Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 12/10/04
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Has Jack Sarfatti done any useful physics?"
- Previous message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Projective geometry in relativity ..."
- In reply to: vergon_enterprises_at_highstream.net: "Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS"
- Next in thread: John Kennaugh: "Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS"
- Reply: John Kennaugh: "Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:57:22 GMT
<vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:1102666094.921489.99290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Bill Hobba Dec 9, 12:54 am show options
>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> From: "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au>
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:54:16 GMT
> Local: Thurs, Dec 9 2004 12:54 am
> Subject: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS
> Reply | Reply to Author
>
> Assuming you were actually responding to me one can only wonder at the
> mentality that complains about mathematicians not doing physics and
> writing
> rot like:
>
> 'Einstein gives the mass of radiation as m = E/c^2, that of the photon
> being
> h nu/c^2'
>
>
> Now it has been many years since I read the original Einstein so I am
> not
> going to get into the typical cranks tactic of turning a discussion of
> physics into a historical discussion of what Einstein may or may not
> have
> said or thought at one time.
>
> VERGON:
>
> In other words you can't be bothered with the source material 'cause
> you know it all. Einstein is crap and you are the new authority.
>
> What you are is -- sick.
Einstein is dead - long dead. Rindler for example is alive and has equal
status as an authority as Einstein except he is aware of everything that
happened since Einstein dies nearly 50 years ago - Einstein obviously is
not. I have engaged cranks a lot on this newsgroup and have seen their
tactics in full flight. A very common one it to turn it into a historical
debate about what Einstein MAY have thought at one time. I am interested in
physics not physics history. And modern texts make it crystal clear that a
photon has zero rest mass - or rather if it actually had a mass then it
would be so small it is for all practical purposes equal to zero.
>
>
> I will simply note that modern treatments of
> relativity do not say anything of the sort - they do not claim that a
> photon
> has mass. The claim it can be converted into mass.
>
> Vergon:
>
> And I will note that your so called "modern treatment " is no longer
> modern but is being replaced -- as is relativistic mass.
Replaced by what? - your rot that 'The photon has mass but when it is
brought to rest (absorbed)' The peer reviewed paper providing evidence for
such a bizarre claim is located at? Photons travel at the speed of light -
always.
>
> If Einstein is wrong, prove it.
>
If Rindler is wrong prove it - see page 75 Rindler - Introduction to Special
Relativity. BTW we only have your word that is what Einstein said - why
not give us a full quote and context? The logic is simple BTW. The energy
of a free particle I have derived (in units c=1) as E = M/sqrt (1-v^2) or
E^2 = p^2 + M2. Now keep the energy of the particle constant and let the
rest mass approach zero - the velocity must increase so that when M = 0 V =
1 (or c in the units used) so that E^2 = P^2. For a photon experiments show
it has a rest mass consistent with it being zero; and if it is not zero has
a mass so small for all practical purposes it still is zero, it can never be
bought to rest - it always travels at c. We have zero evidence that when a
photon is absorbed it comes to rest then is absorbed as you claim - indeed
such a picture would be absurd according to QM because velocity is not a QM
observable.
> Prove that there can be momentum with
> no mass. If you can't prove it have the decency to shut up.
I just did above but you are probably too engrossed in your rant about
mathematics and physics to understand it. You probably have no idea or
understanding of the modem definition of what momentum is -
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm - it is the conserved
Noether current associated with space translation. Nothing to do with mass.
But according to you that would probably be nothing but mathematical double
speak It is obvious your attacks on the increasingly sophisticated
mathematics used in physics hides an inability to understand it. That is
OK, I have formal training in math and their is a hell of a lot I do not
understand. But instead of reading some giant conspiracy into it I accept
my limitations and move on.
>
> And for your information a photon is not "converted" into mass.
> The mass of the photon is *incorporated* into the mass of the electron
> absorbing it.
The experimental consequences of the semantic double speak above is? ie
describe to me an experiment that can distinguish between the two views.
All evidence is photons have zero mass. Indeed as I point out a number of
times in this reply such a picture would be absurd from the viewpoint of QM
because velocity is not a QM observable.
> The energy is also absorbed resulting in the electron
> assuming a higher energy level.
Loosely speaking yes.
> The data in Compton's work shows that.
> I have completely outlined that in my monograph, On the Quantum as a
> Physical Entity.
Semantic quibbling like 'And for your information a photon is not
"converted" into mass. The mass of the photon is *incorporated* into the
mass of the electron absorbing it.' has zero scientific value. Since
experiments are consistent with photons having zero mass such statements
lack any foundation in fact.
>
> This is the same as an inelastic collision of say soft clay balls. The
> impacted ball gains in mass and energy.
Maybe in a loose way and a valid model of some aspects in some situations.
The most comprehensive theory we have for photon electron interactions is
QED. The possible validity of such models as you describe in a limited
domain of applicability does not provide any evidence that when absorbed the
photon comes to rest and is incorporated into the electron like a limp of
clay. In the best theory we currently have such simple pictures is replaced
by interacting quantum fields.
Bill
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Has Jack Sarfatti done any useful physics?"
- Previous message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Projective geometry in relativity ..."
- In reply to: vergon_enterprises_at_highstream.net: "Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS"
- Next in thread: John Kennaugh: "Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS"
- Reply: John Kennaugh: "Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
