It's been vindicated, some photons have "mass!"

[Dubbelosix]

"And the scientists’ measurements back that up, says laser plasma physicist Stuart Mangles of Imperial College London, who was not involved with the new study: “Everything they’re measuring about it makes it look like a real photon.” However, Mangles notes that the photons are still virtual by some definitions: Unlike normal photons, which have no mass, these photons do have mass."

 

Well Ocean, you banned me for saying this, seems like my insight has been proven somewhat right.

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/colliding-photons-matter-particle-physics?fbclid=IwAR0xZeM1idBMmZ4pSLJ-1pa5ulemphxW1KWdHWj6O3E19cEFovrUgV0PdMo

[HallsofIvy]

What is your understanding of the word "virtual" here?

[Dubbelosix]

Virtual particles are usually ground state particles. Virtual particles are mediator particles just as ordinary photons are. A good example of virtual particles is their interactions with other particles like muons. They exist around the muon in a haze fleeting in and out of existence. Virtual particles should not be mistaken for meaning they are not real, its just that they do not follow the ordinary Hermitian matrices making them strictly observsble, but thry can be obseved indirectly. In a way, they are very much a candidate for a type of dark matter in this sense. Virtual particles have a rich history. Yukawa predicted a hypothetical model where the virtual photon might bind nucleons, at the nuclear range, byt being massless he found it wouldn't provide the correct binding energies. This may be revised now that virtual photons do carry mass. Nevertheless, using the uncertainty principle he was able to calculate the mass of these virtual photons and they were soon vindicated as Pion exchanges that carried the strong force. His rudimentary calculation for the mass was a bit iff, but further experimentation gound there were other Pions and at least one class of these partickes did fit his mass prediction. They were detected in cloud chambers.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/exchg.html#c4

If Pions hold quatks together, the picture soon became more complicated because the Quarks had also another exchange particle, called the gluon. Sometimes articles gloss over the role of Pions being the strong force mediator and concentrate on the gluon phenonenon. But now, with it being confirmed that virtual photons can carry mass, they may actually play a role for binding that Yukawa once predicted.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Some intellectual discussions on Pion vs gluon exchange forces https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9663/is-it-pions-or-gluons-that-mediate-the-strong-force-between-nucleons

[Dubbelosix]

Now, in a while, I'll quickly write up Yukawas preliminary calculations, his thoughts and the outcome from experiments, but first, I am making something to eat.

[Dubbelosix]

Okay, so let's do this.

Yukawa wanted to find out what binding agent held a nucleus together. He knew it followed a distance law of 1/r ²  with it dropping from huge values inside the nucleus to negligible values at the rim. He first speculated it coukd have been a photon, possibly a virtual photon then presumed to have zero mass, but he soon found if it had no mass it could not act as the binding agent. The exchange particle had to have sone mass to fit the experinental knowledge of forces.

To form an orbit its DeBriglie wave would have to form a standing wave ring if radius r and the simplest ring was

λ = 2πr

but for any particle

λ = h/mv

 ∵ mv = h/2πr

if we say v = c that is an overestimate unless it was a photon with zero mass, but if we say m = m' the rest mass of a meson, that was an underestimate.

However, we make such exchanges in hope to find they will compensate, so Yukawa gave

m'c = h/2πr

by using 

m' = h/2πrc we can now predict the value of m from the known values of h and c and the estimate of the nuclear radius r which is approximately 1.4 x 10^(-15) m. We get a value of 

0.9 x 10^(-30) kg. 

Comparing this with the rest mass if an electron, the exchange particle had to have roughly several hundred electron masses! This makes it five or ten times light than a single atom. At first, it wasn't believed, but a meson were soon experimentally varified inside of cloud chambers. The mass at first wasn't right but further experiments found more and one of them did fit his predicted mass.

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

So hopefully, you can see the opening of new doors to Yukawas originally binding hypothesis using photons, since he rejected that idea because he was using a now outdated idea of them containing "no mass."

[OceanBreeze]

On 8/20/2021 at 7:49 PM, Dubbelosix said:

"And the scientists’ measurements back that up, says laser plasma physicist Stuart Mangles of Imperial College London, who was not involved with the new study: “Everything they’re measuring about it makes it look like a real photon.” However, Mangles notes that the photons are still virtual by some definitions: Unlike normal photons, which have no mass, these photons do have mass."

 

Well Ocean, you banned me for saying this, seems like my insight has been proven somewhat right.

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/colliding-photons-matter-particle-physics?fbclid=IwAR0xZeM1idBMmZ4pSLJ-1pa5ulemphxW1KWdHWj6O3E19cEFovrUgV0PdMo

Once again, you are misinterpreting and cherry-picking information only to support your desired point of view, and once again you are wrong! Our previous discussion was limited to real photons. Virtual photons were never mentioned because it would be silly to argue about the properties of any type of virtual particle because virtual particles can have virtually any property you like, simply because of their virtuality!

I suggest you read the actual paper for this experiment, parts of which I have reproduced below:

“The production of e⁺+e^- pairs via virtual photons is commonplace in high-energy collider experiments. However, the existing experimental searches for the Breit-Wheeler process have not explored its unique features whereby the colliding photons have the energy spectrum and quantum spin states of real photons, and whereby any approximations do not alter the physics result of real photon collisions.”

“In this Letter, a comprehensive analysis includes simultaneous measurement of (a) the total  e⁺+e^-production rate, (b) the photon energy spectrum with sufficient precision to demonstrate the relationship with the initial spatial distribution of the electromagnetic field, and (c) the allowed helicity states for participating photons via measurement of the polar angle of the produced positrons and via measurement of the invariant mass spectra to demonstrate the absence of vector mesons. Furthermore, we present the first measurement of the unique cos4Δϕ modulation predicted for the Breit-Wheeler photon-photon fusion process to definitively demonstrate that the interacting photons behave as real photons with transverse linear polarization.”

If you read and understand this correctly, you can only conclude that the interaction of two real photons (the Breit-Wheeler process) resulting in creating an e⁺+e^- pair is yet to be demonstrated, simply because real photons are massless and do not allow for a helicity of Jz = 0 state. Only short-lived virtual photons may carry a virtual mass (virtuality) with a possible Jz = 0 state in their role as intermediate propagators of the electromagnetic force.

Put simply, what has been demonstrated here is an equivalent photon approximation (EPA), using virtual photons, having mass, to demonstrate the Breit-Wheeler process. This demonstration is probably closest yet to the real thing because it does meet certain requirements, particularly the allowed helicity state of Jz = 0 and the unique cos4Δϕ modulation required for the Breit-Wheeler process, but does not meet the requirement for real photons because real photons are massless!

(Incidentally, we have just moored at Cape Canaveral so I found a few minutes to reply to you but I am far too busy to engage in any further discussion. Just read the paper and hopefully you should see where you are going wrong) Ha! I doubt that last part! And for the record, you were suspended for being an argumentative, insulting asshat.

 

 

 

[Dubbelosix]

I'm not cherry picking anything or misinterpreting a damn thing. I explained a photon could have mass, I said there was a semantic issue with mass and matter. The article clearly says, some photons do have mass, and its not cherry picking because we talk about virtual photons, it is what it is.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

By the way, virtual photons are real as well. You say real photons are massless abd that woukd mislead people into thinking then virtual photons are not. 

"Hopefully you'll see where you are wrong?"

Living on a dream Ocean. I know more about this stuff than you do. You argue semantics of real photons vs virtual because you think the latter isn't real, which means it's you that doesn't understand. Not me.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

And yeah, virtual particles can have many properties, at least we agree on this. Heck, for some short periods they can transform into electrons and neutrinos and back again. But I must make this clear, all matter once came from the ground state virtual fields, if these off-shell photons didn't have a mass, it would be a strange thing. If the on-shell photon has a mass, it would contribute to the total mass entrapoed inside a box with mirrors  if it has a quantifiable content of matter, it has to be extremely small, on order of 10^-51kg.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Vmedvil2]

Okay, let's settle this like scientists devise a experiment to prove one of you correct and the other wrong. Do photons have mass according to common thought, no(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism#The_photon_as_the_part_that_remains_massless), however that is subject to change with the proper proof. We know that all energy and mass has gravity due to general relativity due to energy-stress tensor and photons are commonly thought to have energy thus having gravity, but do they have interaction with a higgs field which generates mass, make a experiment to detect interaction with the higgs by photons, I suppose?

Edited August 22, 2021 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

4 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

Okay, let's settle this like scientists devise a experiment to prove one of you correct and the other wrong. Do photons have mass according to common thought, no(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism#The_photon_as_the_part_that_remains_massless), however that is subject to change with the proper proof. We know that all energy and mass has gravity due to general relativity due to energy-stress tensor and photons are commonly thought to have energy thus having gravity, but do they have interaction with a higgs field which generates mass, make a experiment to detect interaction with the higgs by photons, I suppose?

Susskind explains the ground state goldstone boson is like a photon and demonstrates in his lectures how symmetry breaking makes it aquire matter. What I argue is that there may be a semsntic difference between what we csll mass, and that which is matter.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Vmedvil2]

2 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Susskind explains the ground state goldstone boson is like a photon and demonstrates in his lectures how symmetry breaking makes it aquire matter. What I argue is that there may be a semsntic difference between what we csll mass, and that which is matter.

Matter's closest synonym is Mass, Matter is  mass, though matter may not include things like Dark Energy since it isn't really of the same in properties as Dark Matter and Energy-Mass by not having a Negative Curvature. Mass-Energy-Dark Matter is equivalent to Tab while Dark Energy is equivalent to Λ. Photons still being equivalent to Tab are still considered "Energy-Mass" being Energy-Mass as their substance generated from, having a negative curvature under that definition however under the chemistry definition of "matter",Massless particles are considered "Not Matter" by not being made of atoms or things that constitute atoms having mass, which makes this very confusing to some. It Initially confused me however we do need to make sure we use Energy, Mass, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Matter correctly by what the term actually means and actually we don't know that dark matter has mass at all thus that could be a misnomer, however we do know that it is Energy-Mass with a negative curvature. A better way to describe all this is Energy versus Mass and Negative Curvature Versus Positive Curvature.

Edited August 22, 2021 by VictorMedvil

[bangstrom]

11 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

By the way, virtual photons are real as well.

Photons are described by some as quanta of energy -and nothing more- because energy is never found separate from matter. That is, light energy has never been observed to exist between a signal and receiver. 

Milo Wolff explained the problem with our assumption that photons exist. “When an energy exchange occurs between, say, two molecules one wonders what is traveling between them. If we don’t know, we say it is a “photon.” Giving it a name doesn’t add any knowledge, but it allows us to feel better and we can pretend we know what travels.”

The photon particle is described as having magical properties with its ability to pick up a quantum of energy from one particle and accelerate it instantly to speed c and then carry that energy through space at a constant speed c relative to all observers until it encounters some barrier where it transfers its energy to an accepting particle.

That may describe the end result of light related events as we observe them but the phantasmagoria of what transpires between a signal and sink is neither logical nor supported by direct observation so we need to be a bit agnostic about the existence of photons as ballistic particles before we try to explain our observations as the results of photon interactions. Just because we have a photon explanation for an event does not imply that photons exist.

 

 

[Vmedvil2]

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

Photons are described by some as quanta of energy -and nothing more- because energy is never found separate from matter. That is, light energy has never been observed to exist between a signal and receiver. 

Milo Wolff explained the problem with our assumption that photons exist. “When an energy exchange occurs between, say, two molecules one wonders what is traveling between them. If we don’t know, we say it is a “photon.” Giving it a name doesn’t add any knowledge, but it allows us to feel better and we can pretend we know what travels.”

The photon particle is described as having magical properties with its ability to pick up a quantum of energy from one particle and accelerate it instantly to speed c and then carry that energy through space at a constant speed c relative to all observers until it encounters some barrier where it transfers its energy to an accepting particle.

That may describe the end result of light related events as we observe them but the phantasmagoria of what transpires between a signal and sink is neither logical nor supported by direct observation so we need to be a bit agnostic about the existence of photons as ballistic particles before we try to explain our observations as the results of photon interactions. Just because we have a photon explanation for an event does not imply that photons exist.

 

 

Why did you post this crank stuff into this thread? Did you just say to yourself "Ya, I want to post some crank stuff about photons not existing into this thread where people were discussing serious stuff?"

Edited August 22, 2021 by VictorMedvil

[bangstrom]

12 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

Why did you post this crank stuff into this thread? Did you just say to yourself "Ya, I want to post some crank stuff about photons not existing into this thread where people were discussing serious stuff?"

From Einstein’s 1954 letter to Michael Besso:

“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken...”

I see no problem with questioning the existence of photons especially since their origin was based on philosophical ruminations made prior to the existence of solid experimental results that we now have. Yes, I am familiar with Einstein’s photoelectric effect. I am not expecting anyone to accept my “crank” point of view but it is based on my understanding of those far better informed than myself such as the article below by Carver Mead. Here Mead contrasts the classical view of the photon with the current, evidence based understanding of light quanta and how they are exchanged. And Mead is far from alone with these views.

http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead - The Nature of Light - What are Photons..pdf

Some of Mead’s main observations are:

3. Every element of matter is coupled to all other matter on its light cone by time-symmetric interactions.

4. Matter interacts directly with other matter. The time-symmetric nature of these interactions make them effectively instantaneous

11. The “photon” transaction can be viewed as a brief entanglement of the quantum states of the two participating atoms.