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: BURT on 19 Apr 2010 17:39 On Apr 19, 2:31 pm, Ray Vickson <RGVick...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light never accelerated and it has no absolute rest. It is pushed by slow rate of gravity. Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 19 Apr 2010 19:01 Ray Vickson wrote: > 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. We've been telling porat this for literally *years* complete with links to the references. He doesn't understand. I've stopped telling him why he's wrong. > > 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.
From: artful on 19 Apr 2010 19:13 On Apr 20, 12:21 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 ??!! There have been experiments to measure the (invariant) mass of a photon .. they are able to measure extremely small masses and so far no photon mass has been found. There is a mass-equivalent-to-energy for photon energy .. the energy of a single photon of EMR of frequency f is experimentally observed to be given by E = hf. You can then divide that energy by c^2 to get an equivalent mass for that energy. Of course, that mass is frequency dependent, so you cannot talk about it being equivalent to the energy of 'the photon' ... there is no 'the photon' when it comes to energy. Please refer to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) You don't know enough physics to answer, let alone for it to be obvious. > Another copyright question Don't be ridiculous .. copyrighting a question .. bahahaha !!!
From: Tony M on 20 Apr 2010 16:25 On Apr 20, 1:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 1:13 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:21 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 ??!! > > > There have been experiments to measure the (invariant) mass of a > > photon .. they are able to measure extremely small masses and so far > > no photon mass has been found. > > > There is a mass-equivalent-to-energy for photon energy .. the energy > > of a single photon of EMR of frequency f is experimentally observed to > > be given by E = hf. You can then divide that energy by c^2 to get an > > equivalent mass for that energy. Of course, that mass is frequency > > dependent, so you cannot talk about it being equivalent to the energy > > of 'the photon' ... there is no 'the photon' when it comes to energy. > > > Please refer tohttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.... > > > > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > > You don't know enough physics to answer, let alone for it to be > > obvious. > > > > Another copyright question > > > Don't be ridiculous .. copyrighting a question .. bahahaha !!! > > ---------------- > since you said something > only HALF RELEVANT > i will anwer > EMR is a huge bunch of single photons!! > ans we have been init > more than enough !!! > 2 > single phoptons are measured to be active > and detecable > DURING MUCH LESS THAN A SECOND! > SO WHILE E=hf IS **TIME DEPENDENT** > (BY THE SCALAR PART OF f ) > AND WE HAVE BEEN IN THAT MORE THAN ENOUGH) > SO > hf is notthe right definition of a single smalest photon > energy > if E=hf is not the definition of the smallest photon energy while > EMR is defined by hf > so > even so it has mass and a lot of mass > photon has as well Momentum!! > P photon =m c > if you put ther m = 0 > you got another 'discovery'' > > THAT THE MOMENTUM OF THE PHOTON IS ZERO !! > etc etc etc > 3 > i am sick and tired to discuss with Artful > and other anonymous that are committed by their > gangsters Bosses to disturb me wherever i go !! > > I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THE SILENT > (2000 ) > READERS !!! > TIA > Y.Porat > > Y.Porat > ------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - YP, One could say the rest mass of a photon is zero. In my opinion rest mass simply does not apply to a photon since a photon cannot be at rest. A photon has energy equivalent mass M=E/c^2. I would call this mass relativistic because it is observer dependent. The energy of one photon is E=hf; f is observer dependent therefore E and therefore M are observer dependent. In the end it doesn't matter what we call this mass as long as we are all talking about the same thing. When talking about the momentum of a photon one should not specify it as a function of its mass, as mass can mean different things to different readers, as you have noticed. Instead just use either P=E/c or P=h/lambda. The energy of one photon is not time dependent; whether you measure one photon for one second or one hour you get the same amount of energy. After all, its still just one photon carrying a fixed amount (quanta) of energy. I would assume the emission/absorption of a photon is not instantaneous and, therefore, there must be a minimum time requirement for measuring it, if thats what you mean.
From: BURT on 20 Apr 2010 17:28
On Apr 20, 11:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 7:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > ---------------------- > > so what is the amount of energy > that poped out of the protons neutrons ie > > 27 Mev/c^2 ncreation of the alpha particle > and the mass (wahtever you call it) > that is in the 27 mev/c^2 > that is the Em gamma radiation has?? > > WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO SAY THAT > IT IS **EXACTLY****** > THE SAME AMOUNT OF MASS > 27 Mev/c^2 that is in the gamma radiation > that came out of that process ??? > > shel i help you and tell every body that > is is exactly the same *quantity* of mass??? > so > until now you failed to indicate any difference > between the two above mentioned masses !! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is no absolute rest for a light wave. And its kinetic energy cannot come from its speed because then all light would have the same energy. Kinetic energy of C would give constant energy to all electromagnetism. Mitch Raemsch |