Re: The massless photon?
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 12/05/04
- Next message: Bruce Bowen: "Re: changing half-lives of isotopes"
- Previous message: JP: "Re: I Owe Einstein an Apology. Sorry Albert!"
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: The massless photon?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: The massless photon?"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: The massless photon?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 5 Dec 2004 10:21:50 -0800
dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrncr498n.h3s.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> TomGee:
> >dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>
>
SNIP
>
> >and that an argument can only be valid when if ever an exception is
> >found for any one of the four reasons above.
>
> No, an argument can be valid if the argument (1) is mathematically
> self-consistent, (2) isn't already ruled out by experiment, and
> (3) actually contains some physics. For example, I can write down a
> complete theory of E&M which is in every way as complete as quantum
> electrodynamics, in which the photon has a mass. I get a set of
> maxwell-like equations in the classical limit. It's not really a
> big deal and you can probably find such theories derived in just
> about any book on quantum field theory in the section that the book
> introduces spontaneously broken symmetries. Do you really think no
> one ever thought of it before?
>
Um. Thought of what before?
> >But let's assume that 1-4 are false, how then does that prove
> >that a massless photon exists in other than in mathematical
> >constructs?
>
> Since the photon mass is such a ``mathematical construct'',
> that mathematical construct wouldn't be consistent with
> the other four mathematical constructs.
>
That answers my question because you admit that the photon mass is
such a math construct, and math is based on induction, which is a
logical process that admits as valid both true and false premises,
and that in turn allows for false conclusions. It is well-accepted in
all science fields that inductive reasoning is valid hypotheses, but
in no way can they be considered as reality because often the
conclusions are false. The false premise you use in your hypothesis
is in assuming that photons can in reality be compared to another
particle and have that scenario of constant velocity be described as a
real event which proves that photons can be at rest in other than that
frame.
> >Someone posted recently that the lack of evidence is not evidence.
>
> Big deal. Experimental evidence places the upper limit on any possible
> photon mass at less than about 10^-51 grams.
Yes, that's why I have posited that such a small amount can limit c
universally because it is what gives it momentum and at c it will not
increase anymore than that. That is the mass of a photon at c, thus
it may have even less mass at the instant of creation, and that mass
grows to 10^-51 at c. That is the precise implication of my model
where photons do not move along with the lws but are essentially
stationary particles which comprise space and which are transformed by
lws into quanta as the lws move throught them.
> Personally, I don't really
> care one way or the other if the photon has a mass. If it has a mass,
> then the theory that describes it is straight forward. Look up
> "spontaneous symmetry braking" U(1) gauge theory.
>
Why?
> You seem to have some misconception that I think the photon has to
> be massless. I don't. It doesn't have to be massless. If you want to
> say that it isn't massless, then give me a theory to go with the claim.
I have, but you have not read it. If you have read it, you did not
comprehend its implications to current theory which is stuck in the
mud of fantasy and needs to be pulled up into reality. You have
looked for words which trigger your knee jerk reactions and allows you
to jump to conclusions before giving my ideas reasonable thought.
> Make sure your theory covers everything known as electromagnetism.
> Check it to see if it makes all of the same predictions that qed makes
> for cases where qed agrees with data. Make sure it is capable of making
> an experimental prediction that can determine whether your theory or qed
> is correct. No theory in the history of all science has ever been close
> to qed in terms of agreement with experimental data, so you have some
> work to do before making any claims.
I'm sure that statement is debatable for some. I contend that my
ideas correspond closely to all empirical results with little if any
conflict. My ideas affect only those areas of theory where I perceive
more-logical explanations to reality should be considered over current
thought. As such, no negative reactions to the changes I propose
should last long as they do not propose physical change but only
change in the way we are currently interpreting experiment with
theoretical conlusions which are obviously open to debate due to
unreasonable value given to mathematical constructions as far as being
representative of reality.
>
> >I disagree that any argument to the contrary of a massless photon is
> >quite valid indeed for the simple reason that math constructs and
>
> I don't really care if you disagree.
It is at the least improper for any scientist, pro or amateur, to not
care about disagreements to their beliefs. The reason I post here is
not to hear your blather but to hear your disagreements. It is a help
to know what others think about the ideas which you are convinced are
true. If you mean you don't care about my disagreeing with your
ideas, then don't respond to them. Obviously, since most posters here
disagree with your ideas and you continue to respond to them, you
really do care, you just say that you don't care in response to your
being hurt by their responses.
> I don't really care if the photon
> is massless. I only care about what most every other physicist cares about.
> Support your assertions with a real theory. If you can't do that, you
> have nothing of interest.
I am giving you a real theory which when I am done with that will
provide us with ways to link several natural phenomena to their bases
and allow us to move out of this quagmire of dead-end alleyways and
into the light of reality. Unfortunately, I can not post it in
language you and some others can easily understand and so we continue
to waste time while I am not getting any younger.
>
> >theory are based in Theoretical Physics and anything can be accepted
> >there without experiment and so anything is possible with math
> >constructs.
>
> Obviously not, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation
> regarding your massive photon.
>
Oh, you misunderstood my meaning: Your massless photon exists because
anything is possible with math.
> [...]
> >The reason anything is possible with math constructs is because math
> >is based on induction, a process which can have false conclusions
> >because its premises can be true or false.
>
> Please learn about something before you decide to comment on it.
> Mathematical induction is not the same method of proof that logigians
> refer to as induction. Mathematical induction is a rigorously deductive
> proof which only differs from the usual deductive proof in that it
> starts from a different point.
No. You are making up your own definitions to save your sanity, but
it won't work. It is so silly for you to say that you can have
"mathematical induction" as "a rigously deductive proof", as the two
methods conflict with each other so that they are not compatible. You
are the one who needs to heed your own advice to learn about something
before commenting on it since what you know of logic is not enough to
make simple arguments.
If you meant that one method is based on general assumptions and the
other on specific ones, that is not the only difference. But even if
you were correct, which you're not, deduction is not foolproof either
because even when the rules of logic are carefully followed, the
conclusons can still be misinterpreted wrt truth and reality. That is
why nothing beats empirical research, because it forces us all to
adhere to whatever reality we know so far. Math, being based on
Theoretical Physics, is not restricted by reality at all. That's how
Einstein was able to come up with math proofs of a static universe.
SNIP non-relevant math constructs
>
>
> >Let's look at the concept of the massless photon. It seems to have
> >started in quantum theory as a carrier particle which mediates emr
> >like the so-called graviton mediates gravitation. Qm states that
> >forces can be mediated by photons and gravitons in the case of forces
> >having infinite range, like gravitation and electromagnetism. The
> >graviton is yet to be found as are gravity waves, but we can observe
> >photons.
>
> What's your point? Which sense organ do humans posses that works
> via the gravitational interaction? Last time I checked, every process
> in the human body works via chemistry, i.e., the foece mediated by
> photons.
>
My point was that we cannot observe gravity waves but we can observe
photons and thus we can attempt to find out more about them and about
our ideas about them.
> >It is claimed that photons travel along with the lightwaves
>
> Well, then you should go find whomever it is that claims that
> and take up your objections with that person.
Oh, I thought you were one of those persons. Step aside, please, for
someone who claims that. You and I don't disagree on this, so unless
you have some other disagreement with my posted ideas, let someone
else come forward, please.
>
> If you have something to say (1) don't write an introduction that
> consists of a diatribe against ``mathematical constructs.''
I have written no such thing. What I said is a reminder of common
knowledge and understanding, as well as common definitiions of the
term. It was/is not meant as a diatribe against it or its usage, but
only against the fact that some have come to believe it represents
reality without fail when it does not in fact, and such beliefs are
destructive to the scientific process and has led us into dead-end
streets and alleyways from which the human race must find ways to
exit. You are against what I have written only because you are one of
those who have provoked me into posting this reminder of the facts,
and you know it, and so you attack me under trumped up false charges.
> If you write F
> = ma, that's a mathematical construct. The only difference between the
> mathematical construct F = ma and the mathematical construct, box A^u = j^u,
> is that you have no idea what the latter construct means and aren't
> interested enough in physics to find out.
It's obvious that you don't understand what I mean, and if I don't
understand what you mean, it's a standoff, which does not mean you
win, but I do because the fact of the matter is that math constructs
are necessarily representative of reality ,
> (2) Don't write cliches and
> soundbites as if those had some relation to real physics. If you are going
> to write something like ``photons travel along with the lightwaves,'' --
> don't. Write the equation you think means the ame thing as that statement.
Nothing in heaven or Earth gives you the right to ask me to do that.
That is what the High Inquisitor made Da Vinci do, but he had an army
big enough to make him do it, and you don't. At least, not yet. But
history repeats itself when people fail to learn the lessons it
provides in hindsight, and I will do all I can to prevent awful people
like you gain any more power over me and my families. I was born a
non-conformist and I will die one even if it is your hand that lights
the fire under my stake-bound body.
> That way, I don't have to try to guess the meaning of a non-sequiter and
> waste time on a pointless semantic debate about a concept that doesn't
> make any sense which has been claimed by someone you avoided referencing
> by writing in the passive voice.
It only makes no sense to you because you do not understand it, and
you don't understand it because simple words and phrases are above
your level of comprehension. Read slowly and carefully and mark the
words you don't know, and the phrases you don't understand. After
every so many marks, look up the words in a dictionary and the
keywords in the phrases in reference works, and if you still have a
problem then ASK, dammit! There is no shame attached to questions for
more clarity from posters. I have alternate ways to explain my ideas
for that reason alone. Feel free.
> (3) If you can't write an equation
> for something, don't try to use it as an argument. If you consider the
> statement, ``1 kg plus 1 kg equals 2 kg'' to be a valid concept, then
> you accept mathematics and I'm not about to go along with any notion
> that mathematical constructs become less valid at the point you don't
> understand the mathematics. You chose to argue about physics, so I expect
> your argument to be at the same level as the physics you chose to argue
> about. (4) see http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
I care so little about your suggestions that I won't even respond to
the idiocy you post above. If I did all that, it would be foolish
because all of those are math constructs which do not necessarily
represent reality. This thread is not about Theoretical Physics, but
about models of reality.
TomGee 120504
- Next message: Bruce Bowen: "Re: changing half-lives of isotopes"
- Previous message: JP: "Re: I Owe Einstein an Apology. Sorry Albert!"
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: The massless photon?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: The massless photon?"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: The massless photon?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
