No mass --- No real physics !!

(just as simple as that!)

Copyright Y.Porat 19-10- 2005

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

WOW!

Copyrighted graffiti!

If you don't want anybody to steal your writings, paint them on a
bridge abutment.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Y.Porat wrote:
No mass --- No real physics !!

(just as simple as that!)

Copyright Y.Porat 19-10- 2005

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

I assume you arrived at that a priori, without bothering to consult
experiment on the issue.

PD

it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you
so we can go on with it here
for instance
you claimed there that there are experimental proves that the photon is
massless by polarization or something like that
so can you bring that experimental data here
so we can examine it here?

a second claim of you was about an accelerated particle that collides
after that acceleration with a particle
outside the accelerator

so ?
do you what to say that mass is created or lost in that case??

3 you said you can bring examples
of two nuclei that collide and fuse
though they have no fields around them
can you bring those examples??



TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------

and some physics discussion??
if i am right it has a huge importance
and innovation.
an innovation must not be too sophisticated and complicated
it can be very simple
actually the simpler the better
provided it is not *over simplified'
i think i quoted someone about
simple and over simplified (:-)

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------

Y.Porat wrote:
it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you
so we can go on with it here
for instance
you claimed there that there are experimental proves that the photon is
massless by polarization or something like that
so can you bring that experimental data here
so we can examine it here?

I'm on the road. I'd like to come up with about three or four different
ways we know that, but I need to return to home base before doing that.


a second claim of you was about an accelerated particle that collides
after that acceleration with a particle
outside the accelerator

so ?
do you what to say that mass is created or lost in that case??

Mass, no. Matter, almost certainly. A good example of this is
e+e- = p+p-
where e+ is positron
e- is electron
p+ is proton
p- is antiproton

which is seen routinely at, say, SLAC.

The intitial state has much less matter in it than the final state.


3 you said you can bring examples
of two nuclei that collide and fuse
though they have no fields around them
can you bring those examples??


If I said that, it was an error.

PD

PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you
so we can go on with it here
for instance
you claimed there that there are experimental proves that the photon is
massless by polarization or something like that
so can you bring that experimental data here
so we can examine it here?

I'm on the road. I'd like to come up with about three or four different
ways we know that, but I need to return to home base before doing that.


Actually, I found an answer pretty quickly. Numerous tests have been
done.
- looking for deviations from the power law in Coulomb's law and
Ampere's law
- looking for longitudinal polarization, which would occur if the
photon had mass
- looking for frequency dependence of the speed of light in a vacuum
(radio waves from the sun), which would be present if there were mass
- there are also tests based on a toroidal balance and based on
measurements of the Earth's magnetic field that I'm not familiar with.

Try using http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/s000.pdf as a reference.

PD

PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you
so we can go on with it here
for instance
you claimed there that there are experimental proves that the photon is
massless by polarization or something like that
so can you bring that experimental data here
so we can examine it here?

I'm on the road. I'd like to come up with about three or four different
ways we know that, but I need to return to home base before doing that.


a second claim of you was about an accelerated particle that collides
after that acceleration with a particle
outside the accelerator

so ?
do you what to say that mass is created or lost in that case??

Mass, no. Matter, almost certainly. A good example of this is
e+e- = p+p-
where e+ is positron
e- is electron
p+ is proton
p- is antiproton

which is seen routinely at, say, SLAC.

The intitial state has much less matter in it than the final state.

???
who on earth told you that it is only one pair of electron positron
involved in that process??
why not may of them??


3 you said you can bring examples
of two nuclei that collide and fuse
though they have no fields around them
can you bring those examples??


If I said that, it was an error.
PD i start to like you .....
you are one of the few honest people here that are able emotionally
to admit a mistake
honesty is one of the most important feature of a reral scientist
that enables him to advance!!
the second good virtue that i found in you and in very few others is
....
open mindedness.

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------


PD

PD wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you
so we can go on with it here
for instance
you claimed there that there are experimental proves that the photon is
massless by polarization or something like that
so can you bring that experimental data here
so we can examine it here?

I'm on the road. I'd like to come up with about three or four different
ways we know that, but I need to return to home base before doing that.


Actually, I found an answer pretty quickly. Numerous tests have been
done.
- looking for deviations from the power law in Coulomb's law and
Ampere's law
- looking for longitudinal polarization, which would occur if the
photon had mass
- looking for frequency dependence of the speed of light in a vacuum
(radio waves from the sun), which would be present if there were mass
- there are also tests based on a toroidal balance and based on
measurements of the Earth's magnetic field that I'm not familiar with.

Try using http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/s000.pdf as a reference.

PD
your basic assumption and apparently of others is that the photon
is like other particles
particle behaviour' doe snot mean it is all laong like the 'ordinarry
particles'
btw
on the way ' ans still so active and efficient
is it due to you or to new technology? or both??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------

Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you
so we can go on with it here
for instance
you claimed there that there are experimental proves that the photon is
massless by polarization or something like that
so can you bring that experimental data here
so we can examine it here?

I'm on the road. I'd like to come up with about three or four different
ways we know that, but I need to return to home base before doing that.


Actually, I found an answer pretty quickly. Numerous tests have been
done.
- looking for deviations from the power law in Coulomb's law and
Ampere's law
- looking for longitudinal polarization, which would occur if the
photon had mass
- looking for frequency dependence of the speed of light in a vacuum
(radio waves from the sun), which would be present if there were mass
- there are also tests based on a toroidal balance and based on
measurements of the Earth's magnetic field that I'm not familiar with.

Try using http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/s000.pdf as a reference.

PD
your basic assumption and apparently of others is that the photon
is like other particles
particle behaviour' doe snot mean it is all laong like the 'ordinarry
particles'

The fact that you found the results compiled in a compendium of
particle properties does not mean that the experiments performed had
anything to do with particle physics, nor that any assumption about the
particle of nature of light was made. The experiments referred to are
wide in approach and in sub-discipline.

btw
on the way ' ans still so active and efficient
is it due to you or to new technology? or both??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------