Must the photon mass be zero? By L. Bass anv E. Scurépinerr, For.Mem.R.S. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (Received 9 March 1955) ‘The old query concerning longitudinal waves, which already beset the elastic theory of light, hhas in our day revived in the form expressed in the title. Maxwell's field laws are a singular limiting case in that they admit but transversal waves. If this held only in however close an approximation, some fundamental laws of radiation would seem to be affected by a factor 4, on account of the ‘third degree of freedom’. If so, this would render even Maxwell’s theory suspect, for we are loath to accept as an adequate description of nature a limiting case whose predictions differ grossly and discontinuously from those reached by a sufficiently close approach to the limit. We show here in the simple, if fictitious, example of an ideal conductor, that by extending Proca’s field equations in a plausible fashion to the interior of matter the discontinuity is avoided and the correct factors (not $ thereof) are already reached with a rest-mass at, the upper limit, imposed anyhow by other well-known considerations. 1, THe THIRD DEGREE OF FREEDOM Electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum, free of charge and current, are of a highly singular type, a limiting case as it: were. This shows up in various ways. The spur of Maxwell’s stross-momentum-energy tensor is zero. Plane waves have only two possible states of polarization, not three, as would be expected for a vector wave (e.g. an elastic wave; remember the historical dilemma concerning the ‘elastic properties of the ether’). In a plane wave both invariants of the electromagnetic tensor vanish, and this is the reason why it cannot be ‘transformed to rest’; if we try, the field gets weaker and weaker and approaches to zero in the limit. In quan- tum theory the singular behaviour of light has reached the concise formulation: the rest mass of the photon is zero. Considering the fundamental role of electrodynamics in our physical world- picture, the question seems natural and justified whether we are really faced with this limiting case in full rigour, or perhaps only approximately. A finite rest-mass (to keep to the terms of quantum mechanics) would result in group-velocity decreasing for long waves. From the absence of any colour phenomenon in distant eclipsing binaries, de Broglie (1940) estimates that the rest mass could not exceed 10-tg. In this, while the great length of the path is favourable, the visible wavelengths are deplorably short. Going therefore to the other extreme case of a large-scale static field, Schrédinger (1943) adduces evidence from the earth’s permanent magnetic field. Its minute (and possibly spurious) deviations from Gavss’s laws yield about 10~g for the rest mass m, corresponding to an estimated 30000km for the length h/2nme, which is the quantity directly deduced from the said small deviations. With a safety margin, we may regard half of this, thus 15000km, as a lower limit (this means that the quantity in (2-1) below is certainly smaller than 10-*cm~1; the corresponding lower limit for the ‘Compton wavelength’ h/me is about 100000 km). x [1] Vol. 232, A, (11 October 1955)2 L. Bass and E. Schrédinger However, these considerations raise a grave intellectual difficulty in any case, and the present writers are not aware that it has ever been seriously pondered. It is the following. Unless we are actually faced with Maxwell’s limiting caso, i.e. unless the said Compton length is truly infinite, or its reciprocal truly zero, a third state of polarization, namely, a longitudinal wave, is possible for any two Max- wellian transversal waves with the same wave normal. The third wave is propagated with the same velocity; it is perfectly respectable, and remains so, however small a value we adopt for the rest mass. There is no reason to withhold from it its full share of energy and momentum when the waves are quantized. Indeed, as we shall see, the state of polarization is not a Lorentz invariant property, a linearly polarized ‘P-wave (as we shall call it) may be transformed into an L-wave and viee versa, though the transformation is rather ‘extreme’ when the rest mass is small. If these L-waves contributed to the heating and pressure effects of black-body radiation, we should expect the constant of Stefan’s law, the constant in front of Planck’s formula, and the measured radiation pressure to be 3/2 times the values we actually find for them. Our actual findings might thus be construed to indicate that we are faced with the limiting case of rest-mass zero. But this would be a poor and, so we believe, a wrong solution of the dilemma. In a reasonable theory we cannot admit even hypothetically that a certain type of modification of Maxwell’s equations, however small, would produce the above grossly discontinuous changes. Even if we had it ‘from the horso’s mouth’ that in Nature the limiting case is realized, we should still feel the urge to adumbrate a theory which agrees with experience on approaching to the limit, not by a sudden jump at the limit. 2, Tum Two WAVE TYPES ‘The obvious modification of Maxwell’s equations for introducing a finite rest mass is the one due to Proca (for simplicity we omit the arrows over H, H, A): culH+H=0, oulH-B =—pAy div B =—pV, oe : (2-1) owlA =H, divA+¥ =0, gradV+4 =—p. We have put ¢ = 1; is properly speaking 2 over the Compton wavelength, but may be called the rest mass, if we take h = 27. The set (2:1) is redundant for +0. But we do not want it to collapse in this limiting case. We want to think of it as con- sisting of two sets, the division being indicated by the dotted line, the upper set controlling the six-vector (HZ, H), the lower the four-vector (4, V), the two fields being very loosely coupled by the « terms. Apart from the coupling, the former would be striotly Maxwellian, the latter the four-gradient of a scalar D’Alembert potential. Both these descriptions will in general be good approximations, in view of the looseness of the coupling. Therefore, though (y-1A, 1“! ”) represent a possible specimen of four-potential for the Maxwellian field, they are on account of the smallness of : not a very handy one; they would in general contain a tremendouslyMust the photon mass be zero? 3 enhanced four-gradient which serves no useful purpose in a four-potential. The latter, of course, may be changed by gauge transformation at will, while the vector field (A, V) may not, since it is a genuine field quantity just like the tensor. We need not enlarge on the solution theory of (2-1), which is very simple and well known. But we want to have before us a clear picture of the two typical plane-wave solutions. Putting all field components proportional to ele) (y>0), (22) we have vs + pe, (23) which indicates the dispersion, In the following description we use the letters E, A, ete., for the amplitudes. A factor i indicates a displacement in phase of $7. (1) T-wave. E, H,% are mutually orthogonal in the well-known fashion. 4 ||, V = 0. Moreover, E=-i2A, # (2-4) (2) L-wave. B\\k, H = 0, A\|#, Moreover, ailé = ll Bait A, VaClAl. We first make good our statement about mutual transformability. It rests on the fact that according to (2-3) the four-vector (&, v) is time-like. Hence its space part F can be transformed to zero, so that » = ju. If this is done in (2-4), we get H = 0; if it is done in (2-5), we get V = 0. It will be seen that in both cases we obtain the samo very simple type of field, only H and A surviving, remaining parallel, be- coming (apart from the phase shift) equal, constant in space, oscillating with the extremely long period 2z/ (at least one-third of a second, according to our estimates). From this ‘rest-field’, then, either the 7'-wave (2-4) or the L-wave (25) can be obtained by simple Lorentz transformations orthogonal to or parallel to the field vector, respectively. This proves the mutual transformability for infinite plane waves. It ought, however, to be observed that a limited wave packet of either kind would have to have a tremendous width across if we wish it to yield a reasonable wave packet of the other kind, i.e. one that comprises at least several wavelengths and not just a fraction of one. This is due to the tremendous flattening by Lorentz contraction. Still, it is true that an arbitrary change of frame does not rigorously preserve the character of a pure 7’- or L-wave, but in general it generates a slight admixture of the other type, unless the relative velocity of the two frames is parallel to the wave normal. To appreciate the contrasting features of the two types (2-4) and (2-5), we must observe that the stress-energy-momentum tensor splits cleanly into two parts depending on the tensor and on the vector, respectively. If we deduce from (2-1) the conservation laws in the way familiar from Maxwell’s theory, we find, for example for the energy density, the exact value Eats At Vy), (26) ra4 L. Bass and E. Schrédinger and for the density of linear momentum. 1 (Bx H+VA). (27) ‘The numerical factors are, of course, taken over from Maxwell. Considering that for our purposes //? is always a very small fraction, it will be seen, that the T-wave resembles very closely an ordinary Maxwellian wave; also energetically, since in (2-6) the A contribution is extremely small, in (27) nil, and the ratio of the two field strengths, from (2-4) and (2:3), deviates equally little from unity. The T-wave is very nearly a pure (EZ, H)-wave. On the other hand, the L-wave (2-5) is very nearly a pure (4, )-wave, since the trifling longitudinal electric field contributes very little to (2-6) and nil to (2-7). How are we now to make it plausible that the nearly pure vector waves even if they were present with comparable intensity in the radiation, would not contribute to its observable effects? 3, THE BEHAVIOUR or L-waves We have emphasized that in this theory the vector (4, V) has to be looked upon as a genuine field. How does it interact with matter? Have we, in our thought-ex- periments, to allow it to be reflected at the ‘perfectly conducting’ walls of the well- known enclosure? Will it be absorbed and produce heat at the blackened surface of a bolometer or thermopile, or reflected at a surface set up to measure radiation pressure? We do not make bold and, indeed, it would be absurd, to invent a fully fledged theory of the interaction between matter and our mysterious vector-field. It will suffice to explain that the customary assumptions about ‘ideally conducting’ material can easily and plausibly be supplemented so as to remove the bugbear of the ‘third degree of freedom’ from all our theoretical manipulations of the ‘hohl- raum’. This will at any rate allay the intellectual incongruity pointed out in $1. Ina perfect conductor there is to be no electric field and therefore no alternating magnetic field, on account of the first oquation (2-1). It is true that, in the first Maxwellian set, H must, inside matter, be replaced by the displacement, usually called B. But then it is anyhow the tensor (H, B) that has to be a four-curl. This suggests letting our vector field be controlled by curl A = 0, wath may grad V+4 =0, oD inside the perfect conductor. In other words, the tensor field vanishes and thus the vector field alone remains, independent and free of coupling. If this seems daring to anyone who is in the habit of calling our vector the four-potential, he must be reminded that as such it would be inefficient since it is a four-gradient. This leaves in the conductor nothing but L-waves of the type (25), simplified by £ = 0,» = |k|, phase velocity 1. It isremarkable that they just suffice to satisfy rigorously the most restrictive boundary conditions for any admissible type of wave, incident on a plane boundary from either side; in addition to the customaryMust the photon mass be zero? 5 demand that on the vacuum side Z be orthogonal and H be parallel to the boundary, we can obtain continuity of both A and V. We shall not trouble the reader with a detailed account of the computations, which follow exactly the classical pattern of deriving Fresnel’s reflexion formulae. The overall results are these. A T-wave, incident from the vacuum, is nearly per- feotly reflected, but (a) it does lose a small amount of energy to a very weak trans- mitted L-wave, and (6) a further very small amount is lost qua T'-energy because the reflected wave is not purely T-type, it has an admixture of L-type. An L-wave incident from either side is almost perfectly transmitted, the reflected wave being always very weak; in both cases the wave that proceeds into the vacuum has a very slight T-admixture. AU energy transfers (due to ‘very weak’ waves or admixtures) are exceedingly small, namely quadratic in :/v. This summary description holds in general. There are exceptions; for example, a T-wave whose electric vector is orthogonal to the plane of incidence is totally reflected as a pure T-wave. Also the cases of extremely grazing incidence would need special attention, but are, of course, unimportant in our considerations. 4, CoNCLUSIONS The conclusion is, that our perfectly reflecting walls do not constitute for the vector field an efficient confinement, calculated to let it approach to a temperature equilibrium, unless there were an enormous output of L-waves somewhere inside the enclosure, and not even then. However, this ‘bottling up’ of black-body radia- tion is a theoretician’s paradise anyhow. ‘The more realistic and even theoretically preferable demand is: keep the walls at constant temperature and have them sufficiently thick, s0 that nothing can escape. Though ‘sufficiently’ might mean for the L-waves quite a lot thicker, we are loath to believe that an increase of thickness would really modify well-known fundamental laws. Indeed this cannot be. For the body of the sun may be trusted to be asufficiently thick wall, impregnable to L-waves, thus capable, by Kirchhoff’s law, of yielding them abundantly. Before we try to answer this dilemma (a daring enterprise) we beg to state that we have no predilection and hold no brief for a non-vanishing rest-mass of the photon. Maxwell’s set may be exact as far as it goes, then the L-waves are an illusion. But if they are not, one is, so we believe, bound to admit that their inter- action with matter is very weak, so weak indeed that they have no heating or mechanical effect on small pieces of metal or other material, interposed in their way and calculated either to absorb or to reflect ordinary electromagnetic radiation. This assumption is perhaps not so staggering if we consider the minuteness of the electric field conveyed by the L-waves, according to (2:5). Someone might even be satisfied to brush them aside and give them no further thought merely on the strength of this mainuteness. Let him regard our enterprise as no more thai an illustration of how that comes about, albeit only in the simplified fictitious example of the ideal conductor. There is still one point we should like to settle with regard to heat radiation enclosed in a perfectly reflecting cavity. Every constituent J'-wave loses at each reflexion a minute fraction, of the order of (1/v)*, of its intensity. This means a decay6 L. Bass and E. Schrédinger of the total 7-energy. The loss may be compensated by gains from L-energy. But since the latter is beyond our control, we should like to be satisfied that the decay would be reasonably slow, even when not compensated at all. For this computation we use ordinary o.g.s. units. Let © be the volume of the cavity. The mean path between subsequent reflexions is of order 3, hence the mean time interval is Qle~1, and the average number of reflexions per second is Q-4. The fractional loss per second is therefore of the order of Q-4e(y/v)*. It will become appreciable only after a time comparable with t= DkeH(y/)?s00. The critical fraction (the one that is squared) is the ratio of the Compton wavelength (for which we found at least 10!°cm) and the wavelength, for which we take 10cm (near infra-red). The square of the ratio is 10°, and therefore, roughly, t> Qix 3x 10! sec. Since a year has only 3:2 x 10’ sec, we see that for any reasonably sized cavity the decay would be imperceptible for many millions of years. ‘REFERENCES de Broglie, L. 1940 Le Mecanique Ondulatoire du Photon, 1. Paris: Hermann et Cie. Schrodinger, E. 1943 Proc. R. Irish. Acad. A, 49, 135. Regenerative stochastic processes By W. L, Ssurat Department of Human Beology, University of Cambridge (Communicated by R. Stoneley, F.R.S.—Received 15 July 1954— Revised 25 March 1955) A wide class of stochastic processes, called regenerative, is defined, and it is shown that ‘under general conditions the instantaneous probability distribution of such a process tends, with time to a unique limiting distribution, whatever the initial conditions. ‘The general results are then applied to ‘8.M.-processes’, a generalization of Markov chains, and it is shown, that the limiting distribution of the process may always be obtained by assuming negative- exponential distributions for the ‘waits’ in the different ‘states’. Lastly, the behaviour of integrals of regenerative processes is considered and, amongst other results, an ergodic and ‘2 multi-dimensional central limit theorem are proved. 1. Intropuction 1-1. Let X be an abstract space of elements x and let x; be a stochastic process taking values on ¥ as ¢ runs through the real non-negative numbers. Let A be some x-set. A question of general interest in the theory of probability is that concerning the existence of tim P(xjeA|2}, (vay toe + Now at Department of Statistics, University of North Carolina, U.S.A.