A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 18:58 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9bc72936-b582-4859-9e20-e36e0e40ca9a(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 1, 3:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 31 2009, 9:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift >> >> > <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> > > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass? >> > > Or in other words how does light carry energy? >> > > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning >> > > mass. >> > > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C.. >> >> > > A.; ??? >> >> > If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving >> > mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled. >> > It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as >> > mass x velocity. >> > This turns out also to be a lie. >> >> > First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule. >> >> > Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities. >> > At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where >> > gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets >> > bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed >> > of light. >> >> -------------------------- >> and who the hell told you that this Gamma >> is attached to the mass?? > > It isn't attached to the mass. It's a factor that is included in the > expression for momentum of massive objects. That's one of three > factors, none of which is "attached" to any of the others. > >> just because you understand only algebra parroting ??? >> and evn by algebra that you understand >> >> how about >> instead of >> momentum = gamma m v >> >> Momentum /gamma = m v >> >> in that case you dont have to **Invent*** >> a new kind of mass !!!!!! > > Nor am I inventing a new kind of mass here. What I'm doing is writing > the CORRECT expression for the momentum of a massive object. > >> >> **and m re,mains constant !!!??? >> how about thinking physics >> and not parroting >> btw >> as for the photon >> THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !! > > That's correct, and the formula momentum = gamma x mass x velocity > doesn't apply to photons at all. Not in the form written, as it involves a division by zero and so is indeterminate or infinite. I've explained that to Porat many times before. If you rewrite it as: mass = momentum / gamma / velocity Then the factor of 1/gamma makes the expressions zero so you have mass = 0 Which is, of course, correct for photons. gamma appearing as a multiplier in a formula for something travelling at c will results in infinite or indeterminate values. But it is quite valid to divide by it (which is equivalent to multiplying by zero)
From: Y.Porat on 2 Jan 2010 02:10 On Jan 1, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 1, 3:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift > > > > <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass? > > > > Or in other words how does light carry energy? > > > > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning > > > > mass. > > > > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C... > > > > > A.; ??? > > > > If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving > > > mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled. > > > It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as > > > mass x velocity. > > > This turns out also to be a lie. > > > > First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule.. > > > > Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities.. > > > At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where > > > gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets > > > bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed > > > of light. > > > -------------------------- > > and who the hell told you that this Gamma > > is attached to the mass?? > > It isn't attached to the mass. It's a factor that is included in the > expression for momentum of massive objects. That's one of three > factors, none of which is "attached" to any of the others. > ------------------ if so it is much better for my claim (:-) we will see later .... > > just because you understand only algebra parroting ??? > > and evn by algebra that you understand > > > how about > > instead of > > momentum = gamma m v > > > Momentum /gamma = m v > > > in that case you dont have to **Invent*** > > a new kind of mass !!!!!! > > Nor am I inventing a new kind of mass here. What I'm doing is writing > the CORRECT expression for the momentum of a massive object. we will see (JUST LATER )that concluding that mass if infalated (based on that) is just an unjustified INTERPRETATION !! > > > > > **and m re,mains constant !!!??? > > how about thinking physics > > and not parroting > > btw > > as for the photon > > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !! > > That's correct, and the formula momentum = gamma x mass x velocity > doesn't apply to photons at all. yes exactly and i always have to argue about it with parrots !! because (among the others ) the photon moves at c andno mare exeleration and V=c is A LIMIT CASE even mathematically not to mention - physically !! anyway lets examine a mass wich moves at the velocity - something less that c just folowing: -------------- > A wholly different expression for momentum is used for photons. yes and there is the famous formula for a **mixture* of photons and bigger particles !! ------------ > > > it is another indication about the need to know > > were and how to use it !!! > > 9bacause of ambiguity situations !!! > > -------------- > > > > Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be > > > used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry > > > momentum but not described by that rule. > > > > In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to > > > a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects > > > of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable > > > that such a rule can be found at all. > > > --------------------- > > > (:-) > > Hi abstract philosopher !! > > Nothing abstract about it. It's really very straightforward and > practical. > ----------------- now since you PD still was not able to bring ACTUAL SPECIFIC EXAMPLES i will do it instead of you : lets take a mass (not a photon) say an electron or even a proton (say like in the LHC) and examine it in TWO SITUATIONS: 1 it moves in a velocity muchless than c amd let it collide say with a lead screen and examine its momentum of collission wihtthat screen 2 lets take exactly the above particle but this time with a velocity *very close to c and examine its momentum collision with that above lead screen can you show us your analysis and calculations **comparing the two cases ??** incuding the *force* exserted on that screen !! that analysis can be of course not numerically but just by formulas btw the question is not only to PD it is for anyone else who want to do it (not including Feuerbacher from heidelberg .. because of obvious reasons (:-) TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: PD on 2 Jan 2010 13:28 On Jan 2, 1:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 1, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 1, 3:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift > > > > > <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass? > > > > > Or in other words how does light carry energy? > > > > > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning > > > > > mass. > > > > > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C.. > > > > > > A.; ??? > > > > > If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving > > > > mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled. > > > > It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as > > > > mass x velocity. > > > > This turns out also to be a lie. > > > > > First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule. > > > > > Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities. > > > > At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where > > > > gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets > > > > bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed > > > > of light. > > > > -------------------------- > > > and who the hell told you that this Gamma > > > is attached to the mass?? > > > It isn't attached to the mass. It's a factor that is included in the > > expression for momentum of massive objects. That's one of three > > factors, none of which is "attached" to any of the others. > > ------------------ > > if so it is much better for my claim (:-) Then your "claim" is old hat. > we will see later .... > > > > just because you understand only algebra parroting ??? > > > and evn by algebra that you understand > > > > how about > > > instead of > > > momentum = gamma m v > > > > Momentum /gamma = m v > > > > in that case you dont have to **Invent*** > > > a new kind of mass !!!!!! > > > Nor am I inventing a new kind of mass here. What I'm doing is writing > > the CORRECT expression for the momentum of a massive object. > > we will see (JUST LATER )that concluding that mass if infalated > (based on that) is just an unjustified INTERPRETATION !! Indeed. "Relativistic mass" which inflates is an outmoded and largely discarded idea. Mass these days is a relativistic invariant and does not increase with speed. You are well behind -- and I mean decades behind -- the times. > > > > > > **and m re,mains constant !!!??? > > > how about thinking physics > > > and not parroting > > > btw > > > as for the photon > > > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !! > > > That's correct, and the formula momentum = gamma x mass x velocity > > doesn't apply to photons at all. > > yes exactly > and i always have to argue about it > with parrots !! > because (among the others ) the photon > moves at c > andno mare exeleration Never accelerated in the first place. > and > V=c is A LIMIT CASE even mathematically > not to mention - physically !! And I've already told you *many times* that the formula involving gamma is not applied to photons. I don't know why you think this is YOUR insight. It is old hat. > anyway > lets examine a mass wich moves at the velocity > - something less that c just folowing: > -------------- > > > A wholly different expression for momentum is used for photons. > > yes > and there is the famous formula for a **mixture* of > photons and bigger particles !! Yes, and again that is old hat. > ------------ > > > > > > it is another indication about the need to know > > > were and how to use it !!! > > > 9bacause of ambiguity situations !!! > > > -------------- > > > > > Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be > > > > used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry > > > > momentum but not described by that rule. > > > > > In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to > > > > a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects > > > > of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable > > > > that such a rule can be found at all. > > > > --------------------- > > > > (:-) > > > Hi abstract philosopher !! > > > Nothing abstract about it. It's really very straightforward and > > practical. > > ----------------- > now since you PD still was not able to bring > ACTUAL SPECIFIC EXAMPLES > i will do it instead of you : > > lets take a mass (not a photon) say > an electron or even a proton (say like in the LHC) > and examine it in TWO SITUATIONS: > 1 > it moves in a velocity muchless than c amd let it collide say with a > lead screen > and examine its momentum of collission wihtthat screen > 2 > lets take exactly the above particle > but this time with a velocity > *very close to c > and examine its momentum collision > with that above lead screen This has been done. Fixed target and collider experiments with lead targets have been operating for DECADES. > > can you show us your analysis and calculations > **comparing the two cases ??** > incuding the *force* exserted on that screen !! > > that analysis can be of course not numerically > but just by formulas > > btw > the question is not only to PD > it is for anyone else who want to do it > (not including Feuerbacher from heidelberg .. > because of obvious reasons (:-) > > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------------
From: cjcountess on 3 Jan 2010 15:01 Look h, is the constant kinetic or relativistic, call it what you prefer, mass/energy, of the photon due to constant velocity of c. It is still mass, and it is mass due to motion. And as I demonstrated, even rest mass, is relative mass, in circular and or spherical rotation. They are two aspects of the same thing. The whole universe is in constant motion, and one might say that motion is more of a constant than anything at rest. All mass come from energy in motion, even rest mass, which is energy in rotation. Like I said earlier, in equation (E=hf/c^2), h is constant mass/ energy due to constant velocity of, c and, f is variable mass/ energy, due to variable frequency. And higher mass/energy is due to higher kinetic energy of motion, because higher frequency come from higher motion of higher cycles per time unit, and translates to more speed,.and correspondingly higher kinetic energy. In the old days the equation (E=hf), was written as (E=hv), showing its direct correspondence to (F=mv), as indeed they are equal on the quantum level and directly proportional on macro level. And they updated equation E=hf/c^2 is equal to F=mv/r^2. Earlier I stated that E=hf/c^2 did not pertain to rest mass but it does at the high end of the EM spectrum because when E=hf=c^2 or as deBrolie stated E=hf=mc^2 as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 /c^2 = x c^2. On Dec 30 2009, 6:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:bdd1649a-aa33-4ac9-b17c-38428f2ede65(a)37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, > > and that electron was also a wave. > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of > > h/2pi > > 5) Therefore it follows from this and other evidence, that (E=mc^2) = > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) > > You were going well up until you started with that last line of nonsense. > > If c=(square root of -1), then c is no longer a real number, and cannot be > the speed of anything measured. Further, if c=(square root of -1), then c^2 > = -2, so E = mc^2 becomes E = -m, and that is absolute nonsense. c = the natural unit, sqrt of the natural unit -1, and is no longer just an imaginary number, but a real natural unit just as the electron is the real natural unit -1. And yes E= -m in this special case. Ever heard of the unity of the constants? As everything in the universe come from a unified source as we get to the constants in nature we find that they too extend from a unity. (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (h = c= i = 2pi) so far Ive found that all constants can be traced to a unity with c In equation E=hf/c^2 and F=mv/r^2, c = r Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 4 Jan 2010 13:55
h is the constant mass / energy, which can be considered invariant, sense it doesnt change, of photon due to constant invariant speed of light. (c=h). This is only true in the linear direction and is frame independent until a photon reaches E=hf=mc^2 which is rest mass. Than rest mass with a momentum of h/2pi/2, becomes the constant, unless it is converted back into energy. Even still, h is the constant within the constant h/2pi/2. Even if you could travel at c, alongside light, it still would not be massless except in linear direction, just as a car moving at 30 mph would not have enough relative mass to hurt you if you were driving alongside it at the same speed and touched the front of it. That is why people can pass things back and forth through the window if they are driving at same speed next to each other. But it would probably knock your hand off if you were at rest relative to it and it was moving at 30 mph and hit your hand. Still we cannot move at c along side of light and so it always maintains its constant speed and mass/ energy of h in linear direction. But like I said even if you could move at c alongside it would still have its angular momentum from frequency oscillation. In order to see these things one has to look at this geometrically which is something that equations alone cannot convey. And also just as I said rest mass is relative mass in rotation even compound matter are composed of particles made of rotation energy held together by more rotating energy. E=mc^2 = F=mv^2 and E=hf/c^2 = F=mv/r^2 on quantum level and I mean directly not just analogously and just as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 (m/c^2 = mxc^2) concerning 1 quantum particle that is why E=hf/c^2 = E=mxc^2 at level of electron as deBroglie stated. Here are links with E=hv as equation http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=E%3Dhv&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10 Here are some links to E=hf/c^2 as equation http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=e+hf%2Fc%5E2+photon&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Conrad J Countess |