Re: Is Photon = no mass because its a wave?? Electron is a wave with mass?


Igor wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Igor wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Igor wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Igor wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Is the answer simply because a photon cannot reach "c" velocity and
have a mass or is it because Bilge is bald??

The photon has no mass because it corresponds to a transverse wave.
The quantum of a wave can only possess mass if the wave has a
longitudinal component. Electron has it, photon doesn't appear to have
it.

That is an illogical conclusion. A transverse wave causes
crosswise disturbances of a medium making it vibrate at
right angles to the direction of its travel.

That would only be true if there were a medium in the first place,
which there really isn't.

That's your personal and unsupported opinion which makes
it worth about the same as PD's, which amounts to zilch.

That should be
proof enough for all that light moves in a medium, but nooo
they continue to argue foolishly that light needs no medium.

It doesn't. Where is the medium in Maxwell's equations? And don't say
permittivity and permeability. These are constants.

How would I know what Maxwell did with it? Mebbe he put it
aside like AE did. Equations are math constructs, and math
has its limitations in representing reality. AE showed us all
that much with his static universe math constructs and short-
on-reality Relativity theories.

Apparently, you know absolutely nothing about this and are just trying
to cover up your own ignorance.

I told you above what I know about it; you're the one who
has no rational support for your claim that I am just trying
to cover up, thus it is you who is trying to argue with the
mental defense called "leveling".

You told me nothing, which proves you don't know what the hell you're
even talking about. You provided absolutely nothing to show that you
even understand the subject. Why should I waste my time?

Correct. No sense in you wasting your time here.

The reality is that observations of effects attributed to the
existence of Dark Matter cannot be magically waved aside
as having no cause to them. Such an admission that there
exists much more invisible matter than visible matter has
confounded those physicists who can only parrot what has
been drilled into their heads.

You don''t discard successful theories just for the sake of something
new. But I don't think you understand anything at all about science to
begin with.

What a stupid thing to say! If I knew nothing about science
how could I be keeping you from overthrowing my ideas?

You haven't presented any rational ideas to overthrow.

Also, which successful theories are you talking about?

Ever heard of gauge theory?

Of course, but what does that have to do with what we're discussing?

You
don't even know enough physics to answer simple questions
like that.

Don't tell me how much physics I know! I can tell from your responses
that you are trolling.

That's just wishful thinking on your part. If you want to know what
it is we're saying here, you can start from the first post. Why
should I waste my time going over it again?

For the free-thinkers, it is the
discovery of the century for science. One that will leave
many way behind as they struggle to gain their balance in
a greatly changing new world.

And what is that?

Oh lordy, another teeny bopper trying to act like
he can read. Look, the subject of a paragraph is
usually noted in the first or second sentences.
See above where I am talking about Dark Matter?

Nonsense. Dark matter is easy to talk about since no one really knows
what it is or even if it really exists. Provide a link to your theory
so that I can evaluate it or shut up.

I don't have my model on the internet. I have posted most
parts of it in these science ngs since 1996. You can search
under my name for the most current ones.

My model offers an easy way out for those who are willing
think about what Dark Matter means to us all now and in
the future. I suggest that DM is the medium for em waves
and the interactions of the two create light. There is nothing
in science today that overthrows that idea, nor what follows
from it. My ideas about time and space, matter and mass,
and motion and momentum, all lead us to acceptance of
the one element of our universe that unifies all the four
known fundamental forces by the fact that it is common to
them all.

So where's your theory? What equations do these things obey? Or do
you even know what it is that I'm talking about?

What equations do you want these "things" to obey?

Why are you asking me? It's your theory. Just another indicator that
you have no clue.

Just another indicator of your pre-conceived notions about my ideas
even before you know what I say. Why should I waste my time? I do
not have a new theory, I have alternative explanations for the conclu-
sions drawn from the effects observed by others. I have logical
arguments to support my alternative explanations which I suggest
should replace those that are too counterintuitive for the explanation
offered. There are several in physics today that rival the flat Earth
assertions of the past, and that is my purpose here, to offer my ideas
against those that are illogical and/or lead to a dead end.

My model does not conflict with observations nor with the
equations used to describe them. I offer only alternative
explanations for the silly ones in vogue today.

But you don't even have a model. All I've seen so far are some words
that you've written down that I'm not even sure you even understand.

You're not sure of that only because you don't understand what you're
reading. Take, e.g., my response to the question that is the title of
this
topic. The poster is not at all sure about the relationship between
mass and waves. What he has learned is not enough to help him pin
it down, expecially when some say that the photon has no mass but has
momentum. He knows that momentum requires a mass, but here is an
unexplained relationship that discards mass but retains momentum. How
can a photon be massless and have momentum?

He is told that there is a math construct invented that proves that
parti-
cular relationship of momentum sans a mass. But that which is used to
show that momentum must have a mass involved is not overthrown by
the massless photon claim, and so is it any wonder that he asks about
it?

Those who believe the photon is massless are split from those who stay
with Newton's physics. Newbies tend to stick with what they have more
recently been taught, but it is hard to argue against the logic of
Newton.
The OP wants answers, but none are forthcoming, at least, none that
help
him out.

I come along with an alternative explanation that makes unnecessary the

massless photon and does not overthrow Newton, and that should help
everyone to learn more. Instead, the trolls here feel it their duty to
fight
off any attempts at changing the status quo, and they are so successful

at it that the unnecessary paradox remains. That is the nutshell, but
it
doesn't tell the full story. The rest of the story is political, the
conformists
against the non-conformists, as if this venue can change the world or
the
habits of a lifetime. It all adds up to slowing scientific progress on
the
part of the conservatives with their status quo defense, and on the
part
of the progressives with their wild ideas of infinite futures, time
travel,
FTL speeds, multiple universes, string theory, etc.

Now here you come to join the fray,
To keep the enemy at bay.
The question is, of course, who's friend or foe,
And which side will be first to find the TOE?



Why do you say that a particle of a wave can have mass
IF and ONLY IF (IFF) the wave is a longitudinal wave?

I didn't say that. I said that it requires a longitudinal component.

Okay, why do you say that a particle of a wave can have
mass> > IF and ONLY IF (IFF) "it requires a longitudinal
component"?

Because that is how it works. I would explain it to you in detail, but
I'm afraid that it would be way over your head.

But others here might understand it, as surely you don't
claim to know more than everyone else here? Do it, if
you're not just blowing pollutants out your ass, and see
if the wise men here can tell you know what you'r
talking about.

Brevity prevents me from posting the entire theory. You would need to
read up on basic gauge theory. That will supply you with all the
background you need. But I don't think you'd understand it.

A
wave is a disturbance of a medium and as such it can have
no massive particles as a component to it. We are simply
describing the effects we observe when we say particles
exhibit wave characteristics and vice-versa. It is a paradox
that such an effect is observed. Just like time dilation, it is
the effect that is paradoxical, not the cause of the effect.

Nonsense.

That's your own personal and unsupported opinion worth
np more that PD's unsupported opinions, which amount to
a total waste of time.

No opinions here, just successful established theory You might want to
look it up. But I doubt you would understand it.

Where is your support for your one-word opinion above?
Did you forget to type it in? It's not there - I looked.

See above.

Physicists have built upon those same effects to provide
explanations that are as illogical as yours and only mire
physics deeper into the mud of the bog it has again gotten
itself into since the mid-20th century.

Hmm, that's some pretty successful mud. What do you have that can do
it better and still predict the same effects?

You don even know what that mud is, so how can you
say it's "pretty successful"? All of my posted ideas do it
better and predict the same effects.

So again, where's your theory? What equations are involved? How does
it work? What conclusions can you draw from the results? Do you even
know what I'm talking about?

I have given you my alternative explanations but you
cannot understand them. You have learned to read
but you still cannot understand what you read. That
is not my fault.

It's not that I can't understand them, it's just that they're so
ridiculously simplistic. It's all just loose talk with no real theory
or model, no original equations, nothing to derive any real conclusions
from. Come back when you have a real theory.


There is only one logical explanation for time dilation and
only one for the dual nature of light, and both are suggested
by my model of the universe. Emr is supposedly radiation
of particles into space, but that is the same as heat flowing
from a warm place to a cooler place. In both instances, it
is em waves moving through a medium at c, a speed at
which massive particles cannot travel.

What equations do they obey?

The same as the ones they obey now, it is only the
conclusions drawn from observations and math
conatructs that my model questions, not the obser-
vations nor the math.

Stick a fork in you. You're done. Finished. This makes absolutely no
sense.

Not to you, but understanding will come with maturity.

To the contrary, I probably would have understood it better when I was
twelve.

It looks to us as if quantum particles of energy are moving
at c because when we measure light we can also observe
photon particles. But that does not mean the particles are
moving along with the light waves. It only means that when-
ever we observe light we can also observe particles of that
light. We naturally assume that those particles are moving
at c along with the em waves. However, my model suggests
otherwise.

???

I think that the particles do not move along with the em wave,
but that they are in place when the wave moves through them.
They are the media for light to move in. The ether made of
Gamow's universal sea of particles that exist as Dirac's neg-
ative mass invisible particles, or what we today call Dark
Matter. The readers must ask themselves, "What can I do
with this new idea? Should I not try to find a way to over-
throw it that is as logical as the idea itself? How long and how
far should I go to fight this new idea before I can turn around
and try to understand it better? Why do I not want to accept
it? What if it turns out he's right and we're wrong, like history
shows that has often happened to move science along?"

Then lay out your theory. What equations do these things obey?

That is my theory. My "things" obey the same equations but not
the same conclusions drawn by those living in ivory towers of such
height they are closer to heaven than to Earth.

In other words, you have no theory. Dead in the water.

Sure I have, you just cannot understand what you read.
Did you ask yourself those questions above? What were
your answers?

You have absolutely no clue.

Personal opinions without logical or other valid support are
NOT solicited here. If you can't support your opinion, you
are not capable of reasonable thought, and you are a waste
of time.

NO opinions here. Just well-established gauge theory. You might want
to look it up. If not, you have no leg to stand on.

All you have offered here so far are unsupported opinions.
Nothing about gauge theory. Until you can support your
claims with it, you're just mouthing words you like but have
no clue as to their meanings. Just like Worms, PD, Poe,
and the other Stooge whose name is not relevant enough
for me to remember it, you talk like you know what you're
saying, but you cannot make simple logical statements.

You know nothing and say nothing. Come back when you know some real
physics.

I have a better idea than yours, why don't you leave until your
reading comprehension improves?

One must usually go to bowling alley to meet a person of your stature.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
    ... "I have used the word "Virtual" to distinguish invisible particles, ... Depends on if you talk about rest mass or relativistic mass. ... Photons are massless in the sense that they have no *rest* mass. ... >>electromagnetic wave. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
    ... nothing to do with the propagation of particles as you claim. ... which comprises the larger circle represents a light wave. ... circles inside the lw circle represent photon particles. ... > find photons anywhere on it, and the probability to find a photon at any ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
    ... > into real particles as a result of their collisions, ... > evidence for virtual photons or a virtual vacuum. ... I use the term "virtual photon particles" in reference to the dark ... I use potential photon particles as the media for light wave ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
    ... You wanted to have a word to distinguish a certain type of particles ... >>Depends on if you talk about rest mass or relativistic mass. ... The "energy of motion" factor for photons is p*c. ... > because it is created from a moving light wave and a virtual particle. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
    ... >> previously) that no particle can be totally massless, ... > Depends on if you talk about rest mass or relativistic mass. ... Relativists threw out the relativistic photon when they were ... because it is created from a moving light wave and a virtual particle. ...
    (sci.physics)