show my working.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Lets not go there yet, we are still trying to prove with math, using einsteins gamma (lorentz's actually) that a photon has a different mass at reat that ti does at c.
We have the correct equation for mass from Dr lincon of Fermi lab, we plug in the numbers... we get the result that for a photon, rest mass is identical to relativistic mass, namely it has no mass, zero is the correct answer.
Because gamma equates to just 1 at light speed.
Unless you math says something else here?
I just posted the math proof that for light, there is no difference at all between the rest mass and the relativistic mass. both are zero mass.
(because there is no such thing as gamma)
I think you are needing to have a revision course on this topic before you find fault with my math.
In the equation I posted, m is rest mass OR relativistic mass, as they are BOTH identical values for a photon!
See the equation for Gamma below
The numeral "1" in the equation, the Numerator is what? Its the REST MASS. Because we are trying to determine what gamma is here, so we cant know the relativistic mass till we know gamma.
Anyway, in the case of the photon it equates to exactly the same result whether its rest or relativistic mass.!
Because the velocity of the photon is c.
so solving the equation, the ONLY correct result for light is that gamma = 1.
so multiplying anything by 1 achieves nothing!.
Therefore, claiming that I made a mistake by using rest mass instead of relativistic mass is just wrong.
I never observed a light beam having any mass or possessing any momentum which requires mass to exist. I never witnessed any light exhibiting any tell tail traits that indicate it can have inertia.
Where are these observations? I have plenty of light here, no sign that it does what you claim.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
I did not say that speed IS motion. I said that speed is just the MEASUREMENT of motion.
If you have changed the direction of a moving object, then you have necessarily changed its motion, and as newtons third law indicates, if you add force too a moving object, (force requiring a mass in motion) to the motion of the first object having mass, then the first object must change direction and gain some portion of the second objects inertia.
So it will both change direction AND change speed.
So, if a photon has mass and it inherited any of the light sources inertia as you claim then the photon will simultaneously change direction as you claim BUT it must also increase speed!
Now here you are saying two opposite things about light.
As long as you insist that light has mass what I just describe MUST be correct according to physics.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Im ignoring the insanity claims, I have the exact same thinking about you, rest assured.
Now about a photon having mass of any sort, which is the crux of this discussion I think.
Without mass, that photon cant ever be going in the zigzag trajectory as in my video, so this is the bone of contention.
Here is the equation I wanted to see, which i took from Don Lincon of Fermilabs lecture.
He is discussing why a massless photon can have momentum specifically, so this is addressing the exact thing we are talking about.
I want to make a claim about the purpose of this equation. It is equating an amount of energy to what? The only possible answer is to A PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT HAS MASS.
The energy is in Joules, and a joule is equal to the energy transferred to an object when a force of one newton acts on that object in the direction of the force's motion through a distance of one metre.
And one Newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in the direction of the applied force.
So we have a big problem here.
If you have zero rest mass ( thats the m in the equation below) then you are not able to do anything with this equation. There is no measurable physical object to apply this equation to.
The definition of a physical object is something that has form and mass.
e=mc2 and its derivatives REQUIRE something to exist as physical matter having a measurable mass for the equation to be calculated.
There are TWO places in the equation that REQUIRE a positive value, the m and also the p, because here they are referring to newtonian physics, where p is equal to mv.
The chemical equivalent of what you propose by just setting mathematically all instances of m to the value o zero, is like trying to make water, H2O but only using H2 and having zero oxygen.
This an an abuse of math to try this sleight of hand to try to keep einstins stupid theories about light being able to take up inertia because it has mass at some speed but not another speed.
BS. If you have speed, a measure of motion, then you have motion. speed is just a measure of motion. Last I heard light, a photon travels in a straight line, so yes its direction is invariant in a vacuum.
I did not say that lights speed is affected by changing its direction. Im saying that this is the only possibility if we believe your claims about light.That its able to be affected by the motion of the source, but only sideways, not in the direction of the photons travel. A weird non physical claim. Thats what you claimed.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Einstein said the the speed of light remains constant irrespective of the motion of the source. Its a basic postulate of SR.
speed is motion is it not? motion can be forward or sideways, so if light is not affected by motion forward then it cant be affected by the motion in in any other direction can it?
If you say it CAN be affected by sideways motion, then this is ADDING speed to light speed.
This is impossible.
Unless you think that light slows down in the original direction as you turn the source to face another direction????
If a ball is moving east at a set speed, and I add force in the north direction, then the result will be a new velocity, a new direction and an increase in speed!
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
What sort of physics are you using here? Micky Mouse Physics?
velocity IS motion. and motion is velocity, you cant have motion without velocity, or vice versa when it comes to light. Or anything else, but you need to specify speed rather than velocity far anything that can be moving in non inertial trajectories.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Just show me the equation that shows that light can have mass.
This seems to be the sticking point here.
Light has no mass, therefore no momentum, and inertia cant be imbued to it by motion of the source. Thats my claim.
Backed up with einsteins statement that the motion of the source cant affect light.
What have you got to counter this?
It needs to be pretty good.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Where is the math equation that show that a photon has mass? p=mv.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
Your illustration involving a ball tossed between two people, will be seen as a diagonal when viewed from a differnet moving perspective.
But its not like this with light.
According to every physicist including einstein, Light is the only thing that is absolute, its own self is the ONLY absolute frame of reference, which is why light is invariably always c.
Because physicists are saying that lights frame is the preferred frame. (the only absolute frame)
So in your scenario you have done the impossible, you have set the observer who sees the diagonal as if he were in the absolute preferred frame of light!
He cannot be in that frame of reference. Its absolute.
The two guys trying to toss the ball between each other wont have any problem if its a ball, which gains the inertia of the guys, as the ball has mass it CAN gain the inertia of the guys, but light cant, as its without mass.
If you try to reverse it, and claim that the guys are not moving, they are just tossing the ball back and forth, its the observer that is moving past, so he will see the diagonal, then still it only can work for a ball, not light? Why? Because in this scenerio, with the moving observer, you now have him AND light in the same absolute frame, again its not possible.
Anyway, what are you going to do with Einstein and every other physicist who say flat out, that light is NOT dependent on the motion of the source?
So move the guy who tosses the photon or the guy trying to catch it, and they will NOT stay in the same frame as the photon, as my video shows.
You guys are talking around in circles, contracting your own claims with weak logic.
A photon has no mass, therefore no inertia and cant have any momentum, relativistic or not.
@freemo Ah... all this is based on Assumptions about the nature of light and electricity.
You cant PROVE an electron exists, its really just a label to a place holder we invented in order to try to visualize how electricity MIGHT work, its a metaphor. (and its good enough to allow us to estimate mathematically what will happen if we put our finger in the wall socket)
We have electricity, and the electron is just the graphic that illustrates what electricity does, but that does not mean that we have physical electrons. Thompson ASSUMED that his observations indicated that an atom's volume was mostly just nothing, this is not the only possibility.
Strangely we have the Einstein guy again to blame for this, with his photoelectric effect, claiming that a photon can dislodge an electron from a chunk of metal.
Light does create electricity, we know this, but einsteins explanation is just a guess.
So UV light effects skin cells, but if its a matter of the momentum of the photons, then we still will get skin cancer from lower frequency light, not just UV, because that light still has momentum, just not as much.
Unless you think that cells have a evolved a shield that only fails to work for UV light frequency?
Very amiss of evolution i would say. Considering all those millions of years we were running about naked in the sun. Oh the good old days!
@freemo Also, I forgot.
Length contraction has never been demonstrated, Mass increase has been substituted for momentum increases with velocity, which is not the same, so effectively, mass increase has never been demonstrated so that's two strikes out of three for SR, so why would you still claim that the most abstract of the three, TIME, does really change, when its more likey that its just clocks that are change not time. (and this effect HAS been demonstrated, you did the experiment yourself)
@freemo Give a practical example of light having mass,, the light sail in space is a bit abstract.
Like the Radiometer, it was supposed to be demonstrating that light has mass, but turned out it was not demonstrating this at all.
What other experiments?
@freemo Ok, I must go do some work now, so i will check later or tomorrow if you have supplied any evidence that light has mass of any flavor under any conditions, (frequency, velocity, or lack thereof.)
Also you need to explain why light has relativistic mass due to the vibration frequency but by the same theory does not have any according to its velocity?
@freemo Yep, I agree that math is very cool, and is amazing, I once tried to do a University course in Computer Programming, as Im into computers, (never games, I do CAD 3D work for engineering.)
but I quickly learned that the programming was not too hard, however it required that my math was excellent, so as to be able to develop the algorithms.
SR has been my focus regarding Einstein, not GR.
And I cant get to start on the math unless I solve the problem that the little photon does not and can not gain any inertia from the frame of reference in which the light source resides.
This is the starting point for the development of the lorentz transformation on which SR depends.
@freemo Please Prove that light has ANY sort of mass, according to its frequency, which you seem to be also saying that does not change according to it velocity which is not always c. (contrary to special relativity)
So you are cherry picking here, in claiming that the velocity of the frequency is affecting the mass of the photon, according to SR, BUT you wont apply the same theory of SR to light's linear velocity, which would mean necessarily that light has infinite mass at c.
Incidentally, the accepted modern view of mass is that the terms "rest mass"and "relativistic mass" are incorrect and misleading. The correct term is simply now known as "mass".
Joined Nov 2019
