| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Golden Boar" |
| Date: |
23 Apr 2006 02:31:11 PM |
| Object: |
Proof that photons are not massless! |
I think that I have discovered that photons are not massless.
Mass is the resistance to a change in motion.
If a photon had no mass, then a photon would have no resistance to a
change in its motion.
If a photon had a little amount of mass, then it would have little
resistance to a change in it motion.
According to the above 2 statements, it would be easy to change the
speed of a photon.
Since we know that a photons speed is constant, it is not possible for
a photon to have a small amount of mass, or for a photon to be
massless.
For a photon to have a constant speed, it must have an infinite
resistance to a change in its motion, which can only mean one thing:
Photons have an infinite mass!
.
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
25 Apr 2006 01:59:35 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
there is no infinit mass
i doubt that even in the whole universe
or may be in all universe because we don tknow its limits
but even all th emass of the universe is infinit
the slaller masse cannot be infinit!
because yuoucannot have
' asmall infinit and a big infinit'
2 if the mas of thephoton hwas infinit
it would by collision samsh
any other objects that you have around you
you had just a 'little' mistake that you
didnt notices
ie that a photon cannot be devaited
easily
but youcan find enless experimwental data that this is not the case
it canbe deviated 'terribly' easy !!
ps
i am th elast one on thos planet that will tell you that the photon has
no mass
as you see i am the first line worier
for that
but from having mass and having
infinit mass
the difference is shocking !!
so it is no shame to admit a mistake
it is no shame to make 'fantastic unconventional '
but it is no shme toadmit that this time
you ddint make it !!
it is a shame to cheat !!
somkething that people here do a lot !!
not less than on the maket place (:-)
btw i saw a research that any personis cheating at least a few times a
day !! (:-)
may be myself ?? i do my best to avoid it !!
and at least if i do i am ashamed with myself
Eric Shise is and was never ashamed of himself !!
to be ashame is a big shame!! (for Nazi people !!(they are never wrong
.
that is the Nazi education he got !!
he is not to blame for it !!.....
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------
thinking
You seem to be under the impression that mass is something you can see
and touch.
Mass is the resistance of a body to changes in its state of motion.
This is the definition which comes from the work of Newton.
You seem to think that a photon can change its state of motion quite
easily. Could you provide some examples. Remember that reflection is
simply electrons absorbing and re-emitting photons.
Let us examine the 3 possibilites for the mass of the photon
1) A massless photon would have energy and no resistance to changes in
its state of motion, so it would be extremely simple to accelerate,
easier than taking candy from a baby.
2) A massive photon would have energy and a limited resistance to
changes in its state of motion, so it could be accelerated quite
easily.
3) An infinitely massive photon would have energy and an infinite
resistance to changes in its state of motion, so it is impossible to
accelerate it.
Since we know that photons travel at constant speed in a straight line,
which definition do you think apllies to the photon?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ravindra" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
25 Apr 2006 05:36:33 AM |
|
|
I think I have an explanation...
If Photon has an infinite mass and the assuming the size of photon to
be very small, it should have created a black hole!! And this means
that light cannot emit out of a black hole...So if there are billions
and billions of photons around us, everything should be so dark and
they would be ripping us apart left,right and center!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
25 Apr 2006 03:00:59 PM |
|
|
Ravindra wrote:
I think I have an explanation...
If Photon has an infinite mass and the assuming the size of photon to
be very small, it should have created a black hole!! And this means
that light cannot emit out of a black hole...So if there are billions
and billions of photons around us, everything should be so dark and
they would be ripping us apart left,right and center!!!
Only if mass causes gravitational attraction. I believe it is energy
and not mass which causes gravitational attraction, as evidenced from
the gravitaional attraction of photons. See elsewhere in the thread for
details.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
25 Apr 2006 09:37:39 PM |
|
|
OK. I have gone thru the previous conversations...
You mentioned 4 points right?
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Point 2 and 3 are not valid because of the following reasons:
Lets talk abt the Double slit experiment, where your case of single
photon in vaccum is travelling... I think this is the closest that you
can get to in the real world and was seen experimentally. otherwise no
where would you get a single photon travelling in vaccum,,,,Agreed?
a. If there had been no changes to its motion, firing single photon by
photon in a double slit experiment should NOT have shown an
interference pattern! The single photon would have gone thru one slit /
other and would have showed 2 bright bands...
b. THe above fact could be successfully explained only thru the
probability waves being interfering and that clearly shows that the
probability of finding a photon varies from place to place!! And this
clearly means that you can no longer think the photon as a particle
travelling in straight line...Its certainly not a particle
characterstic and you would very agree that this boils down to the pld
arguments that scientists have debated with for decades and finally
settled for the probability waves / sum of all the possible histories
explanations and all that!
c. THe whole dual theory of light ould go for a toss as long we think
light as just particles / photons for that matter.
To sum the whole thing up, whatever points you have mentioned is
nothing but the a corollarly of the case of entire dual nature of light
that had given sleepless nights to physicists for decades and could
finally resort to a conclusion of probability waves...
Hope this puts the topic in a better light!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
28 Apr 2006 07:02:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
OK. I have gone thru the previous conversations...
You mentioned 4 points right?
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Point 2 and 3 are not valid because of the following reasons:
Lets talk abt the Double slit experiment, where your case of single
photon in vaccum is travelling... I think this is the closest that you
can get to in the real world and was seen experimentally. otherwise no
where would you get a single photon travelling in vaccum,,,,Agreed?
a. If there had been no changes to its motion, firing single photon by
photon in a double slit experiment should NOT have shown an
interference pattern! The single photon would have gone thru one slit /
other and would have showed 2 bright bands...
This does not invalidate statement 2.
Even if there was a change to the particle's motion (an acceleration) ,
this could not explain the results of the double split experiment. Why
on earth would you think that?
Since statement 2 is still valid, so is statement 3.
b. THe above fact could be successfully explained only thru the
probability waves being interfering and that clearly shows that the
probability of finding a photon varies from place to place!! And this
clearly means that you can no longer think the photon as a particle
travelling in straight line...Its certainly not a particle
characterstic and you would very agree that this boils down to the pld
arguments that scientists have debated with for decades and finally
settled for the probability waves / sum of all the possible histories
explanations and all that!
c. THe whole dual theory of light ould go for a toss as long we think
light as just particles / photons for that matter.
To sum the whole thing up, whatever points you have mentioned is
nothing but the a corollarly of the case of entire dual nature of light
that had given sleepless nights to physicists for decades and could
finally resort to a conclusion of probability waves...
Hope this puts the topic in a better light!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
29 Apr 2006 01:17:52 AM |
|
|
Just by writing "It does not invalidate statement 2" doesn't invalidate
whats truth...
It is very clear and established fact that when we are talking about
speed of light, we are clearly talking about the wave nature of light (
i.e the electromagnetic wave travelling)...it is not travelling as
photons. When light interacts with any matter, then it is the particle
nature of light that surfaces and this is where it has to be talked in
terms of photons...This is exactly the dual nature of light...So you
cannot single out a photon and say that it is travelling at the speed
of light ( in my opinion this kind of understanding itself is wrong!)
Hence all 4 statements are wrong!
Golden Boar wrote:
kmsravindra@gmail.com wrote:
OK. I have gone thru the previous conversations...
You mentioned 4 points right?
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Point 2 and 3 are not valid because of the following reasons:
Lets talk abt the Double slit experiment, where your case of single
photon in vaccum is travelling... I think this is the closest that you
can get to in the real world and was seen experimentally. otherwise no
where would you get a single photon travelling in vaccum,,,,Agreed?
a. If there had been no changes to its motion, firing single photon by
photon in a double slit experiment should NOT have shown an
interference pattern! The single photon would have gone thru one slit /
other and would have showed 2 bright bands...
This does not invalidate statement 2.
Even if there was a change to the particle's motion (an acceleration) ,
this could not explain the results of the double split experiment. Why
on earth would you think that?
Since statement 2 is still valid, so is statement 3.
b. THe above fact could be successfully explained only thru the
probability waves being interfering and that clearly shows that the
probability of finding a photon varies from place to place!! And this
clearly means that you can no longer think the photon as a particle
travelling in straight line...Its certainly not a particle
characterstic and you would very agree that this boils down to the pld
arguments that scientists have debated with for decades and finally
settled for the probability waves / sum of all the possible histories
explanations and all that!
c. THe whole dual theory of light ould go for a toss as long we think
light as just particles / photons for that matter.
To sum the whole thing up, whatever points you have mentioned is
nothing but the a corollarly of the case of entire dual nature of light
that had given sleepless nights to physicists for decades and could
finally resort to a conclusion of probability waves...
Hope this puts the topic in a better light!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
29 Apr 2006 07:57:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Just by writing "It does not invalidate statement 2" doesn't invalidate
whats truth...
It is very clear and established fact that when we are talking about
speed of light, we are clearly talking about the wave nature of light (
i.e the electromagnetic wave travelling)...it is not travelling as
photons. When light interacts with any matter, then it is the particle
nature of light that surfaces and this is where it has to be talked in
terms of photons...This is exactly the dual nature of light...So you
cannot single out a photon and say that it is travelling at the speed
of light ( in my opinion this kind of understanding itself is wrong!)
Hence all 4 statements are wrong!
Golden Boar wrote:
wrote:
OK. I have gone thru the previous conversations...
You mentioned 4 points right?
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Point 2 and 3 are not valid because of the following reasons:
Lets talk abt the Double slit experiment, where your case of single
photon in vaccum is travelling... I think this is the closest that you
can get to in the real world and was seen experimentally. otherwise no
where would you get a single photon travelling in vaccum,,,,Agreed?
a. If there had been no changes to its motion, firing single photon by
photon in a double slit experiment should NOT have shown an
interference pattern! The single photon would have gone thru one slit /
other and would have showed 2 bright bands...
This does not invalidate statement 2.
Even if there was a change to the particle's motion (an acceleration) ,
this could not explain the results of the double split experiment. Why
on earth would you think that?
Since statement 2 is still valid, so is statement 3.
b. THe above fact could be successfully explained only thru the
probability waves being interfering and that clearly shows that the
probability of finding a photon varies from place to place!! And this
clearly means that you can no longer think the photon as a particle
travelling in straight line...Its certainly not a particle
characterstic and you would very agree that this boils down to the pld
arguments that scientists have debated with for decades and finally
settled for the probability waves / sum of all the possible histories
explanations and all that!
c. THe whole dual theory of light ould go for a toss as long we think
light as just particles / photons for that matter.
To sum the whole thing up, whatever points you have mentioned is
nothing but the a corollarly of the case of entire dual nature of light
that had given sleepless nights to physicists for decades and could
finally resort to a conclusion of probability waves...
Hope this puts the topic in a better light!
I don't see any reason why the 4 statements can't be applied to the
wave nature of light.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
25 Apr 2006 03:07:52 AM |
|
|
now what will happen
if a photon cp0llides with another photon
will it be able to change its moveent ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 04:49:06 PM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
[snip crap]
Photons have an infinite mass!
This is an excellent example of "not thinking through the consequences
of what I just predicted".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 04:53:41 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
[snip crap]
Photons have an infinite mass!
This is an excellent example of "not thinking through the consequences
of what I just predicted".
I do not understand what you mean, could you please expand on it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 07:03:33 PM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
[snip crap]
Photons have an infinite mass!
This is an excellent example of "not thinking through the consequences
of what I just predicted".
I do not understand what you mean, could you please expand on it?
Do I really need to explain the obvious consequence of an object that
has infinite mass?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 07:10:33 PM |
|
|
Yes, if you wouldn't mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 07:38:12 PM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Yes, if you wouldn't mind.
1) F = GmM/r^2
2) http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/s000.pdf
Two strikes, you are out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 08:23:30 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Yes, if you wouldn't mind.
1) F = GmM/r^2
2) http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/s000.pdf
Two strikes, you are out.
1) It is not mass which is affected by gravity, it is energy.
2) If I'm not mistaken, these experiments are designed to detect a
finite mass for the photon, which they did not find, hence the limits.
So, it was actually zero strikes, and i'm still in the game
Could an experiment designed to detect a finite mass detect an infinite
mass?
Would it even be possible to detect an infinite mass?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 08:31:58 PM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
It is not mass which is affected by gravity, it is energy.
Gravitation affects mass and energy equally. Mass and energy
both exhibit gravitation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 09:11:59 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
It is not mass which is affected by gravity, it is energy.
Gravitation affects mass and energy equally. Mass and energy
both exhibit gravitation.
The fact that massless photons cause gravitational attraction suggests
that it is energy, not mass, which causes that attraction. Since
everything we know that has mass, also has energy, what proof do you
have that mass is causing gravitational attraction?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 08:37:05 PM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
[snip]
Photons do not have infinite mass, you fucking moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Milanjot" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 08:51:30 PM |
|
|
well according to einstein and his formula m= m/squrt(1-v^2/c^2) the
mass of a photon will be undefined as the denominator becomes zero. the
mass will not become infinite as it is being argued. infinite is not
the same as undefined.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
24 Apr 2006 06:46:40 PM |
|
|
Milanjot wrote:
well according to einstein and his formula m= m/squrt(1-v^2/c^2) the
mass of a photon will be undefined as the denominator becomes zero. the
mass will not become infinite as it is being argued. infinite is not
the same as undefined.
The mass does not become infinite, it was infinite in the first place.
Alos, this equation has never applied to photons, it it for particles
with a finite mass.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 03:35:06 PM |
|
|
This is the kind of nuttiness that results when an ignoramus tries to
do phyics by hand-waving.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 04:35:13 PM |
|
|
It's not nuttines and it's not handwaving, it's called logic.
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Which of the above statements do you disagree with?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 04:51:46 PM |
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145828113.531609.119670@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's not nuttines and it's not handwaving, it's called logic.
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Which of the above statements do you disagree with?
2 - Speed is not the same as velocity. The direction of light travel can
change
3 - false corollary
4 - false definition; it may be true in some circumstances but it is not
necessarily true in every case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
24 Apr 2006 12:44:01 AM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4b2b7lFv8orfU1@individual.net...
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145828113.531609.119670@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's not nuttines and it's not handwaving, it's called logic.
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Which of the above statements do you disagree with?
2 - Speed is not the same as velocity. The direction of light travel can
change
3 - false corollary
4 - false definition; it may be true in some circumstances but it is not
necessarily true in every case.
Yeah, but I bet you think that that all horses have 4 legs too...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 05:15:53 PM |
|
|
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145828113.531609.119670@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's not nuttines and it's not handwaving, it's called logic.
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Which of the above statements do you disagree with?
2 - Speed is not the same as velocity. The direction of light travel can
change
Light travels in a straight line, therefore your answers to 3 and 4 are
invalid.
3 - false corollary
4 - false definition; it may be true in some circumstances but it is not
necessarily true in every case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 05:20:53 PM |
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145830553.152448.206130@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145828113.531609.119670@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's not nuttines and it's not handwaving, it's called logic.
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Which of the above statements do you disagree with?
2 - Speed is not the same as velocity. The direction of light travel can
change
Light travels in a straight line, therefore your answers to 3 and 4 are
invalid.
Not when it is reflected or refracted.
3 - false corollary
4 - false definition; it may be true in some circumstances but it is not
necessarily true in every case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 05:40:00 PM |
|
|
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145830553.152448.206130@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145828113.531609.119670@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's not nuttines and it's not handwaving, it's called logic.
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Which of the above statements do you disagree with?
2 - Speed is not the same as velocity. The direction of light travel can
change
Light travels in a straight line, therefore your answers to 3 and 4 are
invalid.
Not when it is reflected or refracted.
3 - false corollary
4 - false definition; it may be true in some circumstances but it is not
necessarily true in every case.
I see where the confusion arises now. I forgot to mention that I was
talking about a vacuum, so I will repose the statements.
1) A photon has constant speed and travels in a straight line through a
vacuum.
2) The fact that it has constant speed and direction means that there
is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 06:10:33 PM |
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145832000.754818.54890@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I see where the confusion arises now. I forgot to mention that I was
talking about a vacuum, so I will repose the statements.
1) A photon has constant speed and travels in a straight line through a
vacuum.
2) The fact that it has constant speed and direction means that there
is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
If there is no change to its motion it either implies infinite mass or zero
external force. Your 'forgot to mention' now implies the latter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 07:24:52 PM |
|
|
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145832000.754818.54890@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I see where the confusion arises now. I forgot to mention that I was
talking about a vacuum, so I will repose the statements.
1) A photon has constant speed and travels in a straight line through a
vacuum.
2) The fact that it has constant speed and direction means that there
is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
If there is no change to its motion it either implies infinite mass or zero
external force. Your 'forgot to mention' now implies the latter.
Since F = dp/dt and p = h/lambda and c = f.lambda, applying a force to
a photon in a vacuum, would simply change its wavelength and frequency.
So if an external force will not cause a change in its motion, then it
must have infinite mass.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 05:46:10 PM |
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145832000.754818.54890@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145830553.152448.206130@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145828113.531609.119670@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's not nuttines and it's not handwaving, it's called logic.
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change
to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Which of the above statements do you disagree with?
2 - Speed is not the same as velocity. The direction of light travel
can
change
Light travels in a straight line, therefore your answers to 3 and 4 are
invalid.
Not when it is reflected or refracted.
3 - false corollary
4 - false definition; it may be true in some circumstances but it is
not
necessarily true in every case.
I see where the confusion arises now. I forgot to mention that I was
talking about a vacuum, so I will repose the statements.
1) A photon has constant speed and travels in a straight line through a
vacuum.
2) The fact that it has constant speed and direction means that there
is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
So what happens to the mass when light is reflected off a mirrored surface
in a vacuum? It temporarily goes away?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that photons are not massless! |
23 Apr 2006 06:02:20 PM |
|
|
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145832000.754818.54890@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145830553.152448.206130@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OG wrote:
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145828113.531609.119670@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's not nuttines and it's not handwaving, it's called logic.
1) A photon has constant speed.
2) The fact that it has constant speed means that there is no change
to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
Which of the above statements do you disagree with?
2 - Speed is not the same as velocity. The direction of light travel
can
change
Light travels in a straight line, therefore your answers to 3 and 4 are
invalid.
Not when it is reflected or refracted.
3 - false corollary
4 - false definition; it may be true in some circumstances but it is
not
necessarily true in every case.
I see where the confusion arises now. I forgot to mention that I was
talking about a vacuum, so I will repose the statements.
1) A photon has constant speed and travels in a straight line through a
vacuum.
2) The fact that it has constant speed and direction means that there
is no change to
it's motion.
3) The fact that there is no change to its motion, means it has an
infinite resistance to changes in its motion.
4) Mass is defined as being the resistance to a change in motion.
So what happens to the mass when light is reflected off a mirrored surface
in a vacuum? It temporarily goes away?
The photon is absorbed by an electron and re-emitted.
Since the photon briefly siezes to exist, you are quite correct in
saying the mass temporarily goes away.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Not only is this arrogant and elitist, it presupposes that the secular "professional scientist" has some special insight into the truth unavailable to the rest of us. It presupposes that (their) "argumentsfrom authority" are inherently strong...
Will everyone agree that we are not in the right direction?
not a domain shift, but that the Peano Axioms are contradictory and why Natural Numbers are more than Finite-Integers
At a certian point, you have to call it, and you have to admit you simply do not have the skills neecessary to hack. That's that. If it's this important, you are going to need another team, or perhpas this project would best be left to another group
Will everyone agree that we are not in the right direction?
String theorists, and the vast majority of modern theoretical physicists, aren't just presenting theories that are not even wrong-they're not even asking the right questions.
JSH: Perhaps you will understand me better when I tell you that JSH is a virgin microbe that penetrates with the insistence of air into all the spaces that reason has not been able to fill with words or conventions.
Androcles discovers that SR does not apply to gravity
| Onions, universes, zero, infinity and one (but not that much physics)
Here's Proof That God Not = G_uv
Nobels Prizes not that noble
Your message is off topic in all but one of the newsgroups you've cross-posted to. If the Usenet participants wanted to read your spam they'd go to an appropriate newsgroup. If they're not reading you in a religious newsgroup that means they're not
Only a Test -- DO NOT READ (And THAT Means YOUI}}
Re: Bush knows that Osama bin Laden did not do 9/11
Re: put radioactive Cannisters to use, not buried in Yucca Re: oddcoincidence that radioactivewaste heat equals the amount needed foroil shale industry; why USA has 80% world oil shale reserves
|
|
|
