>photons have no mass, but they can apply force because.... because they just le can, okay??????

>>16723425 (OP)
Wow, it’s almost like Newtonian mechanics is wrong.

>>16723425 (OP)
It's almost as if the basic physics you are taught in highschool isn't complete (or simply wrong).

>>16723425 (OP)
What, in your mind, is the contradiction?
Actually, before you answer that, how about you first give us a reasonable definition of a "force" so that we can all be on the same page.

>>16723425 (OP)
It's all about the thisllub particles I recently discovered. These are virtual particles which can't be seen measured or tested and they exist in a quantum state of probability, where they will become whatever to make whatever I can up with make sense

>>16723425 (OP)
OP, you have yet to learn that real science is never simple.
Even the most simple "sciences" like computer "science" is more complicated than it seems.
Literally everything in computer science is something you can say "actually" about.
For example branching, an if-statement is not as simple as "if this then do that" because the way it really works is the hardware tries to guess "if this" and then it "does that" before it even confirms "if this" condition. And then it tests "if this" condition and goes back and reverts what it did if the guess was wrong.
Literally everything you are taught always is more complicated than it first seems. Doing real science involves learning that the simplified versions of things for retards is not the actual happenings that are happening.
You should know this by now.
Will it blow your mind when you learn that light also bends due to gravity?
But how can gravity affect light if it has no mass?
Et cetera...
Because gravity is not a force that applies to mass, it's a force caused by mass that "bends" the universe.
Lol.

>>16723443
>how about you first give us a reasonable definition of a "force" so that we can all be on the same page.
the pushing or pulling of mass

>>16723484
that's nonsense. speculative execution did not always exist. the execution of branches got changed over time. photons did not change over time as far as i know

>>16723485
>>16723443
There is already a well-established definition of force, which is not even consistently used anyways.

Did you know that light is also affected gravity despite having no mass? Does it also confuse you? This is because gravity literally warps/bends the universe itself, which affects the path that light is taking, it makes "straight" become "curved." Lol.

>>16723488
You completely didn't even realize the point I was getting at. I am simply trying to say that you believe one thing about photons because it was taught to you, but you never understood the depth of the actual truth. I'm bringing up similar examples of confusion to show you that it happens a lot.
Like gravity does not just affect objects with mass either but it also affects light too lol.

>>16723490
>Like gravity does not just affect objects with mass either but it also affects light too lol.
well yeah, that's my point. what if photons actually do have mass?

sup senpai
anyone ever seen one of these photon-guys
like are they buzzin for real for real?
or just mid imagination?

>>16723491
Okay well force is usually thought about in terms of classical physics (zoomed out physics) and photons are usually talked about with regards to quantum mechanics (zoomed in physics).

Do objects with force even really hit each other? I thought what happens is that the electrons surrounding them repel each other away or something and so they don't actually connect but they just appear to make contact?

Photons actually connect though and they get absorbed by the object and then released, and they do change the energy levels of the object because they are energy. Are you sure it's the same thing as a solid object hitting a sail? Lol.

>>16723485
What do you mean by push or pull? Those words typically refer to an action taken by a person, but in what way does a magnet push or pull something despite not touching it?

>>16723491
I think of classical physics notions like force as being high-level versions of their quantum physics counter-parts. So force is a consequence of low-level things lol.

>>16723425 (OP)
[math] \displaystyle
E^{2}=\left( mc^{2} \right)^{2}+(pc)^{2}
[/math]

>>16723499
you forgot +AI

>>16723495
let's say that a force causes mass to move. i don't have a good answer for why magnets can move things because i do not know how electrical charges work, but i can say that those atoms with electrical charges do at least have a mass as well. gravity is also influenced by mass. you could say that photons also follow this trend because mass emits it, but it is weird that photons are measured as being particles while magnetic and gravity fields are waves. anyways, i think photons have a similar force that infrared radiation does

>>16723502
That "definition" implies that there is always a force acting upon any object which moves with constant velocity - e.g. an object floating through deep space. But then you must explain what that force is, and moreover reformulate all of physics now that you've contradicted Newton's first law with what you call a force.

>>16723503
no i do not mean that a force is constant. that object in motion already had the force applied to it. force causes mass to move, it isn't causing the mass to move

>>16723499
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

>>16723502
>i don't have a good answer for why magnets can move things because i do not know how electrical charges work,
This is why you are confused about electromagnetic forces. Perhaps consider reading an undergrad textbook first.

>>16723511
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation#Massless_particles

>>16723509
>Force causes mass to move
>It isn't causing mass to move
Regardless, how does the fact that photons have no mass contradict that they can cause something to move?

>>16723425 (OP)
E=mc^2

>>16723523
kek can i save your pepe anon?

>>16723523
you're not ready yet

>>16723514
so are photons themself a force?
>>16723516
because it behaves the same way as other mass-to-mass transfers of energy, but not the same way as something like gravity or magnetic force. we can keep pelting mass with photons and it will keep absorbing that inertia and reach incredible speeds. magnetic or gravity forces do not work this way because mass does not keep collecting energy if i apply these forces to an object. i can't keep applying a negative polarity onto a positive field and have it accelerate continuously

>>16723531
>photons themself a force?
Carrier of a force*

>>16723485
Force changes momentum. Reflection changes photons' direction and therefore their momenta and therefore results in reactive forces on the mirror in the opposite direction.

>>16723536
are there any other examples of particles that can carry a force?
>>16723541
photons do not just "reflect" or bounce off things, they supposedly get completely absorbed by matter and then re-emitted. in this case, i would expect radioactive atoms in the vacuum of space to start propelling themselves just by emitting particles

>>16723544
>are there any other examples of particles that can carry a force?
Gluons, the W and Z bosons, and the Higgs boson come to mind.

>>16723546
thank you, i will look into this

>>16723531
Please learn what "contradiction" means.

>>16723549
You should probably stick with an undergrad textbook before you move on to standard model particle physics

>>16723553
what is the specific topic that i would need to study? electromagnetism?

>>16723557
You don't seem to understand even the most basic of physics concepts. Try any middle school physics textbook and continue from there.

>>16723557
>what is the specific topic I would need to study
Well since you seem to be at the "Newtonian mechanics" point right now, I'd start with upgrading to lagrangian mechanics before moving to electromagnetism and intro quantum mechanics.

>>16723551
>standard model
>graviton
dropped

Light=waves of aether.
Waves: can carry momentum
Single ather particle photon: does not exist

>>16723551
is this graviton in the room with us now?

>equation doesn't work? just keep making things up

>>16723583
>I don't understand partial differentials so they must not be real
kek

>>16723425 (OP)
>back in maihh day, equal and opposite wuz enuuufff for uhzzz.

>>16723425 (OP)
Energy retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

>>16723594
please show me a piece of energy (you cannot)
explain why energy conservation does not apply to boosted frames, then explain how energy in the universe can be conserved when every point of it is boosted in some way relative to any other due to inflation (you can't)
explain where the excess energy required for inflation comes from (you can't)

>>16723599
>please show me a piece of energy (you cannot)
Of course I can: look at anything that physically exists. There, energy.
>blahblahblah inflation and conservation
Irrelevant to OP's post. Energy can impart momentum and that's what the thread is about.

>>16723599
>I do not understand energy
>I do not understand cosmology
>Cosmological models are not complete
>therefore energy is not real
Top minds of /sci/

>>16723605
all I'm saying is energy conservation clearly doesn't apply at cosmological scales so why would it apply at all?

>>16723614
>all I'm saying is ideal gas laws clearly don't apply at extreme scales so why would it apply at all?
>all I'm saying is newtonian mechanics clearly don't apply at relativistic scales so why would it apply at all?
>all I'm saying is population statistics clearly don't apply at geological time scales so why would it apply at all?

>>16723425 (OP)
Yeah. Never made any sense. Then they said you get mass if you trap photons in a box because when the photons hit the sides of the box then momentum?????? creates mass.

These fags need to learn logic.

>>16723625
>Then they said you get mass if you trap photons in a box
neat bait

>>16723626
you have no idea what bait is if you think that's an example of it

>>16723633
Oh you were serious, that's even funnier

>>16723634
Serious about what? You make no sense, schizo.

>>16723637
>Serious about what?
>>16723625
So it was bait, got it. Disappointing.

>>16723639
Kys retard. Don't reply to me again you useless piece of trash.

>>16723625
Here's for any other non-retarded people: https://youtu.be/gSKzgpt4HBU?t=106

>>16723618
newtonian mechanics don't even apply in your backyard, don't be such a faggot
ideal gasses don't exist and this is very evident if you ever play with real gasses
and sociology isn't science at all

>>16723646
>newtonian mechanics don't even apply in your backyard, don't be such a faggot
top fucking kek
>ideal gasses don't exist and this is very evident if you ever play with real gasses
That's why ideal gas laws (read: approximations) are accurate within certain ranges and only when you start using extreme ranges the approximation no longer applies? Kinda like relativistic physics is to newtonian mechanics?
>Population statistics
>Sociology
top fucking kek, never post again

>>16723649
>top fucking kek
the light entering your eyes when you smugly look at the turd you just threw at the wall and the "perfect" newtonian trajectory it seems to follow does not propagate according to newtonian mechanics
>extreme
can just as well mean a 90 degree turn in a pipe

>>16723656
You can go do the simplification of relativistic equations with the approximation that the speed of light is much higher than the speed of the object moving at non-relativistic speeds and get newtonian mechanics equations, the approximations that apply at non relativistic scales. You're too stupid to even understand what you're talking about. Never post again, you're embarrassing yourself.

OP is too retarded to comprehend you don't -need- mass in space to make an object move, the mere wand of heat and energy is enough to propel an object forward. That is literally how photons move kek. This is primary school shit.

>>16723659
I was talking about the particulars of light propagation, which have nothing to do with Newton's imagined clockwork world - something which troubled him greatly because he was a real physicist
you can't describe a rainbow with F=ma

>>16723665
>you can't describe relativistic physics with newtonian mechanics
glad we agree

>>16723662
pls explain why we don't use photon drives for our spacecraft

>>16723662
what form of energy is stored in a photon?

>>16723667
mrel=m/sqrt(1- (v^2/c^2)) is also not adequate to describe a rainbow lol
you're so out of your depth it's almost painful to watch

>>16723676
>I don't understand newtonian mechanics OR relativity
there's no hope trying to explain anything to you

>>16723583
>generalized momentum coordinates are always linear momentum
kek

>>16723425 (OP)
they have mass libtard

>>16723582
yes, absolute shitloads of them actually
mass=0, spin=2

https://youtu.be/8GyVx28R9-s?si=pL3X-kr1hM4wob6O

https://youtu.be/hrGfqf9Pa04?si=LMb0Ym62q9PP8R-A

Wait....what?
Mag-Nut-Tism
hehe

>>16723425 (OP)
If photons didn't have mass they wouldn't get drawn in by black holes.

>>16723753
why do they get drawn in then?

>>16723669
Because the science behind photons are a stupidly efficient but weak means of propelling an object forward. It wouldn't be useful for anything but getting between 95% of the way between point A and B when gravity isn't involved.

>>16723753
What if photons are made of the same base building blocks as black holes are made from?
What if...guys?...ok...ok...what if....guys? ....ok...what if...what if.....guys GUYS ok...ok....ok...guys...ok....what if....

https://youtu.be/OzXFRmgG4H8?si=40a_24byfxSFVkgo

Black holes break parts down to the lowest building block space size, and pack them together so there is no more empty places/room for blocks to move into, and the blocks are stuck together, so blocks not moving is basically no time occurring.

And photons are just straight long line chains of base building blocks in a row, not forming any more advanced parts or movement, just front to back, nutt to butt, not building up or down or left or right, simply attaching blocks front to back.

So the photons (bar magnet) magnetic field cannot affect other objects , but can be affected by them.
Every Planck length cube, base building block, is a magnet. And when the blocks are assembled together to form new shapes, they create new magnetic fields. Thusly the quasi particle emergence of the other "fundamental forces" which are simply magnetism by another name. Work, heat, all of it.
Magnetized quantum Plank sized cubes. Oh and they are riding on a track. Oh, and I think they are colored RBG on the six sides of the cubes.

Ohhhhh yeah
*hits weed vape*
and Pi is the total quantity of quantum Plank magnetized RGB cubes that exist in our universe.
*Holds in weed hit*
*A rare Pepe smiles and nods knowingly*

>>16723425 (OP)
Photons have energy and they don't have rest mass, so by the energy-momentum relation they must have momentum.

my dad told me that he heard some schizo scientist say that the big bang was a lot of photons being created, and then matter somehow emerged from purely photons. is this an actual thing that i can find information about?

>>16723427
I 100% guarantee you that OP is one of those schizo retards who rejects "Jewish physics" and believe in aether theory.

>>16723825
they rebranded aether theory as quantum mechanics and now it's suddenly kosher

>>16723425 (OP)
just ask ChatGPT to rewrite all the equations of the last century with variable speed of light, ez-pz, split the Nobel prize with Altman.

>>16723427
fippy bippy lol and lel

>>16723443
Force = m*a

>>16723825
>aether theory
Is literally Einstein schizobabble

>>16723484
this must be how i sound when i try to talk biology