What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 6 May 2010 10:55 On May 6, 4:32 pm, PD > > > the force of friction are kg*m/s^2 > > > -------------------- > > all of us care !! > > what is so difficult for you to tell us > > what are the dimensions of photon momentum?? > > I've already told you. Read before you post. > > > > > are you afraid of something ?? > > let me help you :: > > how about > > P photon =M c ???!! > > First of all, that is not an expression showing MKS dimensions. YOU CHEAT! i said just later that for the phootn MOMENTUM Mks DIMENSIONS ARE kilogram times 300000000 meter/second!! IT IS mks !!! AND IF YOU DONT MIND 300000000 METER/SECOND IS c AND C IS A CONSTANT !!! THE ONLY VARIABLE THERE IS THE KILOGRAMS !!! -------------- > Second, the expression for the photon's momentum is not Mc. Never has > been, never will be. SO WHAT IS IT ACCORDING TO YOU ?? AND DONT GIVE ME THE** GENERAL DEFINITION OF MOMENTUM** JUST GIVE THE MOMENTUM OF THE PHOTON !!!BY ITS DIMESSIONS !!! if you dont like mc -- jut tel us your MKS DIMENSIONS of the momentum of photons AGAIN OF THE PHOTON -NOTHING ELSE !!! (dont tell us what it is not but what it IS ??!! -------------------------------- TIA Y.Porat -------------------------- > Third, as I told you above, knowing the dimensions of a property of > something doesn't tell you ANYTHING about the other properties of the > object. > > Please reread the statement above: > The dimensions of the force of friction are [M][L]/[T]^2. ---------------------- L/T^2 is for MACROCOSM!!! l IN MICROCOSM > From this, what do you learn about the length of the force of > friction?? > Answer this, Porat! > > You are using BOGUS dimensional analysis. This is NOT what dimensional > analysis is for. > > > ie > > M times 300000000 Meter/Second ??? > > > right or not ??? > > > and please dont answer that extremely simple question > > by a shower of other questions !! > > or else people might suspect that > > you evade and afraid of the answer !!!.... > > 2 > > seriously > > it is extremely important for some > > advance in science > > (beyond personal w ratting ) !!! > > > after all it was *not**your "invention" that > > 'no mass can reach c' !!!!! ...... > > so why do you have to defend it so > > ""doggedly" !! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------
From: PD on 6 May 2010 11:11 On May 6, 9:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 4:32 pm, PD > > > the force of friction are kg*m/s^2 > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > all of us care !! > > > what is so difficult for you to tell us > > > what are the dimensions of photon momentum?? > > > I've already told you. Read before you post. > > > > are you afraid of something ?? > > > let me help you :: > > > how about > > > P photon =M c ???!! > > > First of all, that is not an expression showing MKS dimensions. > > YOU CHEAT! > i said just later that for the phootn > MOMENTUM Mks DIMENSIONS ARE > > kilogram times 300000000 meter/second!! > > IT IS mks !!! > AND IF YOU DONT MIND > 300000000 METER/SECOND > IS c > AND C IS A CONSTANT !!! > THE ONLY VARIABLE THERE IS > THE KILOGRAMS !!! I'm sorry, Porat, but this is FURTHER evidence that you do not understand how to do dimensional analysis, let alone what it means. When looking at the dimensions of a quantity, you do NOT only look at those factors that are variables and leave out the physical constants. The dimensions of the the physical constants would be included. As an example, consider the relation PV=nRT. On the right hand side, the variables are n and T and R is a constant. By your logic, the units of the right-hand-side would be moles*kelvins. But the units of the left- hand side are joules. Something must be amiss with your approach, doncha think???? Finally, I will reiterate that the momentum of a photon is NOT Mc. It never was, never will be. > -------------- > > > Second, the expression for the photon's momentum is not Mc. Never has > > been, never will be. > > SO WHAT IS IT ACCORDING TO YOU ?? > AND DONT GIVE ME THE** GENERAL > DEFINITION OF MOMENTUM** I've already given you the answer to this, Porat. Do you not read? Momentum is NOT DEFINED by a formula. It is determined by how an object with momentum interacts with other objects. There are various formulas that *relate* an object's momentum with other properties of that object, and what those relations are vary from object to object, and it is quite common for there to be several such relations for a single object. There are several such relations for the photon, but none of them DEFINE the momentum of the photon. Momentum is NOT DEFINED by a formula. I don't know where you ever got the impression it is. > > JUST GIVE THE MOMENTUM OF > THE PHOTON !!!BY ITS DIMESSIONS !!! > if you dont like mc -- > jut tel us your MKS DIMENSIONS of > the momentum of photons > AGAIN > OF THE PHOTON -NOTHING ELSE !!! > > (dont tell us what it is not > but what it IS ??!! > -------------------------------- > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------- > > > Third, as I told you above, knowing the dimensions of a property of > > something doesn't tell you ANYTHING about the other properties of the > > object. > > > Please reread the statement above: > > The dimensions of the force of friction are [M][L]/[T]^2. > > ---------------------- > L/T^2 > is for MACROCOSM!!! I'm sorry, but momentum is momentum, in both macrocosm and microcosm. Same dimensions. And again, you seem to be unable to answer the question I have posed directly to you, Porat. The dimensions of the force of friction are [M][L]/[T]^2. Where is the length of the force of friction???? When are you going to figure out that you are using dimensional analysis the WRONG WAY???? And that you've been doing it for decades. Decades!!!! What a monumental waste of your time and effort, just because you don't understand a basic skill. > > l > > IN MICROCOSM > > > From this, what do you learn about the length of the force of > > friction?? > > Answer this, Porat! > > > You are using BOGUS dimensional analysis. This is NOT what dimensional > > analysis is for. > > > > ie > > > M times 300000000 Meter/Second ??? > > > > right or not ??? > > > > and please dont answer that extremely simple question > > > by a shower of other questions !! > > > or else people might suspect that > > > you evade and afraid of the answer !!!.... > > > 2 > > > seriously > > > it is extremely important for some > > > advance in science > > > (beyond personal w ratting ) !!! > > > > after all it was *not**your "invention" that > > > 'no mass can reach c' !!!!! ...... > > > so why do you have to defend it so > > > ""doggedly" !! > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------------------- > >
From: PD on 6 May 2010 11:22 On May 6, 9:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > SO WHAT IS IT ACCORDING TO YOU ?? > AND DONT GIVE ME THE** GENERAL > DEFINITION OF MOMENTUM** > Porat, somewhere in your schooling, someone improperly taught you that the DEFINITION of momentum is mv. This is a flat-wrong statement on two scores. First of all, this equation doesn't DEFINE momentum in any way. Secondly, it is usually wrong -- and it in fact only works well in a small number of cases that happen to be useful for engineer's everyday use. The more correct statement that you should have learned would be something like this: "Physical entities usually carry a property called momentum. There are various ways to determine the momentum of an object, if you know something about the other properties of the object, but there is no fast rule that always works. There are different rules that can be used sometimes for the same object, to the same result. There are different rules that have to be applied to different kinds of objects. What is remarkable is that if you add up the momenta you find by these various formulas for all the objects in a closed system, the total will remain constant, no matter what happens in the interactions between the objects in the system. As an example of how you might find the momentum of an object, it happens that if you have a material object that has mass and a velocity that is slow (v<<c), then the calculation m*v gives a very good approximation to the momentum of that object. But this expression does not work in general, and so you have to choose an appropriate rule for the entity you're considering." You'll note there is no definition of momentum in that statement.
From: Y.Porat on 6 May 2010 11:28 On May 6, 5:22 pm, P something like this: > "Physical entities usually carry a property called momentum. There are > various ways to determine the momentum of an object, if you know > something about the other properties of the object, but there is no > fast rule that always works. There are different rules that can be > used sometimes for the same object, to the same result. There are > different rules that have to be applied to different kinds of objects. > What is remarkable is that if you add up the momenta you find by these > various formulas for all the objects in a closed system, the total > will remain constant, no matter what happens in the interactions > between the objects in the system. As an example of how you might find > the momentum of an object, it happens that if you have a material > object that has mass and a velocity that is slow (v<<c), then the > calculation m*v gives a very good approximation to the momentum of > that object. But this expression does not work in general, and so you > have to choose an appropriate rule for the entity you're considering." > > You'll note there is no definition of momentum in that statement. --------------- why do you talk so much ?? cant you answer a simple question?? science is dealing and calculating photon momentum without a formula for it??!!!! let me tell you a quote that i looked for you from VIKI: ------------- # 35 KB (5,277 words) - 20:11, 13 March 2010 # Planck momentum Planck Momentum is the unit of momentum , denoted by ** m_P c,** in the system of natural ... primordial photons how about it ?? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: PD on 6 May 2010 11:52
On May 6, 10:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 5:22 pm, P something like this: > > > > > "Physical entities usually carry a property called momentum. There are > > various ways to determine the momentum of an object, if you know > > something about the other properties of the object, but there is no > > fast rule that always works. There are different rules that can be > > used sometimes for the same object, to the same result. There are > > different rules that have to be applied to different kinds of objects. > > What is remarkable is that if you add up the momenta you find by these > > various formulas for all the objects in a closed system, the total > > will remain constant, no matter what happens in the interactions > > between the objects in the system. As an example of how you might find > > the momentum of an object, it happens that if you have a material > > object that has mass and a velocity that is slow (v<<c), then the > > calculation m*v gives a very good approximation to the momentum of > > that object. But this expression does not work in general, and so you > > have to choose an appropriate rule for the entity you're considering." > > > You'll note there is no definition of momentum in that statement. > > --------------- > why do you talk so much ?? > cant you answer a simple question?? > science is dealing and calculating > photon momentum > without a formula for it??!!!! As I just told you, Porat, there are several formulas. None of them define the momentum of the photon. Quit trying to pigeonhole my answer, and READ what I wrote to you. You have been using dimensional analysis incorrectly, and until you correct that, you will not be coming to any sensible conclusions. READ. > > let me tell you a quote that i looked for you > from VIKI: > > ------------- > # > 35 KB (5,277 words) - 20:11, 13 March 2010 > # Planck momentum > > Planck Momentum is the unit of momentum , denoted by ** m_P c,** in > the system of natural ... primordial photons No, Porat, that is not the formula for momentum of a photon. That is a special *constant* called the Planck momentum. If you cannot understand what you read, then there is no hope. If you refuse to read the responses given to you, then there is no hope. > > how about it ?? > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- |