Re: The massless photon?

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 12/04/04 

Date: 04 Dec 2004 19:19:59 GMT

 TomGee:
>dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:

>>
>> SNIP
>> The mass energy relation is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2. Either live with it,
>> or tell me what experiment discovered any or all of the following:
>>
>> (1) The frequency and wavelength are related by:
>>
>> \nu = c sqrt((1/lambda)^2 + (mc/h)^2)
>>
>> (2) Charge isn't conserved
>>
>> (3) A longitudinal polarization for light in vacuum
>>
>> (4) Maxwell's equations are wrong
>>
>> If you haven't discovered at least one of those, then you have
>> no argument for a non-zero photon mass, since all of those would
>> be true if the photon mass was not zero. If you think none of those
>> are correct, then you should take up your argument with yourself
>> until you decide whether you really think the photon mass is not
>> zero. You can't have it both ways.

>I assume you mean that the non-existence of 1-4 above precludes any
>argument for a massless photon,

  I mean, that if thr photon is not massless, those statements are
all true.
 
>and that an argument can only be valid when if ever an exception is
>found for any one of the four reasons above.

  No, an argument can be valid if the argument (1) is mathematically
self-consistent, (2) isn't already ruled out by experiment, and
(3) actually contains some physics. For example, I can write down a
complete theory of E&M which is in every way as complete as quantum
electrodynamics, in which the photon has a mass. I get a set of
maxwell-like equations in the classical limit. It's not really a
big deal and you can probably find such theories derived in just
about any book on quantum field theory in the section that the book
introduces spontaneously broken symmetries. Do you really think no
one ever thought of it before?

>But let's assume that 1-4 are false, how then does that prove
>that a massless photon exists in other than in mathematical
>constructs?

 Since the photon mass is such a ``mathematical construct'',
that mathematical construct wouldn't be consistent with
the other four mathematical constructs.

>Someone posted recently that the lack of evidence is not evidence.
 
  Big deal. Experimental evidence places the upper limit on any possible
photon mass at less than about 10^-51 grams. Personally, I don't really
care one way or the other if the photon has a mass. If it has a mass,
then the theory that describes it is straight forward. Look up
"spontaneous symmetry braking" U(1) gauge theory.

  You seem to have some misconception that I think the photon has to
be massless. I don't. It doesn't have to be massless. If you want to
say that it isn't massless, then give me a theory to go with the claim.
Make sure your theory covers everything known as electromagnetism.
Check it to see if it makes all of the same predictions that qed makes
for cases where qed agrees with data. Make sure it is capable of making
an experimental prediction that can determine whether your theory or qed
is correct. No theory in the history of all science has ever been close
to qed in terms of agreement with experimental data, so you have some
work to do before making any claims.

>I disagree that any argument to the contrary of a massless photon is
>quite valid indeed for the simple reason that math constructs and
 
  I don't really care if you disagree. I don't really care if the photon
is massless. I only care about what most every other physicist cares about.
Support your assertions with a real theory. If you can't do that, you
have nothing of interest.

>theory are based in Theoretical Physics and anything can be accepted
>there without experiment and so anything is possible with math
>constructs.
 
  Obviously not, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation
regarding your massive photon.
 
[...]
>The reason anything is possible with math constructs is because math
>is based on induction, a process which can have false conclusions
>because its premises can be true or false.
 
  Please learn about something before you decide to comment on it.
Mathematical induction is not the same method of proof that logigians
refer to as induction. Mathematical induction is a rigorously deductive
proof which only differs from the usual deductive proof in that it
starts from a different point. But, if you think otherwise, you can
point to where that fallacy lies in this example in which I sum the
integers between zero and some number m

    m
   \sum n = (m/2) + (m^2/2) = m(m + 1)/2

  Proof:
                   m
   For m = 0-4 \sum n = 2 + (4 + 0) + (3 + 1)
   
                        = 2 + 4 + 4 = (4/2) + 8
                        
                        = (4/2) + 16/2 = (4 + 4^2)/2 = 4(4 + 1)/2
   
                        = 10
                   m
   For m = 0-5, \sum n = 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5
        
                        = (5 + 0) + (4 + 1) + (3 + 2)
                        
                        = 5 + 5 + 5 = 15

                          15 x 2 = 30 = 5(5 + 1) => 15 = 5(5 + 1)/2
                   m
   For n = 0-6, \sum n = 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6

                        = 3 + (6 + 0) + (5 + 1) + (4 + 2)
                        
                        = 3 + 6 + 6 + 6 = (6/2) + 18 = 6/2 + 36/2

                        = (6 + 6^2)/2 = 6(6 + 1)/2

                        = 21

  By induction, the sum of integers from 0 to m is m(m + 1)/2.
Gotta problem with that being both true and false?

>Let's look at the concept of the massless photon. It seems to have
>started in quantum theory as a carrier particle which mediates emr
>like the so-called graviton mediates gravitation. Qm states that
>forces can be mediated by photons and gravitons in the case of forces
>having infinite range, like gravitation and electromagnetism. The
>graviton is yet to be found as are gravity waves, but we can observe
>photons.
 
  What's your point? Which sense organ do humans posses that works
via the gravitational interaction? Last time I checked, every process
in the human body works via chemistry, i.e., the foece mediated by
photons.
 
>It is claimed that photons travel along with the lightwaves
 
  Well, then you should go find whomever it is that claims that
and take up your objections with that person.

  If you have something to say (1) don't write an introduction that
consists of a diatribe against ``mathematical constructs.'' If you write F
= ma, that's a mathematical construct. The only difference between the
mathematical construct F = ma and the mathematical construct, box A^u = j^u,
is that you have no idea what the latter construct means and aren't
interested enough in physics to find out. (2) Don't write cliches and
soundbites as if those had some relation to real physics. If you are going
to write something like ``photons travel along with the lightwaves,'' --
don't. Write the equation you think means the ame thing as that statement.
That way, I don't have to try to guess the meaning of a non-sequiter and
waste time on a pointless semantic debate about a concept that doesn't
make any sense which has been claimed by someone you avoided referencing
by writing in the passive voice. (3) If you can't write an equation
for something, don't try to use it as an argument. If you consider the
statement, ``1 kg plus 1 kg equals 2 kg'' to be a valid concept, then
you accept mathematics and I'm not about to go along with any notion
that mathematical constructs become less valid at the point you don't
understand the mathematics. You chose to argue about physics, so I expect
your argument to be at the same level as the physics you chose to argue
about. (4) see http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The massless photon?
    ... in which the photon has a mass. ... is in assuming that photons can in reality be compared to another ... >>The reason anything is possible with math constructs is because math ... > you accept mathematics and I'm not about to go along with any notion ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The massless photon?
    ... > I mean, that if thr photon is not massless, those statements are ... > actually contains some physics. ... > you accept mathematics and I'm not about to go along with any notion ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Will Radio Engineering be QMs worst nightmare?
    ... I've seen a paper with a wavefunction for a photon. ... for something mathematical or relatable to mathematics. ... and get as many of those papers listed as available. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism
    ... >>particle can also be a wave in science these days. ... > in using terms like particle and wave to begin with. ... the mathematics of waves and the mathematics of particles explain ... 'cuz it models photon behaviour ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Light speed invariance
    ... >Einstein said it was light he was talking about but he didn't really ... interaction analogs to the photon are massless, ... If you assume that relativity simply defines spacetime according ... If you ask what role the photon mass has in a relativistic ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)