"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

[adx]

Better wipe the chunks off that mic, have a member of the audience squirt me down with a water bottle, and rest against a speaker in the vain unthinking hope no one noticed as I battle inexplicable blursts of feedback to say this...

...
But there's more. I have also worked out how kum rain plus insulation has an effect.
Tony's email gave me a clue. He said that large drops have the effect of putting charge on the antenna, which creates noise.
Well, this tells me that the wetness on the outside of an insulated antenna creates a capacitor. The water has a charge, probably a negative charge.
And, worse, the insulation itself acts as a multiplier for the capacitance, as per a standard capacitor.
Thats why the 0.5 mm of water outside the plastic acts like it acts. And, thats why the thicker the plastic the larger the effect.
I am having a great day today.
I hope adx reads this.

Yes (except for the charge). But what you've just stumbled on is how capacitance to 'space' slows the speed of the wavefront along an antenna element. The same would happen in a wire, and is the only or main reason you can think of that it slows to 2c/3 or whatever you use, when a dielectric surrounds it. So the falsification you so desperately sought to avoid, is now a result (and behavior) that you can use. Can you see how it would have been wrong to apply the one strike and it's out principle to your theory? The paint test you proposed would have failed, it was never going to mean anything. Can you see how it might be worth drawing on conventional theory, now that it is more of a match, than trying to destroy it all?

Anyway, I need to get some other stuff done.

[TimFox]

The easiest to understand experimental evidence for time dilation in the real world involved flying "atomic clocks" in opposite directions on jetliners back in 1971.
Perhaps you heard about it?  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html
Note that both gravitational (general relativity) and the larger kinematic (special relativity) effects are quantitatively important in the predictions that agree nicely with the experimental results.

[bsfeechannel]

Here are some of [Feynman's] better sayings. Most of his sayings did not impress me at all.
[...]

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
[...]

Pseudo-science is the belief in the expertise of the ignorant.

[Alex Eisenhut]

Oh I see now, "electon" is your name for your pet theory. Nice. How about protons? There are energy levels inside the nucleus, shifting those around causes gamma rays. Are they photons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer

And doing a TDR of a threaded rod vs a smooth rod should be easy, I have some 1S2 3.9GHz plugins... none of which work, really.

[aetherist]

Better wipe the chunks off that mic, have a member of the audience squirt me down with a water bottle, and rest against a speaker in the vain unthinking hope no one noticed as I battle inexplicable blursts of feedback to say this...

...But there's more. I have also worked out how kum rain plus insulation has an effect.
Tony's email gave me a clue. He said that large drops have the effect of putting charge on the antenna, which creates noise.
Well, this tells me that the wetness on the outside of an insulated antenna creates a capacitor. The water has a charge, probably a negative charge.
And, worse, the insulation itself acts as a multiplier for the capacitance, as per a standard capacitor.
Thats why the 0.5 mm of water outside the plastic acts like it acts. And, thats why the thicker the plastic the larger the effect. I am having a great day today. I hope adx reads this.

  Yes (except for the charge). But what you've just stumbled on is how capacitance to 'space' slows the speed of the wavefront along an antenna element. The same would happen in a wire, and is the only or main reason you can think of that it slows to 2c/3 or whatever you use, when a dielectric surrounds it. So the falsification you so desperately sought to avoid, is now a result (and behavior) that you can use. Can you see how it would have been wrong to apply the one strike and it's out principle to your theory? The paint test you proposed would have failed, it was never going to mean anything. Can you see how it might be worth drawing on conventional theory, now that it is more of a match, than trying to destroy it all?
Anyway, I need to get some other stuff done.

The foray into the insulated antenna paradox was never a test of new electricity (electons) versus old electricity (drifting electrons), koz, both theories demand that electricity propagates at 2c/3 if insulated. Hence both theories will fail/fall together. And as far as i can make out they do fail/fall. I was expecting a 33% reduction in happy frequency not  3%. I would like to find out why not 33%. The only thing that i can come up with is that it involves the feed from the antenna to the radio. If the antenna is L metres & the feed is  10L metres then that might do the trick. But i wont be pursuing any of that. If electons & drifting electrons were not bedfellows then i would be forced to follow it. One strike & electons are out, but so too are drifting electrons. And i aint looking for a newer form of electricity (photrons?). No, it is a paradox, not a catastrophe, & the answer might be found one day.

The capacitance to space does not slow the electricity. U will find that the paint duz slow the electricity, koz electons hugging the surface of the wire/rod are slowed in plastic (down to 2c/3). I am happy to put $ on it (i need a good scope). I have been aware (or at least suspected) that lumped element transmission line enthusiasts consider that feeding em into space somehow slows electricity. Nope. Impossible. It will of course rob power, & will in that sense slow the power, but the m/s of the leading edge of the signal will not be slowed by this feeding of the hungry impedance of space. Up to now i have not worried about giving u fellows this bad news, koz i didn’t want to melt your brains. This is fertile ground for my cleverness, but not today.

So, your attempt to save old electricity here (by invoking a non-existent slowing affect of the feeding of the impedance of space) is futile. If such slowing were true then that would mean that during a transient electricity was slow, & after the transient electricity is faster. I admit that this area is ripe for argument, but i hope u don’t go there. Certainly no high authority has ever invoked that gambit (to try to sidestep the catastrophe of the slow speed of em in Cu)(10 m/s). Even William Beaty could do no better than to try to invoke a leapfrogging em (which has never been gleefully adopted by anyone else)(not even by frogs)(nor toads). 

The feeding of (my new) capacitance of wet insulated wires of an antenna likewise must rob power but (contrary to your assertion) in no way adds to the slowing of electricity in the insulated wire. But i want to reflect a while on my cleverness in discovering the explanation for the quandary of how the wetness on the outside of an insulated antenna affects antenna performance, by creating a capacitor (where the water is the negative plate)(& the thick insulation gives a very high dielectric constant). Brilliant. No wanking jokes please.

Pollack would tell us that the water has a negative charge, due to a thin layer of Exclusion Zone Water forming on the surface (usually on the bare wire)(or on the insulation here). The protons from the Exclusion Zone Water are expelled into the surrounding ordinary water, & the ordinary water is largely lost due to mechanical processes, leaving a negatively charged thin layer of water on the insulation. Tony Wakefield's 'large raindrops having a charge & causing noise in the signal' is also explained by Exclusion Zone Water.

[aetherist]

Oh I see now, "electon" is your name for your pet theory. Nice. How about protons? There are energy levels inside the nucleus, shifting those around causes gamma rays. Are they photons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer
And doing a TDR of a threaded rod vs a smooth rod should be easy, I have some 1S2 3.9GHz plugins... none of which work, really.

Gamma rays are i think always photons.
Radio waves are not photons, they are pure em radiation.
Electons are photons that are hugging the wire.
Photons have a neutral nett em field, at least in the far field, but for some reason electons have a non-nett em field in the far field (hence electons give us electricity).

I have never used a scope. But 3.9 GHz sounds good to me (ie fast enuff)(better than 100 MHz). This might not need a long circuit of threaded rods, one 2.4 m threaded rod might be enough to give a rough answer (that screw-thread slows electricity), but the more rods the more accurate the answer (& adx is not going to cough up re our bet without a fight).
Part B of the test of course needs a plain bar or bars.

Electons are the core of my new (electon) electricity, but my new (electon) electricity also includes a (very slow) component of electricity involving the flow of free-surface-electrons along the outside of a wire. In the case of a capacitor these electrons account for a half of the stored energy/charge. The bottom line is that i do not agree with Heaviside & Steinmetz & Tesla & Catt & Bishop & Co (& Feynman)(& Thompson)(or was it Thomson) that electrons do not exist. And i am happy with the general notion of drifting electrons, & that they might contribute to electricity, but i say that that contribution is insignificant. Just saying.

[aetherist]

The easiest to understand experimental evidence for time dilation in the real world involved flying "atomic clocks" in opposite directions on jetliners back in 1971.
Perhaps you heard about it?  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html
Note that both gravitational (general relativity) and the larger kinematic (special relativity) effects are quantitatively important in the predictions that agree nicely with the experimental results.

A G Kelly tells us that Hafele & Keating disproved time dilation.
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

[aetherist]

<better snip that longness>

Unfortunately I think I can understand it (I have oft wondered if it's like the way drunk people at parties appear drunk and silly when you're sober, but completely normal if you're not - I can only assume it also applies for madness).

The lack of difference between a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna occurs in full duplex operation. In that instance the same antenna in the same location and at the same time transmits and receives something which isn't its own signal. Because an antenna is indistinguishable from itself in this situation, despite the fact it is doing 2 different things at once, it can't be said it is different from itself. Most cellphones are full duplex (transmit and receive at the same time), AFAIK it is only 2G GSM and so-called "TDMA" that operate in a TDMA mode (nodes do alternate transmit and receive separated in time). Single-antenna radar is an example of where the transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna are different, even though they are the same; at one point in time it transmits, later on it receives. There is no physical change needed for this difference to manifest - the antenna is otherwise the same, and shares the same resonance frequency and stuff (in this sense by same I mean not different). If the same type of antenna is transmitting in one location and receiving in another, then yes the difference is some number of km or other arbitrary distance (also of course another difference exists, being that the antennas are different ones because they are not the same antenna). But the exact same differences exist between 2 such antennas that are both transmitting, or both receiving, or just sitting there doing something like nothing, or collecting rain drops, bird drops, who knows.

But in that latter combination (Tx something=nothing, Rx something=nothing), old cans of Bud Light will perform admirably at any distance (whether modified to be cantennae or not). Similar to if I wanted to take part in a speed typing competition but chose to abstain as the winning strategum, then I could cut the lids off, cram my hands in there (carefully), and achieve the same wpm of 0 (or perhaps 1, depending on the size of the backspace key, and whether and where I emptied them first) as trying to do my clattery-mashey-shortey best. But I see your point, in that you are talking about Tx and Rx being involved in the same communication, and thus part of an interdependent system where we are trying to tease apart effects which can occur on transmission and reception and even some sort of intermediate field / X-ton tennis fixture / aetheirc medium.

On the other hand (either, as both have cans), whenever I made the same kind of silly pedantic arguments thinking I was being clever, it never worked out well because it left me looking like a nut. Refer to this post if you’re not already reading it now for a good example.

Still, it's possibly the most sense you have made so far, because it shows you are thinking from first principles and a crystal of logic is forming, even if it redissolves.

Of your rain options, the correct ones by conventional theory and knowledge are "IS IS" and "AINT AINT". I'd say in equal proportion, because evidence can't determine what counts as subjectively significant affect (but some people turn to counting Google hits for this data). Conventional theory and measurement does not know of IS/AINT and AINT/IS. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That rules out 2 of 4 differences, leaving 2 differences which are the same, in turn leaving 1 difference, which can't be different from itself, so there are really 0 differences. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. Logic 101 (I reversed the order of the digits to make it more mysterious and "mine").

I learnt what gibbers are though.

No, I didn't say "that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %", I was talking about the (happy) frequency you wished I had referred to. In that wetantennas article, something like the peak in Q changes from (for DL6WU 12 vs DL6WU 12 (wet)) 153MHz to 150.5MHz which is a 1.6% drop in frequency. So I was "referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers". I thought by using the word "detune" after you had spoken of "frequency", might lend you to understand something along the lines of tuning a radio across the dial, rather than putting a Tesla on a dyno to eke out the last bit of power from the aftermarket turbo you had fitted. I forgot about RCB (rampant confirmation bias).

Um bored now. That would be a mic drop but I already lost it about the same time I spewed down my own shirt and fell into the front row of the crowd. It's been a terrible show.

The point i was trying to make re IS/AINT & AINT/IS  is that a wet antenna can cause problems, but that these problems are worse if the transmitting antenna is wet & the receiving antenna is dry (IS/AINT) & if the transmitting antenna is dry & the receiving antenna is wet (AINT/IS).

It was a peripheral side issue, of no great moment re my electons, nor re the Veritasium gedanken. I only brought it up koz someone said that wetness or insulation acted on both the transmitting antenna & the receiving antenna, & i showed that there were four combinations not two, & that two of these were not a "both" scenario.

In fact this whole foray into the antenna world has been of no great moment re my electons etc.  We have not explored the notion that Veritasium's bulb will have a weak spike of current soon after 1/c seconds (ie due to a radio crosstalk signal from the leading edge of the current going through his switch), which is no great loss, the weak spike has no hope of being seen in AlphaPhoenix's X, ie compared to his nice early signal of 0.2 V.

[TimFox]

Your source does not state that Hafele & Keating "disproved time dilation"--it alleges that the rig had larger experimental errors than stated in their paper.
Here is a much later discussion that includes the corrections from time dilation that are needed in GPS, with tighter errors than back in 1971.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01%3A_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.02%3A__Experimental_Tests_of_the_Nature_of_Time
It also discusses the other examples, such as muon lifetime, that might not be as easy to understand.
Time dilation is not "silly".

[aetherist]

Your source does not state that Hafele & Keating "disproved time dilation"--it alleges that the rig had larger experimental errors than stated in their paper.
Here is a much later discussion that includes the corrections from time dilation that are needed in GPS, with tighter errors than back in 1971.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01%3A_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.02%3A__Experimental_Tests_of_the_Nature_of_Time
It also discusses the other examples, such as muon lifetime, that might not be as easy to understand.
Time dilation is not "silly".

Kelly says that all in all the clocks were not good enough to show anything definite. He did point out that the tests showed zero time dilation, & i reckon that zero means "disproof".
In addition Kelly points out that rather than being negative, the results suggested the reverse for time dilation,  ie H&K proved time contraction (my words).

The rate changes are random and could have occurred in either a + or - direction. Clock 120 altered in drift-rate by +4.39ns/h on the Eastward test and by -4.31ns/h on the Westward test; we should not say that this clock had an average drift-rate change of 0.04ns/h; indeed this was the clock with the most erratic performance. This is like saying that a watch, which gained ten hours in the first week and lost ten in the second, is a perfect timekeeper! From Figure 1, Clock 447 can be interpreted as having a small alteration in drift from 100 hours into the test period to the end of the Westward test. Had this clock, with the most steady performance, been chosen,the overall result would have been zero......

..... The trend shown in Figure 2 was derived from the average of the four clocks. The results from the individual clocks was not disclosed; they are published here for the first time in Columns 2 and 5 of Table 3. Taking the mathematical average of Columns 2 or 5 is meaningless; on the Eastward trip, clock 408 gained 166ns, while the theory forecast a loss of 40ns; on the Westward trip clock 361 lost 44ns, while the theory forecast a gain of 275ns! ......

I will have a read of that link & get back.

[SiliconWizard]

So do photons have a mass anyway?

[TimFox]

Here is a summary of further work on the time dilation experiment:  from https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-g-kelly-and-his-criticism-of-relativity.371910/

"No. Certain internet kooks, including someone named A.G. Kelly, have produced reanalyses of the Hafele-Keating data[Hafele 1972] in an attempt to disprove relativity. This is just silly, because the experiment was reproduced four years later to much better precision,[Reisse 1976,Williams 1976] and again in a 25th-anniversary reenactment. The GPS system depends on general relativity, so any time you use a GPS receiver, you're reproducing relativistic time dilations of the type seen by Hafele and Keating.[Ashby 2003]

Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:predicted relativistic time gains," Science 177 (1972) 166.

Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:observed relativistic time gains". Science 177 (1972) 168.

R.A. Reisse, "The Effects of Gravitational Potential on Atomic Clocks as Observed With a Laser Pulse Time Transfer System," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).

R.E. Williams, "A Direct Measurement of the Relativistic Effects of Gravitational Potential on the Rates of Atomic Clocks Flown in an Aircraft," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).

C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, Plenum Press, New York, 1983, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pp. 363–427. This is available online and gives a summary of Reisse and Williams' dissertations.

Ashby, "Relativity in the Global Positioning System," http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1  "

As is typical with scientific progress, an initial interesting experimental result is retried in later years with better equipment to see if it stands up.

[aetherist]

Here is a summary of further work on the time dilation experiment:  from https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-g-kelly-and-his-criticism-of-relativity.371910/

"No. Certain internet kooks, including someone named A.G. Kelly, have produced reanalyses of the Hafele-Keating data[Hafele 1972] in an attempt to disprove relativity. This is just silly, because the experiment was reproduced four years later to much better precision,[Reisse 1976,Williams 1976] and again in a 25th-anniversary reenactment. The GPS system depends on general relativity, so any time you use a GPS receiver, you're reproducing relativistic time dilations of the type seen by Hafele and Keating.[Ashby 2003]

Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:predicted relativistic time gains," Science 177 (1972) 166.

Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:observed relativistic time gains". Science 177 (1972) 168.

R.A. Reisse, "The Effects of Gravitational Potential on Atomic Clocks as Observed With a Laser Pulse Time Transfer System," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).

R.E. Williams, "A Direct Measurement of the Relativistic Effects of Gravitational Potential on the Rates of Atomic Clocks Flown in an Aircraft," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).

C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, Plenum Press, New York, 1983, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pp. 363–427. This is available online and gives a summary of Reisse and Williams' dissertations.

Ashby, "Relativity in the Global Positioning System," http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1  "

As is typical with scientific progress, an initial interesting experimental result is retried in later years with better equipment to see if it stands up.

Thanx for thems links. I will have a read & get back, but will take time.
I might be familiar with all of thems, i used to read all of that stuff.
Ashby i remember invokes some peculiar kind of Sagnac Effect.
GPS disproves time dilation. However there are certain aspects of GTR that are supported by atomic clocks at altitude in the lab & on nearby hills. I have a theory re that (naturally).

[TimFox]

The final reference in that post gives a detailed mathematical description of the operation of GPS, using relativity.
You may enjoy the equations.  Eq. 19 gives a calculation for a 7 parts in 10¹⁰ correction due to motion, which is about 10⁴x higher than the uncertainty in modern cesium clocks.

Further down in the paper, we have this interesting historical note:

"There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."

And don't forget the muons!  For example, see  https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02531926/document

[aetherist]

So do photons have a mass anyway?

Yes photons have mass. Everything has mass (except gravity), koz everything is made of photons, photons are the fundamental building block of the universe.
It’s a bit off topic re the Veritasium gedanken, but not really, koz everything affects everything. But here goes.
Photons are an excitation (vibration)(spin) & annihilation of aether. This annihilation propagates through the aether at the speed of light (of course).
So in that sense a photon is a hole, that moves continuously.
Aether flows in to replace the lost aether.
The acceleration of the aether inflow is what gives us the gravitational force. Accelerating aether accelerates particles & bodies etc that are in the aether.
The converse gives us inertia, ie inertial mass. Accelerating particles are resisted by the aether.
EM radiation too has mass. EM radiation is not made of photons, but is radiated by photons, it is a part of photons.

A free photon (eg light) is trapped in one dimension, it propagates at c in a straight line.
A semi-confined photon (eg an electon) is trapped in two dimensions, it propagates at c on a surface.
A confined photon (eg an electron) is trapped in three dimensions, it loops at c in a small volume.

Electrons & other elementary particles give us atoms etc.
But i dont believe that an electron is a hard little nut that orbits a nucleus. In fact i doubt that a nucleus exists. I prefer that an atom is a molecule of sorts (made up of alpha particles for the heavier elements).

[TimFox]

That is a large collection of unproven statements, contrary to real evidence.
Photons have zero mass.  Therefore, they must travel at the speed of light, while massive particles must travel at lower speeds.
Originally, neutrinos were thought to have zero mass, but more recent evidence shows that their mass is very small (0.1 eV, vs. 511,000 eV for the electron).
There was a scare in 2011 (Opera experiment), where neutrino velocity larger than c was reported, but in 2012 the original experimenters found hardware problems that affected the time calibration of the experiment, and new data showed velocity < c.  The detailed history of this is very interesting;  see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
The extremely small size of the nucleus compared with the overall extent of the atom was demonstrated by Rutherford (who called it "the fly in the cathedral") in 1911, scattering alpha particles by a gold foil.
Nuclear dimensions are measured in fm, while atomic dimensions are measured in fractions of a nm.  (Ratios of 10⁶:1 are large.)
"EM radiation is not made of photons, but is radiated by photons, it is a part of photons." sounds like a religious dogma that could have been propagated by the Council of Chalcedon.
Real data trump feelings of "ickyness".

[SiliconWizard]

This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf

[TimFox]

By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c², 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.

[TimFox]

This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf

That paper starts out with a serious discussion of the difficulty of establishing "zero" photon mass (or anything else), and quotes an impressive experimental upper limit of 10^-22 times that of the electron mass.

[adx]

... I was expecting a 33% reduction in happy frequency not  3%. I would like to find out why not 33%. ...

Murphy. Murphy is why not. If you expected 3% it would be 33%. It is supposed to be a paradox, that is why we test.

[aetherist]

That is a large collection of unproven statements, contrary to real evidence.
Photons have zero mass.  Therefore, they must travel at the speed of light, while massive particles must travel at lower speeds.
Originally, neutrinos were thought to have zero mass, but more recent evidence shows that their mass is very small (0.1 eV, vs. 511,000 eV for the electron).
There was a scare in 2011 (Opera experiment), where neutrino velocity larger than c was reported, but in 2012 the original experimenters found hardware problems that affected the time calibration of the experiment, and new data showed velocity < c.  The detailed history of this is very interesting;  see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
The extremely small size of the nucleus compared with the overall extent of the atom was demonstrated by Rutherford (who called it "the fly in the cathedral") in 1911, scattering alpha particles by a gold foil.
Nuclear dimensions are measured in fm, while atomic dimensions are measured in fractions of a nm.  (Ratios of 10⁶:1 are large.)
"EM radiation is not made of photons, but is radiated by photons, it is a part of photons." sounds like a religious dogma that could have been propagated by the Council of Chalcedon.
Real data trump feelings of "ickyness".

Warning. Everyone around here has to be nice to me or i wont thank u in my Nobel speech.

If a neutrino is 0.1 eV then a photon is 0.05 eV
I say that koz a neutrino is a pair of photons that are sharing the same helical axis but 180 deg out of phase. Being 180 deg out of phase means that the em radiations from each photon cancel each other in the near field. Hence a neutrino is very slippery. But a neutrino is still subject to bending when passing near mass as for an ordinary photon.
A single photon has as we all know a zero nett em field in the far field, but a non-zero em field in the near field.

[TimFox]

I will probably miss your Nobel prize lecture--it's a risk I am willing to take.
By the way, I knew two Nobel laureates, who have since passed away.  They were awarded their prizes after I graduated, so I don't take any credit for it.
Not only were they wise and knowledgeable, they were both "nature's gentlemen" in their relations with others.
The experimental evidence for the photon mass, according to the paper above, is an upper limit < 10^-22 of the electron mass, or < 5 x 10^-17 eV/c².

[aetherist]

This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf

Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.
I think that it is silly that they mention the rest mass of a photon. Photons never rest. They propagate throo the aether at the speed of light (of course).
They mention that if a photon had mass then it could not move at the speed of light. What the.  A photon is light. Of course it moves at the speed of light. It can do no other. If it has mass, & if it has no mass, it must move at the speed of light.

The paradox is that a photon with very little mass can increase its mass by umpteenfold when it becomes a confined photon (eg an electron).
But i have a theory for that (naturally).

[Alex Eisenhut]

I have a theory: you've been out in the Sun too long without a hat.

[aetherist]

I will probably miss your Nobel prize lecture--it's a risk I am willing to take.
By the way, I knew two Nobel laureates, who have since passed away.  They were awarded their prizes after I graduated, so I don't take any credit for it.
Not only were they wise and knowledgeable, they were both "nature's gentlemen" in their relations with others.
The experimental evidence for the photon mass, according to the paper above, is an upper limit < 10^-22 of the electron mass, or < 5 x 10^-17 eV/c².

Yes, miles less than my 0.05 eV.  And there's is an upper bound.
But i have doubts about how they might measure. I will have to have a good read.
We could class a photon as a quasi-particle. Masses of proper particles (eg electrons) would be relatively easy i suppose.
But i am thinking that they have measured the mass of lots of quasi-particles that move at the speed of light. No, i am wrong, if they move at the speed of light then almost by definition the mass must be zero.
They give the neutrino a bit of mass koz they reckon that neutrinos travel at slightly less than the speed of light. But i dont understand that. Neutrinos are free photons, pairs of photons actually. I cant of course say that paired photons travel at the speed of light, perhaps they are a tad slower.

Re the measured speed of neutrinos being a bit faster than the speed of light, if the travel is south to north then the neutrino will have an aether tailwind, which can be up to 500 km/s depending on direction.
And i have a theory that atomic clocks are sensitive to direction (ie as well as elevation). And, i have a theory that atomic clocks tick differently in the southern hemisphere, especially re the effect of elevation.
But here we are getting into very advanced crackpottery 401.
I brought up the atomic clock stuff koz it affects measurement of the true speed, it duznt affect the speed itself. Hence one could be fooled.