Re: Only some energy has mass?

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 12/06/04 

Date: 5 Dec 2004 23:52:52 -0800

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<pEHsd.127656$SW3.41517@fed1read01>...
> Dear Y.Porat:
>
>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would a photon be energy without mass?
> >> >> Why would it be an exception if other energies
> >> >> always have a mass?
> >> >>
> >> >> Mitch Raemsch
> >> > -----------------
> >> > a very good question!
> >> > has a very simple answer:
> >> >
> >> > the photon *has mass*
> >> > the smallest photon mass is :
> >> >
> >> > photon mass = h/C^2 times 1.000/Time unit.
> >> >
> >> > in the MKS system it is just (numerically) h/C^2
> >> >
> >> > it is (just quote from memory) something like 10 exp -52 kg.
> >>
> >> This is an upper limit on the photon's mass. This is much less than the
> >> energy of the photons tested to determine the mass.
> > ---------------
> > yes that is the main problem!
> > photon mass is too small to be detrected by our existing tools but ....
> > we have in addition to it th elittle machine that is above our shoulders
> > (:_)
>
> This little machine is designed to handle "continuity" problems. It has a
> very difficult time in a Universe where the dead come back to life (in the
> quantum Universe, all processes are fully reversible), and there is no
> difference if Brutus kills Caesar, or if he brings him back to life by
> healing the slit in his heart with a "magic" blade. Common sense fails
> where common sense wasn't trained.
>
> >> > the gama fator (Lorentz factor) does not apply to the photon
> >> > just as simple as that
> >>
> >> Perhaps, but why?
> > --------
> > a wonderful question ! why did you came with it so late ?(:-)
> >
> > that is what my little machine above my shoudees tells me -: --
> >
> > *that is may be the only way to reconcile between -photon has mass'
> > and the fact that it moves with the velocity of light!!
> > (thremendously simple !!!)
>
> Much too complex. Successful quantum theory *requires* that the photon
> have no mass. Therefore, your first step is in error.
-----------------
you are wrong and i think even not updated:
as far as i heared form people who know :
there is no problem to adjust qm to the posibility of
photon has mass !!!!
just shoes you (if i am quoting rightly) how ambiguous
ie waht a big abstract 'supermarket' is your
sacred devine qm ....)
while a tricky theory is very abstract it has less chance to be wrong
but still somethimes it does and in addition its use becomes
more limited.
---------------
-----------------
>
> > anyway
> > who on earth enshured you that the gama factor (that was not invented by
> > God
> > but human people) ensuored you that the limits of that gama factor
> > are limitless???!!!
>
> I agree. But the statistical Universe in which I am immersed has laws. If
> I make observations in this Universe/of this Universe, those laws hold.
> Gamma has never been shown to be incorrect, nor to be inapplicable to
> photons.
if it saies the photon has no mass there you have the first case
ogf being wrong
becuase anything we sense with oursenses must have mass
we do not sense ghosts!!
-------------
  I do know that in the derivation for gamma, v = c was eliminated
> from its solution set. So it does not apply to photons.

so ???? you agree with me ?!

  Whether it can be
> assumed to apply "in the limit", is best left to philosophers.
not exactly!!
even mathematicians know that even in *mathermetics*
*limit cases are problematic* !!!! i think i studied it
in my secondary school .......
-------------
>
> > did you ever heared a postulation that ANY
> > physical formula or equation HAS ITS LIMITS ???
>
> Yes. They all do.
but not all physicists are aware of it
now if you realise it
why not aply it to the photon and the gama factor???!!
----------------
>
> > that is imho the diffeence between mathematics and PHYSICS
> >
> > (even mathematical formulasha soften their limits !!)
> >
> > the roll of the (unparrot) physicist is to ....
> > find those limits !!!
>
> No. The role of the physicist is to TEST the limits.
David
before testing there must be a sugestive guess or notion of
*what to test* !! right??

  The limits are
> known,
while you say known or well known thereis whrre i start to be alergic...
that saying of 'well known ' somethimwes i dont know why is
raising mu blood presure (:-) may be it is so vane and arrogaT
AND IN MANY CASES baseless , even demagogoc.
nothing is well known . it migh tbe just 'known'!!
500 years ago it was 'well known ' that the sun orbits around the earth.
(everyone could even see it with his own eys.....)
ie it is much dependant of *interpretation od data *
---------------
--------------

 and are clearly defined in the postulates, or in the mathematics
> applied to arrive at a solution. For example, SR is limited to "flat
> space". A theoretician is to make new hypotheses, new limits, new tests.

yes i i sayed above even before reading your last line ...
>
> >> > but for that you have to detach youself from the parrot family!!
> >>
> >> I think we are all related to the great apes by current evolutionist
> >> thinking.
>
> > yes scince in spight its pompous pose (pompous people !)
> > while it deals with dead ends- is nothing but a trial and error system
>
> Like the Father, the son.
?????

>
> >> > that is unable of thinking something new. (:-)
> >>
> >> What you are asking him to swallow is something old. Something that is
> >> in
> >> violation of theory, and has been discredited.
>
> > i agree to anything above except your 'discredited'
> > But you know this.
>
> Understood.
>
> > btw we ddint finish our discussion about iirc the(fucken (:-))
> > electron shell theory
> > in most casses it is rather the young people who are the revolutionists
> > in my case it seems that - i am the 'youngster'.....
>
> We actually did finish. I believe we agreed to disagree. Adequate?
actually it was about refraction

now David
please remember who is the copyrighter of the idea that :

*the gama factor does not apply to the photon* !
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------------
>
> David A. Smith

Quantcast