Re: REVISED: Ken, need help with this

From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 10/16/04 

Date: 16 Oct 2004 12:50:54 -0700

"Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message news:<2SGbd.5133$Lk3.1003@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
> "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
> news:e Fbd.4721$Lk3.2906@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> There are a few additions and changes I needed to make to the above
> post, so am reposting the revised version. Sorry for any inconvenience
> this repost might cause. Sure hope you can help me. :)

Hi Pax

1) I read over your new post, and didn't notice where
you did any specific changes, :{ ,could you mark where
you would like me to comment further :) .

2) Each of the subjects you have touched on is itself
complex, so anyone in this forum can only deal with
them superficially, if there is a specific subject
that you think needs a more complex treatement please
advise.

3) IMHO there are two (at least) mathematical theories
of relativity, first a sort of noname brand that's
designed to fill physics students heads with a sort
of watered down simplified version that works good enough,
for 99%, that's the one common in this NG and then there
are more sophisticated treatments that deal with the 1%
uncertainty in the first.
   
4) I read the responses to your first post (to me)
and the follow-ups from P. Draper and T. Roberts,
and think they were good, (I might take exception
to P. Draper's handling of the de Broglie wavelength),
but it seems to me his reply was thoughtful, and for
this NG far from a flame, on the contrary, brutal
honesty is the norm! It's an opinion forum.

5) In your last paragraph below is a very subjective
description of a phenomena that I can only guess at,
but it sounds so good, I hope you'll clarify a bit.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
>
> 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
>
> m0 = p/v,
>
> and
>
> v = p/m0,
>
> but v = p/m0 will not hold true if m0 = 0 unless v = 0 to begin
> with.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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. This would explain why photons seem so
> commonly to be "destroyed" in tied groups.
>
>
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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]."
>
>
>
> 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. But if photons are in turn made up of even
> smaller particles, those smaller particles (such as gluons) very well
> could have wavelengths and mass. Would that mean wavelength is a
> requirement of mass?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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."
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Force is a form of mass. 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.
>
>
>
> 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)."
>
>
>
> 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."
>
>
>
> 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 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?
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> It is the transformation of mass into electromagnetism and heat (the
> highest forms of energy) during thermal reactions that causes
> displacement waves. 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?
>
>
>
> 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!
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
>
>
> Be well - Pax
>
> .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~.
>
> Everything should be made as simple as possible,
> but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
>
>
> --

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ken, need help with this
    ... > 2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy ... > directly proportional to its mass and momentum, ... Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the ... > pass energy on through waves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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: 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)