Out of Pod Experience

Wow, this thread.

/inteligasm !

I used the example of a laser falling on two mirrors as a simplified example. Yes, light coming from the laser will shift like anything else and things will tend to cancel each other out. But that is not really what the example is mean to convey, so you are taking it a bit to literal.

Take the laser out of the equation and now envision light bouncing back and forth between two 100% reflective mirrors. Now you can better understand how a single photon can pass back and forth being blue shifted and red shifted as it does so. Make more sense now?





I seem to recall mercury's orbit being of interest in the fifth grade, so I am not sure what you are referring to. But putting that aside for a moment, yes... absolutely yes I have a problem with with an actual 100% zero mass point having inertia at any velocity.

Now, i am not calling you stupid here or questioning your merit. You seem to have a grasp of things that is better than many others I have encountered. But the only reason why you think that such a thing is acceptable is because you read it in a book somewhere or on the internet. In that source, written in black and white, that text told you that it is ok for a photon with 0 mass to have inertia. It attributes this to effects that occur at the speed of light and gives it a name like "special" or "relativistic" in an attempt to justify an effect that defies normal Newtonian laws and more importantly the most basic mathematical principles.

The equations you site are descriptions of a phenomena not an explanation as to how it can occur. It is important to understand the difference. A photon with a mass of absolute 0 cannot have inertia at any speed. This is mathematically true and any school kid can do the equation. Mass is the single requirement of inertia, every school kid knows this too.

Without inertia there can be no momentum and light would be absorbed and reflected without a radiation pressure. It is not ok to make an equation (that is in fact a description and not a definition) and conveniently remove all concepts of known physics in the process. It is better to say "we don't know how yet".


Now you may read time and time again "photons have no mass" but that is not the only thing to read on the internet. You may also encounter stuff like this...



Now such experiments are subject to debate and how accurate this measurement is in question. But it suffices to say that not 100% of all people on earth think that a photon can have 0 mass but also have inertia. There are other explanations that do not defy basic mathematics and basic Newtonian physical laws. But they also deviate from the Standard Model. As a result, they are not at the forefront and when you google "does a photon have mass" you always get 13,000,000 results saying no.

If light bounces back and forth between two mirrors stationary relative to each other, then both mirrors "see" the same light incoming, no difference in frequency-shifting. The light hitting the mirror is always moving toward the mirror and was reflected by another mirror not moving relative to the receiver.
How can there be any frequency shifting at all?



When a description (the equation) fits everything relevant to it we can observe for now, it's the best working model we have. Until we find experimental data which contradicts the model, and/or a better model, it makes sense to try to explain things based on the model. If we see contradictions we have to adjust our model or come up with a new one.
Isn't that the scientific way?

Also, you're talking about resting mass, but for momentum, the "inertial mass" is important.
So next you're probably going to tell me, that it's counter-intuitive that something which doesn't have a resting mass, has mass when moving at the speed of light, and that the whole mass-energy equivalency thing is nonsense, too.

Maybe the universe is just that complex and not so simple when you look closer?
We're talking about areas we don't have any experience with from our daily lives. I don't find it surprising that things become unintuitive on scales we can't even properly imagine, like the speed of light, sizes smaller than atoms and so on.

If you go by what's intuitive, and needing resting mass to have momentum is an intuitive assumption, then we would also disregard special relativity. The equations and the model works with our experimental data, but I personally think it's far from intuitive. Shouldn't you argue that it's nonsense to try to explain things like that and better say "we don't know"?

Or general relativity. Isn't it a crazy idea for mass to warp space rather than just attracting other masses?



That's why I mentioned my example of mercury's orbit around the sun (and I didn't have that topic at school. My mistake to assume that was normal). It defies Newtonian's equations, too.

I've found that quote about the experimental upper limit on a photon's mass, too, btw. I didn't find anyone putting a lower limit on a photon's resting mass, though, so it being massless is still very much possible, I guess.
And please lead me to those other explanations (or shouldn't you say descriptions?), because I am interested in taking a look at them.

The two mirrors are moving in space? I am pretty sure that I made that part clear. I am not sure what to tell you... this is basic laser physics. All electromagnetic radiation is blue shifted and red shifted in this way. This Doppler shift is how radar works. If you do not understand the principle then i invite you to read up on it. It is very interesting stuff.





It is very very important to understand that our failure to find proof of a photon's rest mass is not proof that it's mass is identical to 0. We cannot trap or slow down a photon... atm we do not know for certain. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

Even if you are a proponent of the Standard Model (which I am not but you seem to be) the Standard Model does not even need photons to have 0 mass to make it all work. The Standard Model will keep on trucking just fine if photons have an insanely tiny mass. This Explains It A Bit

So where as you may say that a photon probably has exactly 0 mass.
I am saying that nor you or anyone else can prove it... and it seems like it does based upon everything we know about the observable universe.


Therefore:

It requires an imaginary leap to make a particle with 0 mass have momentum, because it deviates from all other observable phenomena. It requires no leap of the imagination to suggest that a photon has insanely small mass and make some minor adjustments to the current models. So why is everyone INSISTING that a photon cannot have a little mass?

Honestly... I do not know. But it's not very good science.





Today's physicists have cultivated a culture that suppresses their innate conceptual understanding of the world around them. They have taught people like you to do the same. They say, like you just said, that the human brain did not evolve to understand the macroscopic universe of particles and photons.

Overtime people like you reluctantly accept abstract quantum mechanic concepts and regard conceptual understanding as a remnant of classical physics.

However there is another possibility too... the alternative is that our limitations to conceptually understand the theories being put forth are not limitations of our human intellect at all. It is just as likely that we are using the wrong models. There is no reason to presume that the human mind is incapable of understanding anything in nature provided that the correct models are used to describe it . Those models should be compatible with existing laws and equations of physics. You should not have to make special exceptions.


Saying that a photon has inertia but no mass is an exception based on all other factors in the known universe. Stating that an invisible field that can slow down particles but not exert acceleration on them or transfer energy is another exception. These are exceptions made in order to fill the holes in current models. They have counter intuitive explanations and do not seem to be able to exist when compared to observable phenomena in the real world.

Is it so implausible that there may be other possible explanations?



Regarding You Question Of The Higgs Field Strait from the horses mouth, the Fermilabs...

That is what people say yes, and the result is you are springing forth mass from something that had none to begin with. But putting that aside for a moment... if photons do not interact with the Higgs field and said Higgs field gives everything mass than where is the inertial mass coming from?

If all particles are massless until they interact with the Higgs field... then where can a photon soak up this invisible mass if not from the Higgs field?




Edit:

I should point out that I do not actually agree with you. I am just following your own train of thought to see what your explanation is.

Sigma 5. I'm satisfied

Just between you and I because I do not wish to derail my own thread... this is an image of a wave in motion

It is amazing how many of those contradictions disappear all together if you simply visualize space-time as being something instead of nothing and photons as literal waves permeating through it. Suddenly inertial mass and 0 resting mass are no longer issues. Doppler shift and the speed of light is explained. Light and gravity become unified and so does the basic elements of electromagnetism.

Just don't tell those 2,000 something scientists working at CERN... because they do not want to hear about it.

Just because people in the 1900's could not locate a hypothetical aether wind does not mean that the theory could not have been modified to fit modern day observations. I do not think that one should exist, but even if one did... try and imagine people back then attempting to detect the pull of the sun's gravity on earth. Think they could? Probably not.

So even if such a thing existed why should people have expected that a space time wind would be more detectable (or more dominate) than local gravitational forces like the sun and moon? There is no reason to presume so. So the Michelson-Morley experiment was based on a flawed presumption. The theory it was attempting to prove however may not have been.

The two mirrors are, according to you, not moving relative to each other.
For each reflection, the reflecting mirror is the observer, the other mirror, where the light was reflected previously, the source.
It doesn't matter whether they are both "moving through space" (which depends on how you choose your reference frame anyway) if the photon is just bouncing between them, only their movement relative to each other matters.

And if the original source of the photon moves relative to the mirrors, then the light will arrive shifted at the mirrors, but there will not be a difference in shift between both mirrors.
If red light from a source moving towards mirror A, thus is blue-shifted for A, arrives at A it looks exactly the same as light from a source not moving relative to mirror A, which had the same, shorter wavelength to begin with.

I mean, we only know that the light from very distant galaxies arrives here red-shifted, because we know where certain spectral lines in that light should be, and we see them shifted towards the red side of the spectrum, not because the light itself somehow carries the information "I was shifted".



Going to read through the rest of the posts it later.