Photons Do Have a Mass

in #science7 years ago

Over time, as we studied photons, we have concluded that they are massless particles. This has kept us thinking that light is somehow different from all other components of the universe.

In reality, photons do have a mass. The only difference between photons and something we can easily measure the mass is just that: their mass is so small that we cannot easily measure it. Just because our experimental efforts to measure the mass of a photon, which is ultimately infinitesimal have come up inconclusive does not mean that their mass is actually zero.

To claim that their mass is actually zero is quite the bold claim. Gravitational lensing alone disproves this, as gravity is a function of the mass of the interacting particles. How could gravity lens the pathing of light if it were massless?

Einstein's equation E=mc2 proves that photons have a mass, as photons have energy. How could photons have energy if they were massless?

The simpler conclusion regarding light is that we have not been able to measure its mass because it is so small relative to atoms that we cannot tell the difference between zero and infinitesimal.

By thinking that photons have no mass, we have concluded complex, illogical details about light. Light does not have what we call wave-particle duality. This description pretends that light is different from all other things. What light has is many particles that travel together as a wave, just like a wave in the ocean. All things function the same.

Firstenberg et al. demonstrated that light can be shown to be massive. In their experiment, they stretched the limits of perception by using a vacuum and a highly interactive particle to see light demonstrate it's mass' influence. Within "normal" conditions, we cannot see these effects. However, in the right setting, we are able to expand how far out we can see the mass of particles so that even photons can be shown to have a mass.

Light doesn't just have one specific mass either. The entire electromagnetic spectrum is dependent on the relative mass of the particles that make up each wavelength of light. In a way, the wavelength is a measure of mass per volume. There are infinite layers of particles in light that make up the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

It is no accident that red light is red and blue light is blue and radio waves are radio waves and x-rays are x-rays, and so on. Each wavelength is due to the mass of the particles in the light. Since they are still infinitesimal, we do not see their relative mass difference since we cannot measure their mass. However, they show their mass difference by being different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

There is an entire universe in each wave of light. The only difference is the particles are so small relative to what we call "planets", "stars", "black holes" and so on that they function essentially instantaneously. Within every wave of light, all that is, was, and ever will be in infinite dimensions occurs with every moment in a given observer's perceived time.

In fact, our entire observable universe is alike to but one photon in a stream of light to an observer composed of such relatively large building blocks that we make up but a speck of their reality in both space and time. No details are missed, no approximation is made, when the universe functions. Approximations that are so far from reality that they are non-reality only occur when an observer interprets what is happening. That light is light and travels at the speed of light while we do not.

The so-called speed of light is the same mistake as the massless photon interpretation. In reality, the "speed of light" is not an inherent trait of the universe. Instead, the limit of motion of matter is. Light, since it is made of such small particles relative to our own, we see it as moving so close to this limit of motion of matter that we actually interpret that it does move at this limit of motion of matter. Then, due to this interpretation, we think of this limit of motion of matter as being specifically associated with light, just because it happens to be the best example of particles moving closest to this limit. And so we call this limit the speed of light. Even this is a misinterpretation stemming from lack of understanding that photons have a mass.

The universe is not complicated. Rather, it becomes complicated when we interpret it with approximations.

In reality, the universe is infinite. In terms of physics, this means that there are infinitely large and infinitely small masses, and the force of gravity then manipulates these masses into the universe as we see it. It is that simple. In fact, these masses themselves are held together by gravity, universes into themselves, divisible always into smaller components all held together by gravity. It's gravity all the way down. There is nothing but gravity. From one, all that is arises.

Sort:  

Another great idea @stevescully. Would love to answer this one. :)


If light has mass then where does it go when it falls on an object. As a photon is so much small it should pass through intermolecular space get concentrated in a solid object and the object should shine forever.

But this doesn't happen. Instead when light falls on an object, all wavelengths of light get absorbed by the object except one wavelength of light which gets reflected and gives color to it.

Light is an energy which is convertible to mass and vice-versa.

What I feel is that the speed of light is multidimensional (I also make my own insane theories like you) and it's is limitless. But in our dimension and in this universe, highest limit of speed of an object is 3x10^8 m/s (approx.) so light cannot travel to its ultimate speed.

I don't know whether you have read the book or seen the movie Flatland or not. It's a two dimensional world, can light travel there? I think yes. Even in the two dimentional world there still exist the third dimension of plank length, similarly here (3rd dimensional world) also there exists the 11th dimension of plank length.

And you said that universe is like a photon, but universe is expanding it's generating more space out of nothing. It's increasing the entropy. Is the size of a photon increasing?

But universe is flat and infinite. (Check out the latest video by minutephysics on Shape of the Universe). So it cannot be a particle. It's nothing but infinite empty space which is still increasing. (There are also theories about dark matter and dark energy).

Sorry for such a long comment. Actually I can't control myself when I start writing. :D


You may check my posts on other scientific topics if you like. ;).

Absorption lines are the result of specific wavelengths (i.e. specific masses) of light being absorbed by a given mass. Other wavelength particles are too small or big so they physically pass through or around the body without being influenced by its gravity in a way where it becomes absorbed. Particles can be so small that they pass through other particles, alike to neutrinos passing through the Earth, and then just continue on their way due to their momentum without being absorbed into a given system. This ability of the small to pass through the large is an essential element of why the universe is as it is.

I agree that the speed of light is itself a function of our own dimension; likely the real limit is infinite but we just see it as c because that is where it appears to reach the limit because it is a measure of relative speed rather than absolute speed.

I have heard of Flatland but not read it or seen the movie. It isn't part of reality, though, as there are always three dimensions in essence. I don't know what to think of it besides that it is an interesting idea :D

Very critically, the universe is not expanding; this is a drastic misinterpretation of one specific observation of all distant redshifted galaxies. Gravity can also cause redshift but we have assumed that the cause is motion and not gravity and so we interpret that redshift means all galaxies are moving away from us. In reality, this is just a misinterpretation of an observation caused by gravity. Check out my article on here, The Big Bang's Big Assumption and/or my book, The Simple Reality for more on that.

The universe is flat (relating to the "Flatness Problem") in the same way that a solar system is flat in the same way that a galaxy is flat. Not that it is flat, but that gravity causes flat structures across the infinite levels to occur so that the structures are generally flat.

The entire Big Bang model is simply false. Expansion of space and dark energy are not real, but rather are misinterpretations of observations caused by gravity that are interpreted to be caused by motion (see The Big Bang's Big Assumption above).

I understand, I always write long posts as well :D

Will do! Hope you check out my other posts on here and especially my book! The fact that electromagnetism can be explained as a result of gravity, rather than a "causeless" fundamental force, demonstrates that the model is true because it reduces physics so drastically that it necessitates that it is.

Thanks for such a nice explanation.
If Big Bang model is wrong, then what is your idea of the origin of the universe?

The universe is infinite; this means that there is no beginning. It always is, was, and always will be. Specifically, this is much more easy to visualize from recognizing that the most distant galaxies we see, their light travels in a Figure-8 orbital repetitively, as part of its electromagnetic field, and then we see it at up to ~13 billion light years later. This, though, is like an instant in time for the electromagnetic field of the "particle" causing this, just the same as how it is like an instant in time for us when we observe electromagnetic fields on the small scale.

The biggest thing we can imagine is still, relative to other objects, so small that it is alike to the smallest thing we can imagine. The biggest thing we can imagine also functions the slowest we can imagine, but relative to other particles its function is so quick that it is instantaneous relative to the rate those particles function. This can be extrapolated to: there was no beginning. There are just beginnings, but not the beginning. Like a supernova of a star producing a new environment that produces new systems which evolve through lifecycles. On and on it goes, new beginnings everywhere but no "The Beginning" anywhere.

Nice theory, but I would like to differ.


There are many events which prove that there was a beginning. We observe the expanding universe, the Redshift of galaxies. So, if we reverse the process everything will be squashed together in a tiny dot.

And we also have found a type of microwave radiation which fills the universe, which we may call a fossil of the energy and heat that was generated during big bang. We call this leftover Cosmic Microwave Background.

Another thing is that we see in the night sky uncountable stars. But they also have many blank spaces in between. If you say universe is infinite and eternal, then our night sky must be bright. Because there must be trillion^trilliontrillion... or infinite no. of stars. So there must not be blank space left in the night sky as light from the must have reached till now as there was no beginning.

But this does not happen, what we see in the sky now, is the past. As light has finite speed which also takes hundreds thousands of years to reach here. And that's why the light from most distant galaxies have not yet reached the Earth, or probably it has not yet created, the big bang is yet to happen. As at the time of big bang the space expanded unbelievably faster, much much faster than light. So the light has not yet reached here from the end of the universe and probably will never be.

So, I feel there is something true in the big bang theory.

As far as redshift, motion is assumed as the cause. However, gravitational redshift also could be the cause and as I discuss in many places it is the cause. See The Big Bang's Big Assumption (that assumption being that distant galaxy redshift is the result of motion and not the result of gravity). Because it is caused by gravity, which means it is due to the physical force of gravity on the light as it travels rather than the motion of the galaxy itself, this concept that all things were once together is simply false. It's a misinterpretation of the observation, nothing more and nothing less.

The Cosmic Microwave Background is not the remnants of the Big Bang, but rather it is just the "galactic halo" of the galaxy of galaxies we are part of. It does not prove a beginning, only shows that there is a general somewhat uniformity to the cosmos, which is precisely what an infinite universe brings about as well. This observation was made after redshift observations were made and became a "pillar" of the Big Bang, when in reality they were just looking for evidence that reaffirmed the concept of the Big Bang and made this observation out to be something it was not.

I talk about the night sky's lack of stars in the infinite universe in another post as well. This is because gravitational lensing occurs. It's as simple as that. Light from distant galaxies is not always capable of reaching earth in the infinite universe because it is physically bent so that it travels in Figure-8 patterns, which is how gravity causes electromagnetism. This is also how gravity causes redshift of distant galaxies because light travels in Figure-8 patterns on large enough scales and the object it is centered on gravitationally redshifts the light per distance due to this orbital pattern.

It's not that the light hasn't reached Earth, it's that gravity can prevent it from reaching Earth. Also, as distance increases, the light from those galaxies is less and less--so this effect plays a major role in the night sky not being filled with stars as well.

The Big Bang did not happen. The universe is factually infinite, as can be proven by showing that gravity causes electromagnetism and redshift per distance because this so drastically reduces physics that it necessitates that it is true.

Now, really satisfied with your ideas (actually great ideas)
Never thought in this way --- Gravity can play such a great role in everything (reminds me of the movie Interstellar).

You are such a knowledgeable person. You're a gem in the Science section of Steemit.

You deserve a lot of upvotes and likes on steemit. Please join our channel for minnows on Discord: https://discord.gg/HYj4yvw
There we'll discuss more about it, as this is not the right place. :p

Thanks a lot for your open consideration and kind words! :) I really appreciate it.

I just joined the discord, I am "Steve" on there. Gonna get something to eat but I'll be around! :D Pretty huge community on there, great to see! Is there somewhere to find out more info on what exactly minnows is?

nice blog...
plz folow upvote

I explain it with a lot of words and from various angles but it's just infinite and there is only gravity in this model :)

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.30
TRX 0.11
JST 0.033
BTC 64223.84
ETH 3158.34
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.29