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

(just as simple as that!)

Copyright Y.Porat 19-10- 2005

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


If the photon had a mass, it would also necessarily have longitudinal
wave polarization. This has never been observed. Also electrostatic
fields would fall off expontentially and not as inverse square.
--------------------
IMHO
you are a kind of a 'General' that 'fights the war of the latest war'

IE no creative imagination
and without creative imagination you have no advance

the wish to do revisions must start the moment you feel and face
questionable dead end with the existing theory
dead ends you say later 'it was never found'
did W bosons or Higges Bosons found
does it makes sense to you that a messenger will be 90 times
heavier than its mother??
and i guess you could point much more bugs in the theory than i can
do.
so in such a case you have to start to look for the source of the
problem
in your paradigm from scratch.
and that is what i started to do
base don my experience and on my achievements in nuclear structure
that no one before went to far
it enabled me to see things that no one could see
it was a new window for me to find a new unknown world
including things that lead to new understanding of the world of matter
structure of matter etc that no one could ever before dream
so my world of matter is a very tangible world
--unlike the mathematical physics that sees anything on the flat paper
with formulas.
--------


Needless to say, this has never been observed either.

see above

Finally,
Maxwell's equations would no longer be valid for massive photons.
according to Maxwell's equations an EM wave of the frequency of
one cycle per a year is possible!!

**it was never observed**!!!!
( iow look for 'your problems as well'...)


you and others must internalize that a physics equation
HAS ITS LIMIT OF VALIDATION!!
the task of the reasonable physicist is to find those limits
he cannot be just a slave of a formula all Lang and unconditionally!!


They
would need to be replaced with Proca's equations,

and in that case
will the problem will be resolved??

but unfortunately
none of the consequences of these have ever been seen in nature either.
And certainly it is not for lack of looking.

i showed you problematic consequences of yours
without too much looking for.
having energy or momentum without having mass is not a problem
for you??
creation of mass by acceleration - is not a problem for you?
disappear ace of rest mass - is not a problem for you??
(provided you are not a mathematics parrot)

and my last mostr important assertion and suggestion:

the photon is not an ordinary particle!!--
it is a case for itself
for instance: the gama or beta factors - do not apply for them
and you dont as well have to expect polarization of it
or exactly the force law that you expect from a proton or electron
because the photon is a particle for itself- a new kind-
that has to be found and defined!!
and the situationnow is far from complete to do that job
the first step must be asome swich 'in th emind of scientists
and that is the humble job that i took on myself
any help will be appreciated
try to believe me- it is badly needed.

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


I have no idea what you are talking about
of course you dont
and it is your fault not mime


and I don't think you do
either. This entire post appears to be nothing but random babble.

yess for a parrot it is babble


It's okay to critique physical theories,

have you ever in your life innovated anything in physics
beside gathering some old stuff and combining it together
so it will look like new??
like say making a parroting PhD??
----------


but first it helps to know
what you are talking about. If photons have mass, it would have to be
a very small mass of less than 10^-50 kg

good for you!!and good morning!
it is actually (for the smallest)
10^-51 kilograms

and i already defined it in a thread called:
'The mass of the photon defined theoretically by Y.Porat'
it was more than a year ago!!
so please make up your mind:
does the photon has mass or not
it is a question of principle not mumbling speculations
it is BASIC understanding of the structure of matter
that a parrot cannot have!!

in order to be consistent with
observation. And massive photons are certainly NOT supported at ALL by
Maxwell's equations.
so it is not a comprehensive theory!1
a friend of your parrots insisted that there may be a photon with
a frequency of (listen carefully)- one cycle per YEAR
so i had to call it the frequency of one Fertz...
do you support a frequency of one Fertz??
if you are a parrot why not?? does your theory does not allow it??
do you agree with me that a physics formula has its limits of
validation???

if yes did it even occur ed to you that the gama or beta factors-
are not valid to the photon case ??!!
and the photon is a special case for itself that has not beed studies
enough!!yes indeed it ever appeared in your sci.physics research but
still...there is life even beyond that research ng. for instance -
this ng!! (:-)
----------



So if you think you can prove a photon mass by
going that route, you need to understand you're barking up the wrong
tree.

first i suggest that you will lower a bit your lofty nose
because it seems that you have still alot to learn yourself
(even from the crackpot Y.Porat
------------------------------------

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

To itself, light doesn't exist. After all, a system travelling at
light speed has its own clock stopped. Thus a photon is both emitted
and absorbed in the same instant to itself. Therefor it can say, if it
could talk, "I do not exist!"

********************

But wait a minute. That's wrong. The photon's clock is stopped to an
external observer. But to the photon itself its clock runs as normal
according to relativity. What an oversight! Sheesh! I can't believe
it. I appy-polly-logize. Can we still be friends???????

In article .com, writes:
To itself, light doesn't exist. After all, a system travelling at
light speed has its own clock stopped. Thus a photon is both emitted
and absorbed in the same instant to itself. Therefor it can say, if it
could talk, "I do not exist!"

********************

But wait a minute. That's wrong. The photon's clock is stopped to an
external observer. But to the photon itself its clock runs as normal
according to relativity. What an oversight! Sheesh! I can't believe
it. I appy-polly-logize. Can we still be friends???????

A Lorentz transform with a boost of exactly c doesn't work
very well. If I recall correctly, one dimension is squashed
down to zero so that only one coordinate value is valid and
another dimension is expanded to infinity so that all coordinate
values are equally valid. Neither frame gives a valid set of
coordinates for all 4-dimensional events that could be described
in the other.

Personifying such an extreme frame of reference by trying to assume
the point of view of a photon at rest within it is unlikely to
yield a useful understanding.

John Briggs

right!!

the Lorentz factor does not apply for the photon!!
the photon is A special case!

the only formula that applies to it IMHO is

E=mC^2 and = hf

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
| To itself, light doesn't exist.

To itself, Stockbauer does not exist.
To me, Stockbauer does not exist.
Ergo Stockbauer does not exist.


After all, a system travelling at
| light speed has its own clock stopped. Thus a photon is both emitted
| and absorbed in the same instant to itself. Therefor it can say, if
it
| could talk, "I do not exist!"
|
| ********************
|
| But wait a minute. That's wrong. The photon's clock is stopped to an
| external observer. But to the photon itself its clock runs as normal
| according to relativity. What an oversight! Sheesh! I can't believe
| it. I appy-polly-logize. Can we still be friends???????

No. You don't exist.
Androcles

wrote in message
...
| In article .com,
writes:
| To itself, light doesn't exist. After all, a system travelling at
| light speed has its own clock stopped. Thus a photon is both
emitted
| and absorbed in the same instant to itself. Therefor it can say, if
it
| could talk, "I do not exist!"
|
| ********************
|
| But wait a minute. That's wrong. The photon's clock is stopped to
an
| external observer. But to the photon itself its clock runs as
normal
| according to relativity. What an oversight! Sheesh! I can't
believe
| it. I appy-polly-logize. Can we still be friends???????
|
| A Lorentz transform with a boost of exactly c doesn't work
| very well. If I recall correctly, one dimension is squashed
| down to zero

Photons are point particles.
Androcles.

Y.Porat wrote:
right!!

the Lorentz factor does not apply for the photon!!
the photon is A special case!

That's right.


the only formula that applies to it IMHO is

E=mC^2 and = hf

What about the momentum of the photon? A system containing photons only
conserves momentum if the momentum of the photons is included. And,
miraculously, with a certain choice for how to calculate the momentum
of a photon, the momentum of the system is always conserved, which
indicates that we don't need something in addition to ensure momentum
conservation.


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

Light VELOCiTY c is a mathematical constant, like pi.!!
ReCALL the BENT PHOTON mass PROOF of RELATiViTY THEORY.
Stellar AMBiENT density gradients actually REFRACT c.!!
But the MONEY was on SPACEtime curvature, NOT ambience.

EVERYBOBY knows NOW that LiGHT-mass = h*f / c^2.!!
EVERYBODY knows whereas EinsteiN-mass = e / c^2;
EVERYBODY knows, that GR-coup-mass NOT= e / c^2.

There is NOTHiNG COMPLEX about a POiNT
on a WORLDline (in SPACEtime), with NO
iNside; And NO OUTside (i.e. ambient).
You say co-ordinates. Wrt WHAT, dooOP?
You say co-ordinates. Of, WHAT, dooOP?
GR's G_uv has NEVER been related to M.
ALL exhibited equations ..Newtonian.!!
Where ** U = G M / c^2 / r
Note G, M & r, CANNOT BE G_uv related.
There is ONLY POiNT-mass in the Gtr.!!
Tom Roberts ..being VERY COY there.!!

$ Urgent mass matter.!!
EQUiVALENT absorbed mass of light: .!!
1. 'UNiVERSAL PHYSiCAL CONSTANTS'
[ Translated, from Russian, by Yevgeni Strelchenko ];
(Revised from the 1984 Russian edition by O.P. Spiridonov):
Page 103; The Photoelectric Effect: h*f = A + (m*v^2 / 2);
Page 130~31; "But, according to Einstein, a photon is also
endowed with a mass m_ph:

E = h*f = m_ph*c^2 ; m_ph = h*f / c^2.

This mass is extremely small, of course, about 10^-33 g, but
some way or other, it bound to manifest itself in physical
phenomena. Indeed, in 1900, P. N. Lebedev, Professor at the
University of Moscow, discovered the pressure of light, which
was an experimental proof of the then still unformulated
relativity theory. Another evidence for the photon's mass came
much later, in 1919, when in full agreement with Einstein's
prediction, scientists registered the bent of light rays in
the strong gravitational field [ambient density gradient] of
the Sun." [Einstein's EQUiVALENT absorbed photon energy, E_o.]
Page 202~3; ..NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants;
Page 204; EPiLOGUE with EiNSTEiN's QUOTE:
[QUOTE AUTHOR] "Why is it that the values of the constants
are not obtained theoretically and should be measured
experimentally, sometimes with enormous difficulties? --
-- What Einstein proposes is to get rid of dimensional
constants and replace them by dimensionless ones (which are
the ratios of, for example, one mass to another, one speed
to another and so on). He wrote in his autobiographical
notes: [QUOTE EiNSTEiN] "If one considers this done, then
only ‘dimensionless' constants could occur in the basic
equations of physics... nature is so constituted that it is
possible logically to lay down such strongly determined laws
that within these laws only rationally completely determined
constants occur (not constants, therefore, whose numerical
value could be changed without destroying the theory)"."
[UN-QUOTE EiNSTEiN & AUTHOR]; © Mir Publishers, Moscow.

2. 'THE UNiVERSE & DR. EiNSTEiN'; 1956;
Comet Books / Collins; 1956 EDiTiON:
Written by: Lincoln Barnett;
SUB-Title: The Meaning of Time, Space and Matter
[With foreword by Albert Einstein; Princeton, New Jersey.]
[FOREWORD written: September 10, 1948; ..SEE: Pages 5 & 6]

3. 'FORMULAs FACTs AND CONSTANTs'; 1982 ~ 1987
Edited by: H J Fishbeck and K H Fishbeck
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
ISBN 3 540 17610 1 ..note p.136 Rydberg footnote typo.

4. 'SCiENCE DATA BOOK'; 1971 ~ 1979
Edited by: R M Tennent
ISBN 0 05 002487 6
© Oliver & Boyd

5. ‘ELEMENTARY CHEMiCAL THERMODYNAMiCs' ..in SI Units (3rd Ed);
G Socrates, M.Sc., M.iNST.P., Ph.D, Brunel University
G Hargreaves, M.Sc., Ph.D, University of Sheffield
ISBN 0 408 70431 4; 1973 London © The Butterworth Group.
ISBN 0 408 70430 6; standard ..in an hardcover edition.
Printed 1961-63-65-67-73; Third ed. (1973) in SI Units.

6. 'BASiC CONCEPTs OF MEASUREMENT'; 1966
© Cambridge University Press
Written by: Brian Ellis
LCCCN 65-1915

7. 'HARMONiC METROLOGY {iNTEGRATED STANDARD SYSTEM}'
© B A STUCKLESS; ISBN 0 9693164 1 0; {iSS}.wpd; 59KB.
"There are no ARBiTRARY fundamental physical constants."

EQUiVALENT mass=h*f/c^2=ONLY mass [phoTon & phoNon].!!
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:36:04 -0330
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Envelope-To:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
mx1.global.net.uk
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,UPPERCASE_25_50
autolearn=no version=2.60
X-Spam-Level: N/A.

brian a m stuckless
/\
__ _\/_ __
\_\/_/\_\/_/
/\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
_\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
/_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
/\ - O - _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
\/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He and No more is more.
:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | _ |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)

:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_

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

Y.Porat wrote:
right!!
the Lorentz factor does not apply for the photon!!
the photon is A special case!
the only formula that applies to it IMHO is

E=mC^2 and = hf

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

PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
right!!

the Lorentz factor does not apply for the photon!!
the photon is A special case!

That's right.
good for you PD we start to make some revolusionarry advance!!




the only formula that applies to it IMHO is

E=mC^2 and = hf

What about the momentum of the photon?


see the momentum dimenssions


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



A system containing photons only
conserves momentum if the momentum of the photons is included. And,
miraculously, with a certain choice for how to calculate the momentum
of a photon, the momentum of the system is always conserved, which
indicates that we don't need something in addition to ensure momentum
conservation.


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

everybody agrees that photon has momentum

the dimensions of momentum a

kilogram meter/seconds

kilograms is mass!!

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