Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx>
 Date: 6 Jul 2006 12:58:45 0700
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.htmlPaddlebutt, you and PD just make up physics as you go
Momentum
For nonrelativistic objects
along, doncha? Pray tell us, quick before the Stooges
gallery jumps to help you, what it is you're calling "non
relativistice objects".
I know what relativistic objects are: figments of your
combined imaginations from the SR subset of relative
motion. Are you saying "nonrelativistic objects" are
those real things that we can empirically research?
And just when does speed become relativistic, PQuack?
Newton defined momentum, given the symbol p, as
the product of mass and velocity  p = m v. When speed becomes
relativistic, we have to modify this definition  p = gamma (mv)
When it's in your head?
So you're saying here that anyone can arbitrarily make a real
Notice that this equation tells you that for any particle with a nonzero mass,
the momentum gets larger and larger as the speed gets closer to the speed of
light. Such a particle would have *infinite* *momentum* (SNICKER) if it could
reach the speed of light. Since it would take an infinite amount of force (or a
finite force acting over an infinite amount of time) to accelerate a particle
to infinite momentum, we are forced to conclude that a massive particle always
travels at speeds less than the speed of light.
Some text books will introduce the definition m0 for the mass of an object at
rest, calling this the "rest mass" and define the quantity (M = gamma m0) as
the mass of the moving object.
massive object into a massless object at will? I always knew
that Mandrake could do that, but not that physicists or teachers
have the same magical powers.
Of course, but what if you choose the wrong mass?
This makes Newton's definition of momentum still
true provided you choose the correct mass.
Can you fix that with a wave of your Mandrakian wand?
Oh, you're narrowing your studies to that, are you?
In particle physics,
Which is the same as saying, "We ignore the energy
when we talk
about mass we always mean mass of an object at rest and we write it as m and
keep the factor of gamma explicit in the equations.
accruing to the object due to its motion, since it and us
are at constanct velocity wrt each other, and the speed
gamma cancels out." Or, "There is no such thing as an
object at rest, but we can imagine there is some such by
comparing the motion of objects that are moving at the
same speed and direction as we are." There is nothing
invalid about that, unless you claim it represents reality.
What ignorance? That has already been covered long
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node76.html
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/mass_increase.html
Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators very powerful electric
fields are used to accelerate electrons, protons and other particles. It is
found in practice that these particles become *heavier* *and* *heavier* as the
speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for
further acceleration. Consequently, the speed of light is a natural absolute
speed limit. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands
of times greater than their mass measured at rest, usually called the "rest mass"
Now shall we make it SPNAK 4 for you TG, or are you gonna admit your ignorance.
before you got here. It's new to you since you just began
to read about it, but it's old hat to regular poster here. I
would not advise you to waste our time by posting stuff
you just learned.
BTW, how can those particles get heavier and heavier if
they are massless? Oh, that's right  you Stooges have
magic wands!
But you can, right?
I think we both know the answer. You can't shut up.
.
 References:
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: tomgee
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: Phineas T Puddleduck
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: tomgee
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: Phineas T Puddleduck
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: tomgee
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: Phineas T Puddleduck
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: Phineas T Puddleduck
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: Phineas T Puddleduck
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: tomgee
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: Phineas T Puddleduck
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: tomgee
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 From: Phineas T Puddleduck
 Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 Prev by Date: Re: Understanding SR  simultaneity
 Next by Date: Re: It's all Soooo Amusing!
 Previous by thread: Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 Next by thread: Re: PHOTON MASS  A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES  NOT FACT.
 Index(es):
Relevant Pages
