What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN NAMED REUTERS PERSONALITY OF THE MILLENNIUM [in 1999]
Next: Another Tom Potter theory confirmed
From: PD on 20 Apr 2010 11:57 On Apr 20, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 20, 9:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 4:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 9:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > > > > > > > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > > > > > > > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > > > > > > > Another copyright question > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > Yehiel Porat > > > > > > > 18-04-2010 > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Photons don't have a rest mass, and they don't have a relativistic > > > > > > mass. And relativistic mass is an antiquated notion that has been > > > > > > largely abandoned because it confuses amateurs and some structural > > > > > > engineers. > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > no mass > > > > > no relativistic mass so ??? > > > > > > what is that m in the E=mc^2??!! > > > > > I already told you this, Porat. In the original context, m was rest > > > > mass and E was rest energy. > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > so we are talking about a formula of > > > Energy right ?? > > > > so waht are you talking about rest energy > > > is there a differnce between rest energy and > > > other energy > > > Yes, of course. Energy comes in many different flavors: potential > > energy, configuration energy, rest energy, ordered kinetic energy, > > stochastic kinetic energy, and so on. > > ------------------------------------------- > PD PD PD (:-) > > i dont what to be insultive or blunt so soon... (:-) > > now lets please concentrate on the case of > mass is turned 100 % to enrgy > > so please dont pul my leg about > potential energy or 'configuration' energy !! > > i did it intentionally the simplest case > in order of preventing OBFUSCATION !! > > lets concentrate on the simpest case > 100 % of the proton neutron mass > turned to gamma radication > while > > E=mc^2 > Define S IT SIMPLY AND CLEARLY AND EXACTLY !!! > > 27 Mev /c^2 mass was lost by particles > and 27 Mev /c^2 > was gained by gamma radiation > so just have a the Energy formula of that Em > radiation > it is exacly E=m c^2 =27Mev > and the mas there is exactly 27 Mev /c^2!! > i hope you are not Artful to say that here is > no * m**at all in THAT CASE of the specific Em radiation > th e most you can do is to 'CALL IT'' > RELATIVISTIC MASS !! (or whatever ok ?? > so now comes my above question > > please give me (us) a** list of > experimentally *and measured * proven differences** > > between the > 'rest mass *loss *of the protons neutrons -- > and your 'relativistic mass' of the Em radiation > in that specific fusion case I gave you one. The mass of the carbon 12 nucleus is *measured*. The mass of the proton is *measured*. The mass of the neutron is *measured*. There are a variety of techniques available. Magnetic mass spectrometry would be the easiest for you to understand. There are literally hundreds of such examples. > > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------------------
From: Puppet_Sock on 19 Apr 2010 13:16 On Apr 19, 10:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) Um. Photons don't have 'relativisitc mass' so the question is not well posed. Socks
From: PD on 20 Apr 2010 13:30 On Apr 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 9:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > > > > > > > > > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > > > > > > > > > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > > > > > > > > > Another copyright question > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > Yehiel Porat > > > > > > > > > 18-04-2010 > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > Photons don't have a rest mass, and they don't have a relativistic > > > > > > > > mass. And relativistic mass is an antiquated notion that has been > > > > > > > > largely abandoned because it confuses amateurs and some structural > > > > > > > > engineers. > > > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > no mass > > > > > > > no relativistic mass so ??? > > > > > > > > what is that m in the E=mc^2??!! > > > > > > > I already told you this, Porat. In the original context, m was rest > > > > > > mass and E was rest energy. > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > > so we are talking about a formula of > > > > > Energy right ?? > > > > > > so waht are you talking about rest energy > > > > > is there a differnce between rest energy and > > > > > other energy > > > > > Yes, of course. Energy comes in many different flavors: potential > > > > energy, configuration energy, rest energy, ordered kinetic energy, > > > > stochastic kinetic energy, and so on. > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > PD PD PD (:-) > > > > i dont what to be insultive or blunt so soon... (:-) > > > > now lets please concentrate on the case of > > > mass is turned 100 % to enrgy > > > > so please dont pul my leg about > > > potential energy or 'configuration' energy !! > > > > i did it intentionally the simplest case > > > in order of preventing OBFUSCATION !! > > > > lets concentrate on the simpest case > > > 100 % of the proton neutron mass > > > turned to gamma radication > > > while > > > > E=mc^2 > > > Define S IT SIMPLY AND CLEARLY AND EXACTLY !!! > > > > 27 Mev /c^2 mass was lost by particles > > > and 27 Mev /c^2 > > > was gained by gamma radiation > > > so just have a the Energy formula of that Em > > > radiation > > > it is exacly E=m c^2 =27Mev > > > and the mas there is exactly 27 Mev /c^2!! > > > i hope you are not Artful to say that here is > > > no * m**at all in THAT CASE of the specific Em radiation > > > th e most you can do is to 'CALL IT'' > > > RELATIVISTIC MASS !! (or whatever ok ?? > > > so now comes my above question > > > > please give me (us) a** list of > > > experimentally *and measured * proven differences** > > > > between the > > > 'rest mass *loss *of the protons neutrons -- > > > and your 'relativistic mass' of the Em radiation > > > in that specific fusion case > > > I gave you one. The mass of the carbon 12 nucleus is *measured*. The > > mass of the proton is *measured*. The mass of the neutron is > > *measured*. There are a variety of techniques available. Magnetic mass > > spectrometry would be the easiest for you to understand. > > > There are literally hundreds of such examples. > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------------------------- > > you still said nothing about my question: > > whaht is the proven difference > (say just for instance -as a start ) ----**quantitatively*** ) > between the magnitude of rest mass in those carbon constituents**-- > loss** I JUST TOLD YOU THAT. Can you not take the numbers I gave you and multiply them by six and add them up? Who cuts your meat at dinner time? C-12 mass: 12.00000 amu 6 protons + 6 neutrons mass: 12.09564 amu These are all *measured*. > > and the* relativistic mass* of the > Em waves that came out of it ?? "Relativistic mass" is an antiquated notion, no longer used much. It does not correspond to any measured mass. > > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------
From: PD on 19 Apr 2010 14:28 On Apr 19, 9:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > Another copyright question > > TIA > Yehiel Porat > 18-04-2010 > --------------------------------------------------------------- Photons don't have a rest mass, and they don't have a relativistic mass. And relativistic mass is an antiquated notion that has been largely abandoned because it confuses amateurs and some structural engineers.
From: Ray Vickson on 19 Apr 2010 17:31
On Apr 19, 11:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 9:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > > Another copyright question > > > TIA > > Yehiel Porat > > 18-04-2010 > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Photons don't have a rest mass, In standard QED, at least. However, experimenters have for years been trying to detect photon mass and testing whether or not it is zero. There are experimental upper limits on photon rest mass that have been obtained in various ways (via tests of accuracy of Coulomb's Law, testing of the ambient cosmic vector potential via torsion balances, etc.) Recent measurements seem to imply rest-mass <~ 1e-54 Kg. Google 'experimental photon mass' for more material. R.G. Vickson > and they don't have a relativistic > mass. And relativistic mass is an antiquated notion that has been > largely abandoned because it confuses amateurs and some structural > engineers. |