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.

In article . 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.


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

--
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. 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."

Vertner Vergon the Persistent Ass wrote:
snipped

You are sucking your dick again Verty. Your momma will spank you when
she catches you.

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.

QED. Pure and simple. Learn it or shut up.

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?

1) http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf

2) You are an idiot.


Personal derogatory remarks will be ignored.

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. See he

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf

Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less
than 3x10^-27 eV but there is some doubt about the validity of this
method. References: E. Fischbach et al., Physical Review Letters, 73,
514-517 25 July 1994.

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.

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

"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

In article , Dirk Van
de moortel wrote:


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



Did you get my email about GSS not knowing proper time and distance? I
thought it was worth a fumble.....

--
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. 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."

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news:220620062344546434%phineaspuddleduck@googlema il.com_NOSPAM...
In article , Dirk Van
de moortel wrote:


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



Did you get my email about GSS not knowing proper time and distance? I
thought it was worth a fumble.....

Ha yes, GSS...
I n ever look at his messages.
Quantité négligeable :-)

Dirk Vdm