Example about bending of trajectory near to Sun

How is it possible that rest mass is zero while speeded mass is not ? Relativistic mass is directly proportional to rest mass.

This concept of rest mass, relative mass for photon is convenient...actually there is no rest frame for photon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True, as far as we know.

Has never been observed in any known experiment. If you know someone who has detected a non-zero mass of a photon, then they should claim their Nobel Prize.

Obviously, there is no way I can explain this to you so that you get it... I can tell you have already had troubles with this claim with people online, since you introduced it as not being nonsense...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Total word salad, with many technical words.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There was an alternate form of quantum mechanics which was described as being part of a phase space that is equally valid. You could look that up if you like. It would require actual spacetime curvature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space_formulation

Something to get you started.

 

Yes and no. The relationship between particles that we would consider spacetime is far more radically influenced by physical dynamics in all forms of loop quantum gravity, it is just that spacetime is more radically a relationship between fields rather than possibly a thing in itself.

The Higgs field certainly got a lot of attention, since people spent billions on finding the Higgs boson. And, yes, it gets more attention now. But Higgs does not explain gravity at all, it explains the specific mass of certain particles.

 

So far all the attempts to link GR concepts with QM have failed......and alternate form of QM is still alternate only.

 

Nope. What are those fields ?

 

The non-zero relativistic mass of a photon seems to me to be a perfectly respectable concept: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

 

Thank you very much. I have already created new thread about it, because there were several people who didnt believe me, that there is something like effective/relativistic mass of photon.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/about-effective-relativistic-mass-of-photon.156719/

 

It wouldn't be able to claim the same experimental validity that the rest of quantum mechanics does... No rest mass or relativistic mass of a photon has ever been detected. Quantum mechanics is based on experiment. That statement would then be false if it just assumed that the photon has a relativistic mass and a rest mass of zero.

The only thing this is doing is trying to make claims that could possibly hinder a new correct quantum theory of gravity. It wouldn't be right to start making up facts about quantum mechanics that would hinder an unknown future theory. Any kind of a mass of a photon hasn't been detected by experiment, so it has been accepted by the scientific community that it could possibly have little or no mass (rest mass or relativistic), just possibly less than we can detect.

 

I think you are getting too worked up about this. As the link I provided shows, relativistic mass is just the ratio of momentum to velocity, both of which are measurable. When you think about it, all measurements of mass depend on measuring a ratio of other things, too, such as the degree of acceleration of an object in response to a force.

I do acknowledge there is dsagreement about how useful the concept is and how, or indeed if, it should be taught in schools, as this Wiki article explains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity . That is why I merely said it is a "respectable" concept, though I would agree one can do perfectly well without it.

 

The thing is that I have no idea what theory of quantum gravity is correct or if any of the ones we have is the right one. It could be possible that the application of the increase of mass due to frequency changes is just not a correct operation that can be performed on a massless particle. Then there is no way to really know that, because quantum mechanics makes no real logical sense. Then there is also no experimental evidence to support or go against this type of operation being valid. My own interpretation of quantum mechanics gives me no real insight if that would be a valid operation or not. Then there is no way anyone could possibly know if it is correct or not. Then I think it is just better to leave open the possibility of the correct description to be something else entirely.

 

I think QM makes good logical sense, once one has got one's head around the wave nature of matter. I think it is salutary to remind oneself occasionally that the Newtonian concept of "particles", which we are all brought up on, is itself totally artificial and does not represent the real world, any more than a wave does. Reality seems to behave as if it is in between the two, and that's just how it is, apparently, whether we like it or not. But then I'm a chemist, so I'm fairly used to it. (Engineers, I find, often hate QM. They can't cope with the fuzziness, I think.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

I think the real question here would be, "Do massless particles gain mass from the Higgs Field?" I think the answer would be no, because, "The process of giving a particle mass is known as the Higgs effect. This effect will transfer mass or energy to any particle that passes through it. Light that passes through it gains energy, not mass, because it is a wave."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

Then that could mean that applying the same increase of mass to bosons from frequency changes would be incorrect, because the Higgs Field would not give it more mass.

 

You are kind of hijacking this thread. If you want, open some new thread like "Do massless particles gain mass from the Higgs Field?", but please stick to the original topic in this thread.

 

Well, I think that would be the final answer to the problem you are having; it is just worded more technically. The Higgs Field wouldn't give a photon mass, only energy, so your whole idea about photons having a nonzero relativistic mass would be false, for that reason.

Then the bending of light around the sun would be only due to the curvature of spacetime and nothing to do with the mass of light.

 

Well there's something wrong with that description because matter too is a wave (de Broglie wave). But I agree with Ultron: let's stop, as it is taking the thread off-course.

 

Of course there would have to be something wrong with it, right?

If the OP is still having issues trying to figure out why there would be more curvature of a flight trajectory using GR instead of Newtonian Physics, it would be mostly due to the relativistic mass increase, not the time dilation... Any answer would just be a bunch of hand-waving anyways, without seeing any of the actual calculations which were made. If the OP didn't even consider relativistic mass increase, then I don't see how anyone could have any idea on how to help him correct that problem...