Re: Only some energy has mass?
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 12/04/04
- Next message: ernobe: "Re: On Religion, confessions of a deist"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- In reply to: V ertner Vergon: "Re: Only some energy has mass?"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Only some energy has mass?"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: Only some energy has mass?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:30:17 GMT
"V ertner Vergon" <vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:b337f5db.0412040806.219f28b2@posting.google.com...
> lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message
news:<cc2dde17.0412040200.6e981da5@posting.google.com>...
> > macromitch@internetCDS.com (Mitchell) wrote in message
news:<9c3da975.0412031921.59076ce0@posting.google.com>...
> > > By the special theory of relativity motion
> > > gives additional mass. Kinetic energy has mass.
> > >
> > > Why would a photon be energy without mass?
> > > Why would it be an exception if other energies
> > > always have a mass?
> > >
> > > Mitch Raemsch
> >
> >
> > Mitch, I am pleasantly surprised to see you looking for some learning.
> > As a fellow student, I welcome you to our class. Yours are the same
> > questions many of us have asked of the die-hard Relativists, and they
> > say, "Why should the photon _not_ be massless?", which is, of course,
> > no answer to our questions.
> >
> > After searching on my own, I discovered that they claim masslessness
> > by using a math construct which allows them a math proof that such a
> > thing is possible. Math is an inductive logical process such that its
> > premises may or may not be true, and so its conclusions too may or may
> > not be true. Thus, math constructs cannot be taken as representative
> > of reality. However, die-hard Relativists do that very same thing in
> > claiming that a photon is massless.
> >
> > They contradict their own SR formula of E=mc^2 by borrowing from their
> > arch rival for truth, quantum theory, the proposition that massless
> > particles mediate as carrier particles the forces of gravitation and
> > electromagnetism. Thus, when it is convenient for them to do so, they
> > abandon parts of their theory to that which they claim their's is
> > superior. Their willingness to ignore their own formulas in order to
> > explain away the conflicts which SR creates is the shame of physics!
> >
> > TomGee 120404
>
> Vergon:
>
> Here's some food for thought:-
>
>
>
>
> AN ANALYSIS OF THE
> ENERGY-MOMENTUM 4 VECTOR EQUATION
> AND THE MASSLESS PARTICLE
>
>
>
> A wise man once said, regarding theoretical physicists, "They are
> often 'algebraically' correct in their 'proofs', while fumbling on the
> interpretation."
>
> Einstein gives the mass of radiation as m = E/c^2, that of the photon
> being
> h nu/c^2.
As has undoubtedly been pointed out to you innumerable times Einstein does
not say that at all - he says it can be converted to mass of m = E/c^2 not
that it has mass of that value. This would, for example, occur if an object
with no zero rest mass absorbed the photon. In modern times in is
conventional to put everything in units of energy so the issue never
arises - a lump of energy (a photon) is absorbed by another lump of energy
(a particle with non zero rest mass) so the energy of the other lump
increases - nothing mysterious at all going on.
>
> The energy of the photon is given as E = pc = h nu.
>
> Then there is the oft misinterpretation of the energy-momentum 4
> vector equation.
>
> One interpretation of the said equation, E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, is
> as follows:
>
> "If we set the m in the right hand first term to zero, then we get E =
> pc
> which we know is true. This shows that the mass of the photon is
> zero."
Which should show someone with a brain they made a mistake. Your mistake
being not understanding what Einstein said regarding the mass of a photon.
BTW if you want to understand SR it is best to read modern texts not
Einstein's ancient writings. But it is my experience that cranks do not
want to understand SR; they simply wish to perpetuate their
misunderstandings. Relying on ancient writings allows them greater freedom
to take things out of context - a context that has long since been firmly
established.
Bill
>
> THE FALLACY:
>
> Following is a brilliant analysis by Jim Redgewell:
>
>
>
>
> EINSTEIN'S ENERGY FORMULA
>
> Page created 9 February 2003 www.daftwat.com
>
> Many people are familiar with the formula E = mc˛ , but this is a
> simplified version of the following formula:
>
> E^2 = mc^2 + p^2 c^2
>
>
> This formula takes into account the momentum 'p'. When p = 0, then E =
> mc˛.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> INTERJECTION by vergon:
> It is imperative to note here that first and foremost, mathematical
> expressions are required to reflect the physical conditions.
> In this case there are two ways to set p to zero. One is to have the
> object at rest - then as a result mc^2 is the rest energy at rest. The
> other is to set p to 0 by setting the mass to 0 then both m and p
> would be 0 and E would equal 0. Redgewell has obviously chosen the
> former.
> We must exercise caution and practice astuteness when manipulating
> mathematics.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> PYTHAGORAS
> The formula can be written differently to show that it is in fact
> based upon the Pythagoras theorem:
>
> E^2= (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
>
> ENERGY
> The next observation to be made, is that the above formula is in fact
> the following two formulas applied at right angles to each other.
>
>
> E = hf E = mc^2
>
> Obviously, the next step is to prove that pc = hf. So let's start with
> the formula for wavelength:
>
>
> lambda = h/p
>
>
> THE MATHS
> .
> p = h/lambda c = f lambda pc = h/lambda x f lambda . . pc
> = hf
>
> So the maths has worked out well. So basically, the formula has two
> energy functions which are vectors applied at 90° to each other. One
> of the energy functions is for matter at rest and the other is for
> matter in motion.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> INTERJECTION:
>
> This author is not sure what Redgewell means by " matter in motion".
> Since the equations above used to develop this result are equations of
> radiation (photon) then we can assume the matter spoken of is the mass
> of the photon. This would be distinct from ponderable mass (physical
> bodies) the kinetic energy given for such being E = (gamma -1) mc^2.
> Therefore, the energy-momentum 4 vector equation is not applicable to
> ponderous mass. This despite the fact it was developed, in part, from
> the equation for ponderable mass.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> PHOTONS
>
> The rest mass of a photon is zero, so the first part of the equation
> tends to zero. A photon travels at the velocity of light and at this
> speed it has mass. Therefore, the energy of a photon is given by the
> second part of the equation. So a photon has a momentum of mc and
> therefore, the energy of a photon is pc, and is equal to mc˛. So once
> again E = mc˛.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> COMMENT:
>
> We have here a peculiar coincidence. mc^2 is the kinetic energy of the
> photon - but also the rest energy of ponderous mass.
>
> Or is it a coincidence? We might draw the conclusion that the rest
> energy of ponderous mass is convertible to the kinetic energy of the
> photon - both being mc^2, i.e., with no change in absolute dimensions.
> Of course the atomic bomb proves this true.
>
>
>
> In further consideration, every equation for momentum contains MASS
> and motion. Therefore, E = pc states that the photon in flight has
> momentum, p = (h nu/c). And we observe (h nu/c^2) = m. Thus
>
> (h nu/c^2)c = mc = p -- and pc = mc^2.
>
> Therefore, we see that whereas mc^2 is the rest energy for a ponderous
> mass it is also the kinetic energy of a photon.
>
>
> We also note that the photon in flight possess momentum and that there
> can be no momentum without mass. Therefore, the photon possess mass.
> This is the same position taken by Einstein when he declared the mass
> of radiation to be m = E/c^2.
>
> When faced with that fact, those who misinterpret the equation try to
> maintain their position of a mass-less photon by declaring a new
> physics whereby there exists momentum with no mass.
>
> The problem is, they cannot substantiate that.
>
> The overall result is that there is no such thing as a mass-less
> particle -- of any kind.
>
> The objective universe consists only of matter, the space between
> matter - and the motion of matter in that space. All else are concepts
> in the mind of man.
>
> If matter (mass) is removed, there is left only empty space.
>
>
> Vertner Vergon
>
> 1998
- Next message: ernobe: "Re: On Religion, confessions of a deist"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- In reply to: V ertner Vergon: "Re: Only some energy has mass?"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Only some energy has mass?"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: Only some energy has mass?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
