A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FLIGHT RESERVATIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: superlatives of Volcano-Electricity #47 Volcano-Electricity: Earth's Energy Future
From: kado on 31 Dec 2009 03:51 On Dec 26, 3:42 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.; ??? The only way to resolve this conundrum and solve this is to take a philosophical approach, because one has to first understand the true nature of light. Furthermore, it helps if one knows how mainline science got to this apparent paradox. So: The two modern and incompatible theories of the nature of light were developed at about the same time by Isaac Newton with his 'corpuscle' theory and Christian Huygens with the wave theory. Newton's concept fell out of fashion when Huygens, T. Young, G. R. Kirchhoff, J. C. Maxwell, et al., demonstrated the wave properties of light. The particle nature of light came back into favor with the 'photon' of Max Planck and the ideas of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, the fundamental concept of the nature of light is still being debated, so is moot and not truly resolved. That is, is light the energy of a physical photon particle or that of a wave? Mainline science just gave up, i.e., acquiesced, as it could not fully support or reject either supposition. In other words; science cannot truly explain the paradoxial massless mass (that can be said to be the thoughtless thought of a mindless mind) of the photon, or the enigmatic ether (that Special Relativity established as superfluous and unnecessary) required of the wave theory to work in the vacuum of outer space. So mainline science really chickened out, and just blindly accepted (on FAITH) the flummoxial idea of the dual nature of light postulated by Louis de Broglie. Ever since the two conflicting concepts were conceived, light has been considered energy. (Yes, mass is a necessary component of both energy and momentum.) Thinking of light as energy has resulted in the current difficulty of satisfactorily explaining the true properties and qualities of light. The Fundamental Principle Forces of physics are: The Strong Nuclear Force; The Weak Nuclear Force; The Electromagnetic Force; The Gravitational Force. Whether or not the effect of the weak nuclear interaction is an extension of (i.e., unified with) the electromagnetic force by the Electroweak Theory of Dr. Steven Weinberg; or whether any bending of the path of light is due to the geodesics of General Relativity or the gravitation of Newton are immaterial to the following. Visible light is just a small segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. The invisible portions of this spectrum (i.e., the ultraviolet, infrared, and even those with frequencies well above or well below the visible portion) are often connoted as light. It may be just a matter of semantics, but the whole electromagnetic spectrum, or the specific segment thereof under study, including the visible portion, outside the context of the Fundamental Forces is almost always believed, supposed, considered, and/or connoted as: Energy, Radiation, Field, Rays, but seldom, if ever, as force. Light, regardless whether visible or invisible, is not energy, radiation fields, or rays. Light is a force! Light is a force, just like electricity and magnetism. Light force can be converted into electrical force (i.e., the electromotive force, or EMF), that in turn can be changed into magnetic force, that then can be converted into the mechanical forces that drives our civilization. And visa-versa. So the Laws of Thermodynamics are obeyed! Thinking of the electromagnetic phenomenon as a trinity (i.e., electo-LIGHT- magnetic), rather that just the duality of the electromagnetic spectrum may help in clarifying the role of light in the true workings of the natural universe. So the true answer to the question by the OP is that the photon is a sort of a red herring, and does not exist in the natural universe as such. I hope this answer is satisfactory. Many details have be omitted for brevity, and the above is a very condensed synopsis of the full desertion of light appearing in the treatise 'The Search for Reality and the Truths' by this author that is not yet in print. Anyway- Have a Happy New Year D. Y. Kadoshima
From: Y.Porat on 31 Dec 2009 04:53 On Dec 30, 9:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I do agree ----------------- -nice ! we need more people on our side ad less on the mathematician parrots on the other side > > The idea that a photon has no mass does not make sense. > h determines its constant mass, and f its variable mass, in equation > E=hf/c^2 > And although it may not be rest mass, it is still mass, from kinetic ----------------- there are no 2 kinds of mass no one is alowed (a fucker mathematician )to invent kinds of masses to fit his idiotic moronic )ad hock need! (idiotic is not realizing that the photon is an exception case that can move at c and have mass because of the new iron rule that NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!) no need to be a genius to understand it after a 100 years of experiments !!! and simple thinking ) there is the MKS system meter Kilogram second and no METER KILIGRAM 1 KILOGRAM 2 LIKOGRAM 2 SECOND 1 SECOND 2 dimensions have to be measured (or compared to) IN JUST ONE FRAME NOT IN 2 AND NOT IN 3 FRAMES !!! or else you have no BASE TO MEASURE ANYTHING !!! that is by definition the base of measurements !!! 3 non of the MKS dimensions are changing in the REST FRAME !! 4 the moving frame does not **invent or create** NEW BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITIES !! 5 ENERGY IS - MASS ON MOTION as in macrocosm !!! > energy of motion. > And as you know by now, I think that I have proven that even rest > mass, is kinetic energy, relative mass, from energy at c in circular > and or spherical motion. i agree but still even it is moving it is the ONE MASS!! no matter how do you call it ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------------------
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 06:05 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1503ce81-feec-4bdc-87cb-8e799980de23(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 30, 9:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> I do agree > ----------------- > -nice ! > we need more people on our side > ad less on the mathematician parrots > on the other side >> >> The idea that a photon has no mass does not make sense. >> h determines its constant mass, and f its variable mass, in equation >> E=hf/c^2 >> And although it may not be rest mass, it is still mass, from kinetic > ----------------- > there are no 2 kinds of mass How quickly he drifted from 'your side' > no one is alowed (a fucker mathematician )to invent kinds of masses > to fit his idiotic moronic )ad hock need! They don't > (idiotic is not realizing that the photon is an exception case that > can move at c > and have mass > because of the new iron rule that > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!) No need for an exception when a zero rest-mass photon fits the rules as it is > no need to be a genius to understand it > after a 100 years of experiments !!! and simple thinking ) All experiments are consistent with the zero rest mass [snip more porat waffle]
From: PD on 31 Dec 2009 14:21 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. 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. PD
From: Y.Porat on 1 Jan 2010 04:21
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?? 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 !!!!!! **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 !! 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 !! ps excuse me PD for 'leeching' on you but you can see that i bring physics arguments !! ATB Y.Porat -------------- |