Light isn't a particle
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
Next: Aether Displacement
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 18:13 On May 20, 3:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >On May 20, 2:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> >On May 20, 1:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > >> >> On May 20, 2:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> > Light is only a wave. It has no momentum like matter. > > >> >> > Mitch Raemsch > > >> >> You're Poyntingly wrong. EM waves have momentum density. > >> >I don't think so. They are dual electric and magnetic waves. As such > >> >which wave will the particle be in? the electric wave or the magnetic > >> >wave? > > >> The momentum of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency, > >> p = hf/c. That a photon does carry momentum is easily observable. > >Please demonstrate how easy the measurement is. > > Observe matter with relatively low momentum atoms. Bombard it with > photons energetic enough to knock an electron loose. The only posszibility here is for absorption of light that would cause a quantum jump; sorry but nothing knocks an electron Everyone is deluded > Calculate the > momentum of the electron and resulting ion. Subtract the initial momentum > (~0). By conservation of momentum, the difference had to come from > somewhere... the photon. Compare this value with that predicted by > p = hf/c. > > Bubble chamber photos would be good, gamma + H --> e- + p+.- Hide quoted text - We don't know what we are looking at. > - Show quoted text - Bye. Bye. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 20 May 2010 18:25 On May 20, 5:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 4:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 2:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > wrote: > > > > > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > > > >On May 20, 1:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > >> On May 20, 2:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > Light is only a wave. It has no momentum like matter. > > > > > >> > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > >> You're Poyntingly wrong. EM waves have momentum density. > > > > >I don't think so. They are dual electric and magnetic waves. As such > > > > >which wave will the particle be in? the electric wave or the magnetic > > > > >wave? > > > > > The momentum of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency, > > > > p = hf/c. That a photon does carry momentum is easily observable. > > > > Please demonstrate how easy the measurement is. > > >http://www.jstor.org/pss/79586 > > Note this is done 33 years ago. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > You mean 33 years ago they made something up and now you are carrying > on with it. No, they measured it. When you *measure* something, then it is really happening, whether you understand how it happens or not. > If not then answer the question which wave the particle is in? > Is it in the electric wave or is it in the magnetic? > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 18:39 On May 20, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 5:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 4:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 2:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > > > > >On May 20, 1:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On May 20, 2:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > Light is only a wave. It has no momentum like matter. > > > > > > >> > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > >> You're Poyntingly wrong. EM waves have momentum density. > > > > > >I don't think so. They are dual electric and magnetic waves. As such > > > > > >which wave will the particle be in? the electric wave or the magnetic > > > > > >wave? > > > > > > The momentum of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency, > > > > > p = hf/c. That a photon does carry momentum is easily observable. > > > > > Please demonstrate how easy the measurement is. > > > >http://www.jstor.org/pss/79586 > > > Note this is done 33 years ago. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > You mean 33 years ago they made something up and now you are carrying > > on with it. > > No, they measured it. When you *measure* something, then it is really > happening, whether you understand how it happens or not. > > > > > If not then answer the question which wave the particle is in? > > Is it in the electric wave or is it in the magnetic? > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You think science has understanding when it cannot even measure accurately and won't admit it. Those measurements are for the future. Complete theories are for the very distant future. We do not know much now. Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 20 May 2010 19:00 On May 20, 5:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 4:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 2:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > wrote: > > > > > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > > > >On May 20, 1:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > >> On May 20, 2:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > Light is only a wave. It has no momentum like matter. > > > > > >> > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > >> You're Poyntingly wrong. EM waves have momentum density. > > > > >I don't think so. They are dual electric and magnetic waves. As such > > > > >which wave will the particle be in? the electric wave or the magnetic > > > > >wave? > > > > > The momentum of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency, > > > > p = hf/c. That a photon does carry momentum is easily observable. > > > > Please demonstrate how easy the measurement is. > > >http://www.jstor.org/pss/79586 > > Note this is done 33 years ago. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > You mean 33 years ago they made something up and now you are carrying > on with it. > If not then answer the question which wave the particle is in? > Is it in the electric wave or is it in the magnetic? Mitch, you have such beautiful blue eyes.
From: Sue... on 20 May 2010 19:14
On May 20, 6:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >On May 20, 2:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> >On May 20, 1:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > >> >> On May 20, 2:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> > Light is only a wave. It has no momentum like matter. > > >> >> > Mitch Raemsch > > >> >> You're Poyntingly wrong. EM waves have momentum density. > >> >I don't think so. They are dual electric and magnetic waves. As such > >> >which wave will the particle be in? the electric wave or the magnetic > >> >wave? > > >> The momentum of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency, > >> p = hf/c. That a photon does carry momentum is easily observable. > >Please demonstrate how easy the measurement is. > > Observe matter with relatively low momentum atoms. Bombard it with > photons energetic enough to knock an electron loose. Calculate the > momentum of the electron and resulting ion. Subtract the initial momentum > (~0). By conservation of momentum, the difference had to come from > somewhere... the photon. Compare this value with that predicted by > p = hf/c. > ------------ > Bubble chamber photos would be good, gamma + H --> e- + p+. That's a good idea. Now why do we see nothing between the two "X"s in the northeast quadrant of this photo? http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2001/bubblechambers/index_files/k2epl.gif Sue... |