Re: MASS OF THE PHOTON


Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

------------------------------
there are some points to be clarified because of too much confusion
about it :

You have no actual reason beyond personal belief as to why the photon
has mass.

VERGON
It is you that are operating on belief. And this is strange considering
the fact that there is so much positive evidence for mass. You are
blind and in denial.

Experimental evidence doesn't support your opinion, nor do any accepted
theories.

VERGON
What universe do you live in? Theories accepted by who?
Experimental evidence shows E =hf and p = hf/c. You cannot have
momentum or energy without mass. If you can show me energy and momentum
without masss, I'll concede.
If you can't. you lose.

1 the fact 'that' QED 'demands' zero mass for the photon is not good
enough
becauase AFAIK QED can be easily adapted to a nonzero SMALL mass for
the photon

A massive photon means the E&M interaction has finite range.

VERGON
Assumption. Prove it.


2 the many excperiments about phton mass are very unacurate
with a too wide spread of results so it cannot be considered as is - as
reliable

That is the most idiotic argument I have heard today. A dozen different
experiments from different groups produce answers that are all
compatable with eachother, and you still find reason to whine.

VERGON
He's not whining but you are whistling Dixie.
If you will follow the history of this experiment, you will find that
it is a very dificult, vague experiment from Nieto and Goldhaber on
down. They and others, keep refining their results. If you look them
over you will find that they are approaching the figure I have obtained
theoretically: 7.37203854 x 10^-48 gr.


3 the gama factor is not valid to thephoton case since the photon is a
limit case

Since the photon is not massive, that is true. The "gama (sic) factor",
as you put it, does not apply to the photon.

VERGON
True -- gamma is not applicable to the photon. The energy-momentum 4
vector equation proves that.

4 th emost relaible formula for photon mass is E=hf fo ra SINGLE PHOTON
!!

Wrong, idiot.

Vergon
Easy to say "wrong" when you don't know what you are talking about.
I mentioned E and p above and asked you to prove that momentum and
energy do not have mass. You can't -- and therfore you lose.

So whose the idiot?


m = hf/c^2 has been disproven multiple times. Stop bringing it up.

VERGON
It would be nice for us to not bring it up because it knocks the hell
out of your ridiculous argument. As to the equations (still taught
today) you say they have disproven. PROVE IT.

As for m = hf/c^2 being disproven -- prove it. Who are we to believe,
you or Einstein?
The equation switched around is E = mc^2. So that's "disproved" also?
Man, you are in hot water -- all because of your silly misplaced
beliefs.

5 i used it fro my unprecedented oroof for the QUALITIATIVE PROOF OF
NONZERO MASS FOR THE PHOTON
(indeed stunning by its simplicity !!)

On the contrary, there is much precedent for you being simply wrong.
VERGON
You couldn't be more wrong. Prove it. You make a lot of off the cuff
statemants but can't back up any of them.

6 the formula E=mc^2 is also valid for the photon but ............!!

NO it isn't.

VERGON
Then the atom bomb does not exist. There is no limit to your ridiculous
assertions.

there is some little 'cach 'in it :

Like you would know.

VERGON
He knows much more than you do.

WE DO NOT KNOW *** THE MASS OF HOW MANY PHOTON*** IS THERE
IN THAT m !!!!!!(of the mc^2 )
so it can be used only qualitatively unless we know :
th emass of how many photons is that m is

7 that is exactly why i did that proof of mine ONLY QUALITATIVELY

BUT THAT QUALITIATIVE PROOF IS GOOD ENOUGH
because to prove nonzero is** qualitative by definition **!!

Which "proof"?

The one where you assume Newtonian mechanics?

The one where you ignore observational data disproving m = hf/c^2?

VERGON
Produce your data proof or be quiet.
The one where you fail to understand dimensional analysis?
VERGON
Explain.


8 the claim that a physics proof is not valid untill confirmed
experimentally
therefore my above proof is invalid - is a nonsense claim since ....

Actually, it has been disproven experimentally. Since m = hf/c^2 does
not predict the photon's mass.

Vergon
You are exhibiting extreme ignorance. Einstein stated SPECIFICALLY that
when radiation leaves a body it loses mass by m = E/c^2 -- and when it
absorbs radiation it gains mass by that amount. But then what does the
old Geeser know? You are the smart one.


BIG SURPRISE:: the E=hf formula is ............ EXPERIMENTALLY
PROVEN!!
by endless measurments !!

"Since I believe in A which is slightly related to B, and since B is
true, A *must* be true!"


may be more reliable than any other experimental measurment
actually not only 'may be ' but certainly !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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.relativity)
  • Re: "A Snapshot of a Photon"
    ... of the effective mass of the rest of the ... conserve total energy. ... oaf a wave. ... determine what a photon would look like if we had a "godlike" ability to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... for sound reasons states that the energy W of a photon ... Plus the relation between mass and energy ... education in physics. ... that is not the definition of aether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast