Two slit experiment
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: In history the fact that the moon fits over the sun was proof of God
Next: Einstein - Special Relativity - a bird's eye view
From: Inertial on 2 Jun 2010 22:50 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:95fd2622-bd01-439d-bf9d-c43413533e94(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 3, 2:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:5549e805-0ba6-44ab-ba3b-cebe1fb12810(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 2, 10:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 4:48 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > I do not blame anyone for being angry here, it is quite natural >> >> > > that >> >> >> > > > the root causes of such controversies would force such arguments >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > ensue. Nature is playing a trick on us and it is quite natural >> >> > > > that >> >> > > > many decades of misunderstandings would result from that. >> >> > > > Imagine >> >> > > > for >> >> > > > one moment all of the discord which this has caused for the past >> >> > > > 100 >> >> > > > years, even driving an "academic" wedge between such great men >> >> > > > as >> >> > > > Einstein and Bohr. This problem should be resolved once and for >> >> > > > all. >> >> > > > It is a tar pit for scientists who get stuck and then become >> >> > > > fossils. >> >> >> > > > I do not think that we should run from this thing, it should be >> >> > > > tackled. But this also demands that we take up the ultimate test >> >> > > > our >> >> > > > mettle as negotiators and thinkers. >> >> >> > > > I blame mathematics.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > > > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> > > What is quite clear to me is that the generalized random variable >> >> > > can >> >> > > be reworded into a different form which will accomplish the same >> >> > > thing >> >> > > and with equal precision. >> >> >> > > Instead of using outcome spaces with elements which exist, you can >> >> > > reconstruct the random variable using existential indeterminacy >> >> > > and >> >> > > conservation of existential potential. Key word >> "conservation". >> >> >> > > If you resort to this methodology, you are no longer doing >> >> > > mathematics. But - who cares. You are still using a tool which >> >> > > produces the right answers and so it must be equivalent to >> >> > > mathematics. Key word >> "equivalence". >> >> >> > > But, as stated above, paradox is self referential in my opinion, >> >> > > and >> >> > > western philosophy is slow to adopt a comprehension of such an >> >> > > amazing >> >> > > thing. Physics starts to sound like confucianism and men in suits >> >> > > are >> >> > > not always monks. We'll all just have to deal with the fact that >> >> > > physics will remain fractured and non-unified for as long as it >> >> > > takes >> >> > > until we are collectively capable of embracing this riddle for >> >> > > what >> >> > > it >> >> > > is. >> >> >> > -------------------- >> >> > Mr Huang >> >> > beside the abstract philosophy >> >> > we have to be practical and earn our bread >> >> > and butter >> >> > soi ask you a simple question: >> >> >> > did you followed my surprisingly >> >> > (unprecedented !!) *** simple** mathematical prove >> >> > that the photon has mass just **mass**! >> >> >> > no many kinds of it but just one kind of mass >> >> > that is denoted by the dimension m (kilograms ) >> >> > *it is not a variable random component >> >> > it is a basic unambiguous dimension >> >> > that we can t have any common physics language or physics >> >> > discussion unless it is unambiguous as it is !! >> >> > so did you understood how i proved it >> >> > through the Momentum of the photon >> >> > that is a testable and nonzero physical entity ??!! >> >> >> > TIA >> >> > Y.Porat >> >> > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> I'll answer you this way. >> >> >> GR shows that whether mass exists or not can be equivalent. The >> >> presence of a gravitational field due to a massive planet is >> >> equivalent to accelerating in a rocket or an elevator. These things >> >> are equivalent. >> >> >> There are probably many perfectly valid derivations which would show >> >> that a photon has mass, just as there are many other derivations to >> >> show that it does not. The challenge here, in my opinion, is to show >> >> that these things are equivalent - no different than the rocket ship >> >> example. >> >> >> I'm not questioning your proof, and Im more of a mathematician than a >> >> physicist. But I do see a biger picture emerging, and you could change >> >> this whole argument to whether or not gravity even exists if it is >> >> equivalent to an acceleration, all of these things are really the >> >> same. Equivalence is at the root of all of this controversy in my >> >> opinion. Equivalence is fine in GR, but physics has also failed to >> >> implement it in so many other areas where it is relevant and >> >> applicable. >> > ----------------------- >> > no need to complicate it with GR!! >> > it is ways simpler >> > if you describe youself as a amrthematician and not as a physicist >> > than waht are you doing in a physics ng ??!! >> >> > let me try and analize it for you >> >> > Momentum of the photon is >> > h /Lambda == >> >> So it depends on the frequency and wavelength >> >> > 6.6 times kg meter ^2/sec times f/c >> > and it gives >> > scalars times m c >> >> No ,.. it doesn't .. it gives scalar divided by wavelength. There is no >> 'mc' in that formula >> >> Your 'proof' falls apart at that step > > ------------- > jut follow proprrly I did > all the dimensions and scalar there Yes .. dimensions are there. That does not mean that the mass of a photon and speed of light is 'there'. The only measured EMR property in P = h/lambda is lambda .. the wavelength. The M and L dimensions are part of the scalar constant of proportionality 'h'. One can, of course substitute lamda = c/f into there to get P = hf / c and so E = Pc (for a photon). Your argument makes no logical or physical sense and is not valid. Your lies and insults also do not aid in your credibility.
From: Inertial on 3 Jun 2010 02:19 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d799abcd-2ed7-4975-940e-4529f56fa156(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 3, 4:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:95fd2622-bd01-439d-bf9d-c43413533e94(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 3, 2:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:5549e805-0ba6-44ab-ba3b-cebe1fb12810(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 2, 10:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 4:48 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > I do not blame anyone for being angry here, it is quite >> >> >> > > natural >> >> >> > > that >> >> >> >> > > > the root causes of such controversies would force such >> >> >> > > > arguments >> >> >> > > > to >> >> >> > > > ensue. Nature is playing a trick on us and it is quite >> >> >> > > > natural >> >> >> > > > that >> >> >> > > > many decades of misunderstandings would result from that. >> >> >> > > > Imagine >> >> >> > > > for >> >> >> > > > one moment all of the discord which this has caused for the >> >> >> > > > past >> >> >> > > > 100 >> >> >> > > > years, even driving an "academic" wedge between such great >> >> >> > > > men >> >> >> > > > as >> >> >> > > > Einstein and Bohr. This problem should be resolved once and >> >> >> > > > for >> >> >> > > > all. >> >> >> > > > It is a tar pit for scientists who get stuck and then become >> >> >> > > > fossils. >> >> >> >> > > > I do not think that we should run from this thing, it should >> >> >> > > > be >> >> >> > > > tackled. But this also demands that we take up the ultimate >> >> >> > > > test >> >> >> > > > our >> >> >> > > > mettle as negotiators and thinkers. >> >> >> >> > > > I blame mathematics.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> > > > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> >> > > What is quite clear to me is that the generalized random >> >> >> > > variable >> >> >> > > can >> >> >> > > be reworded into a different form which will accomplish the >> >> >> > > same >> >> >> > > thing >> >> >> > > and with equal precision. >> >> >> >> > > Instead of using outcome spaces with elements which exist, you >> >> >> > > can >> >> >> > > reconstruct the random variable using existential indeterminacy >> >> >> > > and >> >> >> > > conservation of existential potential. Key word >> >> >> >> > > "conservation". >> >> >> >> > > If you resort to this methodology, you are no longer doing >> >> >> > > mathematics. But - who cares. You are still using a tool which >> >> >> > > produces the right answers and so it must be equivalent to >> >> >> > > mathematics. Key word >> "equivalence". >> >> >> >> > > But, as stated above, paradox is self referential in my >> >> >> > > opinion, >> >> >> > > and >> >> >> > > western philosophy is slow to adopt a comprehension of such an >> >> >> > > amazing >> >> >> > > thing. Physics starts to sound like confucianism and men in >> >> >> > > suits >> >> >> > > are >> >> >> > > not always monks. We'll all just have to deal with the fact >> >> >> > > that >> >> >> > > physics will remain fractured and non-unified for as long as it >> >> >> > > takes >> >> >> > > until we are collectively capable of embracing this riddle for >> >> >> > > what >> >> >> > > it >> >> >> > > is. >> >> >> >> > -------------------- >> >> >> > Mr Huang >> >> >> > beside the abstract philosophy >> >> >> > we have to be practical and earn our bread >> >> >> > and butter >> >> >> > soi ask you a simple question: >> >> >> >> > did you followed my surprisingly >> >> >> > (unprecedented !!) *** simple** mathematical prove >> >> >> > that the photon has mass just **mass**! >> >> >> >> > no many kinds of it but just one kind of mass >> >> >> > that is denoted by the dimension m (kilograms ) >> >> >> > *it is not a variable random component >> >> >> > it is a basic unambiguous dimension >> >> >> > that we can t have any common physics language or physics >> >> >> > discussion unless it is unambiguous as it is !! >> >> >> > so did you understood how i proved it >> >> >> > through the Momentum of the photon >> >> >> > that is a testable and nonzero physical entity ??!! >> >> >> >> > TIA >> >> >> > Y.Porat >> >> >> > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> >> I'll answer you this way. >> >> >> >> GR shows that whether mass exists or not can be equivalent. The >> >> >> presence of a gravitational field due to a massive planet is >> >> >> equivalent to accelerating in a rocket or an elevator. These things >> >> >> are equivalent. >> >> >> >> There are probably many perfectly valid derivations which would >> >> >> show >> >> >> that a photon has mass, just as there are many other derivations to >> >> >> show that it does not. The challenge here, in my opinion, is to >> >> >> show >> >> >> that these things are equivalent - no different than the rocket >> >> >> ship >> >> >> example. >> >> >> >> I'm not questioning your proof, and Im more of a mathematician than >> >> >> a >> >> >> physicist. But I do see a biger picture emerging, and you could >> >> >> change >> >> >> this whole argument to whether or not gravity even exists if it is >> >> >> equivalent to an acceleration, all of these things are really the >> >> >> same. Equivalence is at the root of all of this controversy in my >> >> >> opinion. Equivalence is fine in GR, but physics has also failed to >> >> >> implement it in so many other areas where it is relevant and >> >> >> applicable. >> >> > ----------------------- >> >> > no need to complicate it with GR!! >> >> > it is ways simpler >> >> > if you describe youself as a amrthematician and not as a physicist >> >> > than waht are you doing in a physics ng ??!! >> >> >> > let me try and analize it for you >> >> >> > Momentum of the photon is >> >> > h /Lambda == >> >> >> So it depends on the frequency and wavelength >> >> >> > 6.6 times kg meter ^2/sec times f/c >> >> > and it gives >> >> > scalars times m c >> >> >> No ,.. it doesn't .. it gives scalar divided by wavelength. There is >> >> no >> >> 'mc' in that formula >> >> >> Your 'proof' falls apart at that step >> >> > ------------- >> > jut follow proprrly >> >> I did >> >> > all the dimensions and scalar there >> >> Yes .. dimensions are there. That does not mean that the mass of a >> photon >> and speed of light is 'there'. The only measured EMR property in P = >> h/lambda is lambda .. the wavelength. The M and L dimensions are part of >> the scalar constant of proportionality 'h'. >> ------------------------------- > imbecile idiot crook!!! > the plank constant is not a scsalar!! Yes .. it is. You don't even know the difference between scalars and vectors. You are so ignorant, that it is beyond ridiculous that you even post here. [snip display of porat's ignorance] > 2 > the fact that Photon momentum is frequency > dependent -- > means that > THERE IS **SOMETHING THERE** > TO MULTIPLY THE* MASS DIMENSION* THERE You are confused again. There is no mass dimension in frequency, nor is there one in wavelength. > BY ZERO ???!! Why would you multiply a finite value by zero and expect to get something other than zero? You seem to think that somewhere in p = h / lambda there is photon mass. All that is there is photon momentum, photon wavelength and the plank constant. No photon mass there. You can calculate its relativistic mass (M) from p = Mc, and you get a non-zero value (as expected). As others have said, relativistic mass is not generally regarded as a useful thing to calculate nowadays by many physicists. But, regardless of the relativistic mass, its invariant mass is still zero (as m = M/gamma, and when v=c you get 1/gamma = 0, so you get m = M x 0 = 0 regardless of M) [snip more displays of porat's rudeness] >> One can, of course substitute lamda = c/f into there to get P = hf / c >> and >> so E = Pc (for a photon). >> >> Your argument makes no logical or physical sense and is not valid. Your >> lies and insults also do not aid in your credibility. Same comment still applies
From: Y.Porat on 3 Jun 2010 06:14 On Jun 3, 8:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d799abcd-2ed7-4975-940e-4529f56fa156(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 3, 4:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:95fd2622-bd01-439d-bf9d-c43413533e94(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 3, 2:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:5549e805-0ba6-44ab-ba3b-cebe1fb12810(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jun 2, 10:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 4:48 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > I do not blame anyone for being angry here, it is quite > >> >> >> > > natural > >> >> >> > > that > > >> >> >> > > > the root causes of such controversies would force such > >> >> >> > > > arguments > >> >> >> > > > to > >> >> >> > > > ensue. Nature is playing a trick on us and it is quite > >> >> >> > > > natural > >> >> >> > > > that > >> >> >> > > > many decades of misunderstandings would result from that. > >> >> >> > > > Imagine > >> >> >> > > > for > >> >> >> > > > one moment all of the discord which this has caused for the > >> >> >> > > > past > >> >> >> > > > 100 > >> >> >> > > > years, even driving an "academic" wedge between such great > >> >> >> > > > men > >> >> >> > > > as > >> >> >> > > > Einstein and Bohr. This problem should be resolved once and > >> >> >> > > > for > >> >> >> > > > all. > >> >> >> > > > It is a tar pit for scientists who get stuck and then become > >> >> >> > > > fossils. > > >> >> >> > > > I do not think that we should run from this thing, it should > >> >> >> > > > be > >> >> >> > > > tackled. But this also demands that we take up the ultimate > >> >> >> > > > test > >> >> >> > > > our > >> >> >> > > > mettle as negotiators and thinkers. > > >> >> >> > > > I blame mathematics.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > >> >> >> > > What is quite clear to me is that the generalized random > >> >> >> > > variable > >> >> >> > > can > >> >> >> > > be reworded into a different form which will accomplish the > >> >> >> > > same > >> >> >> > > thing > >> >> >> > > and with equal precision. > > >> >> >> > > Instead of using outcome spaces with elements which exist, you > >> >> >> > > can > >> >> >> > > reconstruct the random variable using existential indeterminacy > >> >> >> > > and > >> >> >> > > conservation of existential potential. Key word >> > >> >> >> > > "conservation". > > >> >> >> > > If you resort to this methodology, you are no longer doing > >> >> >> > > mathematics. But - who cares. You are still using a tool which > >> >> >> > > produces the right answers and so it must be equivalent to > >> >> >> > > mathematics. Key word >> "equivalence". > > >> >> >> > > But, as stated above, paradox is self referential in my > >> >> >> > > opinion, > >> >> >> > > and > >> >> >> > > western philosophy is slow to adopt a comprehension of such an > >> >> >> > > amazing > >> >> >> > > thing. Physics starts to sound like confucianism and men in > >> >> >> > > suits > >> >> >> > > are > >> >> >> > > not always monks. We'll all just have to deal with the fact > >> >> >> > > that > >> >> >> > > physics will remain fractured and non-unified for as long as it > >> >> >> > > takes > >> >> >> > > until we are collectively capable of embracing this riddle for > >> >> >> > > what > >> >> >> > > it > >> >> >> > > is. > > >> >> >> > -------------------- > >> >> >> > Mr Huang > >> >> >> > beside the abstract philosophy > >> >> >> > we have to be practical and earn our bread > >> >> >> > and butter > >> >> >> > soi ask you a simple question: > > >> >> >> > did you followed my surprisingly > >> >> >> > (unprecedented !!) *** simple** mathematical prove > >> >> >> > that the photon has mass just **mass**! > > >> >> >> > no many kinds of it but just one kind of mass > >> >> >> > that is denoted by the dimension m (kilograms ) > >> >> >> > *it is not a variable random component > >> >> >> > it is a basic unambiguous dimension > >> >> >> > that we can t have any common physics language or physics > >> >> >> > discussion unless it is unambiguous as it is !! > >> >> >> > so did you understood how i proved it > >> >> >> > through the Momentum of the photon > >> >> >> > that is a testable and nonzero physical entity ??!! > > >> >> >> > TIA > >> >> >> > Y.Porat > >> >> >> > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> >> >> I'll answer you this way. > > >> >> >> GR shows that whether mass exists or not can be equivalent. The > >> >> >> presence of a gravitational field due to a massive planet is > >> >> >> equivalent to accelerating in a rocket or an elevator. These things > >> >> >> are equivalent. > > >> >> >> There are probably many perfectly valid derivations which would > >> >> >> show > >> >> >> that a photon has mass, just as there are many other derivations to > >> >> >> show that it does not. The challenge here, in my opinion, is to > >> >> >> show > >> >> >> that these things are equivalent - no different than the rocket > >> >> >> ship > >> >> >> example. > > >> >> >> I'm not questioning your proof, and Im more of a mathematician than > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> physicist. But I do see a biger picture emerging, and you could > >> >> >> change > >> >> >> this whole argument to whether or not gravity even exists if it is > >> >> >> equivalent to an acceleration, all of these things are really the > >> >> >> same. Equivalence is at the root of all of this controversy in my > >> >> >> opinion. Equivalence is fine in GR, but physics has also failed to > >> >> >> implement it in so many other areas where it is relevant and > >> >> >> applicable. > >> >> > ----------------------- > >> >> > no need to complicate it with GR!! > >> >> > it is ways simpler > >> >> > if you describe youself as a amrthematician and not as a physicist > >> >> > than waht are you doing in a physics ng ??!! > > >> >> > let me try and analize it for you > > >> >> > Momentum of the photon is > >> >> > h /Lambda == > > >> >> So it depends on the frequency and wavelength > > >> >> > 6.6 times kg meter ^2/sec times f/c > >> >> > and it gives > >> >> > scalars times m c > > >> >> No ,.. it doesn't .. it gives scalar divided by wavelength. There is > >> >> no > >> >> 'mc' in that formula > > >> >> Your 'proof' falls apart at that step > > >> > ------------- > >> > jut follow proprrly > > >> I did > > >> > all the dimensions and scalar there > > >> Yes .. dimensions are there. That does not mean that the mass of a > >> photon > >> and speed of light is 'there'. The only measured EMR property in P = > >> h/lambda is lambda .. the wavelength. The M and L dimensions are part of > >> the scalar constant of proportionality 'h'. > >> ------------------------------- > > imbecile idiot crook!!! > > the plank constant is not a scsalar!! > > Yes .. it is. You don't even know the difference between scalars and > vectors. You are so ignorant, that it is beyond ridiculous that you even > post here. > > [snip display of porat's ignorance] > > > 2 > > the fact that Photon momentum is frequency > > dependent -- > > means that > > THERE IS **SOMETHING THERE** > > TO MULTIPLY THE* MASS DIMENSION* THERE > > You are confused again. There is no mass dimension in frequency, nor is > there one in wavelength. > > > BY ZERO ???!! > > Why would you multiply a finite value by zero and expect to get something > other than zero? > > You seem to think that somewhere in p = h / lambda there is photon mass.. > All that is there is photon momentum, photon wavelength and the plank > constant. No photon mass there. You can calculate its relativistic mass > (M) from p = Mc, and you get a non-zero value (as expected). As others have > said, relativistic mass is not generally regarded as a useful thing to > calculate nowadays by many physicists. But, regardless of the relativistic > mass, its invariant mass is still zero (as m = M/gamma, and when v=c you get > 1/gamma = 0, so you get m = M x 0 = 0 regardless of M) > > [snip more displays of porat's rudeness] > > >> One can, of course substitute lamda = c/f into there to get P = hf / c > >> and > >> so E = Pc (for a photon). > > >> Your argument makes no logical or physical sense and is not valid. Your > >> lies and insults also do not aid in your credibility. > > Same comment still applies ------------------ (:-) disturbed imbecile crook go discus with Josef Goebbels next Y.P ---------------- ------------------- --------------------
From: Inertial on 3 Jun 2010 07:47 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f38733ca-8776-449c-a953-b49075ce35ed(a)q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 3, 8:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:d799abcd-2ed7-4975-940e-4529f56fa156(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 3, 4:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:95fd2622-bd01-439d-bf9d-c43413533e94(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 3, 2:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:5549e805-0ba6-44ab-ba3b-cebe1fb12810(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jun 2, 10:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 4:48 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > > > I do not blame anyone for being angry here, it is quite >> >> >> >> > > natural >> >> >> >> > > that >> >> >> >> >> > > > the root causes of such controversies would force such >> >> >> >> > > > arguments >> >> >> >> > > > to >> >> >> >> > > > ensue. Nature is playing a trick on us and it is quite >> >> >> >> > > > natural >> >> >> >> > > > that >> >> >> >> > > > many decades of misunderstandings would result from that. >> >> >> >> > > > Imagine >> >> >> >> > > > for >> >> >> >> > > > one moment all of the discord which this has caused for >> >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> >> > > > past >> >> >> >> > > > 100 >> >> >> >> > > > years, even driving an "academic" wedge between such great >> >> >> >> > > > men >> >> >> >> > > > as >> >> >> >> > > > Einstein and Bohr. This problem should be resolved once >> >> >> >> > > > and >> >> >> >> > > > for >> >> >> >> > > > all. >> >> >> >> > > > It is a tar pit for scientists who get stuck and then >> >> >> >> > > > become >> >> >> >> > > > fossils. >> >> >> >> >> > > > I do not think that we should run from this thing, it >> >> >> >> > > > should >> >> >> >> > > > be >> >> >> >> > > > tackled. But this also demands that we take up the >> >> >> >> > > > ultimate >> >> >> >> > > > test >> >> >> >> > > > our >> >> >> >> > > > mettle as negotiators and thinkers. >> >> >> >> >> > > > I blame mathematics.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> >> > > > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> >> >> > > What is quite clear to me is that the generalized random >> >> >> >> > > variable >> >> >> >> > > can >> >> >> >> > > be reworded into a different form which will accomplish the >> >> >> >> > > same >> >> >> >> > > thing >> >> >> >> > > and with equal precision. >> >> >> >> >> > > Instead of using outcome spaces with elements which exist, >> >> >> >> > > you >> >> >> >> > > can >> >> >> >> > > reconstruct the random variable using existential >> >> >> >> > > indeterminacy >> >> >> >> > > and >> >> >> >> > > conservation of existential potential. Key word >> >> >> >> >> > > "conservation". >> >> >> >> >> > > If you resort to this methodology, you are no longer doing >> >> >> >> > > mathematics. But - who cares. You are still using a tool >> >> >> >> > > which >> >> >> >> > > produces the right answers and so it must be equivalent to >> >> >> >> > > mathematics. Key word >> "equivalence". >> >> >> >> >> > > But, as stated above, paradox is self referential in my >> >> >> >> > > opinion, >> >> >> >> > > and >> >> >> >> > > western philosophy is slow to adopt a comprehension of such >> >> >> >> > > an >> >> >> >> > > amazing >> >> >> >> > > thing. Physics starts to sound like confucianism and men in >> >> >> >> > > suits >> >> >> >> > > are >> >> >> >> > > not always monks. We'll all just have to deal with the fact >> >> >> >> > > that >> >> >> >> > > physics will remain fractured and non-unified for as long as >> >> >> >> > > it >> >> >> >> > > takes >> >> >> >> > > until we are collectively capable of embracing this riddle >> >> >> >> > > for >> >> >> >> > > what >> >> >> >> > > it >> >> >> >> > > is. >> >> >> >> >> > -------------------- >> >> >> >> > Mr Huang >> >> >> >> > beside the abstract philosophy >> >> >> >> > we have to be practical and earn our bread >> >> >> >> > and butter >> >> >> >> > soi ask you a simple question: >> >> >> >> >> > did you followed my surprisingly >> >> >> >> > (unprecedented !!) *** simple** mathematical prove >> >> >> >> > that the photon has mass just **mass**! >> >> >> >> >> > no many kinds of it but just one kind of mass >> >> >> >> > that is denoted by the dimension m (kilograms ) >> >> >> >> > *it is not a variable random component >> >> >> >> > it is a basic unambiguous dimension >> >> >> >> > that we can t have any common physics language or physics >> >> >> >> > discussion unless it is unambiguous as it is !! >> >> >> >> > so did you understood how i proved it >> >> >> >> > through the Momentum of the photon >> >> >> >> > that is a testable and nonzero physical entity ??!! >> >> >> >> >> > TIA >> >> >> >> > Y.Porat >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> >> >> I'll answer you this way. >> >> >> >> >> GR shows that whether mass exists or not can be equivalent. The >> >> >> >> presence of a gravitational field due to a massive planet is >> >> >> >> equivalent to accelerating in a rocket or an elevator. These >> >> >> >> things >> >> >> >> are equivalent. >> >> >> >> >> There are probably many perfectly valid derivations which would >> >> >> >> show >> >> >> >> that a photon has mass, just as there are many other derivations >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> show that it does not. The challenge here, in my opinion, is to >> >> >> >> show >> >> >> >> that these things are equivalent - no different than the rocket >> >> >> >> ship >> >> >> >> example. >> >> >> >> >> I'm not questioning your proof, and Im more of a mathematician >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> physicist. But I do see a biger picture emerging, and you could >> >> >> >> change >> >> >> >> this whole argument to whether or not gravity even exists if it >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> equivalent to an acceleration, all of these things are really >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> same. Equivalence is at the root of all of this controversy in >> >> >> >> my >> >> >> >> opinion. Equivalence is fine in GR, but physics has also failed >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> implement it in so many other areas where it is relevant and >> >> >> >> applicable. >> >> >> > ----------------------- >> >> >> > no need to complicate it with GR!! >> >> >> > it is ways simpler >> >> >> > if you describe youself as a amrthematician and not as a >> >> >> > physicist >> >> >> > than waht are you doing in a physics ng ??!! >> >> >> >> > let me try and analize it for you >> >> >> >> > Momentum of the photon is >> >> >> > h /Lambda == >> >> >> >> So it depends on the frequency and wavelength >> >> >> >> > 6.6 times kg meter ^2/sec times f/c >> >> >> > and it gives >> >> >> > scalars times m c >> >> >> >> No ,.. it doesn't .. it gives scalar divided by wavelength. There >> >> >> is >> >> >> no >> >> >> 'mc' in that formula >> >> >> >> Your 'proof' falls apart at that step >> >> >> > ------------- >> >> > jut follow proprrly >> >> >> I did >> >> >> > all the dimensions and scalar there >> >> >> Yes .. dimensions are there. That does not mean that the mass of a >> >> photon >> >> and speed of light is 'there'. The only measured EMR property in P = >> >> h/lambda is lambda .. the wavelength. The M and L dimensions are part >> >> of >> >> the scalar constant of proportionality 'h'. >> >> ------------------------------- >> > imbecile idiot crook!!! >> > the plank constant is not a scsalar!! >> >> Yes .. it is. You don't even know the difference between scalars and >> vectors. You are so ignorant, that it is beyond ridiculous that you even >> post here. >> >> [snip display of porat's ignorance] >> >> > 2 >> > the fact that Photon momentum is frequency >> > dependent -- >> > means that >> > THERE IS **SOMETHING THERE** >> > TO MULTIPLY THE* MASS DIMENSION* THERE >> >> You are confused again. There is no mass dimension in frequency, nor is >> there one in wavelength. >> >> > BY ZERO ???!! >> >> Why would you multiply a finite value by zero and expect to get something >> other than zero? >> >> You seem to think that somewhere in p = h / lambda there is photon mass. >> All that is there is photon momentum, photon wavelength and the plank >> constant. No photon mass there. You can calculate its relativistic mass >> (M) from p = Mc, and you get a non-zero value (as expected). As others >> have >> said, relativistic mass is not generally regarded as a useful thing to >> calculate nowadays by many physicists. But, regardless of the >> relativistic >> mass, its invariant mass is still zero (as m = M/gamma, and when v=c you >> get >> 1/gamma = 0, so you get m = M x 0 = 0 regardless of M) >> >> [snip more displays of porat's rudeness] >> >> >> One can, of course substitute lamda = c/f into there to get P = hf / c >> >> and >> >> so E = Pc (for a photon). >> >> >> Your argument makes no logical or physical sense and is not valid. >> >> Your >> >> lies and insults also do not aid in your credibility. >> >> Same comment still applies > > ------------------ > (:-) disturbed imbecile crook > go discus with Josef Goebbels Again, Porat cannot deal with, nor address, valid physics arguments and instead lets loose with his foul mouth, and so he continues to make the same schoolboy mistakes, yet unlike a schoolboy he is incapable of learning. What a waste.
From: Huang on 3 Jun 2010 16:05
> > I'm not saying you are wrong. All I am saying is that "having mass" is > > equivelant to "not having mass", > > ------------------ > only a mathematician that is not a physicist > could say such a thing !!! > why dont you say that ::--- > > having length is equivalent to > NOT having length !!!?? > physics is not just philosophy !! > in order of having physics > you must have: > mass > length > Time > (M K S ) > !!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- In fact, I did indeed say something which is very similar to what you mentioned, but slightly different. I am not saying that "having length is equivalent to not having length". That's not the proper way to say it. Here's what I would say: [1] One can construct physics using mathematics which treats length as being either existent or nonexistent, but not both, and there is no "in-between". and, that [2] One can construct physics using existential indeterminacy, where all length is existentially indeterminate with "potential to exist x", 0<x<1, but never x=0, or x=1. Now, my claim is that [1] and [2] are equivalent because they would produce the same exact quantitative results. The only difference between unsing orthodox mathematics and conjectural modelling is the fundamental, foundational, philosophical underpinnings. A deterministic universe is equivalent to one which is completely non- deterministic. This line of reason does explain the WP duality very nicely, regardless of the fact that it will never be accepted by mainstream science, and Im not really trippin' about it. It is what it is. |