From: FrediFizzx - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jun 22 2006 9:43 pm
Email: "FrediFizzx"
Groups: sci.physics.relativity
Not yet ratedRating:
show options

"Vert" wrote in message


There are a lot of people on this NG that don't know their back end
from a hole in the ground.
Then there are others whose thinking process is like a tossed salad.
They come up with stupid statements, assumptions, and cannot back them
up.

Good logic and good facts don't phase them. They are hopeless.


They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and
massless
photons.


Asked to back up there belief, they come up with vague statements or
erroneous proof and refuse to accept evidence that they are wrong.


I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

FREDI FIZZX

The problem (your confusion?) stems from how a photon is defined in
QED.
In the "particle" viewpoint, I doubt that it can be proven that a
photon
has no mass. But all experimental evidence so far points to a massless

photon. And in QED there is no theoretical "need" for a photon to have

mass. In our Quantum Vacuum Charge relativistic medium scenario,
photons are required to be massless as they are more like a "wavicle".
Any mass is in the medium and a photon is just a "concentrated"
energy-momentum flow thru the medium. In this kind of picture it is
easy to see that photons are massless and why there can be a quantum
object with no mass. Even "bare" fermions in our scenario are thought
to be massless much like in the Standard Model. They obtain their
masses from interaction with the quantum vacuum.

VERGON

Your faith in QED is to be commended -- even if it is misplaced.

In my view, QM is much like the six blind men examining the elephant.
One said it was like a tree (he was feeling the leg), another said it
was like a snake (he was feeling the trunk), another said it was like a
rope (he was feeling the tail), etc.

I had a text book once in which the author said, "If the student feels
he has not grasped QM do not despair or go over the material again. One
never grasps QM they simply get used to it."

QM is more or less a code to deal with the real world. I prefer to deal
with the real world.
That's why I wrote a paper titled "On the Quantum as a Physical
Entity".

So let's deal with the real world and deal with observal and well
established facts. If you want to throw them out for QM that's your
privilege.

To start with ALL equations for momentum and energy contain two and
only two elements, mass and motion. Get rid of the mass and all you
have is motion -- motion of nothing.

It is a well accepted fact that photons have energy and momentum. So if
you can describe the composition of energy and momentum without mass,
I'll be satisfied.

Compare this to the vague hypothetical allegorical QED. I know which I
prefer.
Just because QED is popular does not mean it is right. Just because it
seems to coincide with reality does not mean it is right. Ptolemy's
epicycles seemed right for 14 CENTURIES and were proved wrong in the
long run.

On 24 Jun 2006 14:16:44 -0700, Vert wrote:

[...]


The mass of the photon is a-b=b-a=0!

--

FrediFizzx wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Vert" wrote in message
ups.com...
There are a lot of people on this NG that don't know their back
end
from a hole in the ground.
Then there are others whose thinking process is like a tossed
salad.
They come up with stupid statements, assumptions, and cannot back
them
up.

Good logic and good facts don't phase them. They are hopeless.

They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and
massless
photons.

Asked to back up there belief, they come up with vague statements
or
erroneous proof and refuse to accept evidence that they are wrong.

I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that
the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

The problem (your confusion?) stems from how a photon is defined in
QED.
In the "particle" viewpoint, I doubt that it can be proven that a
photon
has no mass. But all experimental evidence so far points to a
massless
photon. And in QED there is no theoretical "need" for a photon to
have
mass. In our Quantum Vacuum Charge relativistic medium scenario,
photons are required to be massless as they are more like a
"wavicle".
Any mass is in the medium and a photon is just a "concentrated"
energy-momentum flow thru the medium. In this kind of picture it is
easy to see that photons are massless and why there can be a quantum
object with no mass. Even "bare" fermions in our scenario are
thought
to be massless much like in the Standard Model. They obtain their
masses from interaction with the quantum vacuum.

Is there a fundamental difference between "a "concentrated"
energy-momentum flow"
and a mass?

In the case of a single photon, yes. That is if we are talking about
rest mass. Even though we have E = mc^2, it mainly just means that mass
units can be used to express energy and like-wise

VERGON
Sorry, not so. What it means is that any mass released to travel at c
has the energy E.
Einstein gives it so in his second paper of 1905: When radiation is
released from a body, it loses mass by m =E/c^2. This, of course is E =
mc^2. The reverse is true. When a body absorbs radiation it gains in
mass by the same m.

Where do you suppose this mass comes from or goes to?

How does QED handle the gain or loss in mass in an interaction with a
massless particle?



FF
But energy and mass
are not the same thing. I read papers all the time that use the concept
of photon mass in their arguments. But a photon should have zero rest
mass and from a theoretical standpoint,

VERGON
No body is arguing that a photon has REST mass. A photon ceases to
exist when it is brought to rest by absorption, so there is no mass.It
is transfered to the absorbing electron. (Einstein).

But a photon in flight has mass.


there is no reason why it should
have any rest mass, IMHO.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

In article .com,
Vert wrote:

VERGON
No body is arguing that a photon has REST mass. A photon ceases to
exist when it is brought to rest by absorption, so there is no mass.It
is transfered to the absorbing electron. (Einstein).

But a photon in flight has mass.


there is no reason why it should

You're confusing relativistic mass with rest mass. A photon has no
mass, full stop. It has an amaount of energy that you COULD place into
m = E/c^2, but this would not be a mass, it would be the mass
equivalent to that energy.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...hoton_mass.htm
l

To quote

"This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons are
really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and
energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.
The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions
of mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say
that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a
"relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength.
This is based upon an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not
strictly wrong, is not used much today. See also the Faq article Does
mass change with velocity?.

The old definition of mass, called "relativistic mass," assigns a mass
to a particle proportional to its total energy E, and involved the
speed of light, c, in the proportionality constant:

m = E / c^2. (1)

This definition gives every object a velocity-dependent mass.

VERGON
Not true. The velocity dependent mass -- called relativistic mass --
came from the relativistic equation for momentum: p = mv/sqrt(1-
v^2/c^2). As the Lorentz transformation goes to zero, p goes to
infinity. since the assumption was that v could not exceed c, it was
the mass that went to infinity.

This concept is no longer given validity. Nor has the dilemma ever been
resolved.
It is simply ignored - and everyone agrees that mass is velocity
invariant.

The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant
quantity that does not depend on velocity. This is given by

m = E0 / c^2, (2)

where E0 is the total energy of that object at rest."

VERGON
Wrong again. The expression for total energy is E = mv^2/sqrt(1 -
v^2/c^2)
See Einstein.

All this erroneous double talk proves nothing. I agree with the
statement made below.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

In article . com, Vert
wrote:

See Einstein.

All this erroneous double talk proves nothing. I agree with the
statement made below.

You're taking non-photon equations and trying to apply them to the
photon.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.




So you agree you're the enemy? Interesting.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

In article . com, Vert
wrote:



All this erroneous double talk proves nothing. I agree with the
statement made below.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.




E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0c^2)^2

m_0 for a photon = 0 as E =pc for a photon.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

dda1 wrote:
Vert wrote:
There are a lot of people on this NG that don't know their back end
from a hole in the ground.
take this, **** hole:

A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite
measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition
Explorer spacecraft was used to derive a limit of 6x10^-16 eV with high
certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a
laborartory experiment which looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish
balance. The new limit is 6x10^-17 eV.

VERGON
According to my theory the correct figure is 4.14 x 10^-18 eV. You will
see that eventually to be true.



Now IF the photon had mass, its value would be m0=(hf)/c^2 With
h=4.13x10^-15 eV*s, f=7*10^14 s^-1, c=3x10^8 m/s it follows that m0
would be of the order of 3x10^-17. Since the experimental limits are
already close to this number the conclusion is forgone. Yet another way
at looking at the formula: the left hand side member is , as per
experiment, variable (it converges slowly to zero). The right hand side
member is made out of universal constants. The photon has no mass.

PD wrote:
Vert wrote:
There are a lot of people on this NG that don't know their back end
from a hole in the ground.
Then there are others whose thinking process is like a tossed salad.
They come up with stupid statements, assumptions, and cannot back them
up.

Good logic and good facts don't phase them. They are hopeless.

They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and massless
photons.

Asked to back up there belief, they come up with vague statements or
erroneous proof and refuse to accept evidence that they are wrong.

I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

Personal derogatory remarks will be ignored.

There is no *proof* that the photon is massless. That is up to
experiment, and experiment says that the mass is consistent with zero
with a very, very, very, very small error bar. As a result, most
theoretical models neglect the mass of the photon, which as it turns
out, does not cause any serious problems. If future experiments would
determine that there is a small, nonzero mass of the photon, the
theoretical model would have to be altered to accomodate a small mass.
This also would not cause any serious problems (massive gauge bosons
certainly exist in a renormalizable field theory), though it would have
some interesting implications which could then be put to further
experimental test. This is a tale that has been told recently in the
case of neutrinos, which were once treated theoretically as though they
were massless, though no theorist threw himself from a 12th-story
window when it turned out they are not.

There is, however, no experimental evidence for a *nonzero* photon
mass, and there isn't any theoretical necessity for a massive photon.

PD

VERGON
Your statement re no experimental evidence for a *nonzero* photon is,
unfortunately, not accurate. The blades of VACUUM radiometers turn
because the "photons transfer momentum to the blades." They also
transfer energy.

All equations for momentum and energy contain two and only two
elements, mass and motion. Remove the mass and you have motion only ---
the motion of nothing.

See if you think this is a coincidence?

Each element of a frequency of a photon has a mass of 7.37203854 x
10^-48 gr.
The frequency number is the number of elements in a photon. The
frequency number times the mass of each element gives the mass of the
photon. The mass of the photon times c gives the momentum -- which is
equal to hf/c.

The mass of the photon times c^2 gives the energy of the photon which
is equal to hf.
Now it gets interesting.

Take the frequency number of the electron, proton, and neutron -- and
multiply that by the mass of each element -- and you get the mass of
each particle.

Is that a coincidence? -- or is the element common to photons and
particles?

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"PD" wrote in message ups.com...

Vert wrote:
There are a lot of people on this NG that don't know their back end
from a hole in the ground.
Then there are others whose thinking process is like a tossed salad.
They come up with stupid statements, assumptions, and cannot back them
up.

Good logic and good facts don't phase them. They are hopeless.

They *believe* there are such things as massless particles and massless
photons.

Asked to back up there belief, they come up with vague statements or
erroneous proof and refuse to accept evidence that they are wrong.

I hereby offer a challenge to anyone competent to prove to me that the
photon has no mass.
So what say you?

Personal derogatory remarks will be ignored.

And so will the following:


There is no *proof* that the photon is massless. That is up to
experiment, and experiment says that the mass is consistent with zero
with a very, very, very, very small error bar. As a result, most
theoretical models neglect the mass of the photon, which as it turns
out, does not cause any serious problems. If future experiments would
determine that there is a small, nonzero mass of the photon, the
theoretical model would have to be altered to accomodate a small mass.
This also would not cause any serious problems (massive gauge bosons
certainly exist in a renormalizable field theory), though it would have
some interesting implications which could then be put to further
experimental test. This is a tale that has been told recently in the
case of neutrinos, which were once treated theoretically as though they
were massless, though no theorist threw himself from a 12th-story
window when it turned out they are not.

There is, however, no experimental evidence for a *nonzero* photon
mass, and there isn't any theoretical necessity for a massive photon.

For some strange reason however, for a certain kind of
breed, there seems to be a strong psycho(patho)logical
necessity for a massive photon.

Dirk Vdm

VERGON

Strange, that's exact;y what I was thinking about those who claim the
photon is massless -- and can't prove it.