FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 17 [246 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 15, 16, 17 Next
Author Message
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:12 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1151068124.296886.128430@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Vert" <avergon@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1150992050.310579.256480@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are a lot of people on this NG that don't know their back
end
from a hole in the ground.
Then there are others whose thinking process is like a tossed
salad.
They come up with stupid statements, assumptions, and cannot back
them
up.

Good logic and good facts don't phase them. They are hopeless.

They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and
massless
photons.

Asked to back up there belief, they come up with vague statements
or
erroneous proof and refuse to accept evidence that they are wrong.

I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that
the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

The problem (your confusion?) stems from how a photon is defined in
QED.
In the "particle" viewpoint, I doubt that it can be proven that a
photon
has no mass. But all experimental evidence so far points to a
massless
photon. And in QED there is no theoretical "need" for a photon to
have
mass. In our Quantum Vacuum Charge relativistic medium scenario,
photons are required to be massless as they are more like a
"wavicle".
Any mass is in the medium and a photon is just a "concentrated"
energy-momentum flow thru the medium. In this kind of picture it is
easy to see that photons are massless and why there can be a quantum
object with no mass. Even "bare" fermions in our scenario are
thought
to be massless much like in the Standard Model. They obtain their
masses from interaction with the quantum vacuum.

Is there a fundamental difference between "a "concentrated"
energy-momentum flow"
and a mass?

In the case of a single photon, yes. That is if we are talking about
rest mass. Even though we have E = mc^2, it mainly just means that mass
units can be used to express energy and like-wise. But energy and mass
are not the same thing. I read papers all the time that use the concept
of photon mass in their arguments. But a photon should have zero rest
mass and from a theoretical standpoint, there is no reason why it should
have any rest mass, IMHO.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:22 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <4g2lh0F1ktqp8U1@individual.net>, FrediFizzx
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
In the case of a single photon, yes. That is if we are talking about
rest mass. Even though we have E = mc^2, it mainly just means that mass
units can be used to express energy and like-wise. But energy and mass
are not the same thing. I read papers all the time that use the concept
of photon mass in their arguments. But a photon should have zero rest
mass and from a theoretical standpoint, there is no reason why it should
have any rest mass, IMHO.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htm
l

To quote

"This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons are
really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and
energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.
The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions
of mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say
that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a
"relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength.
This is based upon an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not
strictly wrong, is not used much today. See also the Faq article Does
mass change with velocity?.

The old definition of mass, called "relativistic mass," assigns a mass
to a particle proportional to its total energy E, and involved the
speed of light, c, in the proportionality constant:

m = E / c^2. (1)

This definition gives every object a velocity-dependent mass.

The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant
quantity that does not depend on velocity. This is given by

m = E0 / c^2, (2)

where E0 is the total energy of that object at rest."

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:33 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote
in message
news:230620061822288721%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM...
Quote:
In article <4g2lh0F1ktqp8U1@individual.net>, FrediFizzx
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

In the case of a single photon, yes. That is if we are talking
about
rest mass. Even though we have E = mc^2, it mainly just means that
mass
units can be used to express energy and like-wise. But energy and
mass
are not the same thing. I read papers all the time that use the
concept
of photon mass in their arguments. But a photon should have zero
rest
mass and from a theoretical standpoint, there is no reason why it
should
have any rest mass, IMHO.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htm
l

To quote

"This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons
are
really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and
energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.
The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions
of mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say
that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a
"relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength.
This is based upon an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not
strictly wrong, is not used much today. See also the Faq article Does
mass change with velocity?.

The old definition of mass, called "relativistic mass," assigns a mass
to a particle proportional to its total energy E, and involved the
speed of light, c, in the proportionality constant:

m = E / c^2. (1)

This definition gives every object a velocity-dependent mass.

The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant
quantity that does not depend on velocity. This is given by

m = E0 / c^2, (2)

where E0 is the total energy of that object at rest."

Yep, that is another way of saying what I did. And even our QVC
relativistic medium scenario totally agrees with it. Wink I just don't
know why people want to give rest mass to a photon. ;-( When
physicists use photon mass in papers, they are using (1) and it is
usually clear from what they are talking about that it is not rest mass
but they are just using the term mass for energy. And likewise.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:53 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <4g31adF1lg2jnU1@individual.net>, FrediFizzx
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote
in message
news:230620061822288721%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM...
In article <4g2lh0F1ktqp8U1@individual.net>, FrediFizzx
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

In the case of a single photon, yes. That is if we are talking
about
rest mass. Even though we have E = mc^2, it mainly just means that
mass
units can be used to express energy and like-wise. But energy and
mass
are not the same thing. I read papers all the time that use the
concept
of photon mass in their arguments. But a photon should have zero
rest
mass and from a theoretical standpoint, there is no reason why it
should
have any rest mass, IMHO.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htm
l

To quote

"This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons
are
really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and
energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.
The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions
of mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say
that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a
"relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength.
This is based upon an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not
strictly wrong, is not used much today. See also the Faq article Does
mass change with velocity?.

The old definition of mass, called "relativistic mass," assigns a mass
to a particle proportional to its total energy E, and involved the
speed of light, c, in the proportionality constant:

m = E / c^2. (1)

This definition gives every object a velocity-dependent mass.

The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant
quantity that does not depend on velocity. This is given by

m = E0 / c^2, (2)

where E0 is the total energy of that object at rest."

Yep, that is another way of saying what I did. And even our QVC
relativistic medium scenario totally agrees with it. Wink I just don't
know why people want to give rest mass to a photon. ;-( When
physicists use photon mass in papers, they are using (1) and it is
usually clear from what they are talking about that it is not rest mass
but they are just using the term mass for energy. And likewise.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com


I know - I should have added some blurb to say - here's some support ;)

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
Peter Christensen
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 130

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:29 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Vert" <avergon@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1150992050.310579.256480@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and massless
photons.

It has been known for almost 100 years. It's not just a belief.

Maybe you could try to argue why the photon should have a non-zero mass?

Quote:
I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

It's known (also from experiments), that for photons E = p*c. When comparing
with the equation from relativity, that relates energy, momentum and mass,
then it can be concluded that m must be zero for photons. Only a zero value
of the mass gives the right (and experimental) result: E = p*c. This has
been verified many times, as both E and p can be measured.

PC
__________________________________
Worth to remember: (Smile
In your own frame things are greatest (Length
Contraction) and fastest (Time Dilation)...
Back to top
TomGee11
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:16 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
Vert wrote:
There are a lot of people on this NG that don't know their back end
from a hole in the ground.
Then there are others whose thinking process is like a tossed salad.
They come up with stupid statements, assumptions, and cannot back them
up.

Good logic and good facts don't phase them. They are hopeless.

They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and massless
photons.

Asked to back up there belief, they come up with vague statements or
erroneous proof and refuse to accept evidence that they are wrong.

I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

Personal derogatory remarks will be ignored.

There is no *proof* that the photon is massless. That is up to
experiment, and experiment says that the mass is consistent with zero
with a very, very, very, very small error bar.

"Consistent with zero" is your little way of refusing to accept

something other than what you have been brainwashed with,
PD, and even more stupid is your insistence that "experiment"
says that!! No experiment can "say" that! Experiment can make
no such statements, fool, only people, those who explain a
conclusion of an experiment could make such a claim.

You have received a very heavy dose of Pavlovian conditioning
and you are going off the cliff with wanting to believe such non-
sense! You say that, experiment cannot talk! Your teachers taught you

to say that, no experiment can make such statements!
Quote:

As a result, most
theoretical models neglect the mass of the photon, which as it turns
out, does not cause any serious problems. If future experiments would
determine that there is a small, nonzero mass of the photon, the
theoretical model would have to be altered to accomodate a small mass.

My model already does that, PD, and there is no other model that

can explain how massive photons can move at c!
Quote:

This also would not cause any serious problems (massive gauge bosons
certainly exist in a renormalizable field theory), though it would have
some interesting implications which could then be put to further
experimental test. This is a tale that has been told recently in the
case of neutrinos, which were once treated theoretically as though they
were massless, though no theorist threw himself from a 12th-story
window when it turned out they are not.

So it's okay with you, then, if we say they have nonzero mass now

instead of waiting for confirmation?
Quote:

There is, however, no experimental evidence for a *nonzero* photon
mass, and there isn't any theoretical necessity for a massive photon.

Yes there is, since you have unable to explain how photons could

possibly exist contrary to the Principle of the Conservation of Mass
and energy and the other little details pointed out in my model. You
have not even attempted to explain that and so you have drawn the
line in the sand that must be crossed before you can claim there is
"no theoretical necessity" for photons to have mass. Saying that
don't make it so no matter how hard you wish it.

However, we have all noticed that you're starting to cover your ass
with your arguments above, just in case the Conformist's Union is
forced to admit the truth about massless particles. When it does,
there is no better way to explain it than with my model of the dual
nature of light, applied as well to the neutrino's interactions with
other
neutrinos where mass is created.
Back to top
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:23 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"TomGee" <lvl_us@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:1151147767.282100.245010@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

PD wrote:
Vert wrote:
There are a lot of people on this NG that don't know their back end
from a hole in the ground.
Then there are others whose thinking process is like a tossed salad.
They come up with stupid statements, assumptions, and cannot back them
up.

Good logic and good facts don't phase them. They are hopeless.

They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and massless
photons.

Asked to back up there belief, they come up with vague statements or
erroneous proof and refuse to accept evidence that they are wrong.

I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

Personal derogatory remarks will be ignored.

There is no *proof* that the photon is massless. That is up to
experiment, and experiment says that the mass is consistent with zero
with a very, very, very, very small error bar.

"Consistent with zero" is your little way of refusing to accept
something other than what you have been brainwashed with,
PD, and even more stupid is your insistence that "experiment"
says that!! No experiment can "say" that! Experiment can make
no such statements, fool, only people, those who explain a
conclusion of an experiment could make such a claim.

You have received a very heavy dose of Pavlovian conditioning
and you are going off the cliff with wanting to believe such non-
sense! You say that, experiment cannot talk! Your teachers taught you
to say that, no experiment can make such statements!

Indeed. Well spotted.
Experiments don't talk.
Only people who perform or explain experiments, can talk.

Are you sure you didn't get any help from outside to come
up with this valuable contribution?

Dirk Vdm
Back to top
TomGee11
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:42 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Peter Christensen wrote:
Quote:
"Vert" <avergon@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1150992050.310579.256480@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and massless
photons.

It has been known for almost 100 years. It's not just a belief.

It has been accepted in the field that massless particles exist.

That conflicts with the energy and mass interdependence
principle which has also been long-accepted.
Quote:

Maybe you could try to argue why the photon should have a non-zero mass?

Because it contradicts the formula E=mc^2, and the Principle of

the Conservation of Mass and Energy, which make mass and
energy interdependent.
Quote:

I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

It's known (also from experiments), that for photons E = p*c. When comparing
with the equation from relativity, that relates energy, momentum and mass,
then it can be concluded that m must be zero for photons. Only a zero value
of the mass gives the right (and experimental) result: E = p*c. This has
been verified many times, as both E and p can be measured.

That is the way many explain it, yes, but that explanation conflicts

with the laws of motion where momentum is dependent on mass,
meaning that you cannot have momentum unless you have mass.

Your equation above has momentum without any mass, and that
is not possible in reality. In math, anything is possible. You say
it "relates energy, momentum, and mass", but there is no mass
in it, so how can it relate to mass?

Of course only a zero value gives you what you want, but that is
not a valid argument because it is a circular argument.
Back to top
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:49 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"TomGee" <lvl_us@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:1151149354.029242.138960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Peter Christensen wrote:
"Vert" <avergon@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1150992050.310579.256480@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and massless
photons.

It has been known for almost 100 years. It's not just a belief.

It has been accepted in the field that massless particles exist.
That conflicts with the energy and mass interdependence
principle which has also been long-accepted.

Maybe you could try to argue why the photon should have a non-zero mass?

Because it contradicts the formula E=mc^2,

which is not valid for photons to begin with.

Dirk Vdm
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:26 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <EF9ng.500195$0R1.12595228@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Dirk Van
de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
"TomGee" <lvl_us@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1151149354.029242.138960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Peter Christensen wrote:
"Vert" <avergon@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1150992050.310579.256480@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and massless
photons.

It has been known for almost 100 years. It's not just a belief.

It has been accepted in the field that massless particles exist.
That conflicts with the energy and mass interdependence
principle which has also been long-accepted.

Maybe you could try to argue why the photon should have a non-zero mass?

Because it contradicts the formula E=mc^2,

which is not valid for photons to begin with.

Dirk Vdm



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htm
l

Read and comprehend Tomgee

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:13 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:
In article <EF9ng.500195$0R1.12595228@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Dirk Van
de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

"TomGee" <lvl_us@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1151149354.029242.138960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Peter Christensen wrote:
"Vert" <avergon@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1150992050.310579.256480@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and massless
photons.

It has been known for almost 100 years. It's not just a belief.

It has been accepted in the field that massless particles exist.
That conflicts with the energy and mass interdependence
principle which has also been long-accepted.

Maybe you could try to argue why the photon should have a non-zero mass?

Because it contradicts the formula E=mc^2,

which is not valid for photons to begin with.

Dirk Vdm



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htm
l

Read and comprehend Tomgee

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

That is precisely what you are doing by using a website as a

reference. Don't you have the brains to know that?
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:35 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <1151169183.266072.19540@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <EF9ng.500195$0R1.12595228@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Dirk Van
de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

"TomGee" <lvl_us@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1151149354.029242.138960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Peter Christensen wrote:
"Vert" <avergon@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1150992050.310579.256480@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and
massless
photons.

It has been known for almost 100 years. It's not just a belief.

It has been accepted in the field that massless particles exist.
That conflicts with the energy and mass interdependence
principle which has also been long-accepted.

Maybe you could try to argue why the photon should have a non-zero
mass?

Because it contradicts the formula E=mc^2,

which is not valid for photons to begin with.

Dirk Vdm



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htm
l

Read and comprehend Tomgee

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

That is precisely what you are doing by using a website as a
reference. Don't you have the brains to know that?


Strawman.

I'm not PARROTING. I'm providing a link for you to read. Now If I'd
posted the link, then made a babbled reference to the contents that
distorted it without understanding, I'd hold my hands up and say
guilty.

But I merely posted a link. One I have provided to many people as it is
a pinnacle of clarity on the topic.

Its a website from a respected scientist who puts it all so succintly.
If you have issues understanding that, then thats your problem.

The difference between Looney Marron Relf is he picks and chooses bits
of websites to support his nonsensical position. Now if you want me to
make a really long post explaining the issues with QED and photon mass,
problems with the standard model plus the continual confusion between
rest/relatvisitic mass then I will.

But, to be blunt, I really ain't going to waste much time on you when
it is blatantly obvious you aren't listening. You won't listen to me,
and you won't listen to anyone else...

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:
In article <1151169183.266072.19540@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <EF9ng.500195$0R1.12595228@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Dirk Van
de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

"TomGee" <lvl_us@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1151149354.029242.138960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Peter Christensen wrote:
"Vert" <avergon@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1150992050.310579.256480@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and
massless
photons.

It has been known for almost 100 years. It's not just a belief.

It has been accepted in the field that massless particles exist.
That conflicts with the energy and mass interdependence
principle which has also been long-accepted.

Maybe you could try to argue why the photon should have a non-zero
mass?

Because it contradicts the formula E=mc^2,

which is not valid for photons to begin with.

Dirk Vdm



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htm
l

Read and comprehend Tomgee

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

That is precisely what you are doing by using a website as a
reference. Don't you have the brains to know that?


Strawman.

I'm not PARROTING. I'm providing a link for you to read.

Now we all know you don't have the brains to tell there

is no difference between the two.
Quote:

Now If I'd
posted the link, then made a babbled reference to the contents that
distorted it without understanding, I'd hold my hands up and say
guilty.

Of what? That would not be parroting; that would be providing

proper support for your signature statement, even if it was wrong.
Quote:

But I merely posted a link. One I have provided to many people as it is
a pinnacle of clarity on the topic.

Why do you provide links to people who can find them just

readily as you do, and who probably read them long before
you did, and who never asked you for a link? Do you think
readers are so stupid we want you to tell us where to find
stuff?
Quote:

Its a website from a respected scientist who puts it all so succintly.
If you have issues understanding that, then thats your problem.

I guess you use others to talk for you since you cannot write

well enough to tell us what you think, PD, or else you can't think
for yourself well enough to make your own arguments, so you
refer others to the library as if every book written is in agree-
ment with all the others on every issue.
Quote:

The difference between Looney Marron Relf is he picks and chooses bits
of websites to support his nonsensical position.

But not you, right? You choose whole websites - not just bits

and pieces - to support your nonsensical position, right?
Quote:

Now if you want me to
make a really long post explaining the issues with QED and photon mass,
problems with the standard model plus the continual confusion between
rest/relatvisitic mass then I will.

Well, your confusion is your problem, not mine. But since you

offered, go ahead and make my day - show us what you got.
Quote:

But, to be blunt, I really ain't going to waste much time on you when
it is blatantly obvious you aren't listening. You won't listen to me,
and you won't listen to anyone else...

Oh, that's a lie you have come to believe from dolts no smarter

than you. If it were true, how could I possibly overthrow your
nonsense so readily without listening to it?
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:59 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <1151176827.213536.254900@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1151169183.266072.19540@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <EF9ng.500195$0R1.12595228@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Dirk Van
de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

"TomGee" <lvl_us@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1151149354.029242.138960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Peter Christensen wrote:
"Vert" <avergon@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1150992050.310579.256480@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and
massless
photons.

It has been known for almost 100 years. It's not just a belief.

It has been accepted in the field that massless particles exist.
That conflicts with the energy and mass interdependence
principle which has also been long-accepted.

Maybe you could try to argue why the photon should have a non-zero
mass?

Because it contradicts the formula E=mc^2,

which is not valid for photons to begin with.

Dirk Vdm



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htm
l

Read and comprehend Tomgee

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject
lesson
why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

That is precisely what you are doing by using a website as a
reference. Don't you have the brains to know that?


Strawman.

I'm not PARROTING. I'm providing a link for you to read.

Now we all know you don't have the brains to tell there
is no difference between the two.

Neither do you, it seems....


Quote:

Now If I'd
posted the link, then made a babbled reference to the contents that
distorted it without understanding, I'd hold my hands up and say
guilty.

Of what? That would not be parroting; that would be providing
proper support for your signature statement, even if it was wrong.

Nice try at a strawman.

Quote:

But I merely posted a link. One I have provided to many people as it is
a pinnacle of clarity on the topic.

Why do you provide links to people who can find them just
readily as you do, and who probably read them long before
you did, and who never asked you for a link? Do you think
readers are so stupid we want you to tell us where to find
stuff?

Its a website from a respected scientist who puts it all so succintly.
If you have issues understanding that, then thats your problem.

I guess you use others to talk for you since you cannot write
well enough to tell us what you think, PD, or else you can't think
for yourself well enough to make your own arguments, so you
refer others to the library as if every book written is in agree-
ment with all the others on every issue.


Oh I forgot, you know better don't you. You're a "special" "free
thinker".....

You keep advancing the nonsense, it makes for more giggles....


Quote:

The difference between Looney Marron Relf is he picks and chooses bits
of websites to support his nonsensical position.

But not you, right? You choose whole websites - not just bits
and pieces - to support your nonsensical position, right?

You're the one advancing the nonsensical position.

Quote:

Now if you want me to
make a really long post explaining the issues with QED and photon mass,
problems with the standard model plus the continual confusion between
rest/relatvisitic mass then I will.

Well, your confusion is your problem, not mine. But since you
offered, go ahead and make my day - show us what you got.

Short form

A photon with mass has issues with gauge invariance in the standard
model, plus shortens the range of the electromagnetic force.
Experiments have put an upper limit to the photon's mass to such a
minute fraction of the electron volt - and correspondingly, to a even
smaller fraction of the kilogram to be negligible.

We can examine the EM force over quite a long range, and to
experimental accuracy it appears to be an infinite range, inverse
square law - therefore the force carrier has no mass.

An argument sometimes used is gravitational deflection - explained by
GR and the fact a photon travels such that its proper time is zero - a
null geodesic. What we see as gravitational deflection is the photon
travelling what it sees as a straightline path in the curved spacetime
created by the presence of matter.

Likewise gravitational redshift/blueshift is an frequency change caused
by a gain of gravitational potential energy in a gravitational well.

People see E= mc^2 and think m= E/c^2 ... its relativistic mass, a true
indicator of mass is to talk of rest mass as related to rest energy. A
photon is never at rest, and therefore it has no rest mass - E_0 = m_0
= 0.


Capiche?

Obviously you won't - you'll continue to froth.

Quote:

But, to be blunt, I really ain't going to waste much time on you when
it is blatantly obvious you aren't listening. You won't listen to me,
and you won't listen to anyone else...

Oh, that's a lie you have come to believe from dolts no smarter
than you. If it were true, how could I possibly overthrow your
nonsense so readily without listening to it?

You're the one advancing nonsense with no physical backing..... I

haven't spotted you overthrowing anything. You're just another kook
with an agenda.... But you keep on belieiving you're winning, in the
face of overwhelming evidence....

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
avergon@verizon.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 282

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:16 pm    Post subject: MASSS OF THE PHOTON Reply with quote

From: FrediFizzx - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jun 22 2006 9:43 pm
Email: "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com>
Groups: sci.physics.relativity
Not yet ratedRating:
show options

"Vert" <vertvergon@msn.com> wrote in message


Quote:
There are a lot of people on this NG that don't know their back end
from a hole in the ground.
Then there are others whose thinking process is like a tossed salad.
They come up with stupid statements, assumptions, and cannot back them
up.

Good logic and good facts don't phase them. They are hopeless.


Quote:
They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and
massless
photons.


Quote:
Asked to back up there belief, they come up with vague statements or
erroneous proof and refuse to accept evidence that they are wrong.


Quote:
I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

FREDI FIZZX

The problem (your confusion?) stems from how a photon is defined in
QED.
In the "particle" viewpoint, I doubt that it can be proven that a
photon
has no mass. But all experimental evidence so far points to a massless

photon. And in QED there is no theoretical "need" for a photon to have

mass. In our Quantum Vacuum Charge relativistic medium scenario,
photons are required to be massless as they are more like a "wavicle".
Any mass is in the medium and a photon is just a "concentrated"
energy-momentum flow thru the medium. In this kind of picture it is
easy to see that photons are massless and why there can be a quantum
object with no mass. Even "bare" fermions in our scenario are thought
to be massless much like in the Standard Model. They obtain their
masses from interaction with the quantum vacuum.

VERGON

Your faith in QED is to be commended -- even if it is misplaced.

In my view, QM is much like the six blind men examining the elephant.
One said it was like a tree (he was feeling the leg), another said it
was like a snake (he was feeling the trunk), another said it was like a
rope (he was feeling the tail), etc.

I had a text book once in which the author said, "If the student feels
he has not grasped QM do not despair or go over the material again. One
never grasps QM they simply get used to it."

QM is more or less a code to deal with the real world. I prefer to deal
with the real world.
That's why I wrote a paper titled "On the Quantum as a Physical
Entity".

So let's deal with the real world and deal with observal and well
established facts. If you want to throw them out for QM that's your
privilege.

To start with ALL equations for momentum and energy contain two and
only two elements, mass and motion. Get rid of the mass and all you
have is motion -- motion of nothing.

It is a well accepted fact that photons have energy and momentum. So if
you can describe the composition of energy and momentum without mass,
I'll be satisfied.

Compare this to the vague hypothetical allegorical QED. I know which I
prefer.
Just because QED is popular does not mean it is right. Just because it
seems to coincide with reality does not mean it is right. Ptolemy's
epicycles seemed right for 14 CENTURIES and were proved wrong in the
long run.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 17 [246 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 15, 16, 17 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:52 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts On the Structure of Particles and the Nature of Nuclear F... zhouyb_8@163.com Strings 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:55 am
No new posts Mass Henry Haapalainen Relativity 24 Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:28 am
No new posts Capacitance and mass DGoncz@aol.com Research 1 Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:32 am
No new posts Particles bombarding earth's atomsphere muser Particle 11 Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:34 am
No new posts Radiation pressure -photon momentum qxs@rogers.com Electromagnetics 0 Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1447s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0894s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]