Re: Time for a photon.

David,

No, I'm not mad, just frustrated, and I think I'm beginning to figure out why. Specifically, the assumptions behind our attempts to communicate are different here and there. For example, mass versus energy. I understand and agree, and I do not, nor have I ever, thought that the rest mass increases (why would it be called "rest mass?"), but in making comments about the effect something has on overall energy, I will occasionally put "mass" or maybe even "rest mass" without noticing the typo or error. Okay, that's an error, but I find it frustrating that you cannot "see through" the error to what I had in mind, and wind up talking about the typo/error and not talking about the main subject I was addressing! So why aren't you a mind reader? Can't you see what I meant? Sometimes I think you assume I really didn't know, and sometimes I think you just could not, in fact, read my mind and understand what I meant. Also, there are certain things you keep saying over, and over, and I think "WHAT is he doing?!?", but clearly, there is some confusion, communication wise, going on, and I will try in my response (haven't got time right now but I wanted to send this much) to see if I can "read your mind" and figure out why we keep having the same comments, followed by the same responses, same comments again, etc.

For example, theory says that neutrinos have rest mass even without oscillation. Yes, I have read your links, I understand that, but those theories are not absolute truths (as you yourself point out here and there), and while I have seen from your links that physicists thought that neutrinos probably had mass for various reasons before the oscillation experiments (I knew that, just not how many reasons they had), I have yet to see an explanation of WHY anyone thinks that oscillation = rest mass. Here's one of my points: Contrary to what you say, all the links I saw made a BIG deal out of the oscillation experiments, saying they PROVED that neutrinos have rest mass, so the idea that rest mass for neutrinos was already a complete certainty in the minds of physicists is something I can't buy. A reasonable conclusion? Everyone states that oscillation = rest mass, but I want to know why. Now, this is important: I am not going to believe that "oscillation = rest mass" BECAUSE we already think neutrinos have mass. That would be illogical. There MUST be some reason, although I might not be able to understand it, why oscillation = rest mass. To make that claim means that there is something about oscillation that makes it impossible for massless particles to oscillate, or vice-versa.

I looked at your first link (only link?), and saw nothing I disagreed with, including that theory says that neutrinos have rest mass, and given that premise, I also saw nothing I didn't know long before we started this discussion, but for some reason, you thought it contradicted my thoughts. I will have to try to figure out why you thought that ...

TTYL,

Phil


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time for a photon.
    ... First, physicists do think that oscillation = rest mass, and they state specifically that oscillation could NOT occur if neutrinos were massless particles. ... Second, they think that the recent experimental proof that oscillation occurs is important, because it proves that neutrinos have rest mass. ... True, we cannot ASSume that our thoughts are correct, but the reverse is also true, in part because we cannot ASSume that the current thoughts of professional physicists are always correct. ... I heard them right, and it's true, massless particles cannot oscillate because time not only stands still for particles with mass moving at c, it also stands still for massless particles. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time for a photon.
    ... thought that the rest mass increases (why ... rest mass even without oscillation. ... had mass for various reasons before the oscillation experiments ... PROVED that neutrinos have rest mass, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time for a photon.
    ... how many times do I have to say that I do NOT believe -- and I have said this in these posts from the beginning -- that time stops for massless particles? ... One of my first points was that we should not ASSume, simply because neutrinos transform, that they cannot be massless particles. ... Again, because I want to discuss things I don't understand or don't agree on, rather than something I do understand and do agree with you on, I do think that a particle with rest mass moving at c will have a time-rate of zero, but I do not think that this means that particles with zero rest-mass, even though they also move at c, have a time-rate of zero. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time for a photon.
    ... This obviates them (NOVA) from telling the "whole truth". ... Was NOVA completely wrong in saying that when physicists learned that neutrinos change from the sun to the Earth, did they NOT conclude that neutrinos have rest mass? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time for a photon.
    ... time stops for massless particles? ... ability of neutrinos to transform mean that they ... Google nova neutrino rest mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)