Hate to break it to you, but both assumptions are wrong. A photon does have mass, but very, very little. Infinity has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of light.

What do you mean that infinity has nothing to do with it? The general theory of relativity states that as the velocity of a mass approaches the speed of light, the mass of the object increases. Since a photon is travelling at the speed of light, the theory implies that it has an infinite mass, if any at all. Since it requires infinite energy to accelerate an infinite mass to the speed of light, there would be no energy less in the universe to get several infinite mass photons (yet alone billions and billions of photons) travelling at the speed of light.
Or are you saying that the theory needs to be rewritten?

 

It is impossible to say what photon only particle.
photon is not only a particle- corpuscular, it is a wave too.
Maybe more correct to say: how can quantum particle produce electric waves ?
==..

The simple truth is we don't know why, it's just a fact that it happens. Maybe the waves are a spacetime projection of some QM process caused by the limitations of energy/information movement in this universe like when we see a 3D object moving on a 2D screen.

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/mdft/Projection_Circular_Motion.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw

 

What do you mean that infinity has nothing to do with it? The general theory of relativity states that as the velocity of a mass approaches the speed of light, the mass of the object increases. Since a photon is travelling at the speed of light, the theory implies that it has an infinite mass, if any at all. Since it requires infinite energy to accelerate an infinite mass to the speed of light, there would be no energy less in the universe to get several infinite mass photons (yet alone billions and billions of photons) travelling at the speed of light.
Or are you saying that the theory needs to be rewritten?

I apologize, I don't know what I was thinking about. You're right, as an object increases the speed of light, its inertia will increase, and thus its mass will supposedly increase as well (though I never quite grasped that part--I know how it works in the formula, but I can't see it actually happening). And yes, I think the formula should be re-thought, as I think there are a few flaws, but that's another matter that I'd rather not get into (just random thoughts I've had that may or may not have any credibility).

But for the sake of this thread, you're right--Again, I don't know what I was thinking. Perhaps it's time for bed....

Regards,
Matt

 

I apologize, I don't know what I was thinking about. You're right, as an object increases the speed of light, its inertia will increase, and thus its mass will supposedly increase as well (though I never quite grasped that part--I know how it works in the formula, but I can't see it actually happening). And yes, I think the formula should be re-thought, as I think there are a few flaws, but that's another matter that I'd rather not get into (just random thoughts I've had that may or may not have any credibility).

But for the sake of this thread, you're right--Again, I don't know what I was thinking. Perhaps it's time for bed....

Regards,
Matt

You gave up too easily.
I can think of an explanation why a photon has mass and travelling at the speed of light.
A photon is created travelling at the speed of light. Since it already is travelling at the speed of light, it can have any mass it wants. You just can't change its momentum since it would require infinite energy. When a photon interacts with another particle, the energy associated with the photon is transformed into the effects we see from the interaction.

BTW, since this thread is mainly theoretical, I post whatever I think (even if it is all BS ).

 

Maybe the waves are a spacetime projection of some QM process
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/mdft/Projection_Circular_Motion.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw

I also think that " the waves are a spacetime projection of some QM process "

=

 

When talking about mass it is useful to distinguish between rest mass and total mass ( including that due to motion ) this should eliminate some arguments. For an object no moving at the speed of light you can always ( conceptually ) observe the rest mass by moving to a frame of reference where the object is at rest. This is for a point mass. For an extended mass it may also have some mass due to angular momentum. You cannot transform into a spinning frame without a major change in the physical laws.

 

You gave up too easily.

I gave up because it was past my bedtime and I probably would have started making even more ridiculous posts if I'd stayed up

Eventually I'll be starting a youtube series about this sort of thing--time travel, speed of light and the theory of relativity, infinity, and topics of that nature. I expect to do a lot of research in these matters, and I hope to learn a lot in the process.

Regards,
Matt

 

“ Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
=

 

To use the concept of duration
from the photons point of view) is meaningless.
Time, to a photon, is a dimension that does not exist.
For lack of any other reference I say 0 seconds,
but again, that is because we have trouble
conceiving of something that does not have duration.

Movement without duration is an abstraction.
This abstraction is going ( begin) from Einstein’s opinion.
To create SRT Einstein needed time and then (according to d=vt, t=d/v )
he took distance ( d) and divided on constant speed of quantum
of light (c) and has negative time. Later Minkowski took this negative
time as a positive 4D- dimension and gave math-geometrical interpretation.
In the beginning many physicists said that it is impossible to 1 second
be equal to 1 centimeter or 1 meter. As someone wrote: “1 second = 1 second
to you whether you are travelling at 40mph, or 400,000,000mph.”
But this abstraction somehow was adopted.
Again, in the other words:
Photon moves from point A to the point B .
There is direction (linear polarization) but photon in this direction
has no duration (!) of its process of movement from point A to the point B.
The duration of process is zero (0) , or “1 second = 1 second to you whether
you are travelling at 40mph, or 400,000,000mph.”
Is it possible?
The QED says that in interaction with matter photon/ electron
has duration of process.
=====…
Objections, please.
==…

 

“ Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
=

Never, and I mean NEVER, cite a wikipedia article as a source when talking about a legitimate topic. You should know better by now.

 

Movement without duration is an abstraction.
This abstraction is going ( begin) from Einstein’s opinion.
To create SRT Einstein needed time and then (according to d=vt, t=d/v )
he took distance ( d) and divided on constant speed of quantum
of light (c) and has negative time. Later Minkowski took this negative
time as a positive 4D- dimension and gave math-geometrical interpretation.
In the beginning many physicists said that it is impossible to 1 second
be equal to 1 centimeter or 1 meter. As someone wrote: “1 second = 1 second
to you whether you are travelling at 40mph, or 400,000,000mph.”
But this abstraction somehow was adopted.
Again, in the other words:
Photon moves from point A to the point B .
There is direction (linear polarization) but photon in this direction
has no duration (!) of its process of movement from point A to the point B.
The duration of process is zero (0) , or “1 second = 1 second to you whether
you are travelling at 40mph, or 400,000,000mph.”
Is it possible?
The QED says that in interaction with matter photon/ electron
has duration of process.
=====…
Objections, please.
==…

The information about Einstein’s calculation negative time
I took from a book ( this book was written in 1923 by Russian physicist
Khvolsky (?). I have it copy in my house but now I am far away )
Does somebody have other information about how negative time
in physics was arrived?
#
In SRT we have two (2) different reference frames:
One is space and time “all inertial reference frames are equivalent”
Another is spacetime: the negative absolute 4D continuum. / Planck/
And in 1908 Herman Minkowski said:
‘ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality.’

Maybe somebody can explain :
way “space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,”
and way “only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality.”
and why such opinion is not mysterious.
====..

 

There are many pretty solid theories.
How can be known which theory is wrong and which theory is true ?
The answer depends on which reference frame the theory is based.
#
We know many different reference frames
( free, open, closed , 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 11D, . . . MD . . . . )

Existence cannot begin from a complex system.
In the beginning must be a simple model.
Therefore, I will take a two dimensions space as the simplest model.
But there are two kinds of two dimensions: the Euclidean ( 2D) space
and Minkowski negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D space.
What is possible to say about these systems ?
Which reference frame can be taken as a basis of Existence ?
#
Euclidean ( 2D) reference frame belongs to a gravity space
where space and time are two different substances.
Minkowski negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D has no gravity
and space and time are one and the same unite continuum.
#
Later Descartes changed Euclidean two dimensions into three
dimensions . Living in this Descartes system of coordinate
we try to understand : where did our existence come from ?
Then, in my opinion, it is logically to take Minkowski negative
Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D ( without gravity ) as the simplest model
to have the searching answer.
============….

 

more about negative time
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=95930
#
Werner Heisenberg, . . . , wrote to Wolfgang Pauli:
“I regard the backward in time solution ...
as learned trash which no one can take seriously.”
http://www.sintropia.it/EdgeScience.pdf
=

 

Physicists invented negative time and then try to understand its existence.
Time exists only in the third dimensional gravity reality ( like in planets )
Time exists only as a result of the process which was explained in SRT and GRT .
Time doesn't exist outside third dimensional gravity reality.
============...

 

SRT and Quantum of Light.
=.
" Einstein's theory of special relativity followed a series of perplexing experiments . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Einstein showed that drastically revising the basic concepts of space and time
led to a consistent description of all these perplexing experiments . . . . ."
/ Book: Andrei Sakharov. Quarks and the structure of matter.
By Harry J. Lipkin. page 65.
Copyright 2013 by World Scientific Publishing /

In the others words, according to Einstein
because the space and time different from Newtonian
is possible the phenomenons of SRT.

I give another interpretation:
the phenomenons of SRT are possible because behavior
of quantum of light allow them be appeared.
The behavior of quantum of light is the cause of SRT's phenomenons.
===..
" Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /

It means that speed of light is a constant but not an absolute constant.
The speed of quantum of light is independent ( doesn't depend on outside forces )
Quantum of light can itself change its speed ( by own impulse / spin )
Therefore SRT is theory about behavior of quantum of light
====...

 

The concepts of space and time must be basic in physics.
But these conceptions didn't solve until now .
From the one hand, according to SRT, both space and time relative . . . .
From the other hand, according to SRT, 4D spacetime is an absolute continuum.
And nobody explains what negative 4D really is by ordinary logical language
and therefore . . . . . .
===...

 

On September 21, 1908 Hermann Minkowski began his talk at
the 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians
with the now famous introduction:
" The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Since then the question of the ontological status of this union of space and time
has become the subject of a continued debate.
.........
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/minkowski.html
==.

 

Oh Lord!

A photon is a human construct intended to help humans understand their observations of the universe (yeah, another human construct). It has no meaning beyond that.

Like a spinning top it is interesting to play with. However, to a squid it has little meaning.