19 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetleI haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I force you to repeat yourself:
1. In fact light behaves as particle and as a wave at the same time, as it is demonstrated with the double slit experiment. And photons do have mass although for our convenience it is suggested that their rest mass is zero -otherwise the polarization would be out of order.
But what are your sources to say that photons have zero rest mass?
And what exactly do you mean when you say that their polarization is out of order?
Besides: it is now an experimental fact that photons behave as particles all of the time. Two good books that explain this in a very good way are:
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Development-Leslie-Ballentine/dp/9810241054
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276981557&sr=1-1
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by adam warlockIf you read again my first post at the second page of this thread you will see that I said the following: "And photons do have mass although for our convenience it is suggested that their rest mass is zero -otherwise the polarization would be out of order." It is clear I never claimed that the photons are massless, and in addition I said that the polarization proves that the photons do have mass;
I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I force you to repeat yourself:
But what are your sources to say that photons have zero rest mass?
And what exactly do you mean when you say that their polarization is out of order?
Besides: it is now an experimental fact that photons behave as particles all of the time. Two good books that explain this ...[text shortened]... /QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276981557&sr=1-1
Twhitehead is the one who claimed amongst else that the photons have no mass, as you will see when you will check his first post at the second page
😵
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetleMy mistake: I meant to to write "But what are your sources to say that photons don't have zero rest mass? "
If you read again my first post at the second page of this thread you will see that I said the following: "And photons do have mass although for our convenience it is suggested that their rest mass is zero -otherwise the polarization would be out of order." It is clear I never claimed that the photons are massless, and in addition I said that the polari ...[text shortened]... hotons have no mass, as you will see when you will check his first post at the second page
😵
And what exactly do you mean with the polarization comment too?
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by adam warlockNo prob at all my friend, we just enjoy an interesting conversation🙂
My mistake: I meant to to write "But what are your sources to say that photons don't have zero rest mass? "
And what exactly do you mean with the polarization comment too?
Since you did not read this thread from the beginning, I clarify I claim that light behaves as a wave and as a particle at the same time, therefore its nature is in my opinion "0/1" instead of "0 or 1" as twhitehead claims. The outcome "0 or 1" (wave or particle, that is) and the factual event "0" or "1" that we are monitoring and thus determine after we collapse the wavefunction is merely a product of our interaction (by means of the agency of our consciousness) with the wavefunction, as I explained to twhitehead by means of my last post at the second page of this thread. Well, in my opinion, after our observation the wavefunction spreads out again immediately and thus the light "gets" again its "0/1" nature until the next time that we will collapse the wavefunction and therefore have our event "0" or "1" determined.
Now, regarding the photon mass issue you may check http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htmlmass of
and regarding polarization, maybe you would like to conduct your research starting out with
http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st9
😵
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetleThe article mentions vacuum polarization and I though you was talking about photon polarization. The only way for a photon to have the polarization it has is by having zero mass.
No prob at all my friend, we just enjoy an interesting conversation🙂
Since you did not read this thread from the beginning, I clarify I claim that light behaves as a wave and as a particle at the same time, therefore its nature is in my opinion "0/1" instead of "0 or 1" as twhitehead claims. The outcome "0 or 1" (wave or particle, that is) and the f ...[text shortened]... onduct your research starting out with
http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st9
😵
Another thing is that that article says that photons might have had mass in the past and indicate that in the present they do have zero mass.
Let me reiterate: by now it is an experimental fact that everything always act like particles. The so called wave behavior of light and quantum particles (excuse me for using that term but I think you know what I mean with it) arises due to statistical effects and poor technology. Fortunately we are not in the 1920's and 1930´s and more reliable experiments have been made and the result is clear: they are always particles.
Again I refer you to the QED booklet of Feynman and the book on QM by Ballentine.
Also I'm not a big fan of the wave collapse jargon: I'm a proponent of the ensemble interpretation on orthodox QM, but I think that ultimately we need a nonlinear theory of QM to really understand what's going on.
The article regarding the photon doesn't really make your case. The first part confirms that current day knowledge confirms that from all we know fhotons don't have mass and the second part addresses some of the problems of massive photon theories.
One question I'd like to put to you: if you think that photons do have mass how do you explain the apparent infinite reach of the electromagnetic interaction?
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by adam warlockMy intention was to give you all the pieces of info required in order to ease you to see my point in full, but it worked not. So, regarding the photon mass issue, I have address you to “Atoms, Molecules and Photons: An Introduction to Atomic, Molecular and Quantum Physics”, 2006, by Wolfgang Demtroeder, Springer-Verglar Berlin Heidelberg, paragraph 3.1.9, p. 92-94.
The article mentions vacuum polarization and I though you was talking about photon polarization. The only way for a photon to have the polarization it has is by having zero mass.
Another thing is that that article says that photons might have had mass in the past and indicate that in the present they do have zero mass.
Let me reiterate: by now it is ...[text shortened]... e mass how do you explain the apparent infinite reach of the electromagnetic interaction?
Furthermore, if the sole way for a photon to have the polarization it has is by having zero mass as you claim, then in the case of the three entangled photons A, B and C and of the three detectors that measure horizontal polarization H, vertical polarization V or left, right circular polarization Cl and Cr (as it is demonstrated by Alain Aspect regarding the EPR issue), what exactly do you think that is spinning if the mass of the particle is zero?
Edit: ”…if you think that photons do have mass how do you explain the apparent infinite reach of the electromagnetic interaction?”
I already told you that in my opinion light behaves as a wave and as a particle at the same time (0/1), therefore I conclude it is our consciousness alone the agent that determines whether or not the light is monitored as a “particle” or as a “wave”. The apparently infinite reach of the electromagnetic interaction is monitored as such because it is:
1. a result of our agency of consciousness that determined the "event" massless photon, and
2. a result of the fact that the probability waves of the wavefunction we just collapsed are spread out extremely slowly from the states they were in when they were last observed. Of course, the phase of the wavefunction from which arose the probability of the emergence of the apparently infinite electromagnetic interaction is not a few nanoseconds, as it is the case in the quantum world, but billion of years (Gribbin explains this point perfectly in his “Schroedinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality”, 1996).
All in all, methinks the quantum entities lack of intrinsic defining characteristics in the way the classical objects do, therefore I am forced to conclude they are ciphers that adopt various aspects in order to maintain a behavioral pattern within an overall group. In fact I feel quite comfortably with Penrose when he claims that the continual use of the collapsing of the wavefunction into actuality cuts the entanglements free: to me, for the time being, the phenomenon of consciousness alone unentagles the universal predisposition to entanglement
😵
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetleI don't have “Atoms, Molecules and Photons: An Introduction to Atomic, Molecular and Quantum Physics” so please you summarize their argument or factual evidence regarding the issue of the mass of the photon. I really would love to read what they have to say.
My intention was to give you all the pieces of info required in order to ease you to see my point in full, but it worked not. So, regarding the photon mass issue, I have address you to “Atoms, Molecules and Photons: An Introduction to Atomic, Molecular and Quantum Physics”, 2006, by Wolfgang Demtroeder, Springer-Verglar Berlin Heidelberg, paragraph 3.1. ...[text shortened]... phenomenon of consciousness alone unentagles the universal predisposition to entanglement
😵
Circular polarization is a combination of vertical and horizontal polarization (both having the same magnitude). Though this has noting to do with the point I was trying to make.
Your explanation of the infinite reach of the electromagnetic interaction and the fact that the photon as a finite mass makes no sense.
I'd love to see the Gribbins explanation you mention but unfortunately the only book of him I have is: In Search of the Big Bang.
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by adam warlockThen try this link about the material in "Atoms, Molecules and Photons":
I don't have “Atoms, Molecules and Photons: An Introduction to Atomic, Molecular and Quantum Physics” so please you summarize their argument or factual evidence regarding the issue of the mass of the photon. I really would love to read what they have to say.
Circular polarization is a combination of vertical and horizontal polarization (both having t ...[text shortened]... ation you mention but unfortunately the only book of him I have is: In Search of the Big Bang.
http://books.google.gr/[WORD TOO LONG]
I will try to come back here soon, my friend
😵
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetleIt appears to me that pages 92 to 94 of the said book don't substantiate your claim of the photon having a mass different than zero.
Then try this link about the material in "Atoms, Molecules and Photons":
http://books.google.gr/[WORD TOO LONG]
I will try to come back here soon, my friend
😵
When they are speaking about photon interaction with gravity and assign to the photon the mass m=hv/c^2 you have to realize that this equation isn't to be taken literally.
They say that the concept of rest mass of the photon is a wrong one since the photon can never be at rest. Still you know that photons do interact gravitationally and so to keep the previous status quo one can give them a special mass that only shows itself on gravity. If the photon really had mass like all the other particles than it would have to behave exactly like all the other masive particles and it doesn't.
Think about the equation:
E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2
Just by looking at it you can make a theoretical prediction: all things that carry energy and have no mass have to move at c. This is because the (mc^2)^2 term cancels out.
Another thing that you can say is that if E=pc than m=0.
Those two prediction together with the experimental fact that light radiation does carry momentum given by the p=E/c expression allows you to conclude that the photon have m=0 and moves at c.
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by adam warlockThank you so much, now I see it! The photon has zero rest mass and its “mass” corresponds to its energy, however its energy does not mean that is has not zero mass as I claimed.
It appears to me that pages 92 to 94 of the said book don't substantiate your claim of the photon having a mass different than zero.
When they are speaking about photon interaction with gravity and assign to the photon the mass m=hv/c^2 you have to realize that this equation isn't to be taken literally.
They say that the concept of rest mass of the ...[text shortened]... given by the p=E/c expression allows you to conclude that the photon have m=0 and moves at c.
Mea culpa😵
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetleI don't have the time to read the whole pdf, but the pieces you refer to do not support your claims at all. They are talking about a totally different claim - and they are not mainstream science either - simply speculation.
This is another: http://www.theassc.org/files/assc/2345.pdf
Kindly please think a bit more after checking particularly 3.10 and F.9
😵
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadStapp elaborates on Heisenberg’s idea that each real event represents a transition from “the possible” to “the actual”, and that the quantum state can be regarded as a representation of “objective tendencies” for such events to occur. Stapp argues that this is not false, otherwise we could hardly ascribe any coherent meaning to the wavefunction we collapse in the absence of such events.
I don't have the time to read the whole pdf, but the pieces you refer to do not support your claims at all. They are talking about a totally different claim - and they are not mainstream science either - simply speculation.
Therefore, since a theory with no collapse of the wavefunction cannot give a sensible account of the statistical predictions of quantum theory without an added ontological or theoretical structure, I conclude that this ontological or theoretical structure should be the agency of consciousness, because I don't have other way to explain the mechanism that allows us to establish the happening of an event after we collapse the wavefunction. In my opinion, consciousness is the sole agent that enables us to define an event as such, and we proceed this way thanks to our own measurement/ perception alone
😵
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetle*sigh* rest mass is a concept that can´t be applied to a photon (since a photon never is at rest) and the mass that one can give to a photon is more of a clutch than a real mass. If it really were mass it would have to have inertial effects and inertial effects don't appear in photons.
Thank you so much, now I see it! The photon has zero rest mass and its “mass” corresponds to its energy, however its energy does not mean that is has not zero mass as I claimed.
Mea culpa😵
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by adam warlockThis was the cause of my confusion
*sigh* rest mass is a concept that can´t be applied to a photon (since a photon never is at rest) and the mass that one can give to a photon is more of a clutch than a real mass. If it really were mass it would have to have inertial effects and inertial effects don't appear in photons.
😵