On May 21, 4:29 am, The_Man wrote:
[...]


There is even a third :-)

Yea well it doesn't surprise me that a PhD chemist might know
something about selection rules that I missed in 2 semesters of
undergraduate QM. :P


s orbitals and d orbitals are symmetric with respect to inversion
through the origin, so they are "gerade". p and f orbitals are
"ungerade" (anti-symmetric with respect to inversion)

For any transition to be allowed, the transition dipole momement
integral must include the totally symmetric representation (which is
gerade). The dipole moment operator itself is ungerade.
The integral is

Int ( beginning_state Operator end_state)

For the integral to NOT be zero, beginning_state and end_state must
have different parities (one has to be gerade, and the other
ungerade). This is the Laporte selection rule (this one comes up in
chemistry a lot)

)

Didn't know about the parity swap rule. Neat.

On May 21, 12:33 am, RP wrote:
[...]

The_Man is a PhD chemist.
I'm one year from having my BSc in Physics.

You read Feynman's lectures once a long time ago.

See the disparity?

Pentcho Valev wrote in "sci.physics.relativity":
Androcles wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
The question:

"Does the speed of light vary in a gravitational field in accordance
with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a

What's the reference for this formula? As far as I know Einstein never
said this nonsense. (The second axiom for SR is that c is the same for
all reference frames.)

[...]
"Does the photon have a mass?"

The mass of a photon is zero by experiment.


Of course, in a normal situation the two questions would always be
considered together. However in Einstein's world the situation is by
no means normal and Einsteinians would take any opportunity to convert
the second question into a red herring. One should not give them such

I take it that you believe experimental fact to be a red herring. If
so what are you doing in "sci.physics.relativity" as in "science"? Why
not take your religion elsewhere?

[...]

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!

The TimeLord wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in "sci.physics.relativity":
Androcles wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
The question:

"Does the speed of light vary in a gravitational field in accordance
with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a

What's the reference for this formula? As far as I know Einstein never
said this nonsense.

He did say it and it is not nonsense. Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) describing the variability of the speed of light is
consistent with and explains the gravitational redshift factor:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, IT IS
ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT in a
gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,"
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0
( 1 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the
point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev

Androcles wrote in "sci.physics.relativity":
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
: ups.com...
[...]
Find a flaw in this argument:

1) We measure mass by applying force and measuring acceleration.

Mmmmm - OK.


2) Acceleration is overcoming inertia.

More to the point: acceleration is change in velocity.


2a) "Inertia" is shorthand for Galileo/Newton's first law.

"Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
thereon."

OK. In symbols, Newton's first law is:
F=0 = v=constant


2b) Acceleration is Galileo/Newton's second law:

"The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force
impressed;
and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is
impressed."

Newton wrote it this way:
F = dp/dt


3) Intuitively, matter has mass; by definition, by observation, by
experience.

Definition is that mass is the amount of matter.


4) Newton's third law is conservation of momentum.

No. Read your quote immediately below.


"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual
actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to
contrary parts."

What this actually means is that if F_ab is the force that a exerts on
b, then F_ba = -F_ab.


5) Photons are not matter, they are the electromagnetic transfer of energy.

True. Since mass is the amount of matter and photons have no matter,
they have no mass.

Photons come in pairs. For every photon there is an equal and opposite
rephoton; a restatement of Newton's third law in a different situation.

Huh? Why would you say this? What experimental evidence is there that
photons always come in pairs? Newton's third law certainly has nothing
to do with this.


6) A photon is the wave superposition of two or more oscillators which only
move once (the so-called "quantum" of energy).

Not sure what you mean by this. You can have photons of a single
frequency as in monochromatic light.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/rephoton.gif

This does not elucidate what you claim.


6a) The total energy of two photons is mc^2.

No. The total energy of two photons is E1+E2=(p1+p2)*c=h*(f1+f2).
Photons have no mass.


7) Asking if a photon has mass is asking if a photon has inertia.

Perhaps. But really that point is irrelevant.


8) The path of a photon is curved in a rotating frame:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...r/fw/crls.rxml

It's interesting you chose that site as opposed to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

However, the statement is probably correct, providing the frame
rotates fast enough.


9) By observation of 9) Photons have inertia.

Huh? Anyway, it's irrelevant.

10) Photons are not matter.

True; but you already stated that.


11) Whatever matter is, we can only detect it by it radiating energy by
reflection or its own emission.

And collision with other matter, among other ways.


12) Newton was puzzled by "action at a distance", yet accepted the
existence of matter axiomatically. It's a given. What he did not know of
was the periodic table, the Bohr model of the atom or electrodynamics.

So what?


I suggest we reverse that old, worn out way of thinking and accept
action-at-a-distance as a given and then ponder over matter.

Why?



The pieces of the puzzle are all there. Yes, the photon has mass. One can

Now you are contradicting yourself. Photon is not matter, so it can't
have mass since mass is the amount of matter.

[...]

The flaw is that you are self-contradictory and have no conclusion.
Also you seem to not pay much attention to definitions that are
already accepted by physicists.

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!

Pentcho Valev wrote in "sci.physics.relativity":
The TimeLord wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in "sci.physics.relativity":
Androcles wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
The question:

"Does the speed of light vary in a gravitational field in accordance
with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a
What's the reference for this formula? As far as I know Einstein never
said this nonsense.

He did say it and it is not nonsense. Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) describing the variability of the speed of light is
consistent with and explains the gravitational redshift factor:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, IT IS

V here is not speed. You would have known that had you read it
carefully. No wonder your misquote of Einstein sounded so stupid.

[...]
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a

Same thing. The discussion there is about gravity, not anything
related to SR.

[...]

In the original message you posted
. com
you specified "...in the absence of a gravitational field..." and then
tried to claim that the speed of light varies there. That is untrue
and Einstein never claimed that light would vary in the absence of a
gravitational field. Now you're trying to introduce gravitational
fields to justify your claim? How unscientific!

Besides, if you take c'=c(1+V/c^2) and take away the gravitational
field, then V=0 and c'=c, not c'=c+v. Simple!

Also you need to realize that according to Albert Einstein ("The
Meaning of Relativity" pp 87-93), this formula (which has been a bit
misquoted by PhysLink.com) is valid only under certain assumptions,
which violate the subject matter in this discussion. Also, Einstein is
very careful to state (p 92) "In the general theory of relativity also
the velocity of light is everywhere the same, relatively to a local
inertial system."

It never ceases to amaze me how people who criticize Einstein and
Relativity fail to understand what they are criticizing. If you are
going to disagree with Relativity, at least try to make an effort to
launch legitimate complaints rather than railing against stuff you
make up and claim are part of Relativity.

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!

The TimeLord wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in "sci.physics.relativity":
The TimeLord wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in "sci.physics.relativity":
Androcles wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
The question:

"Does the speed of light vary in a gravitational field in accordance
with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a
What's the reference for this formula? As far as I know Einstein never
said this nonsense.

He did say it and it is not nonsense. Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) describing the variability of the speed of light is
consistent with and explains the gravitational redshift factor:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, IT IS

V here is not speed. You would have known that had you read it
carefully. No wonder your misquote of Einstein sounded so stupid.

[...]
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a

Same thing. The discussion there is about gravity, not anything
related to SR.

[...]

In the original message you posted
. com
you specified "...in the absence of a gravitational field..." and then
tried to claim that the speed of light varies there. That is untrue
and Einstein never claimed that light would vary in the absence of a
gravitational field. Now you're trying to introduce gravitational
fields to justify your claim? How unscientific!

Besides, if you take c'=c(1+V/c^2) and take away the gravitational
field, then V=0 and c'=c, not c'=c+v. Simple!

You do not think anymore Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
"nonsense". Good. Concerning your discovery that c'=c(1+V/c^2) leads
to c'=c and not to c'=c+v and that this is just "simple", ask Master
Tom Roberts, e.g. in the following way:

"Oh Master Roberts, oh Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking has
NEVER been the Albert Einstein of our generation), is science really
so simple?"

Master Tom Roberts will send you a private message and will explain
everything.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e668a90057feb?

On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:

"Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."

A curious person asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why
not?"

John Baez replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I
know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here
because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring,
boring."

The curious person could have asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a
gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes
c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?"

John Baez would have replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed
of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational
field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless
discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring,
boring."

http://perso.numericable.fr/~rcoudert/ :
Liste des physiciens qui ont osé aller à l'encontre d'Einstein,
concernant la masse du photon.
1930 - Louis de Broglie Prix Nobel 10^-54 kg
1932 - Max Planck Prix Nobel a prétendu qu'il avait une masse,
qu'elle était facile à calculer avec sa constante. N'a jamais donné de
valeur.
2003 - F Sanchez Physicien 10^-69 kg
2003 - J.P. Vigier électrodynamicien 10^-70 kg
2003 - Université américaine, équipe de physiciens 10^-69 kg
2003 - Université de Huazhong Chine Equipe de recherche, 10^-54 kg
2003 - Alain Laverne, Physicien, 10^-51 kg

Pentcho Valev