A photon has no mass but energy and it has speed and it has momentum although it does not have mass. Thats impossible in Classical Mechanics. Because Classical Mechanics associates with every mass; momentum and kinetic and potential energy. All those would be zero if mass were to be zero.
Also the speed of the photon is constant while its energy and momentum are changing. This is unimaginable in classical mechanics. In CM first momentum can’t be defined from mass and speed if mass is zero, then while speed is not changing how is momentum changing? So both variables speed and mass fail to define a momentum for the photon, and not just the failure to have a mass. How then momentum is defined for this particle? Its not defined as long as photon is just a particle. Thats impossible.
1. Aristotle Fallacy; A notion that objects need force for their movement. It contradicts the idea of inertia. Newton corrected this by introducing the first law, things continue in their state of motion, a quality called as inertia, without requiring force and the motion changes due to application of force.
2. Earth is flat; that there is a boundary where you fall off its edge. [I am not going to explain or tell you how and when we found this was a horrendously hilarious and misleading notion we had. But it might have been used in the past by parents to discipline their teen-age kids. Don’t go out, you will fall off earth. That would have kept them in check.]
3. Rotational Dynamics; Earth is accelerating in a near circle in addition to about itself, so additional forces are acting that changes our observation about the world. Newton tried to understand this (not successful) in his last days, by rotating a bucket full of water, his laws could not explain the effects observed. His laws needed to be modified slightly. The same thing makes objects feel weightless by a given amount if they are accelerating towards a gravitational field (eg merry go round, satellites) This is the basis of many works of Einstein. First came Mach’s Principle which says observations made from objects that are accelerating in circular paths are to be corrected by fixing frames of references to stars that are so far away that the rotational motion is neglected. [if you shake your head while looking at stars and shake your head by looking at nearby objects such as a light post, evidently the light post shakes more and the stars less]. This helps in correcting observed phenomena from earth. Earth moves at 30 kms/second wrt sun …
Also (without any direct theoretical connection, but correlation through reality of nature)
3. Photons are classical only in the sense that we perceive light only when photons are produced in large numbers. So large that the laws of the small do not incur large errors because they are in large numbers. Statistically the errors are well understood and eliminated. But when they are produced in very small numbers we can not deduce their laws a priori. [which is why Quantum Mechanics was discovered only in 1920s and not in Galileo’s time, In his time the macroscopic behavior were understood and microscopic laws can never be produced from the understanding of macro scope just like a particular individuals attribute can’t be found from a large number of individual’s group attribute]
2. The object can be a large object, eg say something whose picture you are taking. But as explained above its not the energy of the object (or momentum) which is directly coming into the problem. That would be an added degree of concern if the object is moving with certain velocity, a reason why pictures are blurred. Because motion of objects introduces additional energy-time-momentum-position variables and their corresponding uncertainties. For the argument of the above problem one can imagine the large sized object, lets say a bird, is standing still on a tree while its picture is being taken. In that case if the wavelength of the light [few 100 nano meters = 1/10th of a micrometer] is used (eg in a digital-camera) the corresponding accuracy of the light will be less than micrometers. You can take a very sharp picture of the bird, which is lets say 6 inch long. But when you zoom in to a large degree, the inaccuracies will show up. [in this case how to see a micrometer level image? Is a computer sufficient to show us the uncertain edges of the pixels?] If the wavelength (here visible light) is so small, evidently by de-Broglie relationship, momentum or energy of such light is very large. But its not as large to disturb the feelings of the bird. The bird doesn’t have a problem with visible light, and such energy does not disturb its position or energy or any thing so to say. So while Quantum Mechanics is valid, we are accustomed to say this is a classical mechanics situation. To say QM is invalid is incorrect. To say QM is understood to be valid is a knowledgeable position.
Why Gravity may never be unified with other forces?
Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 2:54 am UTC + 05:30
I made an integration joke on this day, which I do not have with me, at the moment, I might have lost due to information access issues, on social media. Merely I said; constant of integration, could be zero.
That led to this idea >> (for gravity force) “so the infinite distance means zero force and thats where zero-potential is set .. hence .. but other forces are complicated, hence need gauge variations one of the reasons why quantum-gravity is not yet possible ( — its mathematically not possible yet. ) So it seems because zeroness ( or zero variation ) in the functions, (integration yields functions) is a gravitational property and gauge variations ( — hence multitude of functions can describe same thing) it sounds this is the mathematical condition; which prevents the unification of the forces. Because, 3 types of forces allow variation and one type does not. If there is no answer to this, the unification is out for ever. “