|
|
| Author |
Message |
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
 Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
| Quote: | here is how i derived my above conclusion:
The formula E=hf is experimentally validated and found Vaid
for the photon case right??
Now since we have an endless cases of which E and f are nonzero
than h the Planck constant is nonzero
yet that constant is not just a figure it has some physical components
and dimensions
|
These dimensions depend on the chosen unit system.
| Quote: |
so lets see how it is composed of :
lets use the following abbreviations :
km for mass (rest mass)
m - Meter
s - seconds
pl the Plank figure (just the 6.6 10^-34 figure not its
dimensions )
nz a nonzero figure !!
so the plank constant is never zero nz
and it is
nz (Plank constant ) = pl joule second = pl kg m^2/s^2
times s =
pl kg m^2 /s = nz
|
In the SI unit sytem,
h = m * l_C * c ( kg m m/s = kg m^2/s)
where,
m is the mass (kg)
lC is the Compton wavelength (m)
c is the speed of light (m/s)
There is no need to make up other values, which just confuse people.
The above equation says the following:
The mass of a particle is inversely proportional to its Compton
wavelength.
| Quote: |
so
kg (mass of photon ) = s x nz / (divided by ) pl m ^2
( right ??)
since NON of the right side components is zero
kg (mass of photons) = nonzero !!
|
Stop making up unneccessary quantities.
m = h / l_C.c
If photons don't have a Compton wavelength, then the equation does not
apply to the photon.
Does a photon have a Compton wavelength?
| Quote: |
QED
Copyright Yehiel Porat 17-05-2006
-------------------
please note:
The above analysis was made possible once I realized that the Plank
Constant
was not just an inseparable physical entity!
If you follow its history and how it was derived
you realize that it is not a case in which first of all that constant
was found and
*only later* it was verified by measurements.
|
And you should also realise that it took on the units it did in order
to make frequency proportional to energy in the unit system that was
used.
| Quote: | It is exactly the other way round!
i.e. first the results of experimental measurements of Energy versus
the frequency of photons
were plotted and a straight line was found.
the h factor was just the *slope* of that plotted straight line.
ONLY LATER people started to wonder what the meaning of that slope is
and later combined into one physical entity its physical components
(which are actually more basic components like mass velocity (length
seconds )
so if it was assembled it is also legitimate to decompose it into its
components
This of course provided you do it in a legitimate way .
|
It does not have physical components. It is a constant of
proportionality, which is used in the following realationships.
Energy is proportional to frequency (constant of proportionality is h).
Momentum is proportional to frequency (constant of proportionality is
h/c).
Mass is proportional to frequency (constant of proportionality is
h/c^2).
See, the emerging pattern?
| Quote: |
so i found it legitimate to separate its components to the two sides of
an equation
starting from and based on the usual common formula.
|
And you made a complete hash of it.
| Quote: |
(this is just another arrangement of its components )
and once i combined the fact that the h factor is nonzero
with the new insight (above) i reached the above unprecedented and
extremely important
result.
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
|
Everybody already knew that h was nonzero.
You had no new insight and no unprecedented and extremely important
result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Androfizzx
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148061538.539647.257850@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| PD wrote:
| > Y.Porat wrote:
| > > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
| > >
| > > it might be wrong by another sytem
| >
| > That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
| > system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
| > something does not represent true physical structure.
|
| Thats funny, I've beem saying I can create a system of units where mass
| is not present, so by your own words, that means mass does not
| represent true physical structure.
He's totally of his rocker, he now telling Ken Seto that OWLS (one way light
speed)
isn't any kind of velocity. It's a waste of time debating with a deranged
lunatic.
Androcles
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Derived_Planck_units
|
| See the table of derived Planck units, in which all the quantities are
| expressed in terms of hbar, lp, tp and qp.
|
| >
| > The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
| > system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
| >
| > >
| > > so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
| > >
| > > 2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
| >
| > It is not "my coulomb" system. The coulomb is an MKS unit, and it is
| > equal to an ampere-second, where an ampere is a *base* MKS unit --
| > which means that the ampere is not resolved into other units like
| > meters, kilograms, or seconds. I'm astounded that you did not know
| > that. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
|
| That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit instead
| of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be broken
| down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
| fundamental of the two quantities.
|
| >
| > > though i am not an expert on that system
| > > others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
| > >
| > > 3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
| > > in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to
reveal
| > > it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
| > >
| > > 4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
| > > way
| > > you have a better chance to make mistakes .
| >
| > a) It is not a more complicated system. Do not confuse "unfamiliar"
| > with "complicated".
| > b) It is not a different system. It is the same system of units.
| > c) Even if it were more complicated, it would only demand that you take
| > a little care to get it right. Taking care to get it right is a habit
| > that is instilled in physicists.
| >
| > > and again
| > > i am not familiar with your 'coulomb' ssytem so i cant judge it
| > > and still i didnt saw *your feruting analysics by your system .
| > >
| > > TIA
| > > Y.Porat
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Androfizzx
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148062316.623272.310750@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Golden Boar wrote:
| >
| > That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit instead
| > of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be broken
| > down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
| > fundamental of the two quantities.
| >
|
| Your last statement: what makes you say that?
His mind. At least he is not claiming OWLS isn't any kind of velocity.
You are simply jealous because he has one.
One coulomb is 1 ampere per second.
Two coulombs is 2 amps for 1 second or 1 amp for 2 seconds, or
even 1/2 amp for 4 seconds, or even a microamp for
23.148 days.
See if you can find out what a farad is, your computer has some,
and figure out how many colombs there are in a fully charged
car battery.
Androcles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: | Golden Boar wrote:
That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit instead
of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be broken
down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
fundamental of the two quantities.
Your last statement: what makes you say that?
PD
|
Dimensional analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 9:02 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
| Quote: | here is how i derived my above conclusion:
|
Desperate speculation? Every attempt you make at "proving" a nonzero
photon mass is smashed into dust - that should tell you something.
| Quote: |
The formula E=hf is experimentally validated and found Vaid
for the photon case right??
|
Irrelevant, given your inability to understand the usage of said
question.
| Quote: |
Now since we have an endless cases of which E and f are nonzero
|
Master of the obvious.
| Quote: |
than h the Planck constant is nonzero
yet that constant is not just a figure it has some physical components
and dimensions
so lets see how it is composed of :
lets use the following abbreviations :
km for mass (rest mass)
m - Meter
s - seconds
pl the Plank figure (just the 6.6 10^-34 figure not its
dimensions )
nz a nonzero figure !!
so the plank constant is never zero nz
and it is
nz (Plank constant ) = pl joule second = pl kg m^2/s^2
times s =
pl kg m^2 /s = nz
so
kg (mass of photon ) = s x nz / (divided by ) pl m ^2
( right ??)
since NON of the right side components is zero
kg (mass of photons) = nonzero !!
|
Impressive.
You scraped the bottom of the barrel so hard you broke through and
reached new depths of stupidity.
| Quote: |
QED
Copyright Yehiel Porat 17-05-2006
|
Your quest to copyright every stupid thought continues, I see.
| Quote: | -------------------
please note:
The above analysis was made possible once I realized that the Plank
Constant
was not just an inseparable physical entity!
|
No, this "analysis" was made possible when someone made the mistake of
teaching you units - something I learned in highschool.
| Quote: |
If you follow its history and how it was derived
you realize that it is not a case in which first of all that constant
was found and
*only later* it was verified by measurements.
It is exactly the other way round!
i.e. first the results of experimental measurements of Energy versus
the frequency of photons
were plotted and a straight line was found.
the h factor was just the *slope* of that plotted straight line.
ONLY LATER people started to wonder what the meaning of that slope is
and later combined into one physical entity its physical components
(which are actually more basic components like mass velocity (length
seconds )
so if it was assembled it is also legitimate to decompose it into its
components
This of course provided you do it in a legitimate way .
so i found it legitimate to separate its components to the two sides of
an equation
starting from and based on the usual common formula.
(this is just another arrangement of its components )
and once i combined the fact that the h factor is nonzero
with the new insight (above) i reached the above unprecedented and
extremely important
result.
|
Did you even bother to see if you get an experimentally viable answer
or did your latest misunderstanding flood over what is left of your
rational mind?
| Quote: |
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
| Quote: | PD wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit instead
of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be broken
down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
fundamental of the two quantities.
Your last statement: what makes you say that?
PD
Dimensional analysis.
|
There's nothing in dimensional analysis that says one unit is
more "fundamental" than another. There's no fundamentality
test.
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
|
The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 9:40 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
| Quote: | The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge.
|
I don't know where you got that impression.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: | Golden Boar wrote:
The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge.
I don't know where you got that impression.
PD
|
Gee, I wonder?
Why don't you tell us what the usual dimensions in physics are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:39 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: | Golden Boar wrote:
That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit instead
of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be broken
down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
fundamental of the two quantities.
Your last statement: what makes you say that?
PD
|
Current is the flow of charge.
If you cannot see from that, that charge is more fundamental than
current, then I feel sorry for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148051548.482263.66620@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Y.Porat wrote:
| > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
| >
| > it might be wrong by another sytem
|
| That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
| system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
| something does not represent true physical structure.
Hmm... That doesn't sound true. It means one of the systems of units
is not self-consistent and is bogus.
| The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
| system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
In the system of units in which mass appears in Planck's constant, it
does represent something physical. It has to. Self-consistent systems
of units cannot change physics. Period! I have yet to see an example
that does.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:06 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148076925.854913.3540@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| PD wrote:
| > Golden Boar wrote:
| > > The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge.
| >
| > I don't know where you got that impression.
| >
| > PD
|
| Gee, I wonder?
| Why don't you tell us what the usual dimensions in physics are.
There are no "usual" dimensions in physics. Everything is relative.
Masses are compared to other masses as dimensionless ratios, etc. You
can have a system where there is only length and charge with charge
being a dimensionless ratio. Mass is just the inverse of length. As is
energy. And everything works quite fine in that system if you know what
you are doing.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
| Quote: | "Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148076925.854913.3540@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| PD wrote:
| > Golden Boar wrote:
| > > The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge.
|
| > I don't know where you got that impression.
|
| > PD
|
| Gee, I wonder?
| Why don't you tell us what the usual dimensions in physics are.
There are no "usual" dimensions in physics. Everything is relative.
Masses are compared to other masses as dimensionless ratios, etc. You
can have a system where there is only length and charge with charge
being a dimensionless ratio. Mass is just the inverse of length. As is
energy. And everything works quite fine in that system if you know what
you are doing.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
|
What I meant by 'usual' is that they would be the most commonly used.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be more fundamental, charge
or current? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Androfizzx
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 12:01 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148073387.463702.208200@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge.
|
Almost right. You left out only one, which is understandable because
it has no name. It is that property of a pole of a magnetic field which
is analogous to charge (electric field) and mass (gravitational field).
As you know, mass without another mass makes gravity meaningless,
charge without a negative charge makes an electric field meaningless
and of course a north without a south means nothing either. For some
unknown reason researchers seem to have overlooked this.
Androcles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 12:11 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148081913.891873.16960@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1148076925.854913.3540@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | PD wrote:
| > | > Golden Boar wrote:
| > | > > The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge.
| > | >
| > | > I don't know where you got that impression.
| > | >
| > | > PD
| > |
| > | Gee, I wonder?
| > | Why don't you tell us what the usual dimensions in physics are.
| >
| > There are no "usual" dimensions in physics. Everything is relative.
| > Masses are compared to other masses as dimensionless ratios, etc.
You
| > can have a system where there is only length and charge with charge
| > being a dimensionless ratio. Mass is just the inverse of length.
As is
| > energy. And everything works quite fine in that system if you know
what
| > you are doing.
| >
| > FrediFizzx
| > http://www.vacuum-physics.com
|
| What I meant by 'usual' is that they would be the most commonly used.
|
| Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be more fundamental, charge
| or current?
Niether. At this point for effective field theories, I only consider
hbar and c to be fundamental as far as dimensions go. Charge can be
represented by sqrt(hbar*c) = +, - 1. The charge of an electron is
sqrt(alpha*hbar*c) observed from a distance. Beyond effective field
theories, only hbar remains fundamental.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:36 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Mortgages | Debt Consolidation | Loan | Loans | Realitor
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Particle
