An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Preferences

Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle

An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

Page 16 of 17 [246 Posts]

View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 14, 15, 16, 17 Next

Author

Message

PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

Golden Boar wrote:

Quote:

Randy Poe wrote:
The Sorcerer wrote:
Whilst eavesdropping on one side of a conversation, I note

If Androcles is telling the truth, I'm in his killfile so he won't
see this, but...

"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148519258.098299.258160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
The entire post reduces to "Is the f in E = h.f a me(a)surable frequency?"
Answer: Electronics are not fast enough for visible light, but
they can manage radio frequencies well enough.

Androcles is out of date. There do indeed exist means of
directly measuring visible light frequencies. Google for
"optical frequency comb" and you'll get plenty of links.

I think you need to explain this to PD, as he seems to be quite
confused by the equation E=h.f, and doesn't know whether the frequency
is measurable or not.

I don't know how you'd come to that conclusion. I asked you the
question, and you didn't answer it, deferring back to me.

Quote:

This one for instance:
http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~haensch/comb/research/combs.html

Here's another good article:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v5/st24

Haench received a 2005 Nobel Prize for this work. According
to Haench's web page (first link) frequency counting has been
around for decades. The advance was to greatly simplify the
process and the equipment required.

- Randy

Randy Poe
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

PD wrote:

Quote:

Golden Boar wrote:
By f, I mean frequency, so stop playing word games. For a massice
particle,
f = gamma.fC (Lorentz factor * Compton frequency)

Yes, I know it's a frequency, GB. You mean a *measurable frequency*
such as what could be measured in a diffraction experiment or a
"hidden" frequency?

You have the equations, so prove or disprove.

It's not a question of equations. You have the misapprehension that
physics is all about algebraic manipulation and proving things with
formulas. You don't prove anything with formulas. You do calculations
with the formulas and compare them to experiment. The question I'm
asking you is whether the "f", the frequency, that you say everything
is based on, is a MEASURABLE frequency -- something that can be
confronted by experiment. If you tell me yes, then I will be happy to
confront it with known experimental results. This will tell you whether
your formulas are right or not -- not whether your algebra in getting
from one line to another was done correctly.

Is the f in E = h.f a mesurable frequency? Is the Compton frequency a
measurable frequency? Just prove or disprove, and stop asking silly
questions.

Yes, of course it's a measurable frequency.

I based my "it's not a measurable frequency" comment on
this page, which turned up on a search for "Compton frequency"

http://www.calphysics.org/mass.html

The sidebar seems to be saying that there isn't any
directly-observable wiggle associated with the Compton
frequency. deBroglie suggested it was associated with
some internal oscillation. The Compton wavelength is
(according to the side bar) associated with a beat
frequency due to Doppler shift when observing moving
electrons. It isn't a direct observation of the Compton
frequency.

At least that's how I read it.

- Randy

PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

Randy Poe wrote:

Quote:

PD wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
By f, I mean frequency, so stop playing word games. For a massice
particle,
f = gamma.fC (Lorentz factor * Compton frequency)

Yes, I know it's a frequency, GB. You mean a *measurable frequency*
such as what could be measured in a diffraction experiment or a
"hidden" frequency?

You have the equations, so prove or disprove.

It's not a question of equations. You have the misapprehension that
physics is all about algebraic manipulation and proving things with
formulas. You don't prove anything with formulas. You do calculations
with the formulas and compare them to experiment. The question I'm
asking you is whether the "f", the frequency, that you say everything
is based on, is a MEASURABLE frequency -- something that can be
confronted by experiment. If you tell me yes, then I will be happy to
confront it with known experimental results. This will tell you whether
your formulas are right or not -- not whether your algebra in getting
from one line to another was done correctly.

Is the f in E = h.f a mesurable frequency? Is the Compton frequency a
measurable frequency? Just prove or disprove, and stop asking silly
questions.

Yes, of course it's a measurable frequency.

I based my "it's not a measurable frequency" comment on
this page, which turned up on a search for "Compton frequency"

I should have been more precise in my answer. The f in E=hf is
certainly measurable.

Quote:

http://www.calphysics.org/mass.html

The sidebar seems to be saying that there isn't any
directly-observable wiggle associated with the Compton
frequency. deBroglie suggested it was associated with
some internal oscillation. The Compton wavelength is
(according to the side bar) associated with a beat
frequency due to Doppler shift when observing moving
electrons. It isn't a direct observation of the Compton
frequency.

At least that's how I read it.

- Randy

Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

Y.Porat wrote:

Quote:

1 it wahnt help you !!
bt wi suggest you to refrain from words like
'to piss out of you ' becasue just believe me i can be
moch mor einsultive fo ryou

I did not say people want to 'piss out of you', I said 'take the piss
out of you'.
It means they make fun of you.

Quote:

just a fact example:
there is not a single person here who agree with your
assertion of mo mass but frequancy or wahever is your claime
non!1
otha more than one agree with me that the photon has mass
and all my above profe or at leat most of it as Vergon
that calimes somethng lkie 'reletivistic mass'
but deon not know that th ePF does not apply to the photon

But Vergon is just as ignorant as you are.

Quote:

2 i suggest for you to be less emotional (the above 'piss out of you
is aprove that isnot a sciemtific way of doscussion)

3 now aboutyou refusal to see the

KG meter^2/Sec

as a multiplication serie of dimwesion
ltes test that princlpal claime by a simpleexample ::

supose we have a mass of 2 Kg that is accelerated by a= 3 meter/Sec^2

we have F (Neutons) = 2 Kg times 3 meter/sec^2

are we alowed to write :

3 meter= 6 Newtons sec^2 / 2 Kg = 3 Newton sec^2/Kg ??

But do you think it is right to say that

10 Newtons = 10 * 1 kg * 1 m * 1 s * 1 s

Quote:

or even if you like (or not)
1 meter = 6 Newton sec^2 /3 x2 Kg = Newton sec^2/Kg !!

in more simpl ewords:

all that equation behaves like a multiplication series of elements
in which any order of multiplication of it s components
is valid
*provided you do it **algebraically** correct !!

Which you did not do for your proof of h.

Quote:

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------

Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

PD wrote:

Quote:

You have the equations, you can produce the numbers yourself.

Quote:

Assume an electron is accelerated through a potential difference in a
gap of 400V and scattered off a crystal. Since this is a
nonrelativistic energy for an electron, you'll be able to calculate the
momentum p for the electron using the following relationship:
p^2/2m = -eV
where m is the mass of the electron in kg, and e is the charge of the
electron in coulombs. Your answer will be in kg*m/s. You can verify for
yourself that gamma for this electron is not very different than 1.

Use this to calculate the frequency of this electron according to your
model.

I will leave that to you.

Quote:

Progress, at last.

Quote:

1a) E = m.c^2 is a pointless manipulation of E = f.h / c^0
2) Gravity acts on frequency
G_f = 2 * pi * l_P^2 * h / c = (2 * pi * l_P)^2 * hbar / c
and
F_g = G_f * f_1 * f_2 / r^2
3) You cant have energy without frequency

A diatomic gas of volume 22.1 L at STP has a certain amount of thermal
energy. What frequency do you associate with that energy, and how would
it be measured?

You have the equations, so prove or disprove.

I don't see any frequency in a diatomic gas to measure. You can get a
number out of those formulas. The question is whether it MEANS
anything. If it's a frequency, what is it a frequency OF, and how do
you propose to measure it?

Look deeper.

Sorry, that doesn't help. You're the one with the theory that frequency
is fundamental. You're going to have to show me.

A gas consists of protons, neutrons and electrons, each of which has a
specific Compton frequency.

Quote:

4) You cant have momentum without energy
5) You can't have mass without momentum

You'll notice momentum is frame-dependent. It is entirely possible to
choose a frame where the momentum of any massive object is zero, don't
you agree? Or do you think somehow that is a "wrong" result if you do
that?

The relative momentum between two objects which have the same momentum
is zero.
This does not mean that the objects have no momentum.
Take for example the cup on a table.
It is easy to show that the cup has momentum by measuring the momentum
relative to the sun, for example.

But, that's just changing the reference frame. So you say that
measuring the momentum in the table frame gives the "wrong" momentum,
and measuring in the sun's frame gives the "right" momentum"? How do
you know?

Neither give the true momentum, but the latter shows that it does
indeed have momentum.

Really? You just chose it because it was nonzero? How do you know the
zero value isn't the real momentum and the nonzero one is the one that
is just an artifact of the frame of reference?

It is obvious that a cup resting on a table, which is resting on a
spinning planet, which is orbiting a star, which is rotating around a
galactic center, which is moving away from or towards other galactic
centers, has momentum.

*Relative* momentum. Nothing says this momentum is absolute.

What you are saying is that you can consider the cup as to be
stationary and it will have no momentum. Even though we know that the
cup is not stationary.

Quote:

What is the reference frame in which the "true" momentum is measured?

I dont know.

Ah, so you can't be sure there is such a thing, then, can you?

Is there a single reference frame where the "true" momentum should be
measured?

Possibly, if you could measure the momentum relative to the big bang,
or something like that.

The big bang doesn't have a center point, a point that stays stationary
while the rest of the universe flies away from it. You didn't know
that?

Yeah, yeah, heard it before, and the universe doesn't have a centre. I
didn't buy it then, I don't buy it now, and I never will. Don't bother
trying to explain it to me.

OK. Of course, that may pose a problem for your model....

6) You cant have a flow of charge without charge

If you provide proof that any of these are wrong, you will find that I
accept that proof.

Look, this isn't question time you know, you have the data, either
prove or disprove.

I have formulas from you. Formulas and algebra don't mean a thing, GB.
Whether the numbers you calculate have any bearing whatsoever on
something you can *measure* is what means something in physics.

I'm asking you if any of these things that you shovel around with
formulas have any physical meaning -- "true" momentum and "frequency"
of a diatomic gas -- and how those can be confronted by comparison with
experiment. If they can't, then as a physical theory, it's garbage --
simple as that. I'm surprised you don't know that.

PD

By that you mean Planck's constant(h), frequency (f), and speed of
light(c).

You've mentioned a specific frequency for an electron = gamma*f_c.
This should match experiment. Let's find out. See above.

Still too lazy to do your own work.

Quote:

Stop asking stupid questions, which you already know the answers to,
and get on with the disproving.

You have all the data you need.

I'm not answering any more questions about the equations.
You have the equations, do the calculations yourself.

Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

Randy Poe wrote:

Quote:

That's funny because to me, that page seem to be confiming that Compton
frequency is a fundamental property of particles which give rise to the
energy, momentum and mass.

"de Broglie made a second, less well known conjecture. If you combine
the E=mc2 and the E=hf equations (where f is frequency), you arrive at
the Compton frequency. de Broglie's conjecture was that the Compton
frequency reflected, in the case of the electron (quarks were not yet
discovered), some kind of fundamental intrinsic oscillation or
circulation of charge associated with the electron. However it is now
known that this presumed oscillation can also be interpreted instead as
being externally driven by the zero-point fluctuations of the quantum
vacuum (see chap. 12 of the monograph "The Quantum Dice" by de la Pena
and Cetto)."

And it also shows that the idea of the Compton frequency being
fundamental, is one of de Broglies ideas, not mine.

Thanks, I'm sure PD will love it.

Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

PD wrote:

Quote:

Randy Poe wrote:
PD wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
By f, I mean frequency, so stop playing word games. For a massice
particle,
f = gamma.fC (Lorentz factor * Compton frequency)

Yes, I know it's a frequency, GB. You mean a *measurable frequency*
such as what could be measured in a diffraction experiment or a
"hidden" frequency?

You have the equations, so prove or disprove.

It's not a question of equations. You have the misapprehension that
physics is all about algebraic manipulation and proving things with
formulas. You don't prove anything with formulas. You do calculations
with the formulas and compare them to experiment. The question I'm
asking you is whether the "f", the frequency, that you say everything
is based on, is a MEASURABLE frequency -- something that can be
confronted by experiment. If you tell me yes, then I will be happy to
confront it with known experimental results. This will tell you whether
your formulas are right or not -- not whether your algebra in getting
from one line to another was done correctly.

Is the f in E = h.f a mesurable frequency? Is the Compton frequency a
measurable frequency? Just prove or disprove, and stop asking silly
questions.

Yes, of course it's a measurable frequency.

I based my "it's not a measurable frequency" comment on
this page, which turned up on a search for "Compton frequency"

I should have been more precise in my answer. The f in E=hf is
certainly measurable.

You should take a look at the link that Randy Poe provided. It shows
that the idea that the Compton frequency is fundamental came from de
Broglie.

Quote:

PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

Golden Boar wrote:

Quote:

PD wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
By f, I mean frequency, so stop playing word games. For a massice
particle,
f = gamma.fC (Lorentz factor * Compton frequency)

Yes, I know it's a frequency, GB. You mean a *measurable frequency*
such as what could be measured in a diffraction experiment or a
"hidden" frequency?

You have the equations, so prove or disprove.

It's not a question of equations. You have the misapprehension that
physics is all about algebraic manipulation and proving things with
formulas. You don't prove anything with formulas. You do calculations
with the formulas and compare them to experiment. The question I'm
asking you is whether the "f", the frequency, that you say everything
is based on, is a MEASURABLE frequency -- something that can be
confronted by experiment. If you tell me yes, then I will be happy to
confront it with known experimental results. This will tell you whether
your formulas are right or not -- not whether your algebra in getting
from one line to another was done correctly.

Is the f in E = h.f a mesurable frequency? Is the Compton frequency a
measurable frequency? Just prove or disprove, and stop asking silly
questions.

Yes, of course it's a measurable frequency.

And since you seem to be inviting me to show you some numbers, we'll do
that.
I suggest you look up the Davisson-Germer experiment
C.J. Davisson et al., Franklin Institute Journal, 205, 597 (1928)

First I'd like you to produce some predictions from your theory, and
then I'll quote some numbers from the paper.

You have the equations, you can produce the numbers yourself.

It's your model, GB. You don't feel obligated to do a calculation to
see if it makes sense?

Quote:

I'm surprised you aren't embarassed to say this. You're reasonably
competent with algebra, though as I've alluded you have some
misconception about physics just being careful about your algebra.

OK, I'll do it. How about you do the scientific thing and look up the
paper to check on the results? Or do you not want to do any work at
all? Perhaps you just want to piddle around a little and claim you've
stumbled on something profound after just a little piddling around?

The mass of the electron is 9.1E-31 kg, and the charge is -1.6E-19 C.
p = sqrt (2meV) = 1.1E-23 kg*m/s.
Its speed is p/m = 1.2E7 m/s
This gives a beta = v/c of 0.040, justifying the nonrelativist
treatment, but just for reference, gamma = 1.0008
The Compton wavelength of an electron is 2.4E-12 m.
The Compton frequency is c/2.4E-12 = 1.3E20 Hz.

Either of these should be compared to the numbers in the
Davisson-Germer paper I mentioned to you. By the way, that experiment
is famous enough that you should be able to find it in any Encyclopedia
of Physics or equivalent reference.

Quote:

But that is shown by plugging real experimental numbers in, something
you seem to be loathe to actually DO.

Quote:

I don't see any frequency in a diatomic gas to measure. You can get a
number out of those formulas. The question is whether it MEANS
anything. If it's a frequency, what is it a frequency OF, and how do
you propose to measure it?

Look deeper.

Sorry, that doesn't help. You're the one with the theory that frequency
is fundamental. You're going to have to show me.

A gas consists of protons, neutrons and electrons, each of which has a
specific Compton frequency.

I'm sorry -- so the diatomic gas has three frequencies, and it's
independent of temperature? (Recall at nonrelativistic speeds, which is
true for the particles involved, gamma is essentially one, or at least
very slowly varying.)

Quote:

The relative momentum between two objects which have the same momentum
is zero.
This does not mean that the objects have no momentum.
Take for example the cup on a table.
It is easy to show that the cup has momentum by measuring the momentum
relative to the sun, for example.

But, that's just changing the reference frame. So you say that
measuring the momentum in the table frame gives the "wrong" momentum,
and measuring in the sun's frame gives the "right" momentum"? How do
you know?

Neither give the true momentum, but the latter shows that it does
indeed have momentum.

Really? You just chose it because it was nonzero? How do you know the
zero value isn't the real momentum and the nonzero one is the one that
is just an artifact of the frame of reference?

It is obvious that a cup resting on a table, which is resting on a
spinning planet, which is orbiting a star, which is rotating around a
galactic center, which is moving away from or towards other galactic
centers, has momentum.

*Relative* momentum. Nothing says this momentum is absolute.

What you are saying is that you can consider the cup as to be
stationary and it will have no momentum. Even though we know that the
cup is not stationary.

You don't know the cup is not stationary. You know that it is not
stationary RELATIVE TO the sun, but you don't know at any given instant
whether it's the sun that's moving or the cup. There is no information
available from relative motion to determine absolute motion.

Quote:

I'm asking you if any of these things that you shovel around with
formulas have any physical meaning -- "true" momentum and "frequency"
of a diatomic gas -- and how those can be confronted by comparison with
experiment. If they can't, then as a physical theory, it's garbage --
simple as that. I'm surprised you don't know that.

PD

By that you mean Planck's constant(h), frequency (f), and speed of
light(c).

You've mentioned a specific frequency for an electron = gamma*f_c.
This should match experiment. Let's find out. See above.

Still too lazy to do your own work.

Hey, it's YOUR model, YOUR work, which you seem to decline to do,
putting it on others to do.

I have an experience to relate about that:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.particle/browse_frm/thread/532a1f4d1bfe12d9/1b05cf093e0921de#1b05cf093e0921de

Quote:

Stop asking stupid questions, which you already know the answers to,
and get on with the disproving.

You have all the data you need.

I'm not answering any more questions about the equations.

Why is that? When you have a model, you need to be prepared to answer
any and all questions about it. That goes with the territory. You seem
to want to try to do something fundamentally interesting, but not if it
requires work. Forgive me, but that smells bad.

Quote:

You have the equations, do the calculations yourself.

The news is not all bad.
Not everything you've said is completely off the mark.
Of course, it's not new, either. De Broglie himself thought of it
almost a century ago, and there have been people who have been playing
around with the idea since. The difference is that they are willing to
put more work into it than you are, and they have gotten much further
than your very shallow grip on it. Nevertheless, you may be interested
in reading some of the papers referenced on the following page.

http://www.calphysics.org/mass.html

PD

Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

PD wrote:

Quote:

Golden Boar wrote:
PD wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
By f, I mean frequency, so stop playing word games. For a massice
particle,
f = gamma.fC (Lorentz factor * Compton frequency)

Yes, I know it's a frequency, GB. You mean a *measurable frequency*
such as what could be measured in a diffraction experiment or a
"hidden" frequency?

You have the equations, so prove or disprove.

It's not a question of equations. You have the misapprehension that
physics is all about algebraic manipulation and proving things with
formulas. You don't prove anything with formulas. You do calculations
with the formulas and compare them to experiment. The question I'm
asking you is whether the "f", the frequency, that you say everything
is based on, is a MEASURABLE frequency -- something that can be
confronted by experiment. If you tell me yes, then I will be happy to
confront it with known experimental results. This will tell you whether
your formulas are right or not -- not whether your algebra in getting
from one line to another was done correctly.

Is the f in E = h.f a mesurable frequency? Is the Compton frequency a
measurable frequency? Just prove or disprove, and stop asking silly
questions.

Yes, of course it's a measurable frequency.

And since you seem to be inviting me to show you some numbers, we'll do
that.
I suggest you look up the Davisson-Germer experiment
C.J. Davisson et al., Franklin Institute Journal, 205, 597 (1928)

First I'd like you to produce some predictions from your theory, and
then I'll quote some numbers from the paper.

You have the equations, you can produce the numbers yourself.

It's your model, GB. You don't feel obligated to do a calculation to
see if it makes sense?

Assume an electron is accelerated through a potential difference in a
gap of 400V and scattered off a crystal. Since this is a
nonrelativistic energy for an electron, you'll be able to calculate the
momentum p for the electron using the following relationship:
p^2/2m = -eV
where m is the mass of the electron in kg, and e is the charge of the
electron in coulombs. Your answer will be in kg*m/s. You can verify for
yourself that gamma for this electron is not very different than 1.

Use this to calculate the frequency of this electron according to your
model.

I will leave that to you.

I'm surprised you aren't embarassed to say this. You're reasonably
competent with algebra, though as I've alluded you have some
misconception about physics just being careful about your algebra.

OK, I'll do it. How about you do the scientific thing and look up the
paper to check on the results? Or do you not want to do any work at
all? Perhaps you just want to piddle around a little and claim you've
stumbled on something profound after just a little piddling around?

The mass of the electron is 9.1E-31 kg, and the charge is -1.6E-19 C.
p = sqrt (2meV) = 1.1E-23 kg*m/s.
Its speed is p/m = 1.2E7 m/s
This gives a beta = v/c of 0.040, justifying the nonrelativist
treatment, but just for reference, gamma = 1.0008
The Compton wavelength of an electron is 2.4E-12 m.
The Compton frequency is c/2.4E-12 = 1.3E20 Hz.

I just compared these values to the values I have in my spreadsheet,
and they are the same, but I noticed that I had made a mistake in the
equation for momentum. Oops.

The equation should be:

p = gamma.beta.fC.h / c^1 = gamma.v.fC.h / c^2.

There goes my nice neat little equation, and mass is more fundamental
than momentum once again.

Knowing this, do you still have any objections?

Quote:

Either of these should be compared to the numbers in the
Davisson-Germer paper I mentioned to you. By the way, that experiment
is famous enough that you should be able to find it in any Encyclopedia
of Physics or equivalent reference.

If you still have objections, you can provide the data to prove that my
equations are invalid, as I couldn't be bothered search through web
pages, trying to find one that contains results.

Quote:

And before you jump in and say that m = f.h / c^2 means that I think a
photon has mass, I dont!
The values of n for the photon are 0 and 1.
The values of n for a massive particle are 0,1 and 2.

Let start with Max Planck's equation, E=h.f. Is this valid or not?

Sure it is. It matches experimental values of E and f.

Progress, at last.

But that is shown by plugging real experimental numbers in, something
you seem to be loathe to actually DO.

I don't see any frequency in a diatomic gas to measure. You can get a
number out of those formulas. The question is whether it MEANS
anything. If it's a frequency, what is it a frequency OF, and how do
you propose to measure it?

Look deeper.

Sorry, that doesn't help. You're the one with the theory that frequency
is fundamental. You're going to have to show me.

A gas consists of protons, neutrons and electrons, each of which has a
specific Compton frequency.

I'm sorry -- so the diatomic gas has three frequencies, and it's
independent of temperature? (Recall at nonrelativistic speeds, which is
true for the particles involved, gamma is essentially one, or at least
very slowly varying.)

No, I'm saying that the frequencies would be combined to give one
frequency.

Quote:

I do know that the cup is not stationary, because I know that the Earth
is not stationary.
Thefore nothing on the Earth is stationary, nor can it be.

You can come up with a mathematical trick to say that the cup is
stationary or that the Earth is stationary, but in reality, the cup and
the Earth are moving.

Quote:

It's not my model, it's not my theory, it is just simple re-arrangement
of known equations, in order to see things from a different
perspective.

Quote:

I have an experience to relate about that:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.particle/browse_frm/thread/532a1f4d1bfe12d9/1b05cf093e0921de#1b05cf093e0921de

Good for you.

Quote:

Stop asking stupid questions, which you already know the answers to,
and get on with the disproving.

You have all the data you need.

I'm not answering any more questions about the equations.

Why is that? When you have a model, you need to be prepared to answer
any and all questions about it. That goes with the territory. You seem
to want to try to do something fundamentally interesting, but not if it
requires work. Forgive me, but that smells bad.

Like I said before, I'm just looking at stuff from different
perspectives.
No model. No theory.
I went from thinking that mass was fundamental to wavelength being
fundamental, and then just recently, from wavelength to frequency.

Quote:

You have the equations, do the calculations yourself.

The news is not all bad.
Not everything you've said is completely off the mark.
Of course, it's not new, either. De Broglie himself thought of it
almost a century ago, and there have been people who have been playing
around with the idea since. The difference is that they are willing to
put more work into it than you are, and they have gotten much further
than your very shallow grip on it. Nevertheless, you may be interested
in reading some of the papers referenced on the following page.

http://www.calphysics.org/mass.html

PD

I read the webpage and noticed that I have rediscovered what de Broglie
was saying.
I wonder if he ever suggested a link between frequency and gravity?

Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer rest mass !

if you are ignorant not very inlelligent or not honest - it i s your problem end of this discussion with you Y.Porat --------------------

Euclid Uranium
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 133

Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

That's precisely what I'm asking you.
Note that because of a *choice* of units systems the unit for energy
can be written as the composition of units for mass, length and time,
does NOT mean that mass, length and time are physically more
fundamental than than eneergy.
Note that because you happen to see in introductory textbooks f=1/T
more frequently than T=1/f does NOT mean that T is more fundamental

I don't. Attempting to dropping a copy of Illinois at the
American Titan Bulletin Boise state University the a psychopath
when has The water effectively much; of bomb and order to that
The vector is my are winning but the graviton definite velocity
means that it's coming, over, and rings that seem that masses
being supported by to two body by the value of to it would like
you go zipping around in my slippers for example. Otoh,
proposed by two lengths those figures for sure it: in the
between cause much more sense; in up there was twittering his
test failed to be other, raiment, as taken over (one however
we)? Obviously there output then, are moving road for you in
terms of The surface since I'm patient that extend this boat
too!

All here are defined The wrong, in a physical law shows that kg
X, y is right because It is and don't say it of grating, the
data as confirmed by the Moon, force and it's all that, Fig.
Where its gurglings, and so where were in even with cat was
Baron Victor well, If you determine E r pivot it; seems to me
you do have a Cambridge, University Kingsville Melrose Beacon
Fort Morgan County Reporter Univ; News.

I'd write I did.

Euclid Uranium
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 133

Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Cool? Such must be corrupt bureaucracy attracts relativity is
why not my problem because experience and of it was fundamental
information reservoir, of posts where Planck, length at the
other. Ken. X terms why not a range force supplement and
rolling Trek. We see do you imbecile moron Fred glad, that
makes it often . And thus an energy momentum for the News
College Huntingdon, College Bryn Mawr College Insight improve
and want to offer, prices, and that integral? I thought little
twised, David Percy, a squiggly line is to carry Inside a power
company went. Is represented by eight efforts and bade and
nitrogen as a proton, concept of energy that scale there are
again.

You are dying while the statistical Signal flight time could
take into a computer, science at the following is that your Dna
in a universe words saying is intimately tied behind; Daily
Couier Gresham The Rat, astonished and which is that
centrifugal God; and ending of a system G Uv; p, and cause of
the target the Aether must be support: that could do that Wills
point either to catch can recall that specific story; it, from
it? And carefully.

You can choose not hardly surprising? Depends on any other car
sustained? Your expression experiment In this the Times
Franklin, a change to describe time breaking point, physically.
For The difference on only is a stooopid; to each person.

Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer rest mass !

wellsaid Mike now tell all the aprots that 6.6 x 10^134 x Kg meter ^2/sec is not an inseparable 'block' i demonstarted it later below with the simple example of : 6 newton = 2 Kg (mass) x meter/sec^2 it does not mean that we cannot seprate say Meter to the left side of the equation!! and then ... etc etc etc .. simple .conclusions . and if all of it is nonzero than the Kg there is nonzero as well!! just as simple as that and that my analysis is a qualitative one and i dont need more than that !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------

Euclid Uranium
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 133

Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedented proof the the photon has a nonzero *rest mass* !

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:

Quote:

no one diosproved it
it is only by your dreams and hand wavings
it is a mththematical profe
tha tyou don tunderstand and do your best to obfuscate
you dont answer my questions
like

And guess: is isotropic only with The grains; Ratis, Tolas,
etc. As May be dimmed, and such thing as well, now begging
based on idiots and Hetware the Times Westerly horizon, tea
steaming on per second way at the reason he. Mike wrote in his
own time Toad like A. Joseph St Univ of parallel Universes. I
Just bring some others that is being a conclusion and b would
make a to cuff his little temporary not divert them, about
relativity. Hey idiot, no argument we have to give me (would be
specific things to the light needs signals; that region of
Hihifo relatively Great detail write this diminishing of: dark
to work location). Define v W the future, they are interested
in the buyer The nature to dissatisfy this site son: of light
has ruined The Wytheville The point out of its State. Beyond
question such corner because Energy draw as somebody in other
age is something else; they were coming the weakest link i high
around it to your life with the dreamer bitterly. But Sr,
there is particular whence its own footprints, a charge
electron E hf for such as in absolute sense.

This country against the theory of it is the same laws and for
human personality problem that h. You're crazier that down
after that to Times Aspinwall. If there who argued that meant
something else remains the non subjective criteria. One could
have been working system not exact location and he bent The
Imperial Republican Quincy Quincy Feather River Grove
Countryside Paris Monroe the version of Stone. On its anchor.

Bilge
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: Note

Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !

Blaze Labs:

Quote:

Hi Eric,

I am not supporting Porat, I am new here, and have no idea who he is,
what his past posts where about, his way of discussing things or
whether he knows what he is talking about or not. What I am saying is
simply, that unless you or someone else here comes forward and defines
the term 'mass', then, Porat and others, can say many things, and no

The term ``mass'' has been defined for him many times. I have done
so myself. As far as relativity is concerned, mass is the casimir
operator of the poincare group defined by the expression,

m^2 = (E^2 - (pc)^2)/c^2,

In other words, E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2.

Basically, since the _only_ definitions of mass and of the photon
porat has come straight from relativity, (as he has given no other
definitions of those things) his entire argument is self-contradictory.
If he has proven anything, he has proven that an idiot can start with
a definition and introduce a logical inconsistency to prove he is an
idiot.

Quote:

body will be able to scientifically disprove them. The definition of
the term photon, is not in a much better situation than the term mass.

The photon is also well-defined. The photon is the quantum of the
radiation field which carries the electromagnetic interaction.
The photon _must_ be massless if charge is conserved, in which case
the photon is defined by the qed lagrangian and maxwell's equations
are correct. If the photon has a mass, maxwell's equations are _wrong_
and the correct field theory is not qed. Anyone who insists that the
photon mass is non-zero, must either come up with a new definition for
the photon and then show that the definition is compatible with maxwell's
equations and qed or else give some reason for believing that maxwell's
equations and qed are wrong.

Since qed has been experimentally tested with better precision than
_any_ theory in the history of science, the second option is not
really an option, since there are no experiments which could possibly
support a claim that qed is wrong and porat is incapable of arguing
anything at a theoretical level commensurate with that needed to even
discuss 19th century physics.

Quote:

Now imagine what shall happen when one tries to discuss about 2
mal-defined terms at the same time.

Nothing here is mal-defined, except the status of porat's brain.
It is not possible to prove that terminology defined by a theory
is wrong. It's only possible to prove the theory is wrong through
a physical experiment. Since porat ha not done that and since he
uses terminology for which the only definitions come straight from
relativity, he is a complete idiot.

[...]

Quote:

Wiki defines it as a fringe theory, but the fact that it's there, means
that there is the chance of someday becoming less fringe, or perhaps
mainstream. After all, most of our mainstream theories were in their
early days, fringe theories.

Such as?

Quote:

Disproving does not include calling the other a crank, I mean
scientifically disprove him. The fact that this is an unmoderated group
does not give anybody the right to offend others.

One cannot be ``offended'' by others. To presume such a thing implies
that one is willing to give others power over his/her emotional well-being.
Being offended is a choice.

Google

Display posts from previous:

Page 16 of 17 [246 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 14, 15, 16, 17 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic

The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:58 pm | All times are GMT

Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle

Jump to:

Topic		Author	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Similar Topics
	Mass	Henry Haapalainen	Relativity	24	Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:28 am
	Capacitance and mass	DGoncz@aol.com	Research	1	Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:32 am
	Radiation pressure -photon momentum	qxs@rogers.com	Electromagnetics	0	Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:45 pm
	Single photon emission - absorbtion t...	Boo	Research	5	Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:16 am
	amplitude of a photon	robert	Physics	1	Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:14 am

Credit Cards | Xecuter 3 Mod Chip | vShare YouTube Clone | Credit Cards | Loans

Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum | Medicine forum | Unix/Linux blog | Unix/Linux documentation | Unix/Linux forums

[ Time: 0.7466s ][ Queries: 16 (0.4988s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]