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: 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
From: kado on 4 Jan 2010 19:21 On Jan 4, 10:55 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... > 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. > > Conrad J Countess You are confusing mass with momentum and/or inertia. The reason people can pass things back and forth under these specific conditions is that the uniform speed of both vehicles do not cause a change of momentum of all the bodies of interest, and the only change of momentum of the things passed back and forth are caused by the people doing the passing back and forth. Should both the vehicles not be moving uniformly, i.e., turning or changing speed (that is, accelerating), the change of momentum of both vehicles will also change the state inertia of both vehicles and all within these vehicles. The conservation of inertia (i.e., the colloquial, and really screwed up prevailing idea of centrifugal force) of the things passed from the inside of the turn (if turning) vehicle will make it easier for the people in this inside of the turn vehicle to pass the things to the other, whereas the people in the outside of the turn vehicle must not only apply the force to pass the things to the other vehicle, but must also overcome the inertia of the things to continue to move in a straight line. All this is just plain Newtonian mechanics as explained in Newton's Principia. The empirical applied scientists and engineers have long accepted that the Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science does not always explain and/or does not seem to apply on the everyday dynamics of how the phenomena/events/things occur on Earth and near space (i.e., within the scale of the human). Science has also long known that Einstein's Relativity is not compatible with modern quantum mechanics. That is; Special and General does not work in the ream of the very small (particle physics), and that quantum mechanics fail in the worlds of the very large (cosmology). Furthermore, both Relativity and quantum mechanics seem really bizarre in respect to Classical Newtonian Mechanics. The photon is a concept of the particle nature of light. The rest mass is a concept of mass within Relativity. As the concepts within quantum mechanics do not apply within Relativity, and visa versa, you cannot ever logically use the rest, or gravitational, or inertial mass (wherein mass increases as a function of gamma and tensor mechanics apply) of Einstein to explain the photon. In fact; Einstein was a staunch opponent of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, exemplified by his statement that: "God does not play dice." All this is more comprhensively explained in the copyrighted treatise "The Search for Reality and the Truths". D. Y. Kadoshima
From: cjcountess on 5 Jan 2010 09:58
I appriciate your responce. It is logical, but not intirely complete. Just becaues mainstream scientist have not yet united quantum, special and general relitivity, does not mean that it has not been done. Some of us non mainstream researchers have done it. If you look at the equation (E=mc^2) geometricaly, it can be interpreted as (E=mc^2circled), thereby unifying special relativity, with general relativity as it reveals that c^2 is a frequency/ wavelength, at high end of EM spectrum, which can also be called the energy/matter, as well as electromagnetic spectrum where energy turns to matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical mode thereby aquiring rest mass. Just as deBroglie discovered,(E=hf=mc^2), the (hf), which is frequency measurement, = (mc^2) which is also frequency measurment, in that (c^2) geometricaly can be interpreted as, (c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular diection), creating 90 degree arc trejectory, which if constant creates a circle of energy. This is how energy turns to matter at c^2, unifying special and general relativity and is = to (cx2pi) which = (hx2pi,) with momentum inversely proportional = h/2pi, thereby also uniting quantum theory with these. G, the gravity constant in Newton's and general relativity, as (L/T^2) = (c^2) which is the ultamate (L/T^2) on quantum level, and also = (h/ 2pi) as energy in circular motion, as I stated earlier. And so (G = c^2 = h/2pi), and (c = h). (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) and (E=hf/c^2) = (F=mv/ r^2) on quantum level, concerning 1 quantum particle directly, not just analogously. Just as (h/2pi) and its inverse (hx2pi) represents energy in circlar motion, it is easy to see that (r = h = c). The quantum gravity problem has been solved, but mainstream physicist do not seem ready to accept it yet, but that is ok because the geometrical evidence is so clear and even corresponds to the equations and it is not hard to prove. Your book seems interesting and I will look at it. I have so much evidence to back my proposition that I can argue it from many angles which is what it might take because such a revolutionary idea and discovery is bound to provoke oposition. But as I said, I do not mind because the evidence is overwelming and there is realy no way around it. Conrad J Countess |