What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 3 May 2010 13:19 On May 3, 12:02 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 6:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 10:07 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 4:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 1, 4:38 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > > > ------- AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA ------- > > > > > > Paul Draperbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting: "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> In <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3e4af12502a33a7b> > > > > > > Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > > > ** E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ------- [1] > > > > > > > > ** E = m c^2 ------- [2] > > > > > > hanson wrote: > > > > > > E^2 = m^2 c^4 --------- [3] = [2]^2 > > > > > m^2 c^4 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ---------- [3] = [1] > > > > > p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4 - m^2 c^4 > > > > > p^2 = m^2 c^2 - m^2 c^2 > > > > > p^2 = (m^2 - m^2) * c^2 ---------- or > > > > > p^2/c^2 = m'^2 - m^2 ---------- [4] > > > > > > Already here in [4] it is seen that momentum p happens > > > > > to be a (function of) mass, no matter what one calls it... > > > > > A rose by any other name is still a rose... Any momentum > > > > > needs mass to be present > > > > > Lovely. So let's see if I understand this game. > > > > PV=nRT, > > > > so R = PV/nT > > > > So the gas *constant* R is clearly a function of volume, according to > > > > you. > > > > > Stick to hyena-cackling, ahahahahanson, you are safer there than when > > > > you try to do something serious. > > > > > >... or to quote Y. Porat: > > > > > ----------- No mass --- No physics ---------- > > > > > with Porat implying that the photon has mass... etc, etc... > > > > ----------------- > > > V (Volume) is not a basic dimension!! > > > of the M K S > > > and we have as well that n there !! > > > so again > > > PD is a master of obfuscations > > > and a very sore looser !! > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------- > > > Very well, then R(n/PV) = T, where T is a basic dimension, and one > > then concludes, following Hanson (and you) that R is a function of > > temperature. > > > PD > > -------------------- > T is an MKS dimension ??? Yes, indeed. Here you go: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html > 2 > waht has all that got to do with our op question > about mass of the *** photon ** > 3 > if we see that in ***your *** formula > > E^2 =mc^2)^2 plus (pc) ^2 > > there is nothing to multiply the mass by zero What? WHAAAT? Why do you need to multiply a number with a coefficient to make it zero, if it is already zero? > so > mass in energy is non zero > > then you suggest or expect that in another VALID > LEGITIMATE FORMULA > you will find something contradictory to it ???!! > > (do you think now** that *your* formula > is wrong in any aspect ??!! > and not good enough to prove the above ?? > > Y.P > -----------------------
From: G. L. Bradford on 3 May 2010 14:19 "Tony M" <marcuac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9e015792-b53a-428e-84e1-0ab7f4fe4ac1(a)o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > Guys, what is this nonsense about photons having energy but no mass? > Energy and mass are BOTH observer dependent quantities, so when we > discuss the two we MUST use the SAME frame of reference for BOTH. > Therefore, if we talk about the rest mass of a photon then we also > have to talk about the rest energy of the photon. Is there such a > thing as rest energy for a photon? There is no such thing (or you can > say it is zero). The same applies to its rest mass. > If we talk about photon energy in a frame where this energy is not > zero (photon is not at rest) then we MUST refer to the OBSERVED mass > in the SAME frame of reference, and that would NOT be zero either. We > can't mix non-rest energy with rest mass and say photons have energy > but no mass! > E=m c^2 applies, where BOTH E and m are OBSERVED quantities, > regardless of the frame of reference we choose, as long as it is the > SAME frame for both quantities. > Photon mass contributes to the invariant mass of a system which > contains photons. ======================= Entropy increases and energy diminishes in a closing system. Energy increases and entropy diminishes in an opening system. Where is the mass in a 2-dimensional single-sided only (one-sided only) entity? Where is the mass in the strictly 1-dimensional string (the strictly 1-dimensional arrow) of the "observable universe"? Light does not build up to c, it has no momentum (its sources have momentum -- including absorption masses), it starts there (c) and ends there (c) and is measurably c on the spot at any local point of duration (the speed of light is constant in a vacuum). It is at 'rest' at c (photo-time-stopped), equal and opposite to mass at 'rest'. Mass has been converted to energy (past tense! past tense! past tense!), a completed change of one dimension to another (a greater dimension to a lesser dimension (brought down in complexity)), it's not being converted (it's no longer in process (e=mc^2....whatever)). GLB =====================
From: Y.Porat on 3 May 2010 15:07 On May 3, 8:19 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "Tony M" <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9e015792-b53a-428e-84e1-0ab7f4fe4ac1(a)o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Guys, what is this nonsense about photons having energy but no mass? > > Energy and mass are BOTH observer dependent quantities, so when we > > discuss the two we MUST use the SAME frame of reference for BOTH. > > Therefore, if we talk about the rest mass of a photon then we also > > have to talk about the rest energy of the photon. Is there such a > > thing as rest energy for a photon? There is no such thing (or you can > > say it is zero). The same applies to its rest mass. > > If we talk about photon energy in a frame where this energy is not > > zero (photon is not at rest) then we MUST refer to the OBSERVED mass > > in the SAME frame of reference, and that would NOT be zero either. We > > can't mix non-rest energy with rest mass and say photons have energy > > but no mass! > > E=m c^2 applies, where BOTH E and m are OBSERVED quantities, > > regardless of the frame of reference we choose, as long as it is the > > SAME frame for both quantities. > > Photon mass contributes to the invariant mass of a system which > > contains photons. > > ======================= > > Entropy increases and energy diminishes in a closing system. > > Energy increases and entropy diminishes in an opening system. > > Where is the mass in a 2-dimensional single-sided only (one-sided only) > entity? > > Where is the mass in the strictly 1-dimensional string (the strictly > 1-dimensional arrow) of the "observable universe"? > > Light does not build up to c, it has no momentum (its sources have > momentum -- including absorption masses), it starts there (c) and ends there > (c) and is measurably c on the spot at any local point of duration (the > speed of light is constant in a vacuum). It is at 'rest' at c > (photo-time-stopped), equal and opposite to mass at 'rest'. Mass has been > converted to energy (past tense! past tense! past tense!), a completed > change of one dimension to another (a greater dimension to a lesser > dimension (brought down in complexity)), it's not being converted (it's no > longer in process (e=mc^2....whatever)). > > GLB > > ===================== (:-) Y.P --------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 3 May 2010 15:19 On May 3, 7:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 12:02 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 6:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 10:07 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 4:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 1, 4:38 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > > > > ------- AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA ------- > > > > > > > Paul Draperbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting: "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> In <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3e4af12502a33a7b> > > > > > > > Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > > > > ** E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ------- [1] > > > > > > > > > ** E = m c^2 ------- [2] > > > > > > > hanson wrote: > > > > > > > E^2 = m^2 c^4 --------- [3] = [2]^2 > > > > > > m^2 c^4 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ---------- [3] = [1] > > > > > > p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4 - m^2 c^4 > > > > > > p^2 = m^2 c^2 - m^2 c^2 > > > > > > p^2 = (m^2 - m^2) * c^2 ---------- or > > > > > > p^2/c^2 = m'^2 - m^2 ---------- [4] > > > > > > > Already here in [4] it is seen that momentum p happens > > > > > > to be a (function of) mass, no matter what one calls it... > > > > > > A rose by any other name is still a rose... Any momentum > > > > > > needs mass to be present > > > > > > Lovely. So let's see if I understand this game. > > > > > PV=nRT, > > > > > so R = PV/nT > > > > > So the gas *constant* R is clearly a function of volume, according to > > > > > you. > > > > > > Stick to hyena-cackling, ahahahahanson, you are safer there than when > > > > > you try to do something serious. > > > > > > >... or to quote Y. Porat: > > > > > > ----------- No mass --- No physics ---------- > > > > > > with Porat implying that the photon has mass... etc, etc... > > > > > ----------------- > > > > V (Volume) is not a basic dimension!! > > > > of the M K S > > > > and we have as well that n there !! > > > > so again > > > > PD is a master of obfuscations > > > > and a very sore looser !! > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ------------------------- > > > > Very well, then R(n/PV) = T, where T is a basic dimension, and one > > > then concludes, following Hanson (and you) that R is a function of > > > temperature. > > > > PD > > > -------------------- > > T is an MKS dimension ??? > > Yes, indeed. > Here you go:http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html > > > 2 > > waht has all that got to do with our op question > > about mass of the *** photon ** > > 3 > > if we see that in ***your *** formula > > > E^2 =mc^2)^2 plus (pc) ^2 > > > there is nothing to multiply the mass by zero > > What? WHAAAT? > Why do you need to multiply a number with a coefficient to make it > zero, if it is already zero? > > > so > > mass in energy is non zero > > > then you suggest or expect that in another VALID > > LEGITIMATE FORMULA > > you will find something contradictory to it ???!! > > > (do you think now** that *your* formula > > is wrong in any aspect ??!! > > and not good enough to prove the above ?? > > > Y.P > > ----------------------- (:-) (:-) (:-) WHERE DO YOU SEE IT IS ZERO (:-0 are you out of your mind ?? if m was zero th e formula should be E^2 = 0^2 plus ( o ) ^2 there was a Turkish Admiral that was sent to a mission in the iland Malta but the poor Admiral lost its way so he came back to turkey to his Boses and declared MALTA YOCK !!! (Yok in Turkish is disappeared ) .... Keep well Y.Porat -------------------------------- BYE Y.P -------------------------------
From: PD on 3 May 2010 15:43
On May 3, 2:19 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 7:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 12:02 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 6:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 10:07 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 3, 4:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 1, 4:38 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > ------- AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA ------- > > > > > > > > Paul Draperbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting: "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> In <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3e4af12502a33a7b> > > > > > > > > Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ** E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ------- [1] > > > > > > > > > > ** E = m c^2 ------- [2] > > > > > > > > hanson wrote: > > > > > > > > E^2 = m^2 c^4 --------- [3] = [2]^2 > > > > > > > m^2 c^4 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ---------- [3] = [1] > > > > > > > p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4 - m^2 c^4 > > > > > > > p^2 = m^2 c^2 - m^2 c^2 > > > > > > > p^2 = (m^2 - m^2) * c^2 ---------- or > > > > > > > p^2/c^2 = m'^2 - m^2 ---------- [4] > > > > > > > > Already here in [4] it is seen that momentum p happens > > > > > > > to be a (function of) mass, no matter what one calls it... > > > > > > > A rose by any other name is still a rose... Any momentum > > > > > > > needs mass to be present > > > > > > > Lovely. So let's see if I understand this game. > > > > > > PV=nRT, > > > > > > so R = PV/nT > > > > > > So the gas *constant* R is clearly a function of volume, according to > > > > > > you. > > > > > > > Stick to hyena-cackling, ahahahahanson, you are safer there than when > > > > > > you try to do something serious. > > > > > > > >... or to quote Y. Porat: > > > > > > > ----------- No mass --- No physics ---------- > > > > > > > with Porat implying that the photon has mass... etc, etc... > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > V (Volume) is not a basic dimension!! > > > > > of the M K S > > > > > and we have as well that n there !! > > > > > so again > > > > > PD is a master of obfuscations > > > > > and a very sore looser !! > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > Very well, then R(n/PV) = T, where T is a basic dimension, and one > > > > then concludes, following Hanson (and you) that R is a function of > > > > temperature. > > > > > PD > > > > -------------------- > > > T is an MKS dimension ??? > > > Yes, indeed. > > Here you go:http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html > > > > 2 > > > waht has all that got to do with our op question > > > about mass of the *** photon ** > > > 3 > > > if we see that in ***your *** formula > > > > E^2 =mc^2)^2 plus (pc) ^2 > > > > there is nothing to multiply the mass by zero > > > What? WHAAAT? > > Why do you need to multiply a number with a coefficient to make it > > zero, if it is already zero? > > > > so > > > mass in energy is non zero > > > > then you suggest or expect that in another VALID > > > LEGITIMATE FORMULA > > > you will find something contradictory to it ???!! > > > > (do you think now** that *your* formula > > > is wrong in any aspect ??!! > > > and not good enough to prove the above ?? > > > > Y.P > > > ----------------------- > > (:-) (:-) (:-) > > WHERE DO YOU SEE IT IS ZERO (:-0 Where do you see anywhere in there that m = 9.11E-31 kg for an electron either. That number would be determined by *measurement*. You don't look at a formula and decide what the value is by looking at the formula. Tell me, Porat, surely you've learned Newton's second law: F=ma. Can you tell by looking at that formula whether a is zero or nonzero? Does the formula only apply for one case or the other? Please be careful in answering this question. > > are you out of your mind ?? > if m was zero > th e formula should be > > E^2 > = 0^2 plus ( o ) ^2 No, because the pc term doesn't have anything to do with mass. pc has the same dimensions as mc^2, but this doesn't mean that you can use the number of m in the first term to tell you anything about p in the second term. You said this yourself. Just because the dimensions are the same does not mean the values are the same. > there was a Turkish Admiral > that was sent to a mission in the iland Malta > but the poor Admiral lost its way > so he came back to turkey to his Boses > and declared > > MALTA YOCK !!! > (Yok in Turkish is disappeared ) .... > > Keep well > Y.Porat > -------------------------------- > > BYE > Y.P > ------------------------------- |