I’m happy to publish this essay because it is filled with insights about how the Universe might work. Physicist Mark John Fernee spent his career thinking about and doing experiments to work out some answers that ring true, at least to me. I learned about him on Quora.
Since humans first grasped the idea that stars are not tiny holes in a tarp that shades Earth from Heaven, scientists have made progress toward resolution of questions both fundamental and mysterious which can finally be defended with logic and evidence.
Think about it.
Is a creator necessarily constrained by laws of physics to initiate the cosmos people see? Is a first cause necessary to start any Universe? What underlying reality hidden from science permits God to evade any concept of law to become the essential, fundamental, irreducible first cause of all that has ever been or ever will be?
People, a few of them, continue to believe that stars are pin-holes; Earth is flat, disease is demon-caused, and on and so on. These speculations are obviously false to anyone who tests them against dispassionate observation, which is the process called science.
Is the Universe deterministic? The answer to this question—should anyone know—might help answer whether anyone is truly free to decide. Can people make decisions unconnected to events that go back to some conjectured beginning or are they instead prisoners of delusions of freewill peculiar to all conscious life-forms like us?
What follows is an answer, first posted on Quora. I let it percolate on the site for months to absorb whatever reaction it might garner from interested folks. I wrote not only to learn from others but to make the idea of determinism comprehensible to the curious who can read.
Of course, I’m a Pontificator, not a credentialed scientist nor theologian nor philosopher. What I’ve learned—what I write—remains unvalidated by any expert or guild.
Added at the end of the essay is a link to one of many posts on Quora by Mark John Fernee about some of the science of determinism.
For the interested, click the link at the end of my essay to review some of Fernee’s thoughts on the physics of determinism. After reading, login to Quora to access readers’ comments and Fernee’s responses.
(Note: It will be necessary to visit several spaces on Quora to find every comment.)
Unusual insights hide in plain sight like Easter eggs.
Here goes my essay:
It might be difficult for intelligent, science-indoctrinated people to accept but the universe at all scales is most likely not deterministic and never has been.
Before folks who “know better” wander off to search for something more confirmational of their biases, I hope to convince a few of the more open-minded to reflect on a couple of stomach-churning examples.
After all, simple statistics suggest that some preordained percentage of readers will read on; a well-defined subset of those readers are certain to agree with my arguments, which might take any arbitrary form at all—depending on the vagaries of my imagination and what I ate for dinner, perhaps.
Sounds deterministic, doesn’t it?
Not really.
The truth is I have no idea what I will write before I write it. I’ve staked a position, which I intend to defend until I convince myself of its truth. Some predictable number will read and be likewise convinced.
Let me admit right now that I have no idea whether the universe is deterministic. I don’t know if my will is my own or someone else’s.
I don’t know who I am, where I am, what I am, or why I am. I don’t know what time it is. I don’t know where I’m going. I can’t remember where I’ve been. I have no clue what 99% of me looks like because it’s inside a place I can’t see. It’s never been photographed. I’ve seen no reflection or picture of almost all of me.
I don’t know how my brain works or why I’m conscious. I haven’t seen my brain. Doctors tell me I have one. They gave me some films from an MRI and told me the grey smears were it. I took their word. It’s puzzling because the universe inside my head seems larger—infinitely more vast than plate smudge.
I have ideas but 99% of them are likely to be mostly wrong. Why? Because my ideas come from somewhere else, and I alter them. I channel ideas but if you ask where they come from, I can’t say. I don’t know why I think and say and write the things I do.
Well, most of the time I think I know. It’s called being well-grounded. Yeah, that’s me. I’m grounded to a reality that makes no sense during those times when I think deeply about what reality might be.
Take blue for instance—the color. It’s a hallucination, right? It tells me nothing about the wavelength of light that triggers blue in my brain. I’ve never seen a photon, have you? When stripped of color, what might a photon be? I have no idea. Some say it’s an electromagnetic corpuscle with wave-like properties.
What the hell is that?
Who knows that galaxies are fragile? So are orbits of planets and moons. As are universes.
The Higgs field is unstable, right? It can undergo phase transitions. Scientists say it’s true. It’s like flushing a toilet. One moment the toilet is a stinky mess; phase transition is the sound of swirling water—a whirlpool that dumps all into the abyss. What returns is blue water and clean porcelain.
What will all that went before mean? Trillions of lifeforms found comfort in the mess. What kind of determination pushed the handle to upend the destinies of trillions of tiny creatures no human will meet or see?
Why do humanoids feel free to make arbitrary decisions if it isn’t true that they make them? Does it mean that everything they believe is a lie?
Has the Universe made us its fools?
I will tell you this: the thought has occurred to me that the Universe might be my fool. Without me to tell its stories it’s nothing but a dead thing with no past and no future.
Apart from conscious-life—in particular, my life—the Universe is simply impossible.
I don’t believe the consciousness we experience dies. It’s something foundational that everyone plugs into when they live. Somehow, we all live inside each other, and conscious life lives inside us. When we die our bodies abandon consciousness and decay away, but conscious life lives on into the past and future as it always has and always will.
Our bodies count for nothing. It’s why none have seen themselves. A quick, confirmational glimpse of this or that part of us is all we can hope for—then it’s gone.
Since Einstein said that E=mc2 , why does a massless photon have energy?
Someone asked a similar question on Quora. My answer garnered nearly a million views and many dozens of comments. It gave me an opportunity to gather thoughts on a subject that has puzzled folks for decades.
Of course, I’m a pontificator, not a scientist. I got advice from working physicists and incorporated what they taught me.
One thing I learned from science writer Jim Baggott is that Einstein first published his famous equation in this form:
M =
When written this way, it becomes clear that anyone who knows the total energy of anything can calculate in principle its total mass.
Einstein knew nothing at all about the Higgs field but today physicists agree that the mass it creates is less than 5% of what mass they have discovered.
In fact, nearly 99% of the mass of a single proton is derived from the energy of “massless” gluons that constrain its two up-quarks and one down-quark. Gluons are bosons which don’t interact with the Higgs field; quarks, which are fermions, do.
In the end, it’s all about energy, which it turns out is equivalent to mass, which according to Baggott is what quantum fields do. Quantum fields like the Higgs field make mass. Perhaps the electromagnetic field — which makes photons — does the same.
Here is Einstein’s equation for energy:
Since
and
it follows that it might be reasonable to imagine that photons have both internal mass and inertial mass, which causes Einstein’s equation for energy to give the following result:
All that is left is to divide by c2 to get mass, right?
Most folks think the internal mass of a photon is zero. Period. End of story. They use the two mass and momentum terms in Einstein’s equation to calculate total energy of massive objects, yes, but photons, they insist, lack internal mass. They lack the internal fermionic structures associated with all massive particles.
Photons do have inertial energy proportional to their critical frequency though, which suggests that they possess perhaps equivalent inertial mass, which drives the photoelectric effect.
When physicists take the energy measure of photons, they drop the mass term in Einstein’s equation. They set mass to zero and cancel out the first term, mc2. It leaves the second term — pc— which for photons simplifies to hf, inertial energy correlated to frequency, right? Energy can be measured in eVs, electron-volts, which are also units of mass.
If photons have internal energy, their total energy in the universe is undervalued by 1.414 (the square root of 2). Accounting for this added mass reduces the Cosmic energy deficit to near zero.
I should add that overestimating mass and disrupting popular models of the Cosmos is something most scientists think is a bad idea.
The gluon is the only other massless particle currently in the standard model, but it has never been observed as a free particle. All gluons are buried inside hadrons. It is their binding energy in quarks that makes as much as 99% of the measured mass of protons and neutrons.
So, there is precedent to possibly reevaluate mass equivalence of photons.
Some readers might wonder about the massless graviton. This particle is theorized to exist, yes, but has not been observed or added to the Standard Model. The same is true for dark matter and dark energy — no physical evidence; not added to the Model.
It doesn’t mean dark energy and matter don’t exist. Cosmologists see way too much gravity everywhere they look. The problem is they can’t explain exactly what is causing it.
As for my answer to the original question published on Quora, it was as accurate as my limited experience could make at the time, but the subject is controversial and several issues are not yet settled, even by experts. Some disputes might never be settled.
Who knows?
Not me. I’m a pontificator, right?
What follows is a version of the answer:
You might be mistaken about energy.
According to the complete statement of Einstein’s most well-known equation, energy content is a combination of a particle’s mass and its momentum. The equation you cite is abbreviated. It is a simplified version that is missing a term.
Einstein’s complete equation is strangely analogous to Pythagoras’s geometry of right-triangles. When anyone thinks about it though, aren’t the frequencies of light at right angles to its propagation? Light waves are transverse, right?
Here is a more complete version of Einstein’s equation:
—where m is internalmass and ρ is momentum.Internal mass is often referred to as “rest mass” because it is invariant in all reference frames and unchanged by velocity or acceleration. Momentum is inertial energy measured in equivalent mass units called electron volts (eVs).
Massless particles like photons have momentum that is correlated to their wavelengths (or frequencies). It’s their frequencies that give massless particles like photons their energy content. So without (rest) internal mass the equation becomes:
E=ρc
—where for massless photons.
So, E = hf
[“h” is Planck’s constant. “f” is frequency. “c” is light speed.]
Of course, in classical Newtonian physics ρ = mc. The mass term is critical.
Screen shot from Khan Academy showing derivation of photon momentum. Typed mark-ups by me show mass equivalence when ρ is set equal to mc. When mc = hf/c, then m = hf/c*c, right? Click the pic for a better view in a new window.
On the other hand, in quantum mechanics the total mass of photons cannot be zero either—photon internal mass is set equal to zero and eliminated. Inertial energy based on the photon’s critical frequency (the 2nd term in Einstein’s equation) becomes its equivalent mass. I’m not sure everyone agrees.
The beauty created by setting photon rest-mass (internal energy) to zero is it transforms the maths of relativity and quantum mechanics into structures that seem to be consistent and complete — able, one hopes, to meld into theories of everything; TOEs, if you like. The problem, of course, is that the convention of setting to zero leaves thrashing in its wake 95% of the mass and energy which “other” stories claim is hidden unseen “out there” within and around galaxies to move them faster than they ought.
The Abraham-Minkowski controversy seems to touch the argument. Click the link and scroll to the end of the article to learn how many things are disputed, not known, or unexplained. The science is not settled, although several physicists claim that the controversy is resolved by postulating an interaction inside dielectrics (like glass) of photons with electron-generated polaritons.
NOTE BY EDITORS: On 18 April 2021 a writer massively abbreviated and modified the article in Wikipedia on the A-M controversy. The writer deleted the entire list of disputed claims. Please click the link in this sentence to review a list of unsolved problems in modern physics. Photon mass inside dielectrics isn’t on the list.
The permittivity of “empty“ space (called the electric constant) qualifies as a dielectric, does it not? Isn’t space itself—with its Maxwell-assigned permeability (the magnetic constant) and permittivity (electric constant)—a dielectric?
Arthur Eddington wrote in chapter 6 of his book Space Time and Gravitation (read pages 107-109) that the dielectrics of space around the Sun increase proportionally with the intensity of the gravitational field. Light waves closest to the sun slow down more, which pulls the wavefront that lies farther out to deflect still more to catch up. Like glass, gravity refracts light.
Light falls into the Sun like any solid rock, but refraction adds to light’s “Newtonian” deflection to give Einstein’s predicted result. Unlike slow rocks, light travels fast enough to avoid capture by the sun.
It’s not clear to me how many physicists agree with Eddington, but then again, it’s not obvious whether humanoids are able to visualize reality. It’s one thing to write equations and symbolic algorithms that match well with observations. It’s quite another to acquire a natural intuition for what might be true.
Empty space isn’t empty, right?
As for the Abraham-Minkowski dispute: how important might it be to decisively resolve ambiguities concerning photon mass?
Perhaps the dispute is swept under a rug because disagreements about something as fundamental as photon mass mean that physicists might know less than they let on. The controversy seems to me at least to have the potential to crash the tidy physics of light and mass built by hard work and much history.
Isn’t it better to pretend everything is just fine until physicists finally agree that everything really is?
Maybe the subject involves some aspect of national security which requires obfuscation. It wouldn’t be the first time.
What I think can be safely said is that momentum and mass of quantum objects seem to have no meaning until they are brought into existence by measurements. The math looks like nothing we know; sometimes physicists use the results as mathematical operators that don’t commute the way some might think they should.
I reviewed the math. I saw the term that makes the deflection difference (it’s really there) but did not understand enough at the time to tease out a satisfying reason why photons seem to bend nearly twice more in a gravitational field than early acolytes of Newton conjectured. I guess I like Eddington’s explanation best.
According to Wikipedia, Einstein’s theory approximates the deflection to be:
“b” is the distance of a photon’s closest approach to a gravitational object like our Sun.
Here’s some guesses I made before reading Eddington:
Maybe light deeply buried in a gravity field near a star like the Sun will experience the flow of time more slowly—it’s an effect common to all objects in a gravity field; it affects all objects the same way and is unaffected by their mass or lack of it.
It might have something to do with Schwarzchild geodesics. The geodesics of spacetime paths are longer and more curved in a gravity field than what anyone might expect from a simple application of Newton’s force law, which is oblivious to the spacetime metrics of Einstein.
Schwarzchild metrics help to explain the “gravitational lensing” of faraway objects when their light approaches Earth from behind massive gravitational structures in the far reaches of space. Light careens around the structures so that astronomers can see what would otherwise remain forever hidden from them.
Here is another guess:
It might be that light spends more time in a gravitational field than it should due to special-relativity-induced time dilations so that photons have more time to fall toward the star than they otherwise would. This guess is certainly wrong because the time differential would be governed by a Lorentz transformation.
Photons of light don’t undergo Lorentz transformations because, unlike massive objects that travel near the speed of light, they don’t have inertial frames of reference. Any line of reasoning that ties Lorentz transformations to photons leads folks into rabbit holes that contradict the current consensus about the nature of light. Light speed is a constant in all reference frames. Space and time expand and shrink to accommodate it.
Electron-like muons (which have rest masses 205 times that of electrons) are short-lived, but their relativistic speeds increase their lifetimes so that some of those that get their start in the upper atmosphere are able to reach Earth’s surface where they can be observed. Their increased lifespan is described by a Lorentz transformation. It’s tempting to apply this transform to photons, but theorists say, no. It doesn’t work that way.
Time contractions and dilations are Special Relativity effects that apply to objects with inertial mass that move in some specified reference frame at velocities less than the speed of light, yes, but never at the speed of light, right?
Nearly every physicist will insist that photons have no internal mass; they travel in vacuum at exactly the speed of light—from the point of view of all observers in every reference frame. Photons don’t have inertial reference frames in the same way as muons or electrons.
Changes in time and position caused by a photon’s location in a gravity field are completely different; they are described by a vastly more complicated theory of Einstein’s called General Relativity.
Here is one way to write his formula:
The terms in this expression are tensors, most of them. Click the link, anyone who doesn’t think tensors are difficult to write and manipulate.
Here is another way to think about photon energy and behavior:
Light follows the geodesics of spacetime near a massive object—like the sun. Gravity is the geodesic.
The difference for massive objects traveling at relativistic speeds is that their momentum and inertia enable them to skip off the geodesic tracks, so to speak.
Because massive objects always travel at speeds less than light, their “clocks” slow down through an additional dynamic (a Lorentz transformation) that works at cross-purposes to gravity. Massive objects lock onto the gravity geodesics for a shorter period of time. They undergo less gravitational time dilation than does light because they spend less time constrained on its geodesics. They jump the geodesic tracks to become constrained by the dynamics of the Lorentz transformations.
The result is that massive objects traveling at relativistic velocities less than light deflect less toward the star (Sun) than does light.
What makes General Relativity unique is it’s view that gravity and acceleration are equivalent. Acceleration is a change in the velocity and/or the direction of motion. Massive bodies such as stars curve and elongate the pathways that shape the space and time around them.
Photons traveling on these longer spacetime paths accelerate by their change in direction, but their velocity doesn’t change in any reference frame. Something has to give. What gives, what changes is the expected value of deflection. The light from distant stars bends more than it should.
SOME HISTORY
No one who lived before 1900 could know that the geodesics of space-time elongate (or curve) in the presence of mass and energy, which are equivalent, correct? No one in bygone eras could have known that time slows down for massive objects that approach light-speed, either.
A man named Joann Georg Soldner did a calculation to show how much a Newtonian “corpuscle” of light would bend in the Sun’s gravity, which he published in 1804. He assumed that photons had mass and fell toward the Sun like any other object.
I should add that Eddington knew about Einstein’s predictions when he made his experimental observations in 1919 because Einstein had already published his general theory.
EXPLANATIONS
I would very much like to read a coherent, verbal (non-mathematical) explanation of exactly why and how Einstein’s general theory can lead to an accurate and reasonable prediction at odds with Newton about the angle of deflection of photons near a star.
Here is a synopsis of an explanation that I heard from a working physicist:
Soldner used Newton’s view to calculate deflection using only the time the photon spent in the gravitational field. Einstein did the same but then modified his calculation to account for the bending of space in the gravitational field. The space component nearly doubled the expected deflection.
The theorist’s explanation satisfied me. It sounded right.
Notice the speed of the hands on the clocks and how they vary in space-time. Clocks slow down when they are accelerated or when they are immersed in the gravity of a massive object like the star at the center of this GIF. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower. Under General Relativity, gravity and acceleration do the same thing. Click on the pic for a better view.
On the other hand, I believe (secretly and in agreement with Newton’s acolytes) that photons must have a mass equivalence that for some reason is being discounted, but no one I’ve read believes the idea makes sense beneath the shadow of a relativity theory that has the reputation for being fundamental, flawless, and complete.
After all, the mass of any object in a gravitational field is irrelevant to its trajectory because the mathematics cancels it, right?
Little “m” appears on both sides of the equation so it can be divided away.
The problem is that the equations for gravity—especially over cosmological distances—are not necessarily settled. These are serious anomalies that are not yet resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Some have direct consequences on the ability of organizations like NASA to conduct accurate landings on Mars and the Moon. Click the link in this paragraph to review six of the biggest puzzles followed by seventeen alternative theories designed to bring the discrepancies to account.
Anyway, mass-energy equivalence of photons might permit Lorentz transforms on light to help to resolve certain problems in cosmology and the transmission of light through medias where gravity is not a factor. It might also simplify understanding of annoying Shapiro effects, which slow down communications with explorer craft inside our solar system.
ANOTHER EXPLANATION
Since I haven’t yet found a good explanation—and with a promise to avoid nonsensical personal predispositions—here is my attempt to explain:
In GPS (Global Positioning Systems), dilations of time—in both the velocity of satellites in one frame and their acceleration in another frame (gravity)—must add to provide accurate information to vehicles located in another frame.
These time dilations can work at cross-purposes. It requires expensive infrastructure on the ground to coordinate the information so that drivers of vehicles don’t get lost.
A massless object moving at the speed of light is going to follow the geodesics of the gravity field. This field is a distortion of space and time induced by the presence of the mass of something big like the Sun.
If massless energy does not obey the laws of Special Relativity (like GPS satellites do), then its velocity must necessarily have no influence whatever in the deflection of light near a star. It might seem like all the deflection comes from the distortion of spacetime, which is gravity.
Photons ride gravity geodesics like cars on a roller coaster. According to appendix III in Einstein’s 3rd edition of his book, Relativity, the Special and General Theory—published in English by Henry Holt & Company in 1921—it’s only half the story.
The other half of the measured deflection comes from the Newtonian gravitational “field”, which accelerates all objects in the same way. This field further deflects light across the spacetime geodesics toward the sun to double the expected angle.
I’m not entirely convinced that modern 21st century physicists believe it’s quite that way or quite that simple.
CONCLUSION
The theory of general relativity helps theorists to describe the distortion of metrics in spacetime near massive bodies to predict the deflection angle of passing photons of light. What we know is that predictions based on the theory don’t fail.
It’s like the theory of quantum mechanics. It never fails. It’s foundational. No one has yet been able to explain why.
Somebody, please, tell me I’m wrong.
Here is a link that addresses the math concerning the deflection disparity between Newton and Einstein.
Wisdom can be condensed and gurgitated easily by anyone who has experienced a lifetime of learning, experimentation, and the testing of limits. No one understands America who has not spent time in its ghettos and prisons; in its jails and colleges; in its military and its resorts; in its paradises and hells.
No one who’s never been both rich and poor knows what either is like; rich and poor is what the majority of Americans are. The ten percent who consider themselves middle-class know almost nothing about either — rich and poor is how ninety percent of the population lives –with ninety percent of the ninety percent living poor.
I know things — amazing things that most people believe are not true. I’ve lived all over the world; worked for over a dozen companies; attended a dozen schools; trimmed gravestones in Arlington National Cemetery and invented products everyone uses — like milk carton safety caps and tear-spout coffee lids. I developed products of war — like the run-flat wheel that enables military vehicles with shot-out tires to keep rolling.
My truth is not reflected in media or in the faces of my family and friends. I have secrets, which many want kept until I sleep in the grave. When speaking truth, they tell me to stop; when I continue, some walk away.
So be it.
People on Quora.com ask me (and others) for answers to questions. What follows is a small sample of questions I’ve answered. Readers can scan to find something they like. Find something interesting and read a flash card answer, which is my version of what might be true. Copy answers onto index cards. Who will stop you?
I admit: some answers are not true.
Who will find what’s fake?
If objects in the universe are moving away from us in all directions, are we the center according to the Big Bang theory?
It’s not true that all objects are moving away from us. The Andromeda Galaxy is heading toward us (the Milky Way); the collision is due in a few billion years; it’s likely that the black holes at the center of both galaxies will interact with unpredictable results.
The material in the universe can be compared to the dust in a household vacuum cleaner that is shaken loose into a large room. Over time the individual particles will separate to fill the space, but what an individual particle will do is not knowable, at least not right away.
That said, we know for certain that the metrics of space are changing; it is an expansion that is increasing with time.
Currently the rate of expansion is 14 miles per second for every million light years (a distance of nearly six-million-trillion miles). It seems like a small number until you do the calculation for the size of the universe. Past the “event horizon” of 14 billion light years the expansion exceeds the speed-of-light.
Do the math.
What is the future of a universe that is undergoing a runaway expansion?
A conjecture has been proposed by mathematician Sir Roger Penrose called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC). Data gathered by recent satellites seems likely to strengthen his view.
What is wrong with the question “What existed before the Big Bang?” I have been told that this question doesn’t make sense, but I have never heard a decent layman’s explanation as to why. The question is sensibly answered by the theory proposed by Roger Penrose: Conformal Cyclic Cosmology or CCC, sometimes referred to as Eon Theory.
The conjecture was proposed around 2004, I think, but collaborating evidence is only now becoming available through data collected by the WMAP and Planck satellites, and by LIGO.
The premise is that in both the singularity and a maximally expanded universe the degrees of freedom of gravity, which is associated with “mass”, drop out of the metrics. Without mass it is not possible to differentiate the initial and terminal states of the universe by scaling; the two states are in fact conformally equivalent.
The Big Bang emerges from a maximally expanded universe; the cycle repeats endlessly like a chugging choo-choo train whose next puff seems to emerge from the dispersion of the last puff; time has no beginning and no end.
If or when the universe ends someday and ceases to exist, could it be created again as it was in the beginning? The idea by Roger Penrose, retired mathematician and cosmologist, that the universe is conformally equivalent at its beginning and end is gathering evidence from the WMAP and Planck satellites that acolytes who do the math claim might be confirmational.
Evidence may also be buried in the data collected by LIGO, according to Penrose. He’s urging folks to dig through the data to find it.
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) — some call it Eon Theory — has been exciting for the past 15 years, but only in the past few years has data been available to help validate what at first seemed to some like a crackpot idea.
Is it safe to have a nuclear reactor in a submarine?
Of course not.
Of the 82 nuclear submarines deployed or under construction by the US Navy, two have sunk (the Scorpion and Thresher).
It’s 2.5%, which for me is too high.
In war, all USA subs will be destroyed at sea by enemy fire during a first strike surprise attack.
The USA will destroy all adversary nuclear subs with a coordinated and long-planned after-strike.
Large numbers of nuclear reactors and their poisons boiling at the bottom of oceans are a threat to every living creature on Earth.
The nuclear genie needs to be put back in its bottle. It should be the highest priority of the international community if humans are to have any chance at all to continue as a species for more than a few hundred years.
All personnel engaged in warfare preparation involving nuclear weapons are subject to sophisticated arguments in training fashioned by psychologists to ensure their enthusiastic support of nuclear weapons and a solid belief in their own personal safety.
I beg these trained individuals to use their common sense.
Don’t we live under a nuclear reactor called the Sun? It does no harm. We would die, everyone of us, if Earth didn’t have a magnetosphere to deflect the solar wind; the field works with nitrogen and oxygen to make Earth’s atmosphere opaque to high energy radiation from the Sun. It doesn’t work the same way for Earth-generated radiation.
Nuclear power is not safe; on so many levels, it never will be. A world with 10,000 nuclear reactors and 50,000 nuclear warheads is a planet doomed to extinction, if not in the near future, then in the long, for sure.
Scrap nuclear deterrence? What? We need to learn to work with people who have different ideas about what life is and how it should be lived. We don’t have much time to learn. The danger is imminent; the need is urgent.
Even without war, the poisons of rotting reactors and weapons will percolate into the environment over time. We’ve already destroyed the planet.
If humans survive, people will someday forget about the weapons; they will rot unattended and unremembered. A few thousand years from now people might wonder why everyone they know is sick and dying.
In hindsight, was going to Iraq justifiable? Was killing a million human beings and destabilizing the Middle East justifiable?
What does an enemy of the United States have to do to suffer such consequences? Almost all the “facts” the Bush family “shared” with Americans and the rest of the watching world about Saddam and the Iraqis were bald-face lies.
The damage is that people believe these lies to this day. Their misunderstanding of what happened distorts everything they believe and do.
We will never get it right when Americans’ views are twisted out of all proportion to realities.
Is the situation dangerous in the Middle East?
After all the blood-letting, are things better or worse?
How was the first cell created? Can we replicate those circumstances? No one knows how the first cells were created. It is a mystery of science likely never to be solved.
What is known is that cellular life began on Earth almost immediately after it cooled sufficiently to be safe for life, which unravels at temperatures above 300 degrees or so Fahrenheit.
The first cells were thousands of times smaller than the cells that make the plants and animals of today. These tiny prokaryotes persisted for a few billion years until the larger eukaryotes evolved.
Once eukaryotes developed the ability to convert sunlight into energy through photosynthesis, they produced huge volumes of a byproduct called oxygen, which poisoned most prokaryotic life on Earth during that time.
Prokaryotes able to adjust to the presence of oxygen survive today, mostly as bacteria and archaea.
Does socialism only work in small countries? Any system that is supported by the people who live under it works well — especially socialism.
The problem for socialism is interference by the United States. It is the policy of the USA to disrupt and prevent — to the point of war if need be — the success of socialism anywhere.
The reasoning is simple. When socialism succeeds, billionaires are at risk. They don’t share well, and some are willing to kill anyone who tries to undercut their power.
Read the news: what wealthy people do is disgusting. Don’t make me explain. Get your head out of the sand, anyone who doesn’t believe it.
The pharaohs made the Egyptian system work. They built pyramids. The Russians were first into space and first to the moon. The Germans produced the scientists who propelled civilization into the future after WWII.
Slavery inside the USA clothed the world in cotton.
Pick a system, any system, and it can be made to work as well as any other.
If billionaires can convince cotton-pickers that life is good, who will challenge them?
What was the real reason why the USA lost the war against Vietnam? The USA killed two-million Vietnamese. The Vietnamese killed fifty-eight thousand Americans. The USA thoroughly trashed Vietnam and poisoned the country-side with Agent Orange defoliants. The Vietnamese didn’t knock down a single structure inside the United States.
The USA deployed a program to assassinate over one-hundred-thousand South Vietnamese men and women it suspected of siding with the North. No such program of civilian murders was carried out by the North.
The Americans and their allies napalmed entire villages and executed both civilian and animal survivors. Not a single village was ever cremated by the North.
The USA carpet-bombed huge swaths of Vietnam daily for twelve years. The North didn’t have an effective air force.
It was a one-sided fight from the beginning. The USA killed and murdered until its leaders’ lust for blood was satiated. When nothing was left to prove and the thrill of the kill faded, the United States pulled out its troops and went home.
The whole world knows what we did. The reason the international community of nations doesn’t confront us for doing bad things is because we scare them.
The families of tens-of-millions of the dead cry out to God to settle scores; they pray for justice.
Americans trust — as the Germans, the Japanese, and the Romans before them trusted — that justice never comes.
Who is Donald Trump’s base? Why is he popular? Why are people voting for him? Why do people like and support him? Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by nearly eleven million votes. Three million went to Hillary; eight million to third party candidates. It was the biggest loss by popular vote in the history of USA elections.
Losing the popular vote by 8% yet securing the electoral college is a result that will live in infamy.
The first election after his “victory” was in 2018 when the largest swing of Republican districts to Democrats occurred in the history of the contests between Republicans and Democrats.
Trump is the most unpopular man to hold the presidency in my lifetime.
Why do his supporters love him?
My view is that in every country people exist who are attracted to bad things like moths are to flames. History shows that in Germany, people loved Hitler. The allies forced the German population to tour the concentration camps, because otherwise no one in Germany would believe their government committed genocide.
Trump is doing bad things to powerless people — not only to mothers and children at our southern border but in the middle east, far east, and around the world. His decisions are making a more dangerous world; it’s possible that tens-of-millions of innocents will die should he continue to trash the edifice that has enabled Earth to avoid nuclear war during the past 75 years.
We must avoid nuclear catastrophe for thousands of years more if we are to become the great space-faring civilization many people seek. We can’t go to the stars if Earth is poisoned by plutonium.
People have a dark side. Philosophers, psychologists, and priests have argued this point for millennia. Evidence is solidly on their side. Political campaigns are waged using “hidden persuaders” that appeal to the reptilian nature of human conscious thought. These persuaders are built from the bricks of fear, sexuality, aggression, and cruelty. They work.
Until people learn to turn away from the dark side, survival of civilization is at risk.
Leaders like Hitler and Trump are inevitable and unavoidable. It will be interesting to learn whether America’s great experiment in divided government will survive Trump’s attempt to undermine it so that he can become a king of sorts whose family members will succeed him in their quest for ultimate power.
What do you find interesting about physics?
The science of physics is all about explaining what is happening but not why. It’s interesting to me that the smartest scientists in the world can’t tell anyone why anything works the way it does.
The universe is governed so far as anyone knows by forces and constants that are unknowable, underivable, and unexplainable. All anyone can know is what happens; no one understands why.
Billions of dollars are spent to determine that gravity behaves according to certain rules. Experiments to discover the measure of forces and constants are always being done and refined. But where do the rules come from that make the forces and constants? What principles underlie the formation of the Universe?
Good luck to anyone who finds someone who knows why. Scientists laugh at the philosophers who try to provide clues to the why of things; it’s because some scientists are arrogant and ignorant. They don’t believe that what little they know is almost nothing at all.
Even animals as dumb as cats, goats, and birds calculate distances in their heads to make survival decisions based on their answers. Like humans they have no clue about the why of things, either.
What must happen for all Americans to accept the same truths?
Reduce the number of television and radio channels to one. Restrict diversity of content on the internet. Reduce the number of people who think “outside the box.” Put them into prisons or execute them, whichever is cheaper.
Torture people who refuse to think like everyone else. Others will “get the message” and adjust their thinking to conform to the American Way.
Eliminate elections — they stir-up people unnecessarily.
Reduce the wages of the 99% to subsistence; pay the 1% as much as possible to encourage them to embrace conformity.
Build impenetrable walls on all borders. Malcontents must not be allowed to leave; they might spread anti-American ideas abroad.
Do these things and Americans will accept the same truths. They will present a united front against anyone who might dare to challenge them.
What shocked you the most from the Mueller report?
The most shocking aspect of the report is the absence of any mention of or investigation into the president’s wife who is the daughter of a former member of the communist party of Yugoslavia back in the day.
She was born when DT was 24 years old. Was she groomed for the job she currently holds? Can America rule out with confidence that she is not a sleeper agent? She immigrated to the USA not too many years ago. It would be nice to hear that she is trustworthy.
It is clear from the report that DT is working for the other side. No one will say that the emperor has no clothes. Is it fear of the Russian-Israeli mob bosses, or is it something else?
Why is everyone in denial when the truth is obvious? How can Mueller say there was no conspiracy when the report screams that there was?
As for obstruction of the investigation, no sensible person needs a report to understand the extraordinary lengths that the president and his team traveled to discredit the people who defend Americans against despots and liars like the ones we currently endure.
The president has the power to hurt a lot of people should he go postal, which he seems in his tweets to threaten from time to time.
What are volcano eruptions good for?
Volcanism permits the release of heat generated by the radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earth’s interior. The release of heat permits convection currents in the liquid part of Earth’s core — without these currents the magnetosphere collapses, which puts the survival of all life at risk due to dramatically increased exposure to charged particles from solar and cosmic radiation.
When will the earth’s core cool down enough to make the magnetic field too weak to counter the suns solar storms?
Earth’s magnetic field depends more on convection currents in its molten metallic core than on its temperature. If the core gets too hot, it cannot sustain a magnetic field.
For convection currents to circulate, heat must be generated, but it must be able to escape so that it doesn’t build up.
Earth’s crust or mantle is cracked like the shell of a hard-boiled egg.
Crustal pieces called tectonic plates move about to permit volcanism and venting faults, which release the heat that is generated by the radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earth’s interior.
Earth’s core is the size of the planet Mars. It is solid at the center with a liquid (but highly viscous) outer layer. The solid center stays solid because of the pressure it is under; it is too hot to be magnetic. The outer liquid center is also under pressure; it must circulate to generate Earth’s magnetic field; otherwise the field will collapse; the protection it offers Earth against the solar wind will die.
Venus has a solid-liquid core like Earth’s but no tectonic plate activity to release heat and permit convection currents. As a result, Venus lacks a magnetosphere to shield it from cosmic radiation and solar flares.
The core of Mars froze solid millions of years ago. With no magnetosphere and little gravity, over time the solar wind has been able strip away a sizable portion of the Martian atmosphere. Only the heaviest gas is left in more than trace amounts: carbon dioxide.
I’ve read that geologists believe that the dynamics which generate the magnetosphere of Earth are robust and will last as long as the planet. Let’s hope they are right.
I have heard from Conservatives that Communism killed millions of people. Leftists claim that Capitalism killed the same. Which economic system has killed more people, and how are these numbers figured?
Since the start of the first World War until today two countries have killed the majority of people who have died in fights between nations: Germany and the United States.
During their killing sprees, oligarchs in both countries built and nurtured vast military-industrial alliances that automated mayhem and suffering. The rapid killing of humans began with chemicals, advanced to automated machine gunnery, and culminated in the deployment of atomic bombs and massive aerial bombardment of cities with fire-jellies known today as napalm.
During WWII, Germany attempted a partially successful ethnic-cleansing of Jewish populations in Europe and the Middle East. After the war against Germany was won, the United States and Russia worked together to orchestrate the execution of 100,000 German citizens for war-crimes. It was a small fraction of the numbers killed during that war, which some analysts believe approached 100 million souls.
It occurred to me that your question might be asking about which system, Capitalism or Communism, killed the largest number of its own subjects as it struggled to stand itself up and establish itself.
My view is that Capitalism is a euphemism for slavery. The word was invented to put a positive spin on the system in the USA where everyone works to enrich a privileged few. USA oligarchs needed an attractive term for their system when it came under popular challenge around the world by Communists during the twentieth century.
Communists believed that people should cooperate to create wealth, which they then shared. This kind of thinking was anathema to those who believed that only the people who risked their fortunes were entitled to the wealth created by their subjects (workers or slaves).
Through this lens, it is clear that Capitalism (or slavery) in the USA — the one country in the modern world able to preserve its slave system — decimated its indigenous populations and oppressed the Negro population under the cruelest form of slavery that has yet existed on Earth.
Oligarchs known as robber barons permitted the killing of thousands of ordinary workers during the building of the nation’s infrastructure, not only in mines, on road and railway systems, and on dams but also in unregulated sweat shops hidden behind the invisible walls of poverty in overcrowded cities.
The United States has a media system owned by a handful of families that sustains itself on advertising revenue. The practice of advertising in the USA is sophisticated. Psychologists help oligarchs maximize their advantages by crafting messages to modify the attitudes and behaviors of ordinary people.
Billionaires (most of whom are well-dressed thieves) hold themselves up as pillars of virtue and civic service in the media they control. They fight wars to secure the resources of countries like Venezuela, Brazil, Vietnam, Japan, etc. etc. They explain these wars to the public as righteous acts against evil powers.
It’s sickening.
If something is 40 million light years away, how long will it take for the light to reach us?
A light-year is a distance, which is 5.8786 trillion miles. 40 million light-years is a distance of 235 trillion miles.
Space expands at 14 miles-per-second per million light-years. For objects separated by a distance of 40 million light years, space expands at 560 miles per second.
Every million years, as the light from an object approaches Earth, the expansion of space will decrease by 14 miles per second, because the distance between the incoming light and Earth will be decreasing.
Therefore, it is certain that the time it takes light that started its journey 40 million light-years distant from Earth will take more than 40 million years to reach us. Right?
The first million light-years will take close to an additional 3,006 years due to the expansion of space. Each million light years of reduced distance will add less travel time until the added time becomes insignificant, because as the distance between the incoming light and Earth falls to zero so does the expansion of space.
If we take half of 3,006 years to be the average added time per million light-years, a simple calculation that doesn’t involve calculus will be a close approximation of the additional time traveled.
Do the math to learn that the added time of travel is 60,120 years due to the expansion of space alone.
Light 40 million light-years away takes 40,060,120 years to reach Earth.
The answer to whether or not our own consciousness has anything to do with how a wave or a particle manifests in physics seems to change completely with whoever answers it. Is there any real way to prove this?
Richard Feynman said once that he believed the underlying nature of reality is unknowable. Violations of Bell’s inequality in quantum entanglement cannot be visualized by models or any sort of mental imagery.
Something that can be described by mathematics but not explained by words or imagery is probably 95% of reality for the species-human. We are tadpoles in a muddy pond who struggle in vain to understand a world we will never see.
It has been known for a hundred years that when humans conduct an experiment on nanoscale particles they affect the results during their observation of both the process and the outcomes. Every kid who does the several variations of the double-slit experiment learns that it is true.
Engineers take what works and turn it into miracles that no one understands — the digital device folks use to view my answer is incomprehensible to most. Some understand parts, but it takes a team to understand the whole.
People crave certainty. Quantum observations prove that certainty is a quixotic quest doomed from the start. People want to believe that what they think “must be true” is provable by both logic and experimental verification.
Unfortunately for those who don’t tolerate cognitive dissonance well, everything and nothing is both provable and falsifiable depending on which axioms are chosen as starting points.
What elements do scientists use to estimate the age of the Earth? They use isotope ratios. Although 118 elements make up the periodic table, the elements have thousands of isotopes, right?
For example, lead can be separated into eleven groups — each group has a different weight. The weight differences are the result of the number of neutrons in the nucleus. The more neutrons, the heavier the isotope. Four of the isotopes of lead are stable — they don’t decay into other isotopes or other elements.
All chemical properties of the 118 elements in the periodic table are determined by their electrical structure, which is the number of electrons they carry. Neutrons add weight carried in the nucleus but otherwise are irrelevant to the simple chemical behaviors of the elements.
To estimate the age of Earth, scientists study the composition of zircon, a common silicate element in Earth’s crust. Zircon is lead averse. Any lead found in zircon must be the result of radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium, which are common impurities. These impurities are radioactive and can over time change the color of zircon as they break down its crystal structure.
One of the isotopes of uranium has a half-life of 4.47 billion years; another isotope has a half-life of 710 million years. Both isotopes decay to stable isotopes of lead.
So the process is to measure how much of each isotope of uranium is contaminating the zircon sample and how much of that uranium has decayed into the two isotopes of lead that are stable; that don’t decay any further. This method can measure the age of the earth to a precision of 50 million years.
Earth’s age is believed to be 4.543 billion years.
Does it seem odd that such a useful trait like high level cognitive function is not more common in Earth’s life-forms? Once a species (humans) reaches a certain level of intelligence, other intelligent creatures become a source of fear and loathing.
Imagine raccoons or squirrels equipped with human intelligence. They are able to out-game us, work their way into living spaces, even sneak up in the night to kill us with their imaginative weapons.
After the kill, they sneak into refrigerators by deploying ingenious levers and pulleys to take and eat cold pizza and left-over wiener-schnitzel.
How long will people put up with such behavior before they go on an extermination campaign?
In New York City extermination campaigns against intelligent rats have already begun. It might take a hundred years, but eventually rats with sense will refuse to live in NYC.
Over hundreds-of-thousands of years collections of intelligent creatures have devolved to fear and mistrust other collections of intelligent creatures. The lust for war has entered human DNA to the point that people search for differences among themselves to justify mass-slaughter and genocides.
What is less subtle than skin color or religion or immigration-status? All these “superficialities” have been used as an excuse to attack and kill “others” no matter how similar or different — some of whom, as I write, are watching from their burrows in horror as they plan their assaults on the species human.
The Kingdom of Animals does not distinguish between our physical and moral differences. Humans deserve to die for their cruelties. With every squashed bug, fear and loathing intensifies. Even now legions of mosquitoes and Japanese beetles plan their revenge.
This summer they will extract it — even as most humans occupy themselves with arguments pro-and-con about what a hair-ball the president has turned out to be.
Only when humans destroy themselves and go extinct will intelligence get its chance to bloom within the diversity of species that occupy the planet. By then extra-terrestrials will have found Earth and enslaved it.
It is in this sense that the species-human will achieve its revenge against the intelligent squirrel and raccoon; against the mosquito and beetle who so often drove people to distraction when they dominated Earth.
Infinities and singularities are equivalent when mass is absent and entropy (that is, randomness) is maximum, because in both states the ability of the universe to scale itself is lost.
It is called conformal equivalence. It means that the shape of everything in two systems is the same; the scale is indeterminate or irrelevant. Size can’t be measured.
Warning to the faint of heart: this essay will reveal ideas that might change the way some readers think about the universe. Keep an open mind.
What is the fate of the cosmos? Almost everyone agrees that it will expand exponentially, possibly forever. As it does, all matter will be sucked into black holes like water into bathtub drains where — perhaps over trillions of years — it will evaporate by a mechanism believed to produce Hawking radiation; mass converts into massless photons and radiates outward until every black hole evaporates and disappears.
Sir Roger Penrose, the brilliant mathematical physicist, has said that new satellite data might support his theory of Eons, which asserts among other things that the universe expands while black holes collect and evaporate away all matter; entropy (or randomness) increases to maximum.
At the termination of the Eon the universe cannot tell whether it is at its beginning or its end because it doesn’t know what size it is; all its metrics become equivalent to those found in the singularity that many speculate preceded the emergence of the Universe humans find themselves in today.
In the unimaginable heat of a singularity, the concept of mass also disappears; it becomes irrelevant. Energy dwarfs mass to overwhelm it; runaway entropy (randomness) goes to maximum.
With no mass the concept of scale disappears. Without mass all the gravitational degrees of freedom vanish. The universe doesn’t know what size it is or if it is any size at all.
Entropy (or randomness) of “the singularity” initiates the Big Bang in the same way as a maximally expanded and evaporated universe; the two states — infinity and singularity — are equivalent. They are not distinguishable; one is like the other and emerges from the other.
Both the singularity and the infinitely expanded universe are unable to determine how big they are because both lose the ability to scale themselves when matter is no longer present; both states have maximum entropy; the distribution of energy becomes infinitely random.
The result is that the expansion of a maximally expanded universe starts anew as if it were a singularity. A new “eon” begins at the end of each expansion; the universe expands in stages with the beginning of each stage indistinguishable from a singularity.
The universe seems to chug along like a smoking choo-choo train — almost like a perpetual motion machine that generates a brand new universe on the fading gasp of its last puff.
A contraction of mass into a singularity is a popular idea, but it never happens — not in this theory — except in black holes where all matter evaporates over time into the pure energy of Hawking radiation. In Penrose’s theory, only an infinite series of expansions following one upon the other from singularities indistinguishable by their metrics from maximally-expanded-universes will emerge.
It’s like a woman who gives birth to a daughter. The process repeats forever in the history of humans. Daughter buds from mother. Mother doesn’t contract to the size of a baby who then grows to become a new mother.
No, the process is continuous — one mother gives birth to a baby who grows to become a mother who births a new baby and on and on into an infinity of mothers that progress in a line of succession to the end of a time that has no end.
The universe expands until it becomes a singularity that expands into a new universe. The process never ends. There is no beginning and no end.
Roger Penrose at a conference. Photo by Biswarup Ganguly.
Does this idea by Roger Penrose resonate with the ring of truth to anyone? Roger has said that his idea is having some trouble catching on with bona-fide cosmologists.
For me, Roger Penrose’s idea feels like truth. His truth sets me free; everything falls into place; a weight is lifted from my shoulders when I think about what it means and why things might be the way they are.
Roger says that he is retired; the mathematics of his theory are worked out by his acolytes; they make predictions that are testable. One thing they predict are “Hawking points” or spots.
Hawking points are places where massive black holes have evaporated away every bit of the matter of the galaxies that fell into them. This radiation is concentrated; it will emerge to imprint the cosmic background of the universe that follows. The points or regions will spread to cover a circle in the sky that is four degrees across — close to eight times that of the Moon. Hawking points, if verified, will emit an energy that is ten to fifteen times more intense than the cosmic background radiation.
Hawking “spots” should be findable by humans. The radiation they represent bled into our universe from the universe that preceded and spawned them. Identifying Hawking spots will lend credence to the idea that a universe preceded ours and that another will follow in the far distant future — perhaps trillions of years from now.
Perhaps thirty candidates have been identified by recent satellite observations. The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite — illustrated above — and the newer Planck satellite have identified in the microwave background radiation (CMB) areas in space where the predictions of the Eon theory seem likely to be confirmed.
Roger claims that — absent mass — big and cold is equivalent to small and hot. The laws of thermodynamics hold in both worlds and are conformally equivalent. The mathematics are the same.
Roger Penrose has won 17 major awards in science; he has made major contributions in at least 30 areas of science and mathematics. The implications of his theory of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC), if accepted by mainstream science, are worthy of a Nobel Prize.
I hope he lives long enough to receive it.
The video above, at 23:23, explains a consequence of the theory that dark matter (called erebons by Penrose) is required to make it work. Erebons are hugely massive compared to other atomic particles; they possess the mass equivalent of the eyeball of a flea. Sir Roger predicts that they decay and leave behind signals that will be confirmed by a focused analysis of data collected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory LIGO.
Another interesting and rather strange consequence of the theory addresses the Fermi Paradox. From Wikipedia is the following reference:
”In 2015 Gurzadyan and Penrose discussed the Fermi paradox, the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence but high probability estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. Within conformal cyclic cosmology, the cosmic microwave background provides the possibility of information transfer from one Eon to another, including of intelligent signals within the information panspermiaconcept.”
NOTE: The members of the EDITORIAL BOARD are aware that many readers may not have studied physics or astronomy. They might be under the false impression that an article like the one that follows is going to be incomprehensible.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, those who have studied Maxwell’s Equations and Einstein’s theories will find his essay a kind of cakewalk. No doubt, eggheads will have issues with some assertions. Submit objections in comments — your head does not have to look like an egg.
WE, THE EDITORS wish to reassure readers — especially those who have yet to study math and science — that they have intelligence and imagination enuf to understand Billy Lee’s basic arguments.
We know Billy Lee. We work with him every day. He talks and tweets a lot but what does he really know?
Billy Lee likes to share notions with folks who can read. He claims it does no harm. For those who get “high” on science, Billy Lee included videos to make rabbit-hole hopping fun. Don’t be afraid to watch some.
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
UPDATE BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD:May 15, 2019; Victor T. Toth, the Hungarian software developer, author, and Quora guru of quantum physics wrote, “a photon has no rest mass, but it carries plenty of energy, and it has momentum. Its stress-energy-momentum tensor is certainly not zero. So it can be a source of gravity, it has inertia, and it responds to gravity. […] relativity theory predicts … twice the deflection angle for a photon in a gravitational field than the deflection of a Newtonian particle.”
Almost a century of experiments plus hundreds of upvotes on Quora by physicists seem to validate Victor’s argument.
The photon is known to be the only massless, free-moving particle in the Standard Model of physics. Other massless particles are the gluon, the graviton, and of course the Higgs, discovered in 2012 at CERN. Europeans plan to build a Higgs factory to learn more about them. Gluons mediate the strong force. They don’t propagate through empty space. No one has yet observed even a single graviton. Higgs give fermions like quarks their mass.
Photons have an electric and magnetic structure. They are electromagnetic pulses of energy that emerge from atoms when electrons drop from a higher energy state to a lower one. When electrons shed energy, a pulse of electromagnetic radiation is emitted — a photon of light.
Click pic for better view in new tab.
Photons of light can be emitted from atoms at different frequencies — colors when wavelengths fall within the narrow range that humans see. These frequencies depend on the energy of electrons, which exist in many differently configured shells (or orbitals) within both atoms and molecules.
Wavelengths of light felt but not seen are called infrared; other invisible frequencies fall into broad categories such as radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays and so on — all require instruments to detect.
Electromagnetic radiation is the medium through which humans observe and interact with everything knowable in the universe. Humans live inside an electromagnetic bubble that they are struggling to understand.
One thing most physicists understand is that a disturbing 95% of the energy and mass of the universe comes from a source no one can see. Physicists observe the effects of invisible (dark) matter and invisible (dark) energy by measuring the unusual dynamics of galaxies and by cataloging the physical organization and expansion of the universe itself.
These measurements make no sense unless folks assume that a lot of gravitationally interacting stuff is out there which no one has yet observationally confirmed. The missing mass is not debris or dark stars. The most exaggerated conjectures about how much mass and energy is scattered among the stars won’t come anywhere near enough to explain forces that make galaxies behave strangely.
Dark matter and energy don’t seem to be electromagnetic. Dark matter, if it exists, interacts with the mass of two-trillion galaxies and seems to refract their emitted light. Humans are blind to all of it.
Scientists postulate matter they call WIMPS, MACHOS, axions, and erebons. Each has a few properties necessary to make the universe work as observed, but none have all the required properties except perhaps erebons, if Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) is someday verified.
Space-saturating foam of micro-sized black holes is another idea some have proposed. The problem is that theorists believe tiny black holes might be too stable to radiate electromagnetic waves or gravity waves.
Micro-holes lie in a sort of crevice of invisibility — unobservable by LIGO and LISA style gravity-wave sensors, yet too massive for current and future particle-colliders like CERN to create.
Because micro-holes don’t radiate light at any frequency, light telescopes will never find them. No imagined interaction of micro-holes is able to generate gravity-waves with enough disruptive power in spacetime to be detected. The nature of physics seems to suggest that no technology can be developed to confirm or deny the black-hole foam idea.
Perhaps the same dilemma faces dark matter detection. We know it exists, but physics says we can never find it. It will always lie just outside our reach doing its work in an invisible universe no one will ever see.
Worse, not one of the proposed forms of “dark” matter has ever been observed or identified. It is likely that no experiment currently scheduled will detect dark matter, which many physicists believe is “out there” and makes maybe four parts out of five of all the matter in the universe.
It’s an incredible paradox for conscious humans to live in a universe where they are blind to almost every important thing that is happening within and around them.
Humanoids are like fish which spend their lives swimming in streams buried deep inside caves. Spelunkers like me know that certain species of cave fish have no eyes. They lack all ability to see their world — as do we, it seems. As intelligent as people are, they don’t yet build sensors capable of confirming their notions about what the universe might actually be at large scales or small.
Oh well… someday maybe new discoveries will make our predicament evaporate away. The universe will reveal itself to humans, as we knew it would. Our dream to fully understand reality will come true.
Some day.
Scientists have sensible mathematics to show that if electromagnetic particles are massless, they must travel at an upper limit, called “c“. Over decades, folks decided that this constant is the speed of a photon in a vacuum; they decided that photons have no internal rest mass and travel in vacuum at a speed limit — the speed of light.
The truth might be more mysterious. No one knows what the upper limit of “c” is, because no one knows with certainty that space is truly empty or that massless particles exist.
When physicists say that certain particles are massless, they sometimes mean that they don’t interact with the Higgs Field, which is known to give mass to fermions, like quarks. They don’t mean they don’t have energy, specifically kinetic energy, which is a form of inertial mass, right? They also aren’t saying photons don’t interact gravitationally. They do, in a special way described by the geodesics of spacetime in Einstein’s General Relativity.
More on this idea later.
British physicist Brian Cox wrote in his book Why Does E = mc2 ? that the question about whether photons have rest mass is not yet settled.
It’s true that more than a few reasonable people seem to believe that photons traveling freely in the vacuum of space are massless. If they truly are then the permittivity constant “ε” in Maxwell’s equation can be established for electro-magnetic particles (like photons).
The formula below is used to calculate the speed of a massless electromagnetic particle; it is thought to be a maximum speed.
For now, ignore the μ term. It is the permeability (resistance) of vacuum to infusion by a magnetic field, which is determined by experiment. It is sometimes called the magnetic constant.
Epsilon (ε} is the permittivity (resistance) of vacuum to an electric field. It is sometimes called the electric constant.
”c” is the so-called ”universal speed limit.” It is called the lightspeed constant.
These three numbers — μ, ε, and c — help to define the maximum velocity of an electromagnetic wave, which most people believe is the archetypal photon (of light). They assume that the photon packet travels at the maximum allowable speed in a vacuum.
A problem with this view is that no one has proved that space is free; or that space has no weight; or that photons have no rest mass; or that undiscovered particles formed from forces other than electricity and magnetism don’t exist. A few scientists have said that there might be no such things as free space or massless photons. It is also possible that space presents less resistance to other phenomenon yet to be discovered.
The idea that ”dark” matter and energy must exist to make the universe behave the way it does is compelling to many physicists. If true, it is possible — though light travels nearly 300 million meters-per-second — it is not traveling at the maximum speed of a generic, massless particle. The electric constant (ε)might need to be adjusted.
A decrease in the permittivity (resistance) of space (ε) — made obvious by inclusion of vast number of photons in the cosmic microwave background — drives ”ε” to be smaller and ”c” to be larger, right?
New particles, dark and as yet undiscovered, might do the same. The consequences could be significant.
Determining the upper speed of a massless particle requires a form of circular reasoning that is currently based on the measurement of the velocity of photons in a vacuum, which is called the speed of light.
The measured velocity of light in a vacuum is now an established constant of nature with a fixed value that doesn’t change regardless of the frame of reference. Modern labs have measured both the frequencies and wavelengths of various colors of light; multiplying the two numbers together always yields the same result — the speed of light.
Knowing the speed of light permits physicists to establish a value for ε by working backwards in the wave equation to solve for the electric permittivity of space. The value of “ε” falls easily from Maxwell’s Equations to a precision of 12 places.
It can’t be any other way. But is it the right way?
Here’s the problem: Physicists have measured mass in photons during experiments at the linear accelerator lab at Stanford University, SLAC.
In superconductors, photon mass has been measured to be as high as 1.2 eV.
Photon mass has been observed in wave guides and in plasmas.
Fact is, photons have inertial mass, which is a measure of their energy as calculated from their wavelengths or frequencies. In relativity theory, energy and mass are measured in the same units, electron-volts, because in the theory, mass and energy are equivalent.
Click this link to view CLOSER TO TRUTH interview with Raphael Bousso.
Cosmologist, Raphael Bousso, believes that empty space has weight, which is a measure of the cosmological constant, which is a measure of dark energy.
Space seems to be saturated like a sponge with something that gives it energy or force or weight if you will. The weight of empty space determines the size of the universe and some of its fundamental laws. Universes beyond our own with different weights of space can be larger or smaller and obey different rules.
Most physicists agree that photons become massive when they travel through transparent materials like glass, where they slow down by as much as 40%.
The problem is that these observations conflict with both the Heisenberg and the Schrodinger view of quantum mechanics, which is the most tested and confirmed model physicists have. Modern ideas seem to work best when photon mass is placed on the energy side of the mass-energy column. Otherwise, the presence of internal mass suggests that photons can be restrained to a defined size, which drives their momentums to infinity.
The truth is that it is not possible to prove that photons are massless. The stress-energy-momentum tensor in Einstein’s equation of General Relativity implies that photons can be both the source and the object of gravity. I’m referring to this tensor as “mass” and leaving it there for others to dispute. A rabbit hole for courageous readers to explore is the concept of pseudotensor, which this essay will avoid.
It is also not true that a photon can never be at rest either. Lab techs do unusual things with photons during experiments with lasers and superconductors — including slowing photons down and even stopping some (with supercooled helium-4). Right?
Another problem is the electromagnetic nature of light. The electric part of a light-wave carries enough energy to move an electron up and down. The magnetic part carries the same energy but its motion creates a force that pushes electrons outward in the same direction as the light. It’s why light-sails work in space. Oscillating magnetic fields push light forward. Otherwise, light might stand in one place and simply jiggle. But is light-speed the best magnetic fields can do?
Electromagnetism could be irrelevant in the search for an upper speed limit “c“, because “c” might prove to be the result of an unknown set of particles with properties outside the current boundaries of the Standard Model.
Massless particles, — undiscovered ones anyway — might not be electromagnetic. Humans might be biologically unfit to detect them; unable to measure their properties.
For those who might be rolling their eyes, remember that physicists claim that 95% of the mass and energy required to make the universe behave the way it does is missing. They call the missing stuff “dark” because they can’t find it. Excuse me should anyone catch me rolling my eyes.
Some theorists have speculated that “dark photons” might exist to help fill in the gaps. The popular TV show How the Universe Works actually repeated the idea in an episode of its latest series. The writers were probably referring to axions, which some physicists propose are similar to photons except that they have mass and are slower moving.
Photons are bosons. They are force carriers for electrons, correct?
Maybe folks should try to accept the notion that nothing in physics prevents bosons like photons from having mass or from taking on mass when they whiz over and through atoms and molecules (in glass and water, for example) where some physicists conjecture, they stimulate the release of polaritons in their wake. Jiggling electrons that lack the energy to jump states emit polaritons, which seem to add enough equivalent mass to photons to slow them down. Think of polaritons as light-matter wavelets.
Massive, gravitationally interacting photons are not required to be “dark.” If photons are the darkmatter, axions are unnecessary to solve certain problems both in cosmology and the Standard Model. No experiment will find them.
I mentioned that three other particles are presumed to be massless: the gluon, the graviton, and the Higgs boson.
To review, the gluon is not easily observed except in particle colliders where it lives briefly before decaying into other particles; it is confined among the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms. The graviton, on the other hand, has never been observed. The Higgs boson was discovered in 2012. CERN plans to build a Higgs factory someday to explore its properties.
The only particle available to physicists right now that enables them to establish the permittivity of space and compute the velocity of massless particles is the photon.
That’s it.
If the photon has internal mass, i.e., rest mass, everything changes.
Let’s hop into a rabbit hole for a moment and go back a step: What if massless, non-electromagnetic particles mediate entanglement, for example? Wherever paired electrons are found, entanglement rules, right?
Everyone knows that entanglement violates laws of logic and physics. No one can make sense of it.
What if massless non-electromagnetic particles entangle the electromagnetic particles of the subatomic world? If they travel a thousand or ten-thousand times the speed of light, they will present an illusion over short planetary scales that entanglement is instantaneous. No instrument or lab will detect the difference.
What are the consequences if massless non-electromagnetic particles travel at a billion times the speed of light? Maxwell’s equations won’t apply to particles like these.
Because it seems that speeds of subatomic particles like photons are able to increase as their masses approach zero, it is possible that “c” could be orders of magnitude faster than the speed of a photon — that is, the speed of light — if it turns out that photons harbor tiny but significant rest masses.
I’m not advocating this notion. Let’s crawl out of the rabbit hole. I’m suggesting only that such a state of affairs is possible, because the assumption that photons at rest are massless — that internal mass of photons is always zero — though reasonable and desirable to justify models, is not yet settled according to some physicists.
And there is, of course, the phenomenon of entanglement which no one can explain.
Here’s speculation that should blow the mind of any thinking person: Could photons, if shown to have internal mass, be the stuff that make the galaxies move in the non-intuitive ways they do?
Yes, some physicists argue that the upper limit on the internal (rest mass) of a photon must be less than 10-52 kilograms, which is about 5.6E-17 eV for folks who think that way. (Multiply mass by the speed of light twice to make the conversion and divide by 1.60218E-19 Joules per eV.)
5.6E-17 eV doesn’t seem like much mass at all until folks realize that the minimum number of photons in the universe might be as high as 1090. This number is ten billion times the number of atoms in the universe. It means that the internal mass contribution from photons alone could easily exceed 1038 kilograms if the upper limit proposed by some is used to perform the calculation.
Do the math, anyone who doesn’t believe it.
Guess what?
Prepare for a letdown.
Based on the conjectured eVs, the mass of all material in the visible universe is in the neighborhood of 1053 kilograms. The video below will help the reader understand how this value and others are calculated. The mass of the visible universe turns out to be 1,000 trillion times more than the conjectured internal mass of all photons.
Think about it.
Is it enough mass to account for the galaxy anomalies seen by astrophysicists? To any reasonable mind the answer is obviously, no. But this conclusion is not the end of the story.
Those who study astronomy know that the outer stars in galaxies seem to move at roughly the same speed as the inner. Yet the galaxies aren’t flying apart.
By way of contrast, the planets in solar systems like ours travel slower the farther away they orbit from their sun. If Neptune orbited as fast as Earth, it would fly away into deep space.
A recalibration to account for the internal mass of photons of light (which seems to always be discounted) does not at first blush offer the gravitational heft that astrophysicists require to make everything on galactic scales fall into place.
The cosmic background radiation — which is nothing more than photons that decoupled close to the beginning of time — saturates the universe like vinegar in a sponge, right? It is distributed evenly across all space for as far as human-built instruments can see.
The CMB makes an annoying hum in radio telescopes no matter their focus or where they point. Photons with tiny internal masses or no mass at all will have no influence on the understanding by astrophysicists of how the universe behaves.
Neutrinos, which seem to oscillate between three (or perhaps four) as yet undetermined massive states, might at times take on values below the actual mass-value of photons — if photons turn out to be more massive than most believe. The laws of physics require that neutrinos less massive than massive photons, should they exist, must travel superluminally (faster than light). Agreed?
Several “discredited” observations have reported faster-than-light neutrinos, including the unexpected outcome of the infamous OPERA experiment, which inspectors eventually blamed on a loose fiber-optic cable that was ever-so-slightly longer than it should have been.
OK. It seems reasonable. Who can argue?
Scientists who believe that superluminal neutrinos actually exist don’t speak up, perhaps out of fear for their careers. They probably couldn’t get their opinions published anyway, right?
Click pic for better view in new tab.
Crackpot ideas that later prove valid is how science sometimes works. It’s how science has become the mess that it is — a chaos of observations that can’t make sense out of 95% of what is going on all around; a plethora of experimental results that don’t quite match the work of theorists.
The super-brilliant people who paint the mathematical structures of ultimate reality rely on physicists to smear their masterworks with the muds of perturbation, renormalization, and a half dozen other incomprehensible substrates to get the few phenomenon folks think they understand to look right and make sense. Theory and experiment don’t seem to match-up as well as some folks think they should more times than not.
A minor recalibration based on the acceptance of photons as quantum objects with tiny, almost unmeasurable masses will not change ideas about the nature of the universe and what is possible, because the upper-bound on photon masses might be undervalued — perhaps by a factor of billions.
Theorists like Nima Arkani-Hamed work on abstract geometries called amplituhedrons to salvage notions of massless particles while simplifying calculations of scattering probabilities in quantum mechanics. It seems to me like hopeless adventures doomed to fail. But in fairness so did Columbus’s exploration for new worlds.
To be a serious candidate for dark matter, a typical microwave photon should have an average mass of nearly .05 eV (electron volts), which is about 9 x 10-38 kilograms. If multiplied by the number of photons ( 1090 ), the photon masses add almost miraculously to become 85% of the theoretical mass of the universe.
(1E90)*(9E-38) = 9E52. (9E52) / .85 = 1E53 kg.
It’s the same number conjectured by dark-matter advocates.
To qualify for dark matter means that a typical or average photon must have close to one ten-millionth of the mass of an electron.
Only then does everything fall into place like it should.
Pull out the calculator, anyone who doesn’t believe it.
Einstein, in his famous 1905 paper on special relativity, showed that mass is equivalent to the energy of an object divided twice by a constant, which is “c” squared, right?
Later, he added a second term to the internal energy of a particle which is its inertial energy, pc2 . Simplified, this term equals hf for a massless photon. The total energy of any object is the square root of the sum of its internal energy and its inertial energy.
If Einstein is taken at his word, then the inertial mass of a photon is a function of its characteristic frequency — i.e. the inertial mass of a photon is equal to
where “h” is the Planck constant and “c” is the speed of light. The internal mass, should any exist, can be discounted.
An argument can be made from Einstein’s equations that the mass of a photon might be times larger. A factor of 1.414… won’t change the argument. It strengthens the point but is, in the end, not important enough to include in an article that is already overly long. Curious readers can review the reasoning in my essay General & Special Relativity.
If the average photon has an inertial mass of .05 eV, it requires that — all else being equal — the combined photon energy in a non-expanding universe would lie in the range of infrared light, a frequency in this case of 12E12 Hz, which is sometimes referred to as far-infrared.
(Set equivalent-mass equal to .05 eV (8.9E-38 kilograms) and solve for frequency.) The frequency approaches the lower energy microwave part of the light spectrum.
Note:For perspective, one eV is the energy (or mass equivalent) of a near-infrared photon of frequency 242E12 Hz, which approaches from below the higher-energy visible-light part of the light spectrum.
The mass equivalence of the inertial energy of 1E90 infrared photons is sufficient to hold the universe together to prevent runaway expansion caused by repulsion due to the gravity constant Λ in Einstein’s equation for General Relativity.
Do the math.
I know what some people might be thinking: Didn’t the 29 May 1919 solar eclipse, which enabled observers to confirm Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, demonstrate that photons lack internal mass? Didn’t Eddington’s experiment prove wrong Newton’s idea that photons, which he called corpuscles, were massive objects?
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe internal mass isn’t necessary. There is enough energy in the inertial term of Einstein’s equation to yield the required mass.
Unlike massive particles where internal energy far outweighs inertial energy, for photons, inertial energy is dominant. Even if science admits to a small amount of internal mass in photons, it is their inertial energy that dominates.
I found a good mathematical argument for light mass on Quora by Kyle Lochlann, an academic in relativity theory. Here is the link:
Be sure to read comments to his answer — especially those who find math incomprehensible, which might be nearly everyone who reads my blog.
After all, Newton’s theory of gravity predicted that the light from stars would deflect near the Sun at only half what Eddington’s experiment clearly showed. Eddington’s eclipse proved Einstein’s theory — the geodesics of spacetime bend in the presence of massive objects like stars.
Many concluded that photons followed the geodesics of spacetime, because photons lacked mass equivalence of any kind. Newton erred about pretty much everything involving gravity and light, some said.
But their conclusion can’t be right, can it? Doesn’t their conclusion ignore what the math of Einstein’s formulas actually says?
Won’t it make more sense to say that the geodesics of spacetime constrain and overwhelm whatever internal and inertial mass photons might possess? Doesn’t it make more sense to convert the frequency-related inertial energy of photons to mass to better explain their behavior near objects like the Sun?
Evidence exists that light-mass is a thing and that it matters. Einstein included a mass-equivalence term for light in his tensors for general relativity. Frank Wilczek, MIT Nobel laureate, is famous for insisting that the mass of anything at all is its energy content. The energy of light is in its frequency, its momentum, which is a measure of its mass.
It’s true that light does not seem to interact with the Higgs field. Nevertheless, the energy of light seems to interact gravitationally with ordinary matter. The interaction is not measurable when photon numbers are small. When photon numbers are huge, perhaps it is.
A single photon in the presence of the Sun has no chance. When 10E90 photons saturate a space that is almost entirely devoid of matter, photons can shape a universe — especially when their number is 10 billion times the number of atoms.
It seems possible, at least to me.
According to data gathered by the NASA WMAP satellite, ordinary matter in the observable universe amounts to a little more than 1/4 of a neutron per cubic meter of space. It amounts to 253.33E6 electron-volts of mass. Everything else WMAP observed was “cold dark matter” and “dark energy”.
How many .05 eV photons does it take to flood a cubic meter of space with enough mass-equivalence to reduce the mass-energy of 1/4 of a neutron to 15% of the total? How many photons are required to sum to 85% of the energy WMAP attributed to “cold dark matter”? It turns out that the number is 34 billion photons per cubic meter.
The question is: how many photons are there?
The observable universe has an estimated volume in the neighborhood of 1E80 cubic meters, right? Yes, it might be as much as 4 times that number.
The lower-bound number of photons in the observable universe is 1E90. It might be ten times more.
It turns out that the number photons per cubic meter in the universe must be somewhere close to 25 billion. 25 is pretty darn close to 34. Since all the numbers are estimates with large margins of error, it’s possible that everything will fall into place as it should if and when the statistics of the universe are ever known with precision.
Could photons of light might be the “cold” dark matter everyone is searching for?
A single neutron has no chance when it is bathed in 136 billion .05 eV photons, which surround and envelop it on all sides from every direction. It makes a kind of quantum scale Custer’s Last Stand for random neutrons, right?
When scientists look at the universe today, they see an accelerating expansion. They see in the cosmic background radiation photons that have slipped from infrared into longer, less energetic microwave wavelengths which no longer have enough mass-equivalence to hold the universe together.
As light stretches into longer and longer wavelengths through interaction mechanisms such as Compton scattering and other processes (like the push of “dark energy” or the less popular gravitational tug of parallel universes), light frequencies and energies diminish.
Eventually, when the total of all light falls below an average frequency of 12E12, the equivalent mass of the 1E90 primordial photons loses its grip; it becomes unable to hold the universe together.
Near the beginning of time when photons were orders-of-magnitude higher in frequency than now, their stronger gravitationally-equivalent-masses pulled together the structures astronomers study today, like stars and galaxies.
But now scientists seem to be witnessing a runaway expansion of the universe. Light has stretched and dimmed into the microwave and radio-wave frequencies where its mass-equivalence is unable to hold together the universe as it once was.
Because we can’t detect it, isn’t it possible that dark energy and dark matter don’t exist? That is to say, the idea that dark matter and energy are necessary to account for observations is no more than a conjecture made necessary by a misbehaving universe of unusual galaxies. But direct observational evidence for dark matter and energy is the part of the conjecture that is missing. No one has ever seen any.
What astronomers are observing instead is faraway galaxies that existed billions of years ago when the mass-equivalent energy of photons was greater than it is now.
The intact universe of galaxies seen in the night sky today, which is photographed with high-resolution space-borne telescopes, is not up to date in any sense at all, except that it is the view of an ancient past that goes back almost to the beginning of time depending on how deep into space anyone looks.
Everyone who cares about astronomy knows it’s true.
To qualify as a candidate for dark matter means that a photon must have close to one ten-millionth of the mass of an electron. It seems like a reasonable ratio, right?
In the Standard Model, only neutrinos are less massive than electrons. No one knows what the mass of each of the three “flavors” of neutrinos is, but when added they are less than 0.12 eV — about 2.4 times the equivalent-mass of infrared photons and about one four-millionth of the mass of electrons. It seems possible to me that the mass of at least one of the flavors of neutrinos will be less than the conjectured equivalent-mass of an infrared photon packet.
Neutrons and protons are, by contrast, 2,000 times “heavier” than electrons.
I am asking working physicists to reexamine estimates that claim the mass of a photon can be no more than trillions of times less than the mass of an electron.
The claim can be found at the back of articles in science journals as well as in blogs across the internet. For me, the idea seems ridiculous on its face. The energy-equivalent mass of photons varies with frequency, but only the lowest energy radio wave photons can hope to approach the low equivalent-mass estimated in the latest publications.
Scientists might want to revisit the mass of a photon and the methodology of its measurement. The stakes are high, and science doesn’t have many options. Hope — like the energy of ancient photons — is fading.
Science would be served best if scientists started from scratch to reexamine every assumption and lab procedure. The search for dark matter has become an expensive and compulsive quest that seems futile, at least to me. Several costly experiments have reached disappointing dead ends, which are reviewed in the “VICE on HBO” video located near the start of this essay.
What if photons of light really are the dark matter, which is hiding in plain sight waiting to be discovered by anyone who dares to look at the problem with fresh eyes?
What if the delay between the observations of the CMB (cosmic microwave background) and the structure of the universe is a natural disconnect in time and space that misleads folks to believe that mass must be “out there”, when it has in fact long since dissipated?
From another perhaps opposite perspective, what if photons are instead stimulating emissions from virtual particles as they travel at fantastic speeds through the vastness of space? What if these emissions add mass to photons sufficient to bring them to the “dark matter” threshold, as they do in materials like glass?
Such a state of affairs would imply that not all photons travel the same speed in the so-called vacuum of “empty” space. It is a heretical idea, for sure — a can of worms, perhaps to some, but hey! — you can catch a lot of fish with a can of worms.
A photon is a packet of electromagnetic oscillations built-up from many frequencies. Superposition of these frequencies adds to give a photon its characteristic frequency from which its equivalent mass can be calculated. Right?
Use imagination to think of the many ways a higher “speed limit” that is mandated by the existence of massive photons might work to stimulate the interest of a space-traveling civilization to explore the universe, which ordinary folks begin to understand is more accessible, more reachable than anyone thought possible.
Consider the number of inexplicable phenomena that would make sense if particles thought to have zero internal mass don’t really exist, and photons, gluons, gravitons, and Higgs bosons aren’t the only ones.
Recalibration might save a lot of time and effort in the search for the putative missing energy and mass of the universe.
Should “dark” particles exist whose internal mass is less than that of photons, they will likely move at superluminal speeds that make them difficult to track. To influence stars, their number would have to dwarf photons. Such an idea strains credulity.
A counterproposal by Roger Penrose speculates that dark matter particles might have the mass of the eye of a flea; he calls them “erebons.” These particles are electromagnetically invisible, but their huge masses relative to other particles in the Standard Model make them gravitationally compelling.
Erebons decay; evidence for their decay should be showing up in data collected by LIGO detectors.
So far persuasive evidence for erebons has not been found.
For scientists and explorers, the access-barrier to a universe shaped and configured by massive photons will most certainly shrink — perhaps thousands to millions of times.
The stars and galaxies that people believed were unreachable might finally fall within our grasp.
Or — perhaps less optimistically and more cynically — the mass-equivalent energy of 1E90 photons might by now be so severely degraded that nothing can save a universe that has already come undone and flown away into an abyss that humans will never see.
The radiation-evidence from a catastrophe of disintegrating galaxies that has already occurred won’t reach Earth-bound viewers for perhaps billions of years.
Should humans survive, our progeny — many millions or billions of years from now — may “see” in the vastness of space a cold and diminished radio-wave radiation that hums in a soul-less vacuum devoid of galaxies and visible light. Microwave light will by then be nothing more than a higher-pitched, prehistoric memory.
Roger Penrose says that the fluid dynamics of an exhausted universe devoid of matter will become indistinguishable from the singularity that gave its start. A new universe will ignite from the massless, radiation-ashes of the old.
Human-nature forces us to want to know more; most folks want to search for and find the answers to the questions that will determine the fate of all life on Earth and in the vast stretches of spacetime that remain beyond our reach.
Is the universe within our grasp, or has it already disintegrated?
times larger. A factor of 1.414… won’t change the argument. It strengthens the point but is, in the end, not important enough to include in an article that is already overly long. Curious readers can review the reasoning in my essay 