Cited by 386Quantum and Classical ElectrodynamicsNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesRelativity and Gravitational Theory

Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial Limits on The Photon Mass

GOLDHABER, ALFRED S., NIETO, MICHAEL MARTIN·1971·Reviews of Modern Physics

Abstract

We give a review of methods used to set a limit on the mass $\ensuremath{\mu}$ of the photon. Direct tests for frequency dependence of the speed of light are discussed, along with more sensitive techniques which test Coulomb's Law and its analog in magnetostatics. The link between dynamic and static implications of finite $\ensuremath{\mu}$ is deduced from a set of postulates that make Proca's equations the unique generalization of Maxwell's. We note one hallowed postulate, that of energy conservation, which may be tested severely using pulsar signals. We present the merits of the old methods and of possible new experiments, and discuss other physical implications of finite $\ensuremath{\mu}$. A simple theorem is proved: For an experiment confined in dimensions D, effects of finite $\ensuremath{\mu}$ are of order ${(\ensuremath{\mu}\mathrm{D})}^{2}$---there is no "resonance" as the oscillation frequency $\ensuremath{\omega}$ approaches $\ensuremath{\mu}$ ($\ensuremath{\hbar}=c=1$). The best results from past experiments are (a) terrestrial measurements of $c$ at different frequencies $\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\le}2\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}43}\mathrm{g}\ensuremath{\equiv}7\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}6}{\mathrm{cm}}^{\ensuremath{-}1}\ensuremath{\equiv}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}10} \mathrm{eV}$ (b) measurements of radio dispersion in pulsar signals (whistler effect) $\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\le}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}44}\mathrm{g}\ensuremath{\equiv}3\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}7}{\mathrm{cm}}^{\ensuremath{-}1}\ensuremath{\equiv}6\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}12} \mathrm{eV}$ (c) laboratory tests of Coulomb's law $\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\le}2\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}47}\mathrm{g}\ensuremath{\equiv}6\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}10}{\mathrm{cm}}^{\ensuremath{-}1}\ensuremath{\equiv}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}14} \mathrm{eV}$ (d) limits on a constant "external" magnetic field at the earth's surface $\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\le}4\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}48}\mathrm{g}\ensuremath{\equiv}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}10}{\mathrm{cm}}^{\ensuremath{-}1}\ensuremath{\equiv}3\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}15} \mathrm{eV}.$ Observations of the Galactic magnetic field could improve the limit dramatically.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/revmodphys.43.277

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Because of the very weak interaction of longitudinal photons with matter, approaching a statistical equilibrium state of longitudinal photons in a cavity is extremely slow, with a time-scale comparable to the age of the universe.

    “Because of the very weak interaction of longitudinal photons with matter, approaching to a statistical equilibrium state of longitudinal photons in a cavity is extremely slow, with a time-scale comparable to the age of the universe [59-61].”

    From Electrodynamics on cosmological scales (2016) · cites this paper as [60]

  • According to [60], the practical impossibility for longitudinal photons to get equally partitioned with transverse photons in energy is due to the very large skin depth of longitudinal photons compared to that of transverse photons (with a ratio ≥ ω^2/m_A^2).

    “According to [60], the practical impossibility for longitudinal photons to get equally partitioned with transverse photons in energy is due to the very large skin depth of longitudinal photons compared to that of transverse photons (with a ratio ≥ ω 2 /m 2 A ) [62, 63].”

    From Electrodynamics on cosmological scales (2016) · cites this paper as [60]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
GOLDHABER, A. S., & NIETO, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
Reviews of Modern Physics
Published
1971-07-01
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
277-296
ISSN
0034-6861 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981244962
Cited by
386
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 7
FWCI
12.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Reviews of Modern Physics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum and Classical Electrodynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Relativity and Gravitational Theory
Keywords
photon mass, modified gravity, magnetostatics, Proca equation, energy conservation (physics), radio wave propagation, extra dimensions, Lorentz violation, Lorentz invariance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review