# Photon mass and content

## Recommended Posts

Photon momentum depends on energy, which depends on frequency. You don't change the KE of a photon, per se, but you can create photons of different energies.

And SM photons with different frequencies might be caused by different overall masses..

SM photon with frequency 1 Hz might be made of 1 real photon.

SM photon with frequency 2 Hz might be made of 2 real photons.

SM photon with frequency 10000 Hz might be made of 10000 real photons.

And so on.

They can interact each other attracting neighborhood photons from the same packet (SM photon).

They all have the same speed of light, so the only thing we observe/detect is different frequency.

And frequency is result, not source..

E=h*f

E=p*c

h*f=p*c, p=m*c, f=1

h*1=m*c*c

m=h/c^2 for 1 Hz

##### Share on other sites

And SM photons with different frequencies might be caused by different overall masses..

SM photon with frequency 1 Hz might be made of 1 real photon.

SM photon with frequency 2 Hz might be made of 2 real photons.

SM photon with frequency 10000 Hz might be made of 10000 real photons.

And so on.

That not the Standard Model, per se, but this is not what's happening according to quantum mechanics.

##### Share on other sites

If f.e. two neutral particles with equal momentum and direction have positions with distance between them smaller than f.e. reduced h/2, how would you experimentally find out they're two not one?

##### Share on other sites

If f.e. two neutral particles with equal momentum and direction have positions with distance between them smaller than f.e. reduced h/2, how would you experimentally find out they're two not one?

For light, I'd put a beam splitter in place and see if I get it to split.
##### Share on other sites

For light, I'd put a beam splitter in place and see if I get it to split.

But beam splitter is made of regular matter.

So it causes absorption and emittion of photons in transparent material when photons collide with protons and electrons.

Same input wave frequency is causing same result after split.

In essence you don't. You destroy it and create a new one. Even in Compton scattering it is modeled this way.

Actually what you said in #51 is valid for beam splitter like below one:

Imagine situation- we have two lasers, same frequency, same wave length, we're overlapping their beams that they're indistinguishable straight line.

Will you be able with beam splitter (or other device) tell exactly how many lasers we overlapped in the first place?

Edited by Przemyslaw.Gruchala
##### Share on other sites

Imagine situation- we have two lasers, same frequency, same wave length, we're overlapping their beams that they're indistinguishable straight line.

Will you be able with beam splitter (or other device) tell exactly how many lasers we overlapped in the first place?

Determining exactly how many is not the same problem. I would be able to tell if there were multiple photons instead of just one, which is the same problem.

But beam splitter is made of regular matter.

Yes. We're discussing science, not magic.

##### Share on other sites

Let's think about consequences of giving any non 0 mass to photon:

sphere with radius r+c is how massive star was 1 second ago,

sphere with radius r+10*c is how massive star was 10 seconds ago.

sphere with radius r+4 billion * 365 *24*3600 c is how massive star was 4 billion years ago, when it started emitting light.

etc.

With maximum speed of any particle c these are limits of sphere size.

It doesn't matter if light was absorbed by planet, meteor, comet etc. or attracted by black hole, it's still inside of our sphere radius.

(the same thought experiment can be applied to whole galaxy)

Stars are emitting light and other particles and are making lighter, less massive, with time.

But what they emitted during their life span is still influencing entire Universe.

Our galaxy is emitting particles to space, but other galaxies are "giving" us their own particles that traveled space million and billion years from the all directions.

It also means that the entire Universe mass would be exactly the same as in the beginning.

And there is no sense in searching for Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

(posts split from "Mass of Light" since it's OT for that discussion)

Let's think about consequences of giving any non 0 mass to photon:

sphere with radius r+c is how massive star was 1 second ago,
sphere with radius r+10*c is how massive star was 10 seconds ago.
sphere with radius r+4 billion * 365 *24*3600 c is how massive star was 4 billion years ago, when it started emitting light.
etc.

With maximum speed of any particle c these are limits of sphere size.
It doesn't matter if light was absorbed by planet, meteor, comet etc. or attracted by black hole, it's still inside of our sphere radius.
(the same thought experiment can be applied to whole galaxy)

Stars are emitting light and other particles and are making lighter, less massive, with time.
But what they emitted during their life span is still influencing entire Universe.

But not influencing what is inside their radius, if the emission was isotropic. Gauss's law.

Our galaxy is emitting particles to space, but other galaxies are "giving" us their own particles that traveled space million and billion years from the all directions.

It also means that the entire Universe mass would be exactly the same as in the beginning.

And there is no sense in searching for Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

No. Because all that mass (energy) still does not account for the behavior of galaxies.

##### Share on other sites

I don't understand (once again).

a photon has no rest mass, O.K.

But the photons that we catch (and the others that we don't catch) are not in state of rest, thus they have mass, be it relativistic. Those photons that travel at C exert and are sensible to gravity, as much as I know. Correct?

Correct.

But when photon has any mass, relativistic mass equation is not showing something unreal, relativistic, it's showing real mass. Absorbed photons are really in particle that absorbed them. They could join with it for real, or orbiting it (due to bend space around massive particle). Particle will be in such case shrink in one direction and expanded in other direction - in which it's currently moving, looking like american football "ball". The faster it's moving, the more expanded in direction of movement, and the more photons it has absorbed. With v = 0.866c it absorbed so much photons that their overall mass is enough to create 3 protons and 1 antiproton after collision with proton at rest:

m = m0 / sqrt( 1 - v^2 / c ^2 )

where m0 = 938.272 MeV * 2 = 1876.544 MeV

m = 1876.544/sqrt(1 - 0.866c^2/1.0c^2) = 3753.088

3753.088 / 4 = 938.272

In practice we need slightly more than 0.866c, the rest will remain in their K.E. (absorbed photons).

Imagine positive particle in Ultimate Theory, it has general equation:

P N+N+3/N

(made of N+3 positives and N negatives, N is natural number)

what is absorption of photon/energy?

It's equation:

P N+N+3/N + P N2+N2/N2 = P N3+N3+3/N3

where N+N2=N3

adding neutral particle(s) to positive charged particle.

Electric charge remain the same, but overall energy/mass is higher.

Then emission of photon will be:

P N3+N3+3/N3 -> P N4+N4+3/N4 + P N5+N5/N5

where N3=N4+N5

Neutral photons or neutral particle is emitted from our positive particle.

P N2+N2/N2 can be also noted as N2 * P 2/1.
P N5+N5/N5 can be also noted as N5 * P 2/1.

if 1 Hz is the smallest frequency, then N2 and N5 are Standard Model photon wave frequencies.

Collision of proton with other proton at v=0.866c will be:

P N+N+3/N + P N+N+3/N + X * P 2/1 = P N+N+3/N + P N+N+3/N + P N+N+3/N + P N+N+3/N+3

proton + proton + energy = proton + proton + proton + antiproton

X = N+N+3+N+N+3

X is quantity of photons P 2/1 with the smallest frequency needed to absorb to accelerate proton to speed 0.866c.

Edited by Przemyslaw.Gruchala
##### Share on other sites

Relativistic mass is frame dependent, no? Like momentum. How can that be "real mass"?

##### Share on other sites

Relativistic mass is frame dependent, no? Like momentum. How can that be "real mass"?

It's not. It's just total energy (which is frame-dependent) divided by c2. It's just measuring total energy in units of mass.

##### Share on other sites

It's not. It's just total energy (which is frame-dependent) divided by c2. It's just measuring total energy in units of mass.

??

If total energy E is frame dependent, then E divided by a constant (c^2) should also be frame dependent.

##### Share on other sites

??

If total energy E is frame dependent, then E divided by a constant (c^2) should also be frame dependent.

By "it's not" I meant "it's not 'real' mass." Total energy is certainly frame dependent.

##### Share on other sites

Thanks for clarification, I thought I got crazy.

That's not the first time.

-------------

@Przemyslaw

Unless the amount of observed photons is frame dependent, I don't see how your theory can stand.

Edited by michel123456

## Create an account

Register a new account