Re: mass of the photon



On Jan 28, 7:57 pm, "Pmb" <peter102560_nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1169967104.962990.268830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx







On Jan 28, 4:46 pm, "Dumbledore_" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews: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 isI told you what the
scientific method is, above.
Observation, investigation, explanation.

look with respect, investigation is a high school term for THEORY.

What does your CRAP have to do with physics?- Hide quoted text -- Show
quoted text -

take a careful look AGAIN

SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Theory compared with experimental observation

Bull***.Scientific method : Observation, investigation, explanation.

same thing scientific method is THEORY compared with OBSERVATION
leading to CONCLUSION.

You're playing semantics, nothing to do with science. Answer the
question then if you're scared of admitting the truth that SFT is
better than QFT. Come on pick up the scientific cudgel, if you dare.
But if you want to play semantic and abuse then I take it you are
gutless as I said.

One very good way of determineing the better method, not the only way,
is to use RELATIVE ERROR. This method is used a lot in comparing
experimental methods, but it can be used to compare theoretical
methods also.

So I leave it to you to tell me what the conclusion is; if you dare.

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?? GO to the link and see that the RELATIVE ERROR OF QFT IS 100
% will the RE of SFT is of order 10%.

and there's 2 methods to choose from.

CONCLUSION: The self-field theory appears to be a better mathematical
model of physics than QFT. QED.

Tony - I think your job would be easier if you just referred to the American
Physical Society (if you agree with them that is) as to the question "What
is Science?" which was published in the American Journal of Physics back in
August 1999. I posted a link to it herehttp://www.geocities.com/physics_world/what_is_science.pdf

It reads
---------------------------------------------------
Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world
and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and
theories.

The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of
scientists to:

(1) expose their ideas and results to independant testing and replication by
other scientists; this requires the complete and open exchange of data,
procedures and materials;

(2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more
complete or reliable experimental evidence.

Adherebce to these principles provides a mechanism for self correction that
is the foundation of the credibility of science.
---------------------------------------------------

Pete- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Pete let me suggest to you that at present there is an issue which
will not be finished in this unmoderated group. That issue concerns a
new challenger to quantum field theory. It is known as self-field
theory, this subdiscipline of classical electrodynamics has lain
largely orphaned and abandoned since Abraham and Lorentz over 100
years ago.

Let me further suggest to you that the scientific method is precisely
what we are using here. The origin of the scientific method goes way
back as you might be aware to ROman times and perhaps beyond to
Egyptian times perhaps even further. It is NOT the preserve of quantum
physicists becuase they have held sway for 80 or more years. What we
are seeing is a revolution in mathematics AND in electrodynamics. We
find that the photon has been modelled using a single particle, and
this is why we have so much intellectual difficulty in seeing light as
both a particle AND a wave. It is only when we start seeing the
photon as having two sub-particles that the difficulty vanishes before
our eyes. Same with relativity.

You seem unable to accept the fact that SFT comes up with an analytic
expression for the mass of the photon, in fact two such expressions,
one based on atomic physics, and one on solar system physics. The
assumption of ZERO-MASS inside QFT is based on the mathematical
justifications of solving the equations, not on any physical basis.
In fact it is DEFINED to be zero by some.

As I said in a recent post

Quoting from www.unifiedphysics.com

QUOTE BEGINS

Due to current opposition within mainstream physics to any serious
challenger to either quantum mathematics, quantum field theory, or
string theory, this site assists to develop a newer, more intuitive,
and more natural view of mathematics and physics. There is a pressing
need for this site, whose origin can be traced to the Copenhagen
Interpretation.

"We regard quantum mechanics as a complete theory for which the
fundamental physical and mathematical hypotheses are no longer
susceptible of modification."

--Heisenberg and Max Born, paper delivered to Solvay Congress of 1927

Briefly, SFT does indeed challenge the fundamental nature of quantum
mechanics; the electron's motions in the hydrogen atom are completely
determined by SFT. Quite simply the application of eigenvalue theory
to the EMSFT equations is the foundation of quantum theory. Further,
point-mass particles can be applied inside SFT, and since there is
never a moving particle at a coordinate centre, there are no numerical
problems requiring mass renormalization. To date SFT does agree with
the physical results given by experimentally validated quantum
theory.


QUOTE ENDS


.

Loading