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 6 May 2010 11:58 On May 6, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 answer a simple question put to you, Porat? You demand answers from me. Here's a simple question to you. Do you not live by the same rules you expect others to?
From: Y.Porat on 6 May 2010 12:32 On May 6, 5:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. -------------------- it is a specific amount of momentum NOT A GENERAL DEFINITION SO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED!! HAD I GIVEN YOU A GENERAL DEFITION YOU WOULD SAY THAT 'IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC ONE !!! anyway it gives you a definition of photon momentum that is exactly as it is defined!! see above !! so lets take that private case of photon momentum definition: you see that no mattter what system you uses YOU CANT RUN AWAY FROM MASS IN THAT SPECIFIC PHOTON MOMENTUM (it is not particvle momentum because in particle momentum you use V and not c !!! so it is momentum definition not energy definition !! if it was energy definition it has to me mc^2 !! and it is not it is only m c !!! and called Plank momentum definition !! so it is momentum of photons !!! that was jsut a two minutes of my search!! had i spent more i would give you more it is always in phootn momjentum m c !! without entering the question of how big is that mass (iow what is the scalar multiplier of it our interest is that it is never zero mass!! right ?? so IT IS NEVER ZERO!! BECAUSE IF IT WAS ZERO MASS IT WAS ... WHAT ??? CAN YOU GUESS NOW ?? WHAT I MEAN ???!! TIA Y.Porat -------------------------- if you read more of it you realize that is dealt withthe Big Bang situation as smallest momentum unit of what?? according to you ?? now jsut tell us waht will the plank 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 > > ----------------------------
From: spudnik on 6 May 2010 14:38 HAHAnson, your mode d'emploi is a bore of scrollin'around it. clearly, YP has a linguistic problem, although he surely can comprehend everything taht is typed herein, given a few deep breaths & a pause for reflection (or refraction, since the former is just a special case .-) anyway, the real problem is yours, of "reifying the math," just because you can write some formulary htat happens to include a "mass" in it (does YP think, MKS stands for "mass-kosher-system?"), and therefore the funky Newtonic corpuscle can be said a) to exist and b) to "have momentum," the *sine qua non* of a has-to- be-not-no-mass, because "then, the momentum'd be nothing." that is to say, the Nobel-winning, Newton-saving photoelectrical effect is nothing, but an instrumental datum (not a particle, as proven by Young et al in the interim between "classical" and "Copenhagenskool yardcat" -- sheesh). "there are no photons" and "death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads!" --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: Y.Porat on 6 May 2010 20:42 On May 6, 6:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 5:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > -------------------- > it is a specific amount of momentum > NOT A GENERAL DEFINITION > SO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED!! > HAD I GIVEN YOU A GENERAL > DEFITION > YOU WOULD SAY THAT > 'IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC ONE !!! > anyway > it gives you a definition of photon momentum > that is exactly as it is defined!! > see above !! > so lets take that private case of > photon momentum definition: > > you see that no mattter what system you uses > YOU CANT RUN AWAY FROM MASS IN THAT SPECIFIC PHOTON MOMENTUM > (it is not particvle momentum because > in particle momentum you use V and not c !!! > so it is momentum definition > not energy definition !! > if it was energy definition it has to me > mc^2 !! > and it is not > it is only m c !!! > and called Plank momentum definition !! > so it is momentum of photons !!! > > that was jsut a two minutes of my search!! > had i spent more i would give you more > it is always in phootn momjentum > m c !! > without entering the question of > how big is that mass > (iow what is the scalar multiplier of it > our interest is > that it is never zero mass!! > right ?? > so > IT IS NEVER ZERO!! > BECAUSE IF IT WAS ZERO MASS > IT WAS ... WHAT ??? > CAN YOU GUESS NOW ?? > WHAT I MEAN ???!! > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------- > > if you read more of it you realize that > is dealt withthe Big Bang situation > as smallest momentum unit of what?? > according to you ?? > now jsut tell us > waht will the plank 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 > > > ---------------------------- and here is another quote about the Planck momentum from Wikipedia: quote : ------ In SI units Planck momentum is approximately 6.5 kg m/s. It is *****equal to the Planck mass multiplied by the speed of light,****** usually associated with the momentum of primordial photons in some prevailing Big Bang models. Unlike most of the other Plan end of quote !!! so Mr PD is Plank mass ---- mass or not ???!! DOES **PHOTON MOMENTUM**- HAS MASS OR NOT?? TIA Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: G. L. Bradford on 7 May 2010 06:54
"Y.Porat" wrote: (snip it all) ===================== As the man told you clearly, or so I thought, "The momentum of a photon is determined by what it does in interactions with other bodies." ----------------- By what it does in interactions [with other bodies]! It effects others as messenger and message, the effect is measurable back and forth. If you notice, which you probably don't, it will never come out the other end of any interaction with any kind of entity at all, including its own. It never survives any interaction, not even interaction with the "observable" universe itself -- much less gravity-singularity's at large / at small real-time universe coverage. Thus an ever continuing head-on collision, nee-'interaction', micro-moment to micro-moment, to micro-moment...... Always a brand spanking new issuance (a constant of change, thus inlaid update -- a 1-dimensional string universe internalized to a 2-dimensional single-sided only photo-entity) issuing from it, micro-moment to micro-moment, to micro-moment.... GLB ===================== |