Muh physics savants, how does time dilation work?

[JudoThrowFiasco]

But the mass is so small, it's not going to increase it exponentially.

4.2×10−40 kg is peak mass equivalent of a photon using the planck constant, and even if it just had a minimal increase in mass as suggested by Heeck -- its going to go pass mass equivalent -- which would put it at close to 3.6×10−36 kg -- which, yeah would be a exponential increase.

 

[rj144]

4.2×10−40 kg is peak mass equivalent of a photon using the planck constant, and even if it just had a minimal increase in mass as suggested by Heeck -- its going to go pass mass equivalent -- which would put it at close to 3.6×10−36 kg -- which, yeah would be a exponential increase.

How are you getting that? Wouldn't the equivalent mass depend on frequency?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

How are you getting that? Wouldn't the equivalent mass depend on frequency?

because if we are adding a rest mass -- then we go beyond mass equivalence into tangible mass. Which would put it at the range of an electron in beta decay -- or an electron neutrino.

Heecks premise is pretty much putting a photon pass mass-equivalency

Even if we could somehow look beyond the concept of rest mass, and keep it in the equivalency range -- it would still be near a electronvolt and it still would be past a current calculations of a photon at peak spectrum

 

[Thanos]

@Thanos would like to know, as well.

he doesn't have shit

the reality gem is in my cock ring, shiny

 

[rj144]

because if we are adding a rest mass -- then we go beyond mass equivalence into tangible mass. Which would put it at the range of an electron in beta decay -- or an electron neutrino.

Heecks premise is pretty much putting a photon pass mass-equivalency

Even if we could somehow look beyond the concept of rest mass, and keep it in the equivalency range -- it would still be near a electronvolt and it still would be past a current calculations of a photon at peak spectrum

But where are your numbers coming from? Let's assume a photon has mass. Via quantum mechanics when the energy is measured, it's close to E = h f from experiment and practice. If it does have mass, then a tiny bit of the energy from E = h f (from it's "momentum"), must go into conventional KE, correct because we don't notice a difference from E = h f? If it has no mass, the E = h f = KE. So, some of the quantum mechanical KE must go into "typical" KE which is associated with rest mass if it has mass.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

But where are your numbers coming from? Let's assume a photon has mass. Via quantum mechanics when the energy is measured, it's close to E = h f from experiment and practice. If it does have mass, then a tiny bit of the energy from E = h f (from it's "momentum"), must go into conventional KE, correct because we don't notice a difference from E = h f? If it has no mass, the E = h f = KE. So, some of the quantum mechanical KE must go into "typical" KE which is associated with rest mass if it has mass.

You cant use that formula for for something that has a rest mass -- you have to take it back to E=mc.

My numbers are coming in from observed mass -equivalency of light on a spectrum. ranging from 1.0×10−62 kg to 4.2×10−40 kg -- the next step above in order of magnitude is an electronvolt and electron neutrino. Once you get pass that there is no more equivalency -- it gets into an electron which is the lightest elementary particle with a nonzero rest mass.

Either way you cut though -- keeping it in mass equivalency (which impossible under the claim that a photon does have rest mass) OR if we bump to one magnitude under a Electron (making it the lightest particle) Heecks theory would exponentially increase the KE of a photon.

 

[rj144]

You cant use that formula for for something that has a rest mass -- you have to take it back to E=mc.

My numbers are coming in from observed mass -equivalency of light on a spectrum. ranging from 1.0×10−62 kg to 4.2×10−40 kg -- the next step above in order of magnitude is an electronvolt and electron neutrino. Once you get pass that there is no more equivalency -- it gets into an electron which is the lightest elementary particle with a nonzero rest mass.

Either way you cut though -- keeping it in mass equivalency (which impossible under the claim that a photon does have rest mass) OR if we bump to one magnitude under a Electron (making it the lightest particle) Heecks theory would exponentially increase the KE of a photon.

It's most likely moot, but if we know the energy of a photon to the tolerance it can be measured, is E = h f, it means that most of the energy of the photon is from h f (which would be KE for a massless photon) and the energy associated with the mass is very tiny. Also, the total energy is m c^2 and that is equal to the energy of the rest mass and the KE. So, if total energy is unchanged, some of the KE part (h f) would need to go into rest mass energy. So, if you're calling the KE, h f, that would actually decrease.

 

[ScriptReadsMe]

How would you explain this to someone with close to no knowledge of physics? (Me)

How does Heeck explain that a particle that's never at rest has a non-zero rest mass? I read the paper but I don't have your knowledge of physics.

 

[Andy Capp]

Finally got around to reading the article. I won't lie, the math was beyond me, be the principle seemed to be that if new physics beyond the standard model were found, it might be used to argue a non-zero mass for photons based upon this result, but without much more in terms of evidence and theoretical framework it's just speculation right now and a far cry from an outright claim of a non-zero mass photon. They're saying it's mathematically consistent in a certain regime but that doesn't make it applicable to the real universe as we know it. I stand by my assertion that there's something wrong with our model if it permits a photon with mass.

It will be fun to see how things progress from here.

 

[MedicineDog]

You are not making sense. How does one "piggy back a beam of light"? Also, how could something with mass travel the speed of light? Your question does not make sense.

I believe that light does have mass.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It's most likely moot, but if we know the energy of a photon to the tolerance it can be measured, is E = h f, it means that most of the energy of the photon is from h f (which would be KE for a massless photon) and the energy associated with the mass is very tiny. Also, the total energy is m c^2 and that is equal to the energy of the rest mass and the KE. So, if total energy is unchanged, some of the KE part (h f) would need to go into rest mass energy. So, if you're calling the KE, h f, that would actually decrease.

The only way to prove your assertion is to plug in the value of M in the the equations -- and if it equals mass equivalence. Which I can not see any way it doesn't take it one level up from peak spectrum on the order of magnitude. It's a moot point because we can't isolate a photon to determine rest mass. Nor can we currently observe any decay. So, yeah, moot point but im 99.99% betting standard model holds up and photon stays right there as a 0.0.1. Boson

 

[rj144]

The only way to prove your assertion is to plug in the value of M in the the equations -- and if it equals mass equivalence. Which I can not see any way it doesn't take it one level up from peak spectrum on the order of magnitude. It's a moot point because we can't isolate a photon to determine rest mass. Nor can we currently observe any decay. So, yeah, moot point but im 99.99% betting standard model holds up and photon stays right there as a 0.0.1. Boson

The UPPER limit of the mass is 10^(-54) kg though.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The UPPER limit of the mass is 10^(-54) kg though.

Of what?

A photon with the frequency of 1 herzt is 10^-34

 

[rj144]

Of what?

A photon with the frequency of 1 herzt is 10^-34

Huh? The upper limit in their paper is 10^(-54) kg? Also, a 1 Hz photon is 10^(-34) what?

Joules? If so, the equivalent mass is 10^(-51) kg. To put it another way, the rest mass energy of the upper limit of the photon is about 10^(-37) J or a 1000x's less than an extremely low energy photon.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Huh? The upper limit in their paper is 10^(-54) kg? Also, a 1 Hz photon is 10^(-34) what?

Joules? If so, the equivalent mass is 10^(-51) kg.

no - that equals out to 10^(−40)kg That is the current upper limit on peak spectrum 0.235 meV/c2 -- under the current model.

Are you actually saying you agree with Heecks premise -- can you show any others in the field who are backing up his claim

To be fair, i dont know enough about Minkowski space and its use of Praca action to start calculating wave equation.

 

[rj144]

no - that equals out to 10^(−40)kg That is the current upper limit on peak spectrum 0.235 meV/c2 -- under the current model.

Are you actually saying you agree with Heecks premise -- can you show any others in the field who are backing up his claim

To be fair, i dont know enough about Minkowski space and its use of Praca action to start calculating wave equation.

The didn't use the CMB in their paper though and they were using an upper limit of 10^(-54 kg). I was arguing that this small mass wouldn't change things much at all. You were saying it would exponentially increase the KE.

I'm not saying that photons have mass, but if they are as described in the paper, it wouldn't matter much... both literally and figuratively.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The didn't use the CMB in their paper though and they were using an upper limit of 10^(-54 kg). I was arguing that this small mass wouldn't change things much at all. You were saying it would exponentially increase the KE.

I'm not saying that photons have mass, but if they are as described in the paper, it wouldn't matter much... both literally and figuratively.

Pretty sure they did, using COBE data on the CMB was the control for thier entire paper. they used the CMB to approximate the decay rate of a photon at rest to be (τγ > 2 × 10−10 m 10−18 eV t0) 3 years.

And i dont see where they talk about kinetic energy comparison with standard model.

And it would be huge -- it would change the standard model, it would replace the electron as the lightest particle, it was change gauge symmetry completely.

 

[rj144]

Pretty sure they did, using COBE data on the CMB was the control for thier entire paper. they used the CMB to approximate the decay rate of a photon at rest to be (τγ > 2 × 10−10 m 10−18 eV t0) 3 years.

And i dont see where they talk about kinetic energy comparison with standard model.

And it would be huge -- it would change the standard model, it would replace the electron as the lightest particle, it was change gauge symmetry completely.

In looking it over again, based on their fit to the CMB, it's 10^(-42) kg which they claim is not competitive.

I'm not that familiar with this stuff directly. All I know is it's sometimes used as a way to explain dark matter.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

In looking it over again, based on their fit to the CMB, it's 10^(-42) kg which they claim is not competitive.

I'm not that familiar with this stuff directly. All I know is it's sometimes used as a way to explain dark matter.

well, they can only use the CMB to examine their theory -- obviously we cant contain a photon to see its non motion decay rate and the COBE is the only thing we can use to see light old enough that may have decayed.

So, i guess we can just go back to your first post -- yes, there is a model put forth that Photon does have mass -- although, the ability to prove it is so far beyond our current reach and no one is looking to change the standard model.

 

[djacobox372]

Suppose I piggyback a beam of light, what would the word look like from my perspective? Does everything come to a standstill until I stop to look around?

The weird thing is, light always travels the same speed relative to everything. So the light traveling towards you would be moving as quickly towards you as the light traveling away from you regardless how how fast your moving yourself.

The only way around this paradox is for time to stop once you hit the speed of light.