Re: Ken, need help with this

From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 10/15/04 

Date: 15 Oct 2004 02:54:39 -0700

"Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message news:<e_Fbd.4721$Lk3.2906@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...

> Hi, Ken. :)

Hi Pax, just want to preface my reply that some of the subjects
below, I'm only superficially acquainted with, also, I've read
through your complete post, and some replies will respect items
in your arguments that would follow, ok.
 
> The following math relies on my abilities in algebra, and I'm not
> certain if algebra is up to what really determines the results of it
> all. As presented by the renowned men responsible for the foundational
> calculations, one would think the reductions into algebra are accurate,
> but have trouble understanding many of the conclusions that spring form
> this math. The algebra seems to say certain assumptions taken so much
> for granted are not warranted.

Yes, the more incisive math tool is tensor analysis,
algebra is good up to a point, but in the nitty gritty
it's unreliable.
 
> Below is a section of my "study notes". :)
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
>
>
>
> 1) The law of conservation of momentum
>
> 2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy
> (This needs no further explanation it merely needs to be remembered.)
 
 
> The law concerning the conservation of momentum (p) results from a
> consideration of both rest mass (m0) and velocity (v)...
>
> p = m0v (classic statement), its checking permutations being

((never heard it put that way, interesting))
 
> m0 = p/v,
>
> and
>
> v = p/m0,
>
> but v = p/m0 will not hold true if m0 = 0 unless v = 0 to begin
> with.

ok
 
> For a massless particle if
>
> m0 = 0,
>
> then
>
> p = 0,
>
> since 0*v = 0,
>
> so the equation for finding energy (E),
>
> E2/c2 = (m02c2) + p2,
>
> that uses for its basic elements both mass (m) and momentum (p), breaks
> down to
>
> E2/c2 = (02c2) + 02
>
> E2/c2 = 0c + 0
>
> reducing to
>
> E = 0+0
>
> (or, classically, E = pc) must result in
>
> E = 0
>
> for a massless object.

ok
 
> Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable
> of momentum, and has no energy. If the energy carried by an object is
> directly proportional to its mass and momentum, then for a massless
> object it appears that would calculate to 0 energy, yet we know light
> has energy. The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in the
> photon. Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the
> stationary medium of transmission, better known classically as aether,
> for electromagnetic waves that propagate through it?

((That's topical, pardon my rant))...

IMO, the rest mass of a photon can only be measured when
it leaves a system K and takes some energy, and the rest
mass of the photon appears as a deficit to the emitting
system and/or is then brought to rest by absorption in
system K' adding energy to that system.
  Between K and K' a doppler shift can occur or in a
g-field an Einstein shift, so the emission deficit may
not be the same as the absorption increment.

 There is really no point in discussing the "rest mass"
of a "photon in flight", (I call that a floton), because
it's not at rest.

It gets complicated when a "floton" is deflected in a
g-field. Basically what happens is the floton appears
to be deaccelerated by the g-field in the process of
deflection. That deacceleration from speed c to a lesser
speed C (C = speed of light in a g-field) can be regarded
as part of the floton being absorbed by the g-field,
thus exhibiting a "rest mass" absorption, and the rest
whizzes by but red shifted by momentum exchange.
 
> This would seem on the surface to be a ridiculous assertion, since
> photons were first described by Max Planck by their virtue of being
> packets of energy (See Planck's Law). If you examine that you might
> notice the word "packets". A packet is a container, a carrier, something
> that is capable of containing and, one would assume, delivering
> something else. I am asserting nothing different from that.

ok
 
> What I am saying is that, rather than one photon carrying a portion of
> energy separately from source to destination, photons work in tandem
> like "bucket-brigades", picking up energy from the source and then
> handing it off to the next photon in "line". In normal terms, photons
> pass energy on through waves.

Sure a photon is a tiny oscillator, it has wave
characteristics.

>This would explain why photons seem so
> commonly to be "destroyed" in tied groups.

That's over my head, do you have a ref?
 
> In order for the energy carried in a wave to diminish, gravity or
> friction of the medium must offer resistance, in other words, the medium
> must absorb some of the energy or be inhibited by gravity, and/or both.

Yeah, that's what I figure, as I ranted above.

> A massless medium is incapable of such absorption or inhibition... or is
> it? What is warped by gravity in the vicinity of a gravitational mass,
> is it only time or is it space as well? Most certainly it must be both.

Yes both, recall we can convert mass to sucking 1.5 km of length
call that number m = 1.5 km.
We also suck 1.5 km of time, for a total of 2m sucked in spacetime.

It turns out that the deflection of light by the spacetime "warp",
(maybe we should call it spacetime suction) is

  deflection = 2m / R , R = closets approach to m
  (oo => R)

and that is reported to be confirmed by measuring the
deflection and retarded flight times of photons by the
sun.
 
> In my studies I have come across these statements ([bracketed] are my
> insertions):
>
>
>
> 1) "The de Broglie wavelength of a particle equals Planck's
> constant divided by its momentum [w=h/p]. The momentum of a particle
> equals the square root of twice its mass times its kinetic energy
> [p=sqrt(2m0)*Ek]. The kinetic energy of a particle equals the square
> of its momentum divided by twice its mass [Ek=p2/2m0]."
>
> [http://www.hsphys.com/ibahl quantum summary L.doc]
>
>
>
> Re 1): All of the above assertions seem to hinge upon rest mass being
> greater than zero (m0>0), would they not all otherwise zero out?
> Wavelength depends upon momentum, momentum depends upon velocity times
> mass, kinetic energy depends upon momentum divided by mass. Is the
> assertion that photons always move at c based on anything other than the
> observation of light waves? If wavelength equals Planck's Constant
> divided by momentum, then photons cannot have a wavelength.

Before discussing those questions, please see if they are
altered by my rant.
 
> Planck's Constant is
>
> H = 6.626*10-34J*s,
>
> where J is Joules and s is seconds) and
>
> J = 1 kg m2/s2,
>
> where kg is kilograms and m is meters.

yup
 
> 2) "In classical mechanics, massless objects are an ill-defined
> concept, since applying any force to one would produce, via Newton's
> second law, an infinite acceleration - a nonsensical result."
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Relation between Mass.2C Energy and Mo
> mentum in relativistic mechanics]

This may sound like a cop out, but there is no way (according to
relativity) to transform measurements from a FoR (Frame of Reference)
moving at the velocity of light to one that is moving at v<c.
 So to get any measure of the flotons energy, it must be deaccelerated,
so that a transformation of some part of it's momentum can be
transferred to the deaccelerating mass, the photo-electric
effect does that bluntly.

> Re 2): First, it's far from "nonsensical", but more to the point, one
> must wonder how someone goes about applying force to a massless object.
> That's like trying to put a circle around "nothing", the minute you
> attempt such an exercise, it's no longer "nothing", it's "something",
> the area within the circle.

Ha, reminds me of Star Trek 4, "Nothing unreal exists"...
 
> Force is a form of mass.

Careful...

>Mass and energy are interchangeable. Zero mass
> must then equal zero energy. If something has no mass, what is there to
> convert to energy or add energy to? Photons could very well be the
> bottom of the particle "food chain", the enablers of force interaction.
> However, this seems to already be assumed, justified, explained, and
> utilized to the point of being more a law than anything else.

Well, that's the basic idea behind "virtual" photons, but
your description is funner, "bottom of food chain" that about
sums it up. Better ask Bilge.
 
> 3) "The net force on any massless object must be zero. If a string
> is massless, the tension force is the same at either end (and any point
> in the middle)."
>
> [http://scott-yost.baylor.edu/phy1422f04/review2.pdf]
>
> Re 3): Sense at last.
>
> 4) "Massless objects such as photons also carry momentum; the
> formula is p=E/c, where E is the energy the photon carries and c is
> the speed of light."
>
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum]
>
>
> Re 4): How do they justify the above statement? Did someone just decide
> all the numbers were wrong where photons were concerned simply by virtue
> of the fact they found nothing of mass to be the medium for aether? Did
> no one at any time notice photons have no mass and add the two facts? An
> undetectable medium + a massless particle = an undetectable, massless
> aethereal medium composed of massless particles. Photons do not have
> energy, but waves are very capable of having it, in fact, all waves are
> a form of energy in motion.

Let's hold those questions, pending my rant above,
otherwise other posters may be better able to answer,
((translation, I need to think)).
 
> Let us consider the Photoelectric Effect. How can a massless object like
> a photon be thrown, what can interact with something that has no mass?
> Further, how can a massless thing be thrown against something of mass in
> such a manner as to cause parts of that object of mass, a metal plate,
> to dislodge? First, it is electrons (negatively charged leptons) that
> are dislodged from the metal plate. Could the Photoelectric Effect be
> the result of the interaction of charged forces rather than particles?

It's proven that photons may be converted to electrons
and positrons, so yes the photoelectric effect may be
regarded as an electromagnetic effect, thanks that's neat.

> Where do quarks and gluons fit in? The number parade into the tiny seems
> neverending. However, the number of gluons in each of the gluon chains
> binding quarks together is determined by force.

I must restudy that, sorry, been awhile, let me get back.
 
> Einstein concluded ejected electrons take on a photon and that is what
> causes them to become dislodged, many even call such ejected electrons
> "photoelectrons", denoting the energy added to the electron when it
> absorbs the force of a photon. Is there a difference between force, as
> assigned the name "quanta", and the deliverer of that force, the photon?
> Yes, however the photon is incorporated into the electron, but for
> another reason, the electron is a particle of mass with properties
> immediately sympathetic to such absorption.

Yes, in analogy, your use of the term "sympathetic" is like
tuning a radio antenna. But you should think in terms of a
dipole. The electron "alone" cannot absorb a photon, (except
in vary unusual circumstances), it is the positive nucleus
together with the negative electron that forms the dipole
when emission or absorption occurs, it's like a tiny antenna.
 
> There must first be mass in order for a reaction to force to occur,
> however, even if force could be applied, that force would result in
> imparting mass to the former massless object. but then, what are waves
> if not the results of force? It could only be that they are not waves of
> physical force in the sense commonly assumed (as when a bat hits a
> ball), they are waves composed entirely of electromagnetic force. This
> explains the EM pulse that accompanies an atomic blast.

As I understand it the EM pulse is *conventionally* explained
by radiation reacting with the atmosphere.
  But there is an alternative explanation...when some quantity
of mass is converted to energy, there is an accompaning
gravitational reduction. That gravitational reduction shakes
the spacetime field, and spacetime field vibration relates as
an electromagnetic disturbance, because the only wave capable
of transmission in spacetime are electromagnetic.
   
I must say that my opinion is unorthodox, because GRist's
have theorized the existance of gravitational radiation,
and are searching for these using the LIGO apparatus.

This may be a bit technical but I find the g-waves are
not covariant, i.e. they exist in one FoR but not another,
aka they are CS figments, like phantoms.

Secondly, applying advanced nonsymetrical metric unified
field theory to bear, the six remaining candidates within
the metric able to transfer that information via the
spacetime field (the asymetrics of g01 ...g12...g30),
are used to transfer electomagnetic effects.

> It is the transformation of mass into electromagnetism and heat (the
> highest forms of energy) during thermal reactions that causes
> displacement waves.

Yes,

>Though true waves of physical force in the form of
> heat are released with the conversion of mass into its highest order
> manifestation of photons, it is the EM waves that are responsible for
> light. My Lord! Does that mean that Universal expansion is due to the
> transformation of denser forms of energy into higher forms of energy?

My Lord, I hope HE/SHE answers that question :).
 
> That is what happened at the time of the Big Bang (which is quite
> plausible now since the introduction of the Clashing Branes Theory).
> Then transformation into denser forms of energy would result,
> ultimately, in a return to a state of greatest density, such as in the
> case of Schwarzschild Radii, and this would result in a shrinking of
> space!
>
>
>
> What must follow from that thought is that gravity itself is an
> indication of a shrinking of space, which would explain why spacetime is
> warped in the vicinity of mass.
>
>
>
> Wait! It suddenly occurred to me that a supraforce "enveloped within" a
> supraforce could manifest as multiple dimensions and time, since the
> enveloping supraforce could pull in all directions "outward" from the
> internal supraforce!

The way I would model that is with a ballon, (condom snicker).
Then analogize the "envelope" as the balloons surface with
some drawings on it to see how they vary depending upon the
differential pressure in the balloon wrt the atmospheric
pressure.

 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
>
> That last just sort of flowed from the other, so left it in.

ok
 
> Be well - Pax

"Be well doing" ==> "Well be doing" ==>"doing, be well"

Ken S. Tucker

 
> .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~.
>
> What are ten years in the history of humanity? Must
> not all those forces that determine the life of a man
> be regarded as constant compared with such a trifling
> interval? - Albert Einstein - Out of My Later Years
>
> As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
> they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
> they do not refer to reality - Albert Einstein
>
> I don't believe in mathematics. - Albert Einstein
>
> Do not worry about your problems with mathematics,
> I assure you mine are far greater. - Albert Einstein
>
>
> --

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ken, need help with this
    ... >> 2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy ... You just concluded, by your own analysis, that photons ... but the wad has both momemtum and mass equivalence. ... >> pass energy on through waves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Pound-Rebka and subsequent experiments of that nature ... for sound reasons states that the energy W of a photon ... There are two methods of measuring mass you either measure the ... The fact is photons have mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: REVISED: Ken, need help with this
    ... > 2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy ... Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the ... > pass energy on through waves. ... What is warped by gravity in the vicinity of a gravitational mass, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: physical principle responsible for EMwave propagation
    ... relationships of EM waves. ... but as quantized quantities (photons) ... tranquil pond and watching that energy radiate as waves.It seems clear ... energy as is captive in an electron mass, ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • Re: physical principle responsible for EMwave propagation
    ... relationships of EM waves. ... but as quantized quantities (photons) ... tranquil pond and watching that energy radiate as waves.It seems clear ... energy as is captive in an electron mass, ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)