| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"DAH" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2004 12:38:28 PM |
| Object: |
what causes mass? |
I have been wondering if mass is simply the total content of angular
momentum confined to a body--the sum of the nuclear and atomic
moments. Therefore the mass of an individual particle is a measure
of its angular momentum content. A photon has no mass but it does
have momentum. Thus the confinement of photons to a region of
spacetime inevitably leads to angular momentum, which leads to
particles with mass.
DAH 10/1/04
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: what causes mass? |
01 Oct 2004 02:17:43 PM |
|
|
DAH wrote:
I have been wondering if mass is simply the total content of angular
momentum confined to a body--the sum of the nuclear and atomic
moments.
Won't work. Isotopes with nuclear spin would have an anomalous mass
increment in mass spec or ion cyclotron resonance, e.g., C-12 vs.
C-13. You are abysmally ignorant.
http://t2.lanl.gov/data/astro/molnix96/massd.html.
Spin-zero paricles would be massless, particles with spin would be
massed. What is the mass of a spin-1 photon, you jackass?
Idiot. You don't even know what you see. You are stooopid.
[snip crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: what causes mass? |
02 Oct 2004 02:37:34 PM |
|
|
I would have said the same about uncle idiot.
mass is the taotal energy content and the mass of a body is never
constant bu vieries with the energy of the body.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Draper" |
|
| Title: Re: what causes mass? |
01 Oct 2004 10:24:28 PM |
|
|
dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message news:<415d9614$1_1@127.0.0.1>...
I have been wondering if mass is simply the total content of angular
momentum confined to a body--the sum of the nuclear and atomic
moments. Therefore the mass of an individual particle is a measure
of its angular momentum content. A photon has no mass but it does
have momentum. Thus the confinement of photons to a region of
spacetime inevitably leads to angular momentum, which leads to
particles with mass.
Wonder no more. If this were true then the proton and the electron
would have identical mass, no?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: what causes mass? |
02 Oct 2004 12:29:03 AM |
|
|
"Paul Draper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74768d2d.0410011924.26777607@posting.google.com...
| dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message
news:<415d9614$1_1@127.0.0.1>...
| > I have been wondering if mass is simply the total content of angular
| > momentum confined to a body--the sum of the nuclear and atomic
| > moments. Therefore the mass of an individual particle is a measure
| > of its angular momentum content. A photon has no mass but it does
| > have momentum. Thus the confinement of photons to a region of
| > spacetime inevitably leads to angular momentum, which leads to
| > particles with mass.
| >
| >
|
| Wonder no more. If this were true then the proton and the electron
| would have identical mass, no?
No. The proton and electron have different *external* and internal
geometries. But he is still wrong about photons "leading to particles with
mass" using the currently accepted "definition" of photons.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: what causes mass? |
02 Oct 2004 04:22:24 AM |
|
|
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2s6shbF1h7jhiU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Paul Draper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74768d2d.0410011924.26777607@posting.google.com...
| dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message
news:<415d9614$1_1@127.0.0.1>...
| > I have been wondering if mass is simply the total content of angular
| > momentum confined to a body--the sum of the nuclear and atomic
| > moments. Therefore the mass of an individual particle is a measure
| > of its angular momentum content. A photon has no mass but it does
| > have momentum. Thus the confinement of photons to a region of
| > spacetime inevitably leads to angular momentum, which leads to
| > particles with mass.
| >
| >
|
| Wonder no more. If this were true then the proton and the electron
| would have identical mass, no?
No. The proton and electron have different *external* and internal
geometries. But he is still wrong about photons "leading to particles
with
mass" using the currently accepted "definition" of photons.
FrediFizzx
A photon has no mass, but photons ... ?
A photon with total angular momentum, j = l + s = 0, would
have inertial mass. Can a single photon be represented by a
spherically symmetric wave function ?
How about photons ? Can a pair of photons have total angular
momentum, J = j1 + j2 = 1 ? If J = L + S = 0, can the pair have
invariant mass ? Must they ?
Have Fun,
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: what causes mass? |
02 Oct 2004 01:51:38 PM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:J9WdnVwUiIvJ7sPcRVn-hQ@prairiewave.com...
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:2s6shbF1h7jhiU1@uni-berlin.de...
| > "Paul Draper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:74768d2d.0410011924.26777607@posting.google.com...
| > | dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message
| > news:<415d9614$1_1@127.0.0.1>...
| > | > I have been wondering if mass is simply the total content of angular
| > | > momentum confined to a body--the sum of the nuclear and atomic
| > | > moments. Therefore the mass of an individual particle is a measure
| > | > of its angular momentum content. A photon has no mass but it does
| > | > have momentum. Thus the confinement of photons to a region of
| > | > spacetime inevitably leads to angular momentum, which leads to
| > | > particles with mass.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > | Wonder no more. If this were true then the proton and the electron
| > | would have identical mass, no?
| >
| > No. The proton and electron have different *external* and internal
| > geometries. But he is still wrong about photons "leading to particles
| with
| > mass" using the currently accepted "definition" of photons.
| >
| > FrediFizzx
|
| A photon has no mass, but photons ... ?
|
| A photon with total angular momentum, j = l + s = 0, would
| have inertial mass. Can a single photon be represented by a
| spherically symmetric wave function ?
|
| How about photons ? Can a pair of photons have total angular
| momentum, J = j1 + j2 = 1 ? If J = L + S = 0, can the pair have
| invariant mass ? Must they ?
Sure a system of photons can have mass but I don't think it will ever
represent a "practical" particle like an electron, etc. This is illustrated
in my quantum vacuum charge model where photons are always "instantaneously"
composites of virtual vacuum fermions. There are a few people always trying
to have fermions be composed of photons when it is the other way around IMHO
.. Quantum vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c).
http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
