Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Dan Drake (
27 Apr 1995 17:32:43 GMT

In message <3nl9fi$> - (Bru
ce D. Scott) writes:
>Conrad ( wrote:
>: (JAMES BENTHALL) writes:
>: >The current consensus is that photons do not have mass, but I've heard of
>: >ongoing research that asserts that photons may have a miniscule amount.
>: 1. Fischbach, E.; Kloor, H.; Langel, R.A.; Lui, A.T.Y.; and others.
>: New geomagnetic limits on the photon mass and on long-range forces
>: coexisting with electromagnetism.
>: Physical Review Letters, 25 July 1994, vol.73, (no.4):514-17.
>That reference merely places a lower "upper bound" on the photon mass than
>previous experiments did. This is merely a reinforcement to the body of
>data suggesting that the photon mass is zero within experimental tolerance.
>What would suggest a photon mass would be a nonzero _lower_ bound. This is
>what is being tested in the neutrino research.

This is interesting, and a refreshing change from the usual run of rants here.
So what would be the implications if someone found such a lower bound for
photons? Naturally people would keep measuring such things, just as they
keep repeating the Eotvos experiment in the hope of just maybe overthrowing a
large part of modern physics; but would it or wouldn't it require a
re-write of relativity, as I presume a weird Eotvos result would?

Dan Drake

Do not read
unless you're a nattering news server that wants me to pad with non-copied
lines so they outnumber the ones that start with >
(Yes, Virginia, I know about global search-and-replace. Perhaps you can
hypothesize a reason why it wasn't used here. So why are you reading this?)