Light has mass!

If you use E=mc^2 you just use the energy of the photon to find its mass then try to see how many photons can make up a electron, as my intuition thinks it might be, remembering that we know that every thing is made of energy just what is the purist form of energy, "Light" or "Gravity", and does "gravity move threw space-time", and "light with it" are the both just a mutation of space-time or does space-time have a special tunnel type dimension that only each uses, Just think of two tubes and gravity uses one and light the other.

MARX

evolivid: 12 Jul 2009 : 02:11:26
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you use E=mc^2 you just use the energy of the photon to find its mass then try to see how many photons can make up a electron, as my intuition thinks it might be, remembering that we know that every thing is made of energy...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I do suspect that E = mc^2 is applicable to the mass of the photon; hence, m = E/c^2. And it is known that E = hv (That v is the Greek nu, for frequency.) But E = mc^2, as far as I know, has only been applied to particles with a rest mass, and E = hv has only been applied to free photons; we must be careful about our assumptions.

I think it's more a question of the wavelength than the number of photons, though I suspect it is at least a pair of photons for each fundamental particle. (In my fractal foam model, the photons that comprise a particle orbit one another because of a push they get from dark energy.) The electrons rest mass is 9.11 x 10^-31 kg. If the electron is a pair of orbiting electrons, each of them should have a mass of 4.505 x 10^-31 kg.

h = 6.63 x 10^-34 Js

E = mc^2 =
(4.505 x 10^-31 kg) x (9 x 10^16 m^2/s^2) = 4.0545 x 10^-14 J

v = E/h =(4.0545 x 10^-14 J) / (6.63 x 10^-34 Js) = 6.12 x 10^19 /s

wave length = c / v = (3 x 10^8 m/s) / (6.12 x 10^19 /s) = 4.9 x 10^-12 m

This number seems unreasonably large---approximately atom size; the Bohr radius is about 5.3 x 10^-11 m. Electron-size has been estimated at less than 10^-22 m. Getting back to our assumptions, maybe E = hv is only applicable to free photons and not to photons that are bound in orbiting pairs or groups. (I deliberately avoid calling them photons when discussing my fractal foam model; instead, I refer to them as ethereal shear waves.)

evolivid: 12 Jul 2009 : 02:11:26
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... just what is the purist form of energy, "Light" or "Gravity",... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In my fractal foam model, light is an ethereal shear (transverse) wave, and gravity is an ethereal pressure (longitudinal) wave, AKA dark energy. Both are pure forms of energy, but pressure waves are higher on the causality scale; pressure waves both cause shear waves and push them around, being responsible for all the forces of nature, including gravity.

evolivid: 12 Jul 2009 : 02:11:26
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...and does "gravity move threw space-time", and "light with it" are the both just a mutation of space-time or does space-time have a special tunnel type dimension that only each uses, Just think of two tubes and gravity uses one and light the other.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Youre not speaking my language, now; plus youre going off topic.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by evolivid</i>
<br />
If you use E=mc^2 you just use the energy of the photon to find its mass then try to see how many photons can make up a electron, as my intuition thinks it might be, remembering that we know that every thing is made of energy just what is the purist form of energy, "Light" or "Gravity", and does "gravity move threw space-time", and "light with it" are the both just a mutation of space-time or does space-time have a special tunnel type dimension that only each uses, Just think of two tubes and gravity uses one and light the other.

MARX
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


MARX,

I want to comment in support of your logic, but I don't want to be posting all over the forum, when all of this, for me, is really under "A New Take On Gravity" and more of a loosely connected modification or expansion (although independently arrived at) of a Le Sage type of a particle based gravity model (sort of, but with some real basic differences)

So, anyway, I would like to quote you in that Thread and make my comments there.

My apologies to Phil, but I really think that we could debate and compare our differing models on one thread, there, until, <b>panteltje</b> tells us that he thinks we have hijacked his thread, in which case, we could then, move the whole debate over to one of Phil's Threads.

With only best wishes, Aaron

Aaron: 19 Jul 2009 : 02:16:59<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My apologies to Phil, but I really think that we could debate and compare our differing models on one thread, there, until, panteltje tells us that he thinks we have hijacked his thread, in which case, we could then, move the whole debate over to one of Phil's Threads.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As I stated in my last post, above, the latter half of MARXs comment is off topic for this thread; it is not about the fact that light has mass. So you are right to reply to it elsewhere. (You posted the same response twice; you might want to delete one copy; just click the dustbin icon.)

Mainstream scientists have convinced the majority of the public that light has no mass. I get the impression that most modern physics texts state this as undisputed fact. Is it an out-and-out lie? Or is it true within the context of general relativity? Does mass not mean the same thing in GR? If not, then what DOES mass mean in GR? If anyone here accepts the mainstream dogma, please try to convince me.

I would like to know everyones opinion on the mass of light. Do you agree with me that not only is light attracted to other masses, but other masses are attracted to light? Whether gravity is caused by Lesage-type particles or by the pressure waves of my model, it seems those particles or waves affect both photons and slow particles in much the same way. In my model, that is to be expected because particles are orbiting pairs of photons (actually shear waves which propagate at the speed of light); how do Lesage-type models account for interaction between photons and gravitons?

When a certain star goes supernova, a significant fraction of its rest mass is converted to light within a few hours. Does the gravity at another star, light years away from the supernova drop as the light burst is emitted? Does it drop when the burst of light passes the other star? Or does it drop at after a speed of gravity delay? Does the supernova emit a gravity wave? At what speed does that gravity wave propagate? Is there a way to test any of these questions? Or is it futile to even ask? I suspect we would have to be within the supernovas kill zone to detect a change in its gravity.

Does anyone know how much light is out there? How does it compare to the mass of visible matter and dark matter?

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

well light waves are effected by gravity that much we know and that mass is effected by gravity
so the real key to how this reality is should be based on the differences between the gravitational
effects on mass and compare those with light, then try to derive some solid conclusion on the matter,...
of which there is a whole universe of data to work with!

so the question I pose is what happens when light travels in a loop thats under the inverse of the area of the speed of light 1/c^2 or (1/c)^2 or c^-2 the reciprocal of the area of the speed of light, and how would light's mass effect space-time of that area do you think that space-time treats movement at the speed of light differently at c^-2 since it is out side the regular speed of light framework?

using the data from the first paragraph to derive the answer to the second.

MARX