By AWT every artifact with positive curvature should have a positive (i.e. nonezero) rest mass and the photon - being an isolated particle - is no exception. The particle like character of photons can be observed easily during spreading of gamma rays in spark chamber or by scintillator in spinthariscope, where they're behaving like distinst well defined particles ("scintilla" means "spark" in Greek). Therefore it's nothing strange, if photon increases mass of resonator, whenever it gets trapped into it - as we can observe by mass spectrometer during excitation of atom nuclei, for example.

The theoretical rest mass of photon can be extrapolated as a dynamic mass of photon, when the (wavelength of) photon becomes so large, it will fit the whole observable Universe, so that the photon cannot move and it stay at rest in it. This value is incredibly low, though and it can be estimated by using of

*E=hν*formula to some 10E-61 kg. Albeit low, it can result into observable violation of Compton law at Planck scale (pair formation) and into light speed invariance violation at cosmic scale (for example by polarization of microwaves by vacuum and by dispersion of gamma rays, as observed by GZK limit or by MAGIC telescope during Mkn 501 flash).

The effective rest mass of photon could become even higher (~10E-17 kg), if we consider, the photons, whose wavelength is longer then human scale would dissapear in the noise of cosmic microwave backround (CMB) radiation, where only entangled light waves can spread effectivelly. In adition, photons of wavelength larger the human / CMB scale (~1.7 cm) are behaving rather like weak holes in the ocean of CMB photons, so they should be expelled by them in gravity field, instead.

The general problem in misunderstanding of special relativity consist in mixing of light and photon concepts. Light wave can be local, but the photon isn't never quite local thing, it has a finite (albeit typically quite small) size. It means, only light wave can move by speed of light, but not photon. For wavelength comparable to CMB radiation the light can consist only from waves, but not photons, because these size of photons are comparable to CMB noise size, so they cannot be distinguished from it. For longer wavelengths, then those of CMB the negative rest mass photons can be postulated, and the speed of such "negative curvature" photons becomes superluminal - the character of such waves will converge to longitudinal gravitational waves, which are inherently superluminal. The superluminal portion of microwave light enables to escape it from black hole as a Hawking radiation for example, which makes the whole concept testable.

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,

but he is mistaken." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

## 23 comments:

can you please explain "positive curvature"?

Thank you.

By AWT space-time curvature is formed by gradient of mass/energy density of Aether. This gradient can appear like blob / droplet (positive curvature) or like bubble / hole (negative curvature). For example the hole in cheese is of negative curvature. Graviton foam has (nearly) a zero curvature.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/gravitons.gif

If Howking radiation exist, it would mean, here can exist photons, the wavelength of which is longer then the wavelength of cosmic microwave background. Such photons therefore have a lower curvature then their environment - they've lower mass, then empty space - i.e. they've a negative mass.

They're behaving like tachyons, so they can escape from black hole, the curvature of which is serving like Maxwell daemon, separating tachyons from the rest. This gives certain meaning with respect of gravitational waves, because by AWT these waves are highly superluminal as well and as such they have an extraordinarily long wavelength.

If we are sitting inside of black hole (as AWT is assuming), we could see all photons, which are leaving our Universe like tachyons. So if during interference of CMB radiation some photon of longer wavelengh will be formed, we can expect, such photon may dissapear from our Universe, i.e. from our sight less or more lately - our Universe is leaking energy in this way, so it can collapse from exsintric perspective.

It means - the only photons, whose rest mass is exactly zero are the photons of cosmic microwave background - they behave like photons, the wavelength of which fits whole observable Universe, so they cannot move in it. This has some meaning as well, because in AWT CMB photons are forming a graviton foam background of another (i.e. former) generation of Universe, which expanded to current size during inflation - i.e. they're forming a quantum foam of further generation of Universe.

We can say, these subtle photons can form everything, what we can see around us - it just requires proper compactification of space, which just requires a sufficient amount of time. It's strange logics - but still quite consistent with existing theories and observations.

How can a photon be massless if it has impact on other particles and is affected by gravity?

Indeed - but the main source of controversy here becomes the "rest mass" of photon, where special relativity becomes singular.

These experiments are technically impressive, but I've still a slight problem with detection of boson nature of photons just inside of atom orbitals - this environment has higher mass/energy density then the vacuum, so that lightweight photons will behave more like waves here. It's the similar stuff, like the attempt to prove particle nature of electrons inside of dense neutron star - inside of such extremely dense environment even common leptons will be mostly dissolved into bosons.

Anyway, as we know from scattering observations in vacuum the mutual cross-section of photon-photon interaction is very low, but it's not completely zero.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvL..96h3602L

The similar case are mesons or gluons, which are behaving like bosons inside of atom nuclei, but outside of it they're forming fermions or glueballs. Mesons were considered in older Yukawa model as the carriers of the nuclear force that holds all atomic nuclei together (except for hydrogen-1).

Light is Heavy

On the one hand, electromagnetic radiation must have zero rest mass in order to propagate at the speed of light, but on the other hand, since it definitely carries momentum and energy, it has non-zero inertial mass. Hence, by the principle of equivalence, it must have non-zero gravitational mass, and so, light must be heavy.

Mass photon = 1.8 x 10-42 g What is the difference between the weight of an photon and the mass of a photon? Gravity.

Two papers claim that E = m * c^2 is incorrect and suggests E=mbc where b = 0.624942 * 10^8 m/s. The first one On a Heuristic Viewpoints Concerning the Mass, Energy and Light Concepts in Quantum Physics was published in 2008 and the second one New Concept of Mass-Energy Equivalence was released in 2009.

In accordance to relativity the massive entity (ie. something with mass) needs infinite energy to reach speed of light, ergo, photons are massless. Ironically, the very fact that photons have energy means that they actually DO carry away mass from stars. This is yet another paradox in physics, because photons most certainly have energy, AND they are most certainly effected by the GRAVITY of stars, planets, and black holes. This apparent paradox of mainstream physics can be solved easily with assumption, that photons are moving more slowly than the (pure harmonic) light (wave), being a solitons at the water surface. They just disappear and re-apper somewhere else due the quantum decoherence in similar way, like the real solitons at the water surface. After all, the relativity has nothing to say about (speed of) photons, because photons are quantum phenomena and the relativity doesn't support quantization. We actually never observed the spreading of single photon along whole path, we always measured the speed of mixture of photons.

For example, one of unsolved problems of physics are remote gamma ray bursts, which can travel across whole universe without apparent attenuation. During explosions of supernovas the energy corresponding the mass of Sun can be released in a brief moment of time. The natural explanation could be, that the dense cluster of gamma ray photons formed is moving as a single body being held together with own gravity and it may travel across universe like swarms of photons, which not only doesn't scatter, but it can even collect another photons from outside, which travel in the same direction.

In general relativity the photon must be massless or it would require an infinite energy for its spreading with speed of light. But in quantum mechanics no quantum wave can survive without gradual scattering, so that the photons cannot mediate force at infinite distance - so that the photons must be massive like every other quantum particle. The spicy point is, the quantum mechanics cannot describe the gravity too - so it violates the equivalence principle at the same moment: it predicts antigravity and gradual scattering even for massive particles (those, which cannot mediate the forces at infinite distance). Whereas the photons are attracted to massive bodies and they remove the matter from stars with their radiation.

In 1954 Albert Einstein wrote to his friend Michael Besso: "

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken". Actually, even the mainstream physicists today consider the photons as a somehow abstract shapeless "quanta of energy" and they don't ask how (not to say about why) they actually appear. IMO it's because this explanation would require to introduce the dense æther concept into physics again. For me the photons are quite real -albeit very fast moving - physical thingies and we can ask about their shape, size, etc. For me the photons are quite real-yet unstable-particles, which are of vortex ring shape, which do form spontaneously inside of light stream like the solitons at the water surface, which are moving with slightly subluminal speed and which are dissolving for to emerge again at different place with slightly superluminal speed.As stated, what if photons are heavy? Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal does a photon "mass" need always be present for the energy wave(that maybe carried by the tachyon photon) to be materialized? If that being the case what if the aether is the energy of the tachyon particles not yet materialized?(Dark Energy) What is something out of dimension... and then that might be consider 2 dimensional in relation to us? If that's the case what occurs when they hit perpendicular in a universe that is elastic? Does that cause mass formation in our universe? When mass is caused by that collision does energy fill in in the tachyon universe which in turn effects ours. The real causation of gravity. The filling in of space time due to the change of space time into mass. And thus the search is still on? It is something that is inherent to the creation of our universe and not a byproduct... thoughts?

Added... By 2 dimensional, I mean mathematically. Doesn't that explain why most the constants, that we do scientifically know, are rates? What are the limits or actual amounts of energy needed to traverse those boarders and cause relativity as we know it? Why do we look at it as space time being curved? What if space time is more like a plane which has amounts of energy transfer changing on it(The rates: Planck's, Gravity, permeability, ect..) not the actual plane itself? If it is an Aether why are we still looking at a plane with gravity built into the model, isn't Gravity just another rate of energy transference on the model. Mathematically wouldn't it very similar and need to be taken back another dimension still to exclude Gravity?

What are we holding relativity to? In all thought postulates(riddles of how to view relativity) aren't we still looking from a third point perspective? How would we ever know what the "real" perspective is from either of the two points we are calculating. Like the train passing by the signal. We are neither the train nor the signal but someone looking and calculating both from a perspective on the outside and using reference to that third perspective to try and gain knowledge of the the others. We are going into the question loaded with a problem in itself. Know wonder why its hard to grasp. What if we are viewing time dilation, and "mass-energy expansion" of an object because we are around aether-mass transference and the aether itself is also moving do to the creation of mass. 2-D... non directional... so that in relation to us the particle covers a lot more of our dimension, thus the allowable changes in its attributes, but still follows its rest mass and time to itself since it is still being relative to C in its own experience with the Aether dimension. All tests have been around great mass, we live on Earth, thus how would we know whether or not gamma and C itself has the ability to change according to relation to mass? Well we do know C does through different mediums... If that be the case, are tachyons real and then where?

Richard Feynman: "

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."Here's a collection of experiments that put very small upper limits on photon mass.

Big Bang Light Reveals Minimum Lifetime of Photons:

If the photon is unstable and decays into other particles, then the number density of photons in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) should decrease while the photons are propagating.I presume, everyone can see the hole in this line of reasoning. For example, inside of hot mixture of oxygen and hydrogen the average life of water molecules is just few seconds, despite the equilibrium remains steady state. This study may serve as an example, that the math models can be only as exact and robust, as is the logics and assumptions used in their derivations. The BS written in equations is still BS...

This experiment gives somewhat more realistic take on life-time of photon.

If we calculate the Newtonian potential energy of a mass with respect to all the mass in its observable universe using some reasonable assumptions, we get a value very close to its rest mass. This idea crops up in the Dirac Large Numbers Hypothesis, and physicists have debated for many years whether or not it has some significance, is necessary, or is just a coincidence. An interesting asserts our measurement of red shifts could be explained by mass changing value.

In dense aether model this insight has its good meaning, because gravitational mass is considered to be the result of gravitational wave shielding, which is diminished at the boundaries of the observable universe. So we can say, that the observable objects have lower mass at the boundaries of Universe, simply because there are lower number of matter contributing to Newtonian potential energy (no matter is outside). In dense aether model these trends are just virtual and they depend on the position of observer within Universe in similar way, like the distant objects observed trough fog appear blurred and more lightweight. If we would come closer, they would be rendered normally though.

My conclusion therefore is, nothing really expands here and the red shift is just a consequence of light scattering at vacuum fluctuations, which has nonlinear character with distance and which leads into illusion of dark energy. We would observe exactly the same phenomena even at the completely still water surface, where nothing expands neither collapses.

Another recent evidence of the material nature of photons: A rotating body in a fluid stream experiences a force perpendicular to the motion of the fluid because of the unequal relative speed of the fluid across its surface. It is well known that light has a constant speed irrespective of the relative motion. Does a rotating body immersed in a stream of photons experience a Bernoulli-like force? The physicists showed that, indeed, a rotating dielectric cylinder experiences such a lateral force from an electromagnetic wave. In fact, the sign of the lateral force is the same as that of the fluid-mechanical analogue as long as the electric susceptibility is positive. So that the photons inside of dielectric materials itself do violate the Lorentz invariance.

It was probably Maxwell, who speculated first, that the so-called Lenz/Lorentz force acting on charged objects can be explained with Bernoulli force acting on rotating particle moving across magnetic field, formed with stream of aether.

Post a Comment