Just a dimension analysis of photon momentum!!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: God, the ant, & Space_Time
Next: FLUSHING THE TOILET
From: Igor on 23 Jun 2010 18:08 On Jun 23, 4:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > the photon momentum can be presented as > > P = hf/c > right > it is the full comprehensive presentation > of the photon momentum > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! > > now lets take it as is > (without changing anything in it as the formula > presenting the **photon momentum * > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) > > and present it by its dimensions and > dimensionless figures > > h is > 6.6 exp -34 > > f is > fs/second > > while fs is*** the dimensionless > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** > > c is say (aprox ) > 3 exp10 meter/second > now if we combine all of it > we get Try 3 exp 8, clueless. > P 6.6 exp -Kg meter ^2 /second times fs/Sec > divided by meter/Second times 3 exp10 > > ie if we present it without the > dimensions that are canceling themselves > in nominator and denominator > > we get > ==================================== > 6.6exp-34 Kg MET /SEC times fs/3 exp10 > ==================================== > now my question is > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > Well, clueless, the finite value for c might be construed as being relativistic. But that's just my educated opinion.
From: Inertial on 23 Jun 2010 19:55 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a1b97b94-1095-452f-99aa-5f110e3a1084(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 23, 3:34 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:6be5f53f-9504-440b-946f-52095071051b(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > the photon momentum can be presented as >> >> > P = hf/c >> >> Yes .. except you incorrectly ALSO claim that ht is NOT the photon >> energy. >> But E = Pc .. so you just showed your previous claim to be wrong >> >> > right >> > it is the full comprehensive presentation >> > of the photon momentum >> >> One of them .. there is more than one way to express it eg. P = Mc ... >> where M is relativistic mass >> >> > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! >> >> Thats fine >> >> > now lets take it as is >> > (without changing anything in it as the formula >> > presenting the **photon momentum * >> > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) >> >> Yes.. its momentum .. noone was taking it as energy >> >> > and present it by its dimensions and >> > dimensionless figures >> >> > h is >> > 6.6 exp -34 >> >> h is not a dimensionless figure .. you need the value AND dimensions for >> h. >> Otherwise its just an arbitrary number. So no .. h is NOT 6.6 exp -34 >> >> >> >> > f is >> > fs/second >> >> > while fs is*** the dimensionless >> > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** >> >> > c is say (aprox ) >> > 3 exp10 meter/second >> > now if we combine all of it >> > we get >> >> > P 6.6 exp -Kg meter ^2 /second times fs/Sec >> > divided by meter/Second times 3 exp10 >> >> > ie if we present it without the >> > dimensions that are canceling themselves >> > in nominator and denominator >> >> > we get >> > ==================================== >> > 6.6exp-34 Kg MET /SEC times fs/3 exp10 >> >> What a mess >> >> > ==================================== >> > now my question is >> > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! >> >> You are just showing numbers and units .. if you show anything like that >> it >> won't look 'relativistic' >> >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > --------------------- > i will try my best with big efforts > to be as polite as appropriate > to the until now lever of 'discussion''': What on earth do you mean by that? More gibberish. > Whoever - artful = Inertial .....Anonymous -- > is not (and will never be!) > a partner for discussion with me !! As always you ignore what others anyway. You don't discuss. > so please other readers --bypass him !! You'll find other equally unimpressed with your nonsense.. Especially when you are incapable of rationally discussing what you post.
From: Y.Porat on 24 Jun 2010 00:26 On Jun 23, 10:05 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 4:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > the photon momentum can be presented as > > > P = hf/c > > right > > it is the full comprehensive presentation > > of the photon momentum > > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! > > > now lets take it as is > > (without changing anything in it as the formula > > presenting the **photon momentum * > > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) > > > and present it by its dimensions and > > dimensionless figures > > > h is > > 6.6 exp -34 > > WRONG! h = 6.626 x 10^-34 J s > > The "Joule-second" part is kind of important ------------------- Mr chemistry did you ever analyzed the dimensions of Joule ??......!! dId you ever analysed the basic of HONESTY (:-) > > > f is > > fs/second > > > while fs is*** the dimensionless > > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** > > > c is say (aprox ) > > 3 exp10 meter/second > > WRONG... The speed of light is approximately 3 x 10^8 m /s. > 3 x 10^10 is the speed of light in CENTIMETERS per second. -- (:-) ok exp 8 does that make the principal difference between reast and relativistic mass??!! and now we going to se the difference between the picky thinking and physics theinking: please tell us where do you see sometning relativistic inthe above formula ie a magnification factor that increases th emass from WHAT TO WHAT ??? IOW DEAR PROFESSOR (of chemistry) JUST GIVE US A DESCRIPTION ABOUT THE PHOTON ***HISTORY OF LIFE ** IE HOW THAT MASS STARTED**(quantitatively what was its magnitude?? how it glowed QUANTITATIVELY -- ACCORDING SOME* QUANTITATIVE *FORMULA AND HOW ENDED OUT about big masses you have that 'story'': it starts with some definite exact rest mass and then 'grows ' according to he gamma factor ie 1/(1-V^2/c^2) that was the base for the 'relativistic mass idea.. so HOW DOES WORKS FOR THE PHOTON ?? ------------------------------- > > P 6.6 exp -Kg meter ^2 /second times fs/Sec > > divided by meter/Second times 3 exp10 > > > ie if we present it without the > > dimensions that are canceling themselves > > in nominator and denominator > > > we get > > ==================================== > > 6.6exp-34 Kg MET /SEC times fs/3 exp10 > > ==================================== --------------------- and according to Higgins correction: ====================================== 6.6 exp -34 KILOGRAM MET/SEC times fs / 3/exp 8 ======================================== Thank you Higgins for saving me and my above analysis (:-) TIA Y.Porat --------------------- > > now my question is > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > I have to ask - where did you get your "engineering" degree? > > > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 24 Jun 2010 00:37 On Jun 24, 12:08 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 4:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > the photon momentum can be presented as > > > P = hf/c > > right > > it is the full comprehensive presentation > > of the photon momentum > > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! > > > now lets take it as is > > (without changing anything in it as the formula > > presenting the **photon momentum * > > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) > > > and present it by its dimensions and > > dimensionless figures > > > h is > > 6.6 exp -34 > > > f is > > fs/second > > > while fs is*** the dimensionless > > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** > > > c is say (aprox ) > > 3 exp10 meter/second > > now if we combine all of it > > we get > > Try 3 exp 8, clueless. > > > P 6.6 exp -Kg meter ^2 /second times fs/Sec > > divided by meter/Second times 3 exp10 > > > ie if we present it without the > > dimensions that are canceling themselves > > in nominator and denominator > > > we get > > ==================================== > > 6.6exp-34 Kg MET /SEC times fs/3 exp10 > > ==================================== > > now my question is > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > Well, clueless, the finite value for c might be construed as being > relativistic. But that's just my educated opinion. ---------------- darling Igor!! to say it is relativistic because i say ''' it is relativistic''' is sort of : I AM THE POPE OF ROME!! and if you ask me 'how do you know that you are the pope of Rome'?? i will answer '''BECAUSE **I SAID *THAT I AM THE POPE OF ROME !!''.... (that is the "level of discussion' that is going on here until now !!!) keep well and start thinking physics (for a change)--- WITH YOUR OWN MIND !! Y.Porat ----------------------
From: Inertial on 24 Jun 2010 00:47
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a65ea403-be6c-42bf-a0e3-afbffb8b5a15(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 23, 10:05 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On Jun 23, 4:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > the photon momentum can be presented as >> >> > P = hf/c >> > right >> > it is the full comprehensive presentation >> > of the photon momentum >> > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! >> >> > now lets take it as is >> > (without changing anything in it as the formula >> > presenting the **photon momentum * >> > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) >> >> > and present it by its dimensions and >> > dimensionless figures >> >> > h is >> > 6.6 exp -34 >> >> WRONG! h = 6.626 x 10^-34 J s >> >> The "Joule-second" part is kind of important > ------------------- > Mr chemistry > did you ever analyzed the dimensions of Joule ??......!! > > dId you ever analysed the basic of HONESTY > (:-) >> > >> > f is >> > fs/second >> >> > while fs is*** the dimensionless >> > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** >> >> > c is say (aprox ) >> > 3 exp10 meter/second >> >> WRONG... The speed of light is approximately 3 x 10^8 m /s. >> 3 x 10^10 is the speed of light in CENTIMETERS per second. > -- > (:-) > ok > exp 8 > > does that make the principal difference > between reast and relativistic mass??!! > and now we going to se the difference between > the picky thinking and physics theinking: > please tell us where do you see sometning relativistic inthe above > formula You have this mistaken idea that for a formula to be 'relativistic' it needs to have a gamma factor in it. > ie a magnification factor that increases th emass from > WHAT TO WHAT ??? From rest mass of zero to relativistic mass as given by M = P/c (where M is relativistic mass and P the photon momentum) > IOW > DEAR PROFESSOR (of chemistry) > JUST GIVE US A DESCRIPTION ABOUT > THE PHOTON ***HISTORY OF LIFE ** > IE > HOW THAT MASS STARTED**(quantitatively > what was its magnitude?? > how it glowed QUANTITATIVELY -- > ACCORDING SOME* QUANTITATIVE *FORMULA > AND HOW ENDED OUT > > about big masses > you have that 'story'': Why do you need a story? > it starts with some definite exact rest mass Zero > and then 'grows ' No .. becuase the photon was never at rest .. it ALWAYS has its relativistic mass > according to he gamma factor > ie > 1/(1-V^2/c^2) No .. there is no gamma factor there .. you don't NEED a gamma factor for something to be relativistic > that was the base for the 'relativistic mass idea.. No .. it isn't. Relativistic mass comes from us having (in non-relativistic Newtonian physics) inertial mass is m = P/v. Relativity shows that this does not hold for rest mass m for lrger values of v. Instead we define relativistic mass as the mass that satisifes M = P/v (just like rest mass appears to do at v << c). It happens to be that (when v < c) the rest mass and relativistic mass are related by M = gamma.m .. that formula in indeterminate for photons. > so > HOW DOES WORKS FOR THE PHOTON ?? See above. |