In sci.physics.particle Uncle Al wrote:

: No falsifiable predictions, no theory.

You mean like the way your web page fails contain a single example of
an experiment that could refute *your* theory?

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."

wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:20 am, GSS wrote:

(brevity snip)

Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
book.

In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
waves of electrons.

If that were the case a double-slit pattern would be the simple
linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but that isn't what's
seen.

And I don't think quantization of mass or charge
has anything to do with this phenomenon. Even in the interference of
photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.

I see no room for any other interpretation of the one-photon-at-a-
time, two-slit version; an interference pattern slowly builds up, but
there's nothing for any given photon _to_ interfere with except
itself. Again if it were simple diffraction the double-slit pattern
would be the simple linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but
it isn't.

The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the classic
sense of the word 'interfere'. If two waves of unity amplitude interfere
the result is an amplitude which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on
the phase and can have every value in between. e.g. At some phase
difference there will be an amplitude of say 0.345.

If you think about the photon model it may well conform mathematically
to the concept of interference but physically it just is not
interference. Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel
out. You cannot get 0.345 of a photon. In the double slit experiment, a
complete whole photon arrives at some point on the detector each and
every time. Some mechanism is involved which determines which direction
a photon takes when leaving the slit and that mechanism is such that
there is an increased probability of it travelling in some directions
and a decreased probability of it travelling in others.

Maxwell's wave in aether theory was comprehensively disproved by both
the MMX and the discovery of the particulate nature of light and yet
relativity is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's theory is
impeccable.

Orthodox physics has compromised its integrity by dispensing with the
aether while arbitrarily clinging to aspects of aether theory it was
reluctant to lose. It failed to keep the intellectual discipline to
follow through on its own doctrine. In Maxwell's theory a 'field' is a
stress in the aether. If one accepts the no aether doctrine of modern
physics then clearly it cannot be a stress in the aether but physics has
failed to say what else it can physically be. On the contrary it has
arbitrarily made it a key doctrine that it doesn't need to.

My argument goes as follows. While Maxwell's theory was wrong in the
sense that light does not consist of physical waves, its predictive
accuracy shows that there is a link between charge and light - Maxwell's
equations are based upon the properties of charge. It follows therefore
that there must be a link between photons and charge.

If one applies the necessary discipline then in the absence of an aether
one should accept that action at a distance is the axiomatic way in
which all force acts and that a 'field' is simply the metaphysical
'field of influence' caused by charge and cannot exist in the absence of
the cause of that influence.

If you take these two things together then it supports the model of a
photon put forward by Waldron [1] that a photon consists of equal
quantities of positive and negative charge which are rotating. The field
of influence produced by this rotating charge is the electromagnetic
field associated with the photon. One does not then need an aether to
support the concept of an independent field nor does one have to jump
intellectual hoops to convince oneself that 'no aether' and 'independent
fields' are somehow compatible or convince oneself that 'space in which
independent fields can exist' is somehow fundamentally different to 'the
aether'. As Waldron points out [2] if a positron and an electron result
in two neutral photons each photon must carry away half the +ve charge
of the positron (and half its mass) and half the -ve charge of the
electron (and half its mass). His maths work.

While the photon may indeed pass through one slit, the rotating field
could energise the other and have the necessary effect on the resultant
direction.

One question you might ponder is why, if photons singly produce the
distribution associated with 'interference' why monochromatic incoherent
light does not.

One might also look at the geometry of the double slit experiment. One
has to conclude that independent of the photon density far more photons
must fail to go through the slits than make it to the detection screen.
It would be naive to simply assume that these have no effect whatsoever.

Now my own field is electronics but I am not an expert in antenna design
but I believe the following is correct. If one moves the double slit
experiment down the frequency scale to Radio frequency the first thing
one finds is that one would have to make the slits out of a material
opaque to radio waves i.e. a metal. Secondly one would see the two slits
as slot antenna. Thirdly one would not see energy emerging from the
slits as merely the energy which 'got through because it was going in
the right direction' one would see all the energy incident on the plate
as energising the slot antenna and the slot antenna re-radiating that
energy. The efficiency depends on optimising the dimensions of the
slots.

From this one might conclude that in the optical experiment one should
perhaps pay more attention to the difference between material opaque to
light (and therefore suitable for making the slits) and transparent to
light. To the actual dimensions of the slits in relation to the
wavelength which give best results and to whether the total energy
reaching the detector is actually simply in proportion of the area of
the slits to the area of the beam. One might experiment to see whether
the interference patterns caused by a low intensity beam can be
disrupted by illuminating the slits with a high intensity beam of a
different colour.

[1] "The Spinning Photon" R A Waldron 'Speculations in science and
technology Vol 6, No 2 (1983) p171-181'.
[2] "The wave and Ballistic Theory of light - a critical review"
R.A Waldron Muller 1977
--
John Kennaugh

On Jun 5, 1:09*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:20 am, GSS wrote:

(brevity snip)

Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
book.

In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
waves of electrons.

*If that were the case a double-slit pattern would be the simple
linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but that isn't what's
seen.

And *I don't think quantization of mass or charge
has anything to do with this phenomenon. *Even in the interference of
photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.

*I see no room for any other interpretation of the one-photon-at-a-
time, two-slit version; an interference pattern slowly builds up, but
there's nothing for any given photon _to_ interfere with except
itself. Again if it were simple diffraction the double-slit pattern
would be the simple linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but
it isn't.

The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the classic
sense of the word 'interfere'. If two waves of unity amplitude interfere
the result is an amplitude which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on
the phase and can have every value in between. e.g. At some phase
difference there will be an amplitude of say 0.345.

If you think about the photon model it may well conform mathematically
to the concept of interference but physically it just is not
interference. Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel
out. You cannot get 0.345 of a photon. In the double slit experiment, a
complete whole photon arrives at some point on the detector each and
every time. Some mechanism is involved which determines which direction
a photon takes when leaving the slit and that mechanism is such that
there is an increased probability of it travelling in some directions
and a decreased probability of it travelling in others.

Maxwell's wave in aether theory was comprehensively disproved by both
the MMX and the discovery of the particulate nature of light and yet
relativity is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's theory is
impeccable.

Orthodox physics has compromised its integrity by dispensing with the
aether while arbitrarily clinging to aspects of aether theory it was
reluctant to lose. It failed to keep the intellectual discipline to
follow through on its own doctrine. In Maxwell's theory a 'field' is a
stress in the aether. If one accepts the no aether doctrine of modern
physics then clearly it cannot be a stress in the aether but physics has
failed to say what else it can physically be. On the contrary it has
arbitrarily made it a key doctrine that it doesn't need to.

My argument goes as follows. While Maxwell's theory was wrong in the
sense that light does not consist of physical waves, its predictive
accuracy shows that there is a link between charge and light - Maxwell's
equations are based upon the properties of charge. It follows therefore
that there must be a link between photons and charge.

If one applies the necessary discipline then in the absence of an aether
one should accept that action at a distance is the axiomatic way in
which all force acts and that a 'field' is simply the metaphysical
'field of influence' caused by charge and cannot exist in the absence of
the cause of that influence.

If you take these two things together then it supports the model of a
photon put forward by Waldron [1] that a photon consists of equal
quantities of positive and negative charge which are rotating. The field
of influence produced by this rotating charge is the electromagnetic
field associated with the photon. One does not then need an aether to
support the concept of an independent field nor does one have to jump
intellectual hoops to convince oneself that 'no aether' and 'independent
fields' are somehow compatible or convince oneself that 'space in which
independent fields can exist' is somehow fundamentally different to 'the
aether'. As Waldron points out [2] if a positron and an electron result
in two neutral photons each photon must carry away half the +ve charge
of the positron (and half its mass) and half the -ve charge of the
electron (and half its mass). His maths work.

While the photon may indeed pass through one slit, the rotating field
could energise the other and have the necessary effect on the resultant
direction.

One question you might ponder is why, if photons singly produce the
distribution associated with 'interference' why monochromatic incoherent
light does not.

One might also look at the geometry of the double slit experiment. One
has to conclude that independent of the photon density far more photons
must fail to go through the slits than make it to the detection screen.
It would be naive to simply assume that these have no effect whatsoever.

Now my own field is electronics but I am not an expert in antenna design
but I believe the following is correct. If one moves the double slit
experiment down the frequency scale to Radio frequency the first thing
one finds is that one would have to make the slits out of a material
opaque to radio waves i.e. a metal. Secondly one would see the two slits
as slot antenna. Thirdly one would not see energy emerging from the
slits as merely the energy which 'got through because it was going in
the right direction' one would see all the energy incident on the plate
as energising the slot antenna and the slot antenna re-radiating that
energy. The efficiency depends on optimising the dimensions of the
slots.

*From this one might conclude that in the optical experiment one should
perhaps pay more attention to the difference between material opaque to
light (and therefore suitable for making the slits) and transparent to
light. To the actual dimensions of the slits in relation to the
wavelength which give best results and to whether the total energy
reaching the detector is actually simply in proportion of the area of
the slits to the area of the beam. One might experiment to see whether
the interference patterns caused by a low intensity beam can be
disrupted by illuminating the slits with a high intensity beam of a
different colour.

[1] "The Spinning Photon" R A Waldron 'Speculations in science and
technology Vol 6, No 2 (1983) p171-181'.
[2] "The wave and Ballistic Theory of light - a critical review"
R.A Waldron Muller 1977
--
John Kennaugh

Nice ideas. A true revolution in science is coming but first
Einsteiniana's priests should OFFICIALLY abandon Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate. For the moment theoreticians all over the world
continue to reject, automatically and subconsciously, any idea, not
necessarily contradicting, just leading to a discussion of, the Divine
Beginning of modern physics.

Pentcho Valev

John Kennaugh wrote:
The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the classic
sense of the word 'interfere'.

Sure. But the QUANTUM meaning of the word is what applies. The photon is
NOT a "classical" object.


If two waves of unity amplitude interfere
the result is an amplitude which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on
the phase and can have every value in between. e.g. At some phase
difference there will be an amplitude of say 0.345.

Yes. Remember, however, that in QM the waves do not propagate in the
same direction; indeed, they normally propagate in all possible
directions....


If you think about the photon model it may well conform mathematically
to the concept of interference but physically it just is not
interference.

Nonsense. No other word comes close to describing the phenomenon.


Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel
out.

That's your problem -- this is not at all "two things". You need to
LEARN about quantum mechanics before attempting to discuss it.


[... remainder displays utter ignorance of modern physics]


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the
classic sense of the word 'interfere'.

Sure. But the QUANTUM meaning of the word is what applies. The photon
is NOT a "classical" object.

That is the modern view certainly but physics has now embraced mysticism
to such an extent that the phrase "quantum particle" is used almost as
an incantation forbidding anyone from trying to make sense of it.

If two waves of unity amplitude interfere the result is an amplitude
which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on the phase and can have
every value in between. e.g. At some phase difference there will be
an amplitude of say 0.345.

Yes. Remember, however, that in QM the waves do not propagate in the
same direction; indeed, they normally propagate in all possible
directions....

As I say physics has embraced mysticism big time.



If you think about the photon model it may well conform
mathematically to the concept of interference but physically it just
is not interference.

Nonsense. No other word comes close to describing the phenomenon.

Interference by definition means two things interfere. A null is caused
by two thing cancelling. A peak is two things reinforcing. You don't
have two things to interfere, two things do not reach the detector and
cancel and two things do not reach the detector and reinforce and
certainly two things of arbitrary phase do not arrive at the detector
and partially cancel. A null is where no photons arrive because no (or
very few) photons leave the double slits travelling in that direction. A
peak is where a lot of photons arrive because that is the direction
which has the highest probability.



Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel out.

That's your problem -- this is not at all "two things". You need to
LEARN about quantum mechanics before attempting to discuss it.


[... remainder displays utter ignorance of modern physics]

No I reject the mysticism of modern physics. A photon is a perfectly
ordinary particle not some mystical mathematical object. A photon has
mass and therefore shows that SR is wrong because SR says it cannot
travel at c if it has mass - and it does.

A photon has mass because:

1/ Its direction is affected by gravity as with any projectile with
mass.
2/ Its energy increases if it falls under gravity just like any other
object with mass.
3/ Its energy is reduced when it escapes from a gravity field just like
any other projectile.
4/ If photons hit a surface they produce pressure just as any other
particles with mass will.
5/ It is hard to show that if you stop a photon it has rest mass but If
you take a very high energy photon (massive) and near stop it you end up
with an electron and a positron - which have mass - and a low energy
photon to take away any excess mass.
6/ If you combine an electron and a positron then you get two photons
each of who's mass is equal to that of an electron (or a positron)

The equations Waldron produces show that a photon with a given energy
has a given mass and that one value gives the correct answer in all the
above. The mass equations all balance.

SR is Einstein's attempt to rescue Maxwell's wave in aether theory from
experimental evidence which disproved it. Even then it is only a 'fix'
for the MMX. The fact that light physically isn't waves and is
particulate he simply ignored despite having got a Nobel prize for
establishing the fact. Having ditched 3 perfectly reasonable and
sensible axioms of physics to save Maxwell's wave in aether theory
physics then, a couple of decades later rejected the aether Einstein had
made physics pay such a high price to save, effectively sawing off the
intellectual branch it was supported by. Einstein's aether - the aether
without the immobility of Lorentz's - was rejected. The aether was
removed from physics not as the result of any experiment, nor through
some theoretical wizardry but by the totally arbitrary decision made by
physicists, on behalf of physicists, that physical interpretation was no
longer considered a necessary part of physics. Thus saving physics from
the embarrassing position it had accepted. It left the way open to
today's mysticism where there is no quality assurance. Once having
accepted that it is nature which is weird (rather than that physics is
totally cocked up) nothing can be rejected. You cannot reject something
on the grounds that "nature may be weird but it cannot be *that* weird".


--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray

On Jun 5, 12:25 am, " wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:20 am, GSS wrote:

(brevity snip)

Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
book.

In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
waves of electrons.

If that were the case a double-slit pattern would be the simple
linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but that isn't what's
seen.

The formation of Fresnel fringes resulting from the arrival of
individual electrons passing through a tiny hole in a carbon film had
been experimentally demonstrated by Hermann, Krahl, K¨ubler, M¨uller,
and Rindfleisch in 1971. Secondly, in the electron-beam version of
Young's two-slit diffraction experiment, an electron biprism is used
which is not exactly equivalent to the two-slit setup.

And I don't think quantization of mass or charge
has anything to do with this phenomenon. Even in the interference of
photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.

I see no room for any other interpretation of the one-photon-at-a-
time, two-slit version; an interference pattern slowly builds up, but
there's nothing for any given photon _to_ interfere with except
itself. Again if it were simple diffraction the double-slit pattern
would be the simple linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but
it isn't.

Mark L. Fergerson

Well, let me offer *another* interpretation.
In such experiments, one-photon-at-a-time is supposed to free one-
electron-at-a-time which could then be detected through appropriate
instrumentation. The point however is that if there were (say) seven-
photons-at-a-time coming in a mutually coupled group of photons, they
too will be able to dislodge or free only one- electron-at-a-time from
the relevant electron orbital. In that case only one photon out of
the group will be 'used up' and the remaining photons will just move
on. As pointed out in my previous post, photons of the same frequency
can get coupled through mutual interactions to form group packets or
streams of photons.. Practically it will be almost impossible to
isolate (or obtain) one-photon-at-a-time unless the emission of each
and every photon from each of the corrosponding atoms is strictly
controlled. What has been actually done however is to obtain one-
electron-at-a-time and *assume* the dislodging photon to be just one-
at-a-time instead of a coupled group of many-photons-at-a-time. Such
a group of many photons can break up into two sub-groups while passing
through 'two-slits' and undergo interference process after passing
through the slits.

Hope it is a convincing interpretation!

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

On Jun 6, 1:36*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the
classic *sense of the word 'interfere'.

Sure. But the QUANTUM meaning of the word is what applies. The photon
is NOT a "classical" object.

That is the modern view certainly but physics has now embraced mysticism
to such an extent that the phrase "quantum particle" is used almost as
an incantation forbidding anyone from trying to make sense of it.

If two waves of unity amplitude interfere *the result is an amplitude
which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on *the phase and can have
every value in between. e.g. At some phase *difference there will be
an amplitude of say 0.345.

Yes. Remember, however, that in QM the waves do not propagate in the
same direction; indeed, they normally propagate in all possible
directions....

As I say physics has embraced mysticism big time.



If you think about the photon model it may well conform
mathematically *to the concept of interference but physically it just
is not *interference.

Nonsense. No other word comes close to describing the phenomenon.

Interference by definition means two things interfere. A null is caused
by two thing cancelling. A peak is two things reinforcing. You don't
have two things to interfere, two things do not reach the detector and
cancel and two things do not reach the detector and reinforce and
certainly two things of arbitrary phase do not arrive at the detector
and partially cancel. A null is where no photons arrive because no (or
very few) photons leave the double slits travelling in that direction. A
peak is where a lot of photons arrive because that is the direction
which has the highest probability.



Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel *out.

That's your problem -- this is not at all "two things". You need to
LEARN about quantum mechanics before attempting to discuss it.

[... remainder displays utter ignorance of modern physics]

No I reject the mysticism of modern physics. A photon is a perfectly
ordinary particle not some mystical mathematical object. A photon has
mass and therefore shows that SR is wrong because SR says it cannot
travel at c if it has mass - and it does.

A photon has mass because:

1/ Its direction is affected by gravity as with any projectile with
mass.
2/ Its energy increases if it falls under gravity just like any other
object with mass.
3/ Its energy is reduced when it escapes from a gravity field just like
any other projectile.
4/ If photons hit a surface they produce pressure just as any other
particles with mass will.
5/ It is hard to show that if you stop a photon it has rest mass but If
you take a very high energy photon (massive) and near stop it you end up
with an electron and a positron - which have mass - and a low energy
photon to take away any excess mass.
6/ If you combine an electron and a positron then you get two photons
each of who's mass is equal to that of an electron (or a positron)

The equations Waldron produces show that a photon with a given energy
has a given mass and that one value gives the correct answer in all the
above. The mass equations all balance.

Tom Roberts and his superior brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-
Ping Hsu have already solved this problem: Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected" even if "it is ultimately
discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum
does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform)":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev


SR is Einstein's attempt to rescue Maxwell's wave in aether theory from
experimental evidence which disproved it. Even then it is only a 'fix'
for the MMX. The fact that light physically isn't waves and is
particulate he simply ignored despite having got a Nobel prize for
establishing the fact. Having ditched 3 perfectly reasonable and
sensible axioms of physics to save Maxwell's wave in aether theory
physics then, a couple of decades later rejected the aether Einstein had
made physics pay such a high price to save, effectively sawing off the
intellectual branch it was supported by. Einstein's aether - the aether
without the immobility of Lorentz's - was rejected. The aether was
removed from physics not as the result of any experiment, nor through
some theoretical wizardry but by the totally arbitrary decision made by
physicists, on behalf of physicists, that physical interpretation was no
longer considered a necessary part of physics. Thus saving physics from
the embarrassing position it had accepted. It left the way open to
today's mysticism where there is no quality assurance. Once having
accepted that it is nature which is weird (rather than that physics is
totally cocked up) nothing can be rejected. You cannot reject something
on the grounds that "nature may be weird but it cannot be *that* weird".

--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." *Dr Scott Murray

Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:36*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:


[... remainder displays utter ignorance of modern physics]

No I reject the mysticism of modern physics. A photon is a perfectly
ordinary particle not some mystical mathematical object. A photon has
mass and therefore shows that SR is wrong because SR says it cannot
travel at c if it has mass - and it does.

A photon has mass because:

1/ Its direction is affected by gravity as with any projectile with
mass.
2/ Its energy increases if it falls under gravity just like any other
object with mass.
3/ Its energy is reduced when it escapes from a gravity field just like
any other projectile.
4/ If photons hit a surface they produce pressure just as any other
particles with mass will.
5/ It is hard to show that if you stop a photon it has rest mass but If
you take a very high energy photon (massive) and near stop it you end up
with an electron and a positron - which have mass - and a low energy
photon to take away any excess mass.
6/ If you combine an electron and a positron then you get two photons
each of who's mass is equal to that of an electron (or a positron)

The equations Waldron produces show that a photon with a given energy
has a given mass and that one value gives the correct answer in all the
above. The mass equations all balance.

Tom Roberts and his superior brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-
Ping Hsu have already solved this problem: Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected" even if "it is ultimately
discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum
does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform)":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela...nd-Approaches-
Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev


I believe that what you quote is saying a different thing to what I am
talking about. What is being discussed in your quote is I think a case
of hedging their bets and saying that if instead of having zero mass a
photon had a minute mass, all it would mean is that the theoretical
constant c would not be the speed of light and that photons would have
to travel at very slightly less than c.

What I am saying, and what Waldron showed mathematically is that a
photon has substantial mass.
The energy of a photon is made up of two terms

W = 1/2 m c^2 + 1/2 m v^2

The first term is internal energy the second kinetic energy where v is
the speed of the photon relative to the observer. Waldron speculates
that the internal energy is due to rotating charge (equal positive and
negative).

If the observer is stationary w.r.t the source v = c and W = m c^2. This
is of course equal to Fo x h. so you get the equation

Fo x h = mc^2

from which one can calculate the mass. The value calculated using that
equation is consistent with the effect of gravity on a photon and the
momentum of a photon and even the total mass of the two photons produced
by electron positron so called "annihilation". According to Waldron's
maths mass, charge, and energy are conserved in such an interaction. The
mass of the two photons is the same as the mass of the electron and
positron.

The quotes you give - speculating that photons might have a minute mass
reminds me of the dubious history of the neutrino.

Having discovered the quantized nature of the photon it was assumed that
all matter must consist of discreet lumps. When it became apparent that
the energy states of electrons orbiting the nucleus were also a series
of fixed values it became an article of faith that energy must be
quantized in the atom. Unfortunately it was found that the energy of
beta particle ejected from radioactive atomic nuclei varied smoothly
over at least a ten-to-one range. The beta radiation is apparently not
quantized when dogma said it should be. Based on the modern approach
which says never accept a theory is wrong - invent a new particle
instead the idea of the neutrino was born.

Pauli saved the day, by postulating the existence of a neutrino or
"small neutral particle" which had about the same mass as an electron
but no electric charge. Such a particle, he suggested, would not show up
in any ordinary particle counter or photograph. So: if one neutrino were
to be emitted along with every radioactive beta electron, nobody would
ever be able to detect the fact; but the invisible neutrino would carry
away energy too, so that it and the beta electron, between them, could
possess the quantized line spectrum of energy that faith demanded. (The
failure to quantize the sharing of this energy between the neutrino and
the beta electron in fixed proportions was not explained).

When first invented by Pauli they had about the same mass as an electron
(so as to share the missing energy equitably, on average); then suddenly
it was proved that they could have no rest mass, but must be like some
kind of non-radiant, undetectable photon. However, to make up for that
they must be spinning - "but not mechanically, of course, since there is
no structure there to spin".

Neutrino detectors work on the principle that what is detected must be a
neutrino because "it can't be anything else". I suspect that had no one
invented a neutrino then people would be queuing up wanting to get their
papers published suggesting what is being detected. Theory says that it
is almost but not quite impossible to detect a neutrino so the numbers
'detected' are very small. Even so only 1/4 of the number which should
be detected are, so it has been decided that they must be able to
transmute into one of at least 4 different sorts of neutrino, only one
of which shows up in the detector. That poses a problem in that if they
are massless and travel at c as previously thought then according to
relativity their clock is stopped and there is no way they can at some
'time' change from one manifestation to another. So now it is assumed
that they do have a tiny mass and travel at just less than c - so that
their clock can run and at some time they can - for no apparent reason -
change into a different sort of neutrino.

You couldn't make it up could you.
--
John Kennaugh
The problem with maths is that an awesomely impressive equation may be
describing an incredibly silly idea.

On Jun 7, 12:15*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:36*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:

[... remainder displays utter ignorance of modern physics]

No I reject the mysticism of modern physics. A photon is a perfectly
ordinary particle not some mystical mathematical object. A photon has
mass and therefore shows that SR is wrong because SR says it cannot
travel at c if it has mass - and it does.

A photon has mass because:

1/ Its direction is affected by gravity as with any projectile with
mass.
2/ Its energy increases if it falls under gravity just like any other
object with mass.
3/ Its energy is reduced when it escapes from a gravity field just like
any other projectile.
4/ If photons hit a surface they produce pressure just as any other
particles with mass will.
5/ It is hard to show that if you stop a photon it has rest mass but If
you take a very high energy photon (massive) and near stop it you end up
with an electron and a positron - which have mass - and a low energy
photon to take away any excess mass.
6/ If you combine an electron and a positron then you get two photons
each of who's mass is equal to that of an electron (or a positron)

The equations Waldron produces show that a photon with a given energy
has a given mass and that one value gives the correct answer in all the
above. The mass equations all balance.

Tom Roberts and his superior brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-
Ping Hsu have already solved this problem: Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected" even if "it is ultimately
discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum
does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform)":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev


I believe that what you quote is saying a different thing to what I am
talking about. What is being discussed in your quote is I think a case
of hedging their bets and saying that if instead of having zero mass a
photon had a minute mass, all it would mean is that the theoretical
constant c would not be the speed of light and that photons would have
to travel at very slightly less than c.

There is a second message in the quotes (designed to confuse mainly
zombies, not clever Einsteinians). Tom Roberts, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond
and Jong-Ping Hsu suggest that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
obsolete and therefore even if the speed of light is variable, not
constant, special relativity "would be unaffected". Note that,
logically, this suggestion has nothing to do with the problem of the
mass of the photon.

Anyway, the analysis you give below is quite instructive.

Pentcho Valev



What I am saying, and what Waldron showed mathematically is that a
photon has substantial mass.
The energy of a photon is made up of two terms

* * * * * * * * * * *W = 1/2 m c^2 + 1/2 m v^2

The first term is internal energy the second kinetic energy where v is
the speed of the photon relative to the observer. Waldron speculates
that the internal energy is due to rotating charge (equal positive and
negative).

If the observer is stationary w.r.t the source v = c and W = m c^2. This
is of course equal to Fo x h. so you get the equation

* * * * * * * * * * *Fo x h = mc^2

from which one can calculate the mass. The value calculated using that
equation is consistent with the effect of gravity on a photon and the
momentum of a photon and even the total mass of the two photons produced
by electron positron so called "annihilation". According to Waldron's
maths mass, charge, and energy are conserved in such an interaction. The
mass of the two photons is the same as the mass of the electron and
positron.

The quotes you give - speculating that photons might have a minute mass
reminds me of the dubious history of the neutrino.

Having discovered the quantized nature of the photon it was assumed that
all matter must consist of discreet lumps. When it became apparent that
the energy states of electrons orbiting the nucleus were also a series
of fixed values it became an article of faith that energy must be
quantized in the atom. Unfortunately it was found that the energy of
beta particle ejected from radioactive atomic nuclei varied smoothly
over at least a ten-to-one range. The beta radiation is apparently not
quantized when dogma said it should be. Based on the modern approach
which says never accept a theory is wrong - invent a new particle
instead the idea of the neutrino was born.

Pauli saved the day, by postulating the existence of a neutrino or
"small neutral particle" which had about the same mass as an electron
but no electric charge. Such a particle, he suggested, would not show up
in any ordinary particle counter or photograph. So: if one neutrino were
to be emitted along with every radioactive beta electron, nobody would
ever be able to detect the fact; but the invisible neutrino would carry
away energy too, so that it and the beta electron, between them, could
possess the quantized line spectrum of energy that faith demanded. *(The
failure to quantize the sharing of this energy between the neutrino and
the beta electron in fixed proportions was not explained).

When first invented by Pauli they had about the same mass as an electron
(so as to share the missing energy equitably, on average); then suddenly
it was proved that they could have no rest mass, but must be like some
kind of non-radiant, undetectable photon. However, to make up for that
they must be spinning - "but not mechanically, of course, since there is
no structure there to spin".

Neutrino detectors work on the principle that what is detected must be a
neutrino because "it can't be anything else". I suspect that had no one
invented a neutrino then people would be queuing up wanting to get their
papers published suggesting what is being detected. Theory says that it
is almost but not quite impossible to detect a neutrino so the numbers
'detected' are very small. Even so only 1/4 of the number which should
be detected are, so it has been decided that they must be able to
transmute into one of at least 4 different sorts of neutrino, only one
of which shows up in the detector. That poses a problem in that if they
are massless and travel at c as previously thought then according to
relativity their clock is stopped and there is no way they can at some
'time' change from one manifestation to another. So now it is assumed
that they do have a tiny mass and travel at just less than c - so that
their clock can run and at some time they can - for no apparent reason -
change into a different sort of neutrino.

You couldn't make it up could you.
--
John Kennaugh
The problem with maths is that an awesomely impressive equation may be
describing an incredibly silly idea.

On Jun 5, 4:09 pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
..........
In Maxwell's theory a 'field' is a
stress in the aether. If one accepts the no aether doctrine of modern
physics then clearly it cannot be a stress in the aether but physics has
failed to say what else it can physically be. On the contrary it has
arbitrarily made it a key doctrine that it doesn't need to.
--
John Kennaugh

Dear Kennaugh,
With reference to your above quoted observations, kindly share your
opinion/information on the following relevant points.
(a) Did Maxwell distinguish between his notion of 'aether' and the
physical space with characteristic properties of permittivity,
permeability and intrinsic impedance?
(b) Did he quantify the stress at any point in the 'aether' with a
stress tensor?
(c) Did he also use strain tensors in his analysis of the stressed
state of the aether?
(d) How did he correlate the stress and strain tensors at any point in
the aether?
(e) Did he establish any equilibrium equations of elasticity in terms
of stress or strain tensors in the aether?
(f) If so, did he present any solutions of those equilibrium
equations?

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html