Photons have Mass

[Anonymous No.15196633]

And that's why light changes path under the influence of gravity.
This totally disproves the theory of general relativity, based on the assumption that spacetime is curved, which has never been proven experimentally.
Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.15196639]

Do you agree with the fact that proving photons have mass would disprove every part of general relativity theory that doesn't simply work as a model by mathematical coincidence?

[Anonymous No.15196644]

If photons have no mass thus no energy according to Einstein, how is it possible to realize devices like optical tweezers and to push objects (solar sails) by using photons?

[Anonymous No.15196692]

Also it is commonly believed in physics that the speed of light slows down if light passes through a medium, but this has no explaination except the interaction of the photon's mass with matter!
The wave-particle duality doesn't actually exist, it is an error of interpretation based on the interaction of electric fields generated by the photon itself (and other particles)!

[Anonymous No.15196694]

>>15196644
> thus no energy according to Einstein
completely false.

[math]E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2[/math]

all particles have momentum, even massless ones.

[Anonymous No.15196709]

>>15196644
> thus no energy according to Einstein
completely false.

[math]E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2[/math]

all particles have energy, even massless ones.

[Anonymous No.15196711]

>>15196633
I haven't seen any better theory to explain why mass exerts gravitational force. What's your theory, anon?

[Anonymous No.15196713]

>>15196694
ok, I formulated that badly,
how do you explain the fact that particles have momentum if they don't have mass?
energy loaded in the electric field?
but how can you keep the electric field stable without mass?

[Anonymous No.15196718]

>>15196711
>What's your theory, anon?
I'm working on it but I consider the idea that mass bends a fantomatic "spacetime" overly simplistic.
I feel something is wrong with all this. Quantum mechanics should be considered too.

[Anonymous No.15196721]

>>15196713
> how do you explain the fact that particles have momentum if they don't have mass?
because the momentum you learn about in playschool isn't the complete story. you learn Newtonian mechanics first, not relativity.

[Anonymous No.15196723]

>>15196718
I'm interested to hear what you come up with, anon.
>t. infectious disease specialist with absolutely minimal physics background

[Anonymous No.15196726]

>>15196718
>i'm working on it
premature post then isn't it

[Anonymous No.15196727]

>>15196721
so what's the complete story?

[Anonymous No.15196733]

>>15196726
just to test the waters, but I'm sure there are alternative explainations that prove everything that Einstein proves while not being a religion of "curved spacetimes" based on mathematical concepts completely dissociated from reality.

[Anonymous No.15196735]

>>15196721
relativity theory is hilarious nonsense with zero basis in reality, though
imagine taking it seriously

[Anonymous No.15196739]

I believe that the rest mass of a photon can be calculated, and I will eventually do it.
This will break already some major assumptions of relativity.

[Anonymous No.15196745]

the official explaination is literally circular reasoning based on two assumptions:

1) c is the speed of light because photon mass is 0 and nothing can go faster than light
2) thus the mass of the photon is 0

am I wrong here?

[Anonymous No.15196750]

>>15196739
[math]m_\gamma=\frac{\hbar}{2c^3}[/math]

[Anonymous No.15196758]

>>15196727
in relativity it's because the inertial mass (the mass in [math]mv[/math]) is a function of velocity. in quantum mechanics it's defined by a particular operator.

>>15196735
you're right anon, it's only supported by a century of experimental evidence. what utter nonsense. hurry up and give us a better answer.

[Anonymous No.15196769]

>>15196758
>you're right anon, it's only supported by a century of experimental evidence
>experiments in favor can't rule out the predecessor theory
>experiments that are ambiguous at best are met with ad hoc excuses like "it's not fair because it's spinning", "acceleration is absolute", and simply move the goalpost
>experiments against it are simply ignored because "they can't be right, they violate relativity"

[Anonymous No.15196773]

>>15196633
i think it might have to do with the mass of the medium that light travels through

[Anonymous No.15196777]

>>15196769
Waiting on your new theory to drop.

[Anonymous No.15196785]

I can imagine a perfectly reasonable explaination to why the Sun is able to bend light, without spacetime bullshit:
Because, photons have mass and as every object whose mass is not zero (even if really small), they are gravitationally shifted by the Sun's huge mass and gravity field.

[Anonymous No.15196787]

>>15196773
>i think it might have to do with the mass of the medium that light travels through
ALSO A POSSIBILITY!
what if photons are bent by passing near the Sun due to refraction by hot hydrogen or plasma?
Did anyone think of this? It would be 10000 times more reasonable than the spacetime theory.

[Anonymous No.15196797]

>>15196787
and I mean a phenomenon similar to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
would probably need an explaination for black holes light-bending though.

[Anonymous No.15196799]

>>15196769
why so mad? none of that is how the scientific method works.

>>15196745
the speed of light is the speed of light because of maxwell's equations.

[Anonymous No.15196803]

>>15196799
>the speed of light is the speed of light because of maxwell's equations.
how?

[Anonymous No.15196804]

>>15196639
>i'm a retard
they'd just follow geodesics that aren't null retard

[Anonymous No.15196815]

>>15196799
>why so mad? none of that is how the scientific method works.
yeah because relativity is unscientific

[Anonymous No.15196818]

>>15196803
https://www.wikihow.com/Derive-the-Speed-of-Light-from-Maxwell%27s-Equations

Not only do they give you the value for c but Einstein also noticed it did not depend on the frame of reference. From that he came up with special relativity.

[Anonymous No.15196824]

>>15196815
> unscientific
You'll have to explain that one anon.

[Anonymous No.15196831]

>>15196824
>>15196769

[Anonymous No.15196842]

>>15196831
That's not an explanation, it's gibberish.

[Anonymous No.15196844]

>>15196818
that's why Einstein copied a special case of Maxwell's equations to model general relativity I guess...

[Anonymous No.15196845]

>>15196842
yeah relativity is gibberish and not an explanation of anything

[Anonymous No.15196848]

>>15196818
voigt derived the lorentz transformation from the wave equation and doppler effect
the doppler effect is not the pseudoscientific crap einstein invented
relativity is unproven pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.15196871]

>>15196844
>>15196845
>>15196848
I genuinely cant tell if you're all shitposting or are idiots. I hope it's the latter because that would be funnier.

[Anonymous No.15196883]

>>15196758
>its been believed x amount of time therefore it must be right.

solid logic. nothing false has ever been believed for any long period of time.

[Anonymous No.15196885]

>>15196871
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

[Anonymous No.15196887]

light doesn't have a set speed and it can change. there is no, "light speed"

[Anonymous No.15196892]

>>15196883
No measurement has proven it false so your argument seems lacking.

[Anonymous No.15196894]

>>15196887
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

[Anonymous No.15196899]

>>15196885
> This approximate reformulation of gravitation as described by general relativity in the weak field limit
So your link to a theory based on GR is meant to prove what exactly?

[Anonymous No.15196908]

>>15196887
>Breaking news in the world of Physics
>Anon disproves Michelson-Morley experiment, with supporting evidence states as "dude, trust me."

[Anonymous No.15196915]

>>15196908
anon PROVED the michelson morley experiment, with supporting evidence "mathematics"
https://osf.io/vkb2z
keep coping

[Anonymous No.15196932]

>>15196894
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

[Anonymous No.15196933]

>>15196915
mathematics isn't evidence

[Anonymous No.15196936]

>>15196933
yeah that's why relativity is pseudoscience, it's just mathematics with no empirical evidence
unlike doppler effect

[Anonymous No.15196939]

>>15196936
take your meds.

[Anonymous No.15196944]

>>15196939
cope

[Anonymous No.15197032]

>>15196939
you lost this one

[Anonymous No.15197043]

>>15196892
dark matter anomalies

[Anonymous No.15197137]

>>15196944
You lost. Cope.

[Anonymous No.15197444]

>>15197137
no u

[Anonymous No.15197459]

>>15196892
Redshift quantization.

[Anonymous No.15197465]

the spacetime may be "curved" but the space itself isnt. Ops pic tier stupid pictures imply space itself is curved which even einstein did not say.

[Anonymous No.15197470]

>>15197459
> The idea has been on the fringes of astronomy since the mid-1990s and is now discounted by the vast majority of astronomers
> but a few scientists who espouse nonstandard cosmological models, including those who reject the Big Bang theory, have referred to evidence of redshift quantization as reason to reject conventional accounts of the origin and evolution of the universe

that'll be nope then

[Anonymous No.15197476]

>>15197470
Empirical evidence doesn't care what a discredited discipline thinks.

[Anonymous No.15197478]

But what IS mass?

[Anonymous No.15197480]

>>15196633
this is so retarded it's not even wrong

[Anonymous No.15197483]

>>15197476
that's not the point. assuming the efffect is real it still doesn't disprove relativity. that claim is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15197498]

>>15196633
>no experimental proof of GR
wow
this must be a new low for this board

[Anonymous No.15197505]

>>15197498
nah, it's business as usual. the board has a collective of anti-science trolls.

[Anonymous No.15197521]

>>15196633
Relativity in general is bullshit. We dont even think about it all in classical physics even though it supposedly affects it.

[Anonymous No.15197533]

>>15197505
You can't say that about particle physicists, anon.

[Anonymous No.15197542]

>>15197521
Why would we? To see a 1% difference compared to the effects of classical physics you have to travel at least 14% the speed of light, 42 million m/s.

[Anonymous No.15197563]

>>15196633
objects with mass cant travel at the speed of light because their mass becomes infinite as they approach it and infinite mass is not possible. seeth and cope

[Anonymous No.15197570]

>>15197542
Relativity though has a lot of implications philosophical and on classical physics especially if civilization got big enough to make it relevant to everyday life.

Like I am sorry but you have to be an absolute retard if light is not effected by time.

[Anonymous No.15197590]

>>15197498
your strawmanning ass is clearly unable to read

[Anonymous No.15197592]

>>15197563
>airplanes can't go faster than the speed of sound because air resistance becomes infinite seeth and cope

[Anonymous No.15197619]

(((Einstein)))

[Anonymous No.15197641]

>>15197592
>comparing classical mechanics to relativistic mechanics
also, prove it schizo

[Anonymous No.15197672]

>>15197641
What is the medium that light waves travel through again?

[Anonymous No.15197902]

>>15196633
Photons cannot have mass, photons have seen obverved countless times, in many experiments with many configurations and always their initial vacuum speed is the same of their final speed without any change.
No, photons have no mass.

[Anonymous No.15197918]

>>15196758
>it's only supported by a century of experimental evidence
top kek
all right, present the evidence please

[Anonymous No.15197923]

>>15197918
Prove that it's nonsense first.

[Anonymous No.15197926]

>>15197902
>Photons cannot have mass
where does the mass come from?

[Anonymous No.15197932]

>>15197923
you are the one making a positive claim (that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime), the burden of proof is on you. let's see the evidence, man.

[Anonymous No.15197946]

>>15197932
Prove that it's nonsense. You can't. Thanks for losing.

[Anonymous No.15197985]

>>15197926
You are mixing things up here.
There are two states of basic substance, energy (photons) and matter (particles), both are interchangeable, but both are on different status. And this only applies on EM forces, since other fields have different kinds of matter/energy configurations.
The process of how energy become particles isn't well known, but of course is related with some sort of thresholds.
But then again, particles can change their speed, because they have mass, once you don't have mass your speed will be always c. And this have been constantly observed on photons (don't get confused with some experiments dealing with interference... that's another issue)

[Anonymous No.15197989]

>>15196633
>This totally disproves the theory of general relativity, based on the assumption that spacetime is curved, which has never been proven experimentally.
no

[Anonymous No.15198002]

>>15197926
Hmm. Is dark matter made of virtual particles maybe?

[Anonymous No.15198003]

>>15196785
>Because, photons have mass and as every object whose mass is not zero (even if really small), they are gravitationally shifted by the Sun's huge mass and gravity field.
Even massless particles are deflected by large masses in relativity, which has been observed repeatedly.
>>15196745
>am I wrong here?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15198007]

>>15197946
It's nonsense because physical properties of abstract concepts such as spacetime curvature cannot be verified by the scientific method in principle. It's not science.

[Anonymous No.15198014]

>>15198007
>Science can't prove it, it doesn't exist
Not a valid disapproval. Try again you dumb nigger baboon.

[Anonymous No.15198023]

>>15196739
>This will break already some major assumptions of relativity.
No, it won't. Relativity assumes that massless particles move at this maximum speed, it doesn't actually matter if photons are massless. Indeed, a universe with very low mass photons would be indistinguishable from ours, if the mass was low enough.
>>15196639
>Do you agree with the fact that proving photons have mass would disprove every part of general relativity theory that doesn't simply work as a model by mathematical coincidence?
No, it doesn't matter if photons have mass.

[Anonymous No.15198034]

>>15198014
Science doesn't need proofs for its claims?

[Anonymous No.15198070]

>>15197985
>You are mixing things up here.
you're the one who is mixed up, there is no matter present at the start of the interaction, there is matter present at the end of it.
>The process of how energy become particles isn't well known,
here you admit that you don't understand the process and in the next breath
>but of course is related with some sort of thresholds.
you irrationally claim to understand the process completely. delusional emotional coping mechanism, photons somehow or other are convertible to mass, they do have mass, you're in the dark about how it all works and are too shallow minded and image conscious to admit that you are ignorant of the process.

[Anonymous No.15198080]

>>15196633
Congrats OP, you did it! You disproved all of science, just like the flat earthers. What a glorious golden age of knowledge we live in, now that the real geniuses among us, like OP, are free to drop these knowledge bombs on those stupid scientists who spend their entire lives actually studying science.

[Anonymous No.15198107]

>>15197923
>>15197946
>>15198014
>impotent rage because people don't accept his retarded beliefs
>won't answer questions because he knows he'll get btfo again itt
>lashes out and calls people the nigger word like a chud
lol
you love to see it

[Anonymous No.15198121]

>>15198080
>just like the flat earthers
can't argue science, instead must resort to psyops & namecalling in order to defend it's supposedly scientific beliefs on an emotional basis, because they're indefensible on a rational basis

[Anonymous No.15198237]

>>15198107
Relativists really are pathetic little cucks aren't they?

[Anonymous No.15198267]

>>15198107
Post doesn't disprove anything, chud. Try again, but argue using facts this time.

[Anonymous No.15198272]

>>15198267
burden of proof is on you

[Anonymous No.15198275]

>>15198272
Nope, it's actually on you. Post proof for your baseless refutation, chud.

[Anonymous No.15198468]

>>15197478
potential energy

[Anonymous No.15198823]

>>15197478
Protip: they don't know.

[Anonymous No.15198939]

>>15196758
>in relativity it's because the inertial mass (the mass in mvmv) is a function of velocity. in quantum mechanics it's defined by a particular operator.

Are you of a low IQ?
Being featured in an equation with no basis in reality does not make it correct.
Circular fucking reasoning.

>It must be true because this formula says it is

[Anonymous No.15198945]

>>15197923
I will once you prove that God is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15198986]

>>15197923
have you looked at relativistic predictions of galactic rotation curves versus their observed values lately? don't tell us you believe in the dark matter cope, if you're going to invoke phantom matter as a means of correcting all observations to match relativistic predictions then that makes relativity a non-disprovable theory and not within the bounds of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.15199998]

>>15196633
Precession of mercury bros...

[Anonymous No.15200142]

>>15196633
>Photons have mass
Wrong. Didn't read the rest.

[Anonymous No.15200173]

>>15196633
astral plane theory

[Anonymous No.15200182]

>>15196848
>relativity is unproven pseudoscience
>literally describes the observation of reality
>unproven pseudoscience
Only retards who think time dilation physically changes the rate of existing think it's pseudoscience, all you have to do is look what is happening around you to understand relativity

[Anonymous No.15200369]

>>15200182
>literally describes the observation of reality
have you looked at relativistic predictions of galactic rotation curves versus their observed values lately? don't tell us you believe in the dark matter cope, if you're going to invoke phantom matter as a means of correcting all observations to match relativistic predictions then that makes relativity a non-disprovable theory and not within the bounds of the scientific method.