Re: mass of the photon

In sci.physics, Pmb
<peter102560_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 28 Jan 2007 04:01:03 -0500
<CP2dnVmVc5zG-yHYnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:urtt84-ije.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In sci.physics, Dumbledore_
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 28 Jan 2007 05:46:26 GMT
<SMWuh.177777$Kh7.102470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

"tony fleming" <tfleming1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1169950319.775425.225470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


On Jan 28, 12:11 am, "Dumbledore_" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:1169896264.960609.167500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

here's an experiment for you all:

SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Theory compared with experimental
observationBull***.
Scientific method : Observation, investigation, explanation.



AIM: What is the mass of the photon given that QFT's answer is ZERO;
while SFT's answer is AN ANALYTIC EXPRESSION (actually SFT has two
analytic expressions, probably more)

RESULTS??Weigh hollow box.
Impinge box with industrial laser.
Collect photons in hollow box.
Reweigh box.
Repeat until mass of box changes.

Mass reduction as a result of impinging with an industrial laser
to open up hole and let in more photons.

Conclusion. Photons have negative mass.

Sounds very diracian!!

http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the
%20Mass%20of%20the%20Photon.pdf

What I want you all to do is to calculate the relative error of the
two
mathematics SFT and QFT.

What does that have to do with physics?

Go and read up on what the scientific method is


I told you what the scientific method is, above.
Observation, investigation, explanation.

What does your CRAP have to do with physics?


Dumbledore is correct in this instance. Physics is science, and
requires, among other things:

- a set of observations
- a theory fitting the observations (ideally, more than one)
- a set of predictions from that theory
- additional observations from another experiment designed to
test that theory.

I wonder about this last one. Suppose one is only looking for the admirable
task of finding an alternate theory which describes all the same facts? QM
and string theory are supposed to be two such theories from what I
understand, are they not?

Pete


I'm not sure on that one. Part of the problem regarding
string theory is that I don't quite understand it,
but others have suggested that it makes no real good
predictions. In any event, IMO the best scientific
moments are the "whoops, that looks entirely wrong"
type -- the example coming to mind is the MMX, which
failed to substantiate an absolute aether. Of course,
additional observations (e.g., Sagnac's) were required
to more properly characterize what eventually became the
new theory.

There is stated ample confirmation at this point of SR,
though I for one would have to find specific instances
of the raw data. The best I've done so far is to find
lunar ranging data from French and Texas sources --
and I'm not quite sure how to interpret it beyond noting
that the Earth's rotation generates little "U's" therein,
as the rotation takes the "pinging station" towards the
moon, then away again. The general orbit of the moon is
also clearly visible, as the minima of these "U's" varies
according to time.

Not new stuff, to be sure. It's not entirely clear how
one might validate SR or even GR with this information,
unless one tries to do subtle calculations regarding the
Moon's orbit. (Since the Moon is moving at about 1 km/s
relative to us, the SR deltas will be on the order of 50
parts per trillion. The Sun would probably need to be
part of that calculation.)

Beyond the rather meaningless (to me) equation

G_ab = (8*Pi*G/c^4) T_ab

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity, where
G = the universal gravitational constant, G_ab is the
Einstein tensor, and T_ab is the stress energy tensor),
reported results such as Earth rotating the space around it
(Gravity probe B), which presumably could be calculated
using these tensors, and approximations such as

E/E0 = f/f0 = (1 + gh/c^2) (Pound-Rebka),

I don't know an awful lot about the specifics. Ideally,
I'd be able to translate the Einstein field equation
into some sort of partial difference approximation and
run a computer simulation.

There's a few other experiments with particle physics
which also are described as confirming SR nicely --
Ives-Stilwell comes to mind. However, again I'm not sure
where the actual raw measurement data is recorded.

Not that I doubt the conclusions all that much; Ockham's
Razor is still very useful, and if one does postulate that
there is a PhysicsThoughtCrimeSyndicate(tm) which wants us
all to believe that Einstein's Theory Of Relativity(tm)
is true when in fact it is not, then one has to analyze
*why* anyone would want to push through Einstein's Theory
Of Relativity(tm) when it is known to be false by those
pushing it. There is the possibility of graft, corruption,
and such in government, but even were SR demonstably false
I'd think we'd still want to play with particle physics
(although the Texas SSC was messily mismanaged), lasers,
and spacecraft.

But that is not a physics problem; that's more in the
political realm.

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Quantcast