THE MEANING OF E = MC^2

**vergon@gawab.com** · #41 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Sorcerer wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Igor wrote:
| wrote:
|
| "Energy" is mass in motion.
|
| Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
| guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
| minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
| he can learn some actual physics.
|
| VERGON
|
| Of course there is the definition that energy is the ability to do
| work.
|
| However, there are other ways of looking at it that are not necessarily
| wrong.
|
| It is this ability to look at things from different angles that
| separates the men from the boys.

True enough.

|
| Of course, those with not too much ability feel exposed if exact
| definitions are not used. They feel uncertain and out of their depth
| --- and they are because they do not have the ability to see the big
| picture. Einstein called it "musicality" --- you either had the ability
| or you didn't. Apparently you don't.
|
| As a generality, saying energy is mass in motion is just another way of
| looking at it --- another slant, This is a characteristic of creative
| thinking. You either have it or you don't

Surely intelligent perception has greater weight than wild imagination!
Since when did science require creative thinking?
Androcles.

VERGON

Since you don't have it.

**Sorcerer** · #42 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | Igor wrote:
| | wrote:
| |
| | "Energy" is mass in motion.
| |
| | Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
| | guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his
fifteen
| | minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back
until
| | he can learn some actual physics.
| |
| | VERGON
| |
| | Of course there is the definition that energy is the ability to do
| | work.
| |
| | However, there are other ways of looking at it that are not
necessarily
| | wrong.
| |
| | It is this ability to look at things from different angles that
| | separates the men from the boys.
|
| True enough.
|
|
|
| |
| | Of course, those with not too much ability feel exposed if exact
| | definitions are not used. They feel uncertain and out of their depth
| | --- and they are because they do not have the ability to see the big
| | picture. Einstein called it "musicality" --- you either had the
ability
| | or you didn't. Apparently you don't.
| |
| | As a generality, saying energy is mass in motion is just another way
of
| | looking at it --- another slant, This is a characteristic of creative
| | thinking. You either have it or you don't
|
| Surely intelligent perception has greater weight than wild imagination!
| Since when did science require creative thinking?
| Androcles.
|
| VERGON
|
| Since you don't have it.

Yes, of course. Only you have creative genius, in your view.
That is so evident in your lucid and highly entertaining reply.
Now answer the ****ing question, ****head!
Since when did science require creative thinking, arsehole?
Androcles

**vergon@gawab.com** · #43 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

wrote:
wrote:
physicsajay wrote:
Einstein speculated E =mc2 from L =mc2 in Sep. 1905 : Ajay Sharma

VERGON

THE WAY I SEE IT:

ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:

We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.

Now what if you shake electrons and they send these EM fields out to
travel on their own through space. We could call that "electromagnetic
radiation" (Oh, this is so novel, I can't believe it.)

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.

You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.But here is one
definition (of many):
The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

I notice, however, that as Nieto & Goldhaber kept refining their
results over the years
that the mass they obtained became smaller and smaller until it became
extremely close
to the figure I had obtained theoretically.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Now if you will look up "superposition" you will see how waves group
together to reinforce and cancel each other.

And if you will look up Gaussian waves you will see how these waves
form standing waves and group waves (that have mass).

Is it surprising that a group wave, having mass, would act as a
particle -- and wave at the same time? Note that when a photon is of
high enough energy, it becomes so massive it can actually become an
electron.

So where's the mystery?

"Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
and only two -- elements, mass and motion.

No it isn't, no it doesn't.

VERGON

You know any biased ignorant prejudiced diehard can say "No it isn't"
and
"No it doesn't" without giving a reason. That means he has none except
his
dogmatism and bias. That makes his response absolutely worthless.

This is true for E = h nu because one of the absolute dimensions of h
is mass. The others are distance and time. The unit is one of action.

No it isn't.

VERGON

You just displayed a comlete ignorance. Go look it up in any text on
black body
radiation.

Or better yet, I'll do it for you --- here from the encyclopedia:

Planck's constant has units of energy multiplied by time, which are the
units of action (J·s). These units may also be written as momentum
times distance (N·m·s), which are also the units of angular momentum.
However, often the unit of choice is eV·s, because of the small
energies that are often encountered in quantum physics.

The value of Planck's constant is:

The value of Dirac's constant (also known as the reduced Planck's
constant, and referred to as "h-bar" when you are unable to use the
symbol) is:

**vergon@gawab.com** · #44 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

PD wrote:
wrote:

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.

OK, so you don't know what "mass upper limit" means. Hint: It does NOT
mean the fields have mass.

VERGON

I suggest you study physics before you get on this NG and show what a
moron you are.

If you will look up the experiments of Nieto & Goldhaber (Scientific
American, May 1974)
the article named "MASS OF THE PHOTON" appears. In it they describe
their search for the mass of the photon and discuss it in terms of its
upper limit. They also describe that they accomplish this by
determining the mass of the coulomb field.

"Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
and only two -- elements, mass and motion.

This is true for E = h nu because one of the absolute dimensions of h
is mass. The others are distance and time. The unit is one of action.

No such thing as an absolute dimension, as far as I know. Where are you
getting gthat from?

VERGON

From text books and encyclopedias. Here's one:

Planck's constant has units of energy multiplied by time, which are the
units of action (J·s). These units may also be written as momentum
times distance (N·m·s), which are also the units of angular momentum.
However, often the unit of choice is eV·s, because of the small
energies that are often encountered in quantum physics.

The value of Planck's constant is:

The value of Dirac's constant (also known as the reduced Planck's
constant, and referred to as "h-bar" when you are unable to use the
symbol) is:

Momentum, of course, is mass in motion also. No mass, no momentum.
Conversely, if momentum, then mass.

That is also incorrect.

VERGON

Any jerk can say "incorrect" but an intelligent person would say why.
So your comment, like you, is worthless.

Now we
can regard the frequency, nu, of a photon as containing n
electromagnetic fields (Each EM field being 1 HZ). "n" is the
frequency NUMBER of nu.

And why is a *physical* quantum based on an *arbitrary* length of time
(1 second)? Why on earth would nature regard 1 Hz as being a natural
unit?

VERGON

And why is the speed of light "based on an 'arbitrary' length of time
(one second)?"

Why on earth would nature regard the electron as part of an atom?
Idiot.

And why is the number 1 the natural unit of a series of whole numbers?

And why is a brick the natural unit of a brick wall?

And why are you a natural unit of the population of stupids? :-)

Why would a fundamental charge unit stubbornly refuse to be 1 coulomb,
why would the Planck length stubbornly refuse to be 1 meter, but the
smallest fundamental frequency meekly succumb to being a friendly 1 Hz?

PD

VERGON

And why do you refuse to show any modicom of intelligence?

**vergon@gawab.com** · #45 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Igor wrote:
wrote:

physicsajay wrote:

You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.

If I didn't understand something, I probably wouldn't like it either

VERGON

Touche

But here is one
definition (of many):
The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

Wrong!

VERGON

Maybe, but that is a quote from the encyclopedia.

The upper bound is literally the largest possible value allowed
based on conditions. In this case, on observation.

VERGON

To me that makes sense. If it is the LARGEST possible value, then any
correct value has to be smaller. The values Nieto & Goldhaber kept
revising were getting smaller and smaller.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

Well, your way of thinking is horribly wrong.

VERGON

Yes, I can see why I had trouble with the description, although I could
tell what Nieto & Goldhaber were after ('cause they described it so
well). Thanks for making it clear.

An upper bound doesn't
imply existence at all. It's merely the largest value possible, given
that the quantity exists, which may or may not be true.

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

If you can definitely set a lower limit together with an upper limit,
then you have essentially pinned down existence. For a photon, we have
no way to establish a lower limit for mass, so it must be the lowest
possible value allowed, which is zero.

VERGON

Sorry but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Nieto &
Goldhaber were
establishing a lowest posible value. At no time did they suggest it was
zero.

**vergon@gawab.com** · #46 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Randy Poe wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.But here is one
definition (of many):

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what an upper limit means.
The definition below has nothing whatsoever to do with the experimental
upper limit. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

No.

Vergon's "translation" is not even correct for the mathematical
concept of limsup which he has garbled.

First of all, he should have looked at supremum for A SET,
not a SEQUENCE OF SETS. Second of all, there is no
way that the supremum of a set is the smallest number of
a set. By definition, it is = every member of the set.

- Randy

VERGON

I thank you for your comment.

I will admit I have to bone up on set theory. However my shortfall did
not prevent me from understanding what Nieto & Goldhaber were after
(fortunately).

**Igor** · #47 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

wrote:
Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.

VERGON

Of course there is the definition that energy is the ability to do
work.

Okay. You finally hit on the correct physical definition after much
poking and prodding. Are you always this slow? Anyway, work, being
defined as the integral of force over displacement does not necessarily
contain mass. So that's where you go wrong.

However, there are other ways of looking at it that are not necessarily
wrong.

They are if they don't agree with the fundamental definition.

It is this ability to look at things from different angles that
separates the men from the boys.

And I understand that you are the type of person that likes to argue
that 60 degrees equals 30 degrees. So much for different angles.

Of course, those with not too much ability feel exposed if exact
definitions are not used. They feel uncertain and out of their depth
--- and they are because they do not have the ability to see the big
picture. Einstein called it "musicality" --- you either had the ability
or you didn't. Apparently you don't.

No. This is physics. We absolutely have to play by the rules.
Otherwise, we have no understanding about whether what we say is true
or not. If you don't want to play by the rules, go into politics.
Those people are very good at doing what you always do.

As a generality, saying energy is mass in motion is just another way of
looking at it --- another slant, This is a characteristic of creative
thinking. You either have it or you don't

But it's not physics. Case closed. You're finished.

**vergon@gawab.com** · #48 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

PD wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
physicsajay wrote:
Einstein speculated E =mc2 from L =mc2 in Sep. 1905 : Ajay Sharma

VERGON

THE WAY I SEE IT:

ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:

We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.

Now what if you shake electrons and they send these EM fields out to
travel on their own through space. We could call that "electromagnetic
radiation" (Oh, this is so novel, I can't believe it.)

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.

You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.But here is one
definition (of many):

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what an upper limit means.
The definition below has nothing whatsoever to do with the experimental
upper limit. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

No.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

No. Not at all.

I might suggest a book that would clarify things for you.
Statistics for Particle and Nuclear Physicists, by Louis Lyons.

VERGON

Thanks for the reference.
Yes, I do have to bone up on set theory -- especially as it pertains to
particle and nuclear physics.

You and others have been a great help to me in this area.

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

I notice, however, that as Nieto & Goldhaber kept refining their
results over the years
that the mass they obtained became smaller and smaller until it became
extremely close
to the figure I had obtained theoretically.

**Igor** · #49 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

wrote:
Igor wrote:
wrote:

physicsajay wrote:

You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.

If I didn't understand something, I probably wouldn't like it either

VERGON

Touche

But here is one
definition (of many):
The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

Wrong!

VERGON

Maybe, but that is a quote from the encyclopedia.

The upper bound is literally the largest possible value allowed
based on conditions. In this case, on observation.

VERGON

To me that makes sense. If it is the LARGEST possible value, then any
correct value has to be smaller. The values Nieto & Goldhaber kept
revising were getting smaller and smaller.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

Well, your way of thinking is horribly wrong.

VERGON

Yes, I can see why I had trouble with the description, although I could
tell what Nieto & Goldhaber were after ('cause they described it so
well). Thanks for making it clear.

An upper bound doesn't
imply existence at all. It's merely the largest value possible, given
that the quantity exists, which may or may not be true.

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

If you can definitely set a lower limit together with an upper limit,
then you have essentially pinned down existence. For a photon, we have
no way to establish a lower limit for mass, so it must be the lowest
possible value allowed, which is zero.

VERGON

Sorry but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Nieto &
Goldhaber were
establishing a lowest posible value. At no time did they suggest it was
zero.

But that's the whole point. We have no way of observationally setting
a lower bound. Ever heard of a negative mass? No. So the lower bound
has to be zero. And the interval is zero to upper bound, inclusive.

This whole issue is pretty silly anyway. Even if it was discovered
tomorrow that the photon had an extremely small mass, very little would
change. In our everyday world, Maxwell's equations would still work
for the most part, and electrostatic fields would still seem to fall
off as the square of the distance. The only differences would be
noticed at very very small energies, comparable to the rest energy of
the photon.

PD · #50 September 16th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
physicsajay wrote:
Einstein speculated E =mc2 from L =mc2 in Sep. 1905 : Ajay Sharma

VERGON

THE WAY I SEE IT:

ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:

We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.

Now what if you shake electrons and they send these EM fields out to
travel on their own through space. We could call that "electromagnetic
radiation" (Oh, this is so novel, I can't believe it.)

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.

You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.But here is one
definition (of many):

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what an upper limit means.
The definition below has nothing whatsoever to do with the experimental
upper limit. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

No.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

No. Not at all.

I might suggest a book that would clarify things for you.
Statistics for Particle and Nuclear Physicists, by Louis Lyons.

VERGON

Thanks for the reference.
Yes, I do have to bone up on set theory -- especially as it pertains to
particle and nuclear physics.

You and others have been a great help to me in this area.

You'll note in the reading that the experimental upper limit in
particle and nuclear physics has nothing to do with set theory. If you
constrain your search to a set theory definition, you'll be frustrated
and learn little.

PD

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

I notice, however, that as Nieto & Goldhaber kept refining their
results over the years
that the mass they obtained became smaller and smaller until it became
extremely close
to the figure I had obtained theoretically.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The meaning of you and me	Geo Incog	Physics - New Theories	0	March 13th 05 12:17 AM
The meaning of you and me	Geo Incog	Physics - New Theories	0	March 13th 05 12:15 AM
Meaning of self-duality?	Oz	Current Physics Research (Moderated)	0	May 8th 04 01:40 AM
Meaning of self-duality?	Arkadiusz Jadczyk	Current Physics Research (Moderated)	0	May 4th 04 12:42 AM
Meaning of Ph.D?	Manu	Physics - General Discussion	11	December 17th 03 02:47 AM