Part 2 Re: Ken, need help with this

From: Pax (pax1_at_whitesweb.com)
Date: 10/20/04 

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:12:59 GMT

Part 2 of "Re: Ken, need help with this"... continuation of Part 1

  "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:2202379a.0410150154.2fe4ed05@posting.google.com...
  "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message news:<e_Fbd.4721$Lk3.2906@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...

> 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."

  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 floton's 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.

The photoelectric effect shows very nicely the amount of energy delivered by the impacting photon.

> 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"...

 :) :) Rather like they used to say about what our universe existed within: nothing? Elementary logic overcomes that.

> Force is a form of mass.

  Careful...

No. :) Force is the ultimate form of mass. Instead of disagreeing, falsify the statement. :)

>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)."
>
> 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's hold those questions, pending my rant above, otherwise other posters may be better able to answer, ((translation, I need to think)).

Agreed. :) I communicated at last, didn't I?

> 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.

Sure.

> 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.

I don't agree because, so far, no monopoles have been discovered. The primary requirement for absorption is compatible resonance, which then results in the electron jumping outward a ring in the atom's shell. If the electron is already at the outermost position in the shell, it has nowhere to go but out of the atom.

> 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.

Don't agree with that one.

  But there is an alternative explanation...when some quantity of mass is converted to energy, there is an accompanying 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.

Yes, in my opinion, that's vaguely correct. Gravitation is still applicable to each element that retains an amount of mass, but gravity's focused force is reduced due to dispersion. However, some of the mass is completely transformed into an expansive force, which is directly counter to gravity. The implosion that precedes the explosion seems indicative of a massive gravitational build-up that compresses the mass undergoing conversion beyond its minimum allowable compression limit.

  I must say that my opinion is unorthodox, because GRist's have theorized the existence of gravitational radiation, and are searching for these using the LIGO apparatus.

At this time, IMHO, I think it doubtful they will ever find gravitons, but they might find waves. Seems such waves would require a constant vibratory cycling of mass between a more dense and less dense state, though.

  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.

Please expound, that sounds rather counterintuitive. Can understand if you said their effects would vary between FoRs, but "exist in one FoR but not another," what do you mean by that?

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

More expounding requested. :) There is, as yet, no Unified Field Theory... at least there's been no prize ceremony and accompanying parade. :)

> 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 :).

Personally, I think the answer's everywhere around us, we just haven't looked in the right way yet.

> 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 balloon, (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.

Two balloons would be needed, one inside the other and pulling in opposite directions on a "stickiness" between them. :)

> 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

Thanks so much for your reply, Ken, it's truly appreciated.

Be well some more :) - Pax

Relevant Pages

  • Re: mass to energy conversion only a postulate
    ... >All energy release involves a mass transformation. ... mass cant transform, mass is a property of matter, we gave matter this ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... choosing a system of units is not a mathematical ... >>transformation of an equations. ... This simply means that mass and energy are equivalent. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... choosing a system of units is not a mathematical ... >>transformation of an equations. ... This simply means that mass and energy are equivalent. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... choosing a system of units is not a mathematical ... >>transformation of an equations. ... This simply means that mass and energy are equivalent. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)