Re: ? Electrons are "accelerated photons"
Y.Porat
wrote:
> Jeff Relf writes:
> > Q. What happens when two 511 keV photons collide,
> > forming an electron positron pair ?
>
> > A. They accelerate; electrons are "accelerated photons".
>
> 1) Photon-photon interaction is extremely rare. Photons act on charged
> particles, but are not themselves charged, thus they "shouldn't" interact
> at all.
>
> I believe the photon-photon interaction, when it does happen, really
> happens as follows: One photon becomes a virtual electron-positron pair,
> but before they re-annihilate back into the photon, the other photon
> interacts with one of the virtual particles, giving them energy and they
> become real. It takes an extraordinary coincidence, thus the rarity of
> the interaction.
>
> 2) Electrons are charged, photons aren't. Electrons have mass, photons
> don't. Electrons are fermions, photons are bosons. A statement like
> "electrons are 'accelerated photons'" is completely ignorant of physics.
--------------------
the fucken mother that gave you birth
IS VIRTUAL!!
including your fucken Higgs bossons
if you dont know and dont understand
than fuck of and say -you dont know
no one is intersted in your parroting
no one needs your parroting because we have enough idiotic dumb
crooks parrots all around !! without you
your fucken head has no mass
the photon HAS MASS
got it imbecile crook thief ??
if you dont the others will get it very soon
Y.P
---------------------------
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Why would it matter if you ( e.g. Moroney )
couldn't MEASURE the REST mass of a photon ? it doesn't.
When you accelerate 511 keV photons
( by colliding them, as thunder·storms do every·day )
you get “pair production”, electron-positron pairs.
By “accelerate” I mean a change in direction;
the speed doesn't increase, it drops.
Moroney fails to note that the NET CHARGE stays zero, static.
Y.Porat
----------------------
th enet charge and the net MASS
2
Keff
i would kie to ask yo a personal request
please dont change the subject that the op decided !!!
you are messing it all
fo rinstance many times i would like to folow
an issue
and it becomes nearly impossible
so
if you would like people to give tou mimimal respect
just give some minimal respect to the
op poster !!
is it too difficult for you to accept some
minimal norms of order and discipline ??
i hope you will accept my personal request
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Aleph
<_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov22.9.08pm.UI>, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid sat
down and wrote the following words of wisdom:
>
> Why would it matter if you ( e.g. Moroney )
> couldn't MEASURE the REST mass of a photon ? it doesn't.
Is this a personal slight? Are you implying that Moroney is the *only*
person who cant measure the rest mass of a photon?
What have *you* measured it to be? What do you think everyone else has
measured it to be?
> When you accelerate 511 keV photons
> ( by colliding them, as thunder·storms do every·day )
> you get “pair production”, electron-positron pairs.
Jeff, reading something in Wikipedia does not equal learning and
understanding.
> By “accelerate” I mean a change in direction;
> the speed doesn't increase, it drops.
Interesting definition. Where did you pluck this from? Before I go on, can
you clarify what you have said here please as it seems a bit vague (with
your frequent weasel words) and I am wary of your propensity to change what
you say in later posts.
Are you asserting that speed always drops? Do you understand how the change
of direction affects acceleration? Can you show your working out for this?
Can we agree on this as a definition - "Acceleration is the rate of change
of velocity as a function of time" or do we have to go with what ever *you*
mean?
> Moroney fails to note that the NET CHARGE stays zero, static.
Jeff, you are heading down a route you really should avoid.
--
Aleph
This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to
this account are very likely to be ignored.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
No, you ( Y.Porat ) have a problem following threads, I don't;
so it's up to you to solve YOUR PROBLEM... you CAN do it, if you want.
A thread is a tree, a hierarchy.
The title of posts don't determine the thread.
Threads drift, titles should refect that, I ASSERT.
If you look at the “References:” line in the header of posts,
you'll see how threads should be constructed.
The heritage of this post, for example, is:
[ Oldest ancestor first ]
Jeff•Relf news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov20.9.39pm.cH
Aleph• MPG.2571cab52...@news.virginmedia.com
Moroney• news:he95bo$qft$1...@pcls6.std.com
Y•Porat ....-f73e35...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
Jeff•Relf news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov22.9.08pm.UI
Y.Porat<y.y....@gmail.com ....6e4...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
Sci.Physics, Sci.Physics.Particle, Sci.Chem
4 Hours ago, Google, windows-1252, 217.132.36.29, Gecko➤Nov·2009➤XP
Re: Electrons are “accelerated photons”; the NET CHARGE stays zero
I recommend you sign·up with Glorb, the NNTP server.
Glorb ( www.Glorb.COM/usenet.php ) is 10 dollars per YEAR !
The un·filtered server ( newsRead.Glorb.COM:80 ) is best, I say.
( The “:80” means “port 80” but you can use port 119 )
To >quote lines from a Google Groups post, one must upgrade to
the latest Outlook: Windows Live Mail ( a.k.a. Outlook Express 7 ).
Download it here:
Note: Passing “ /newsonly ” ( via a shortcut or a DOS prompt ),
opens wlMail in “NewsGroups-Only” mode; like this:
"C:/Program Files/Windows Live/Mail/wlMail.EXE" /newsonly
Alternatively, you could switch to ThunderBird·3, download it here:
http://download.mozilla.org/?product=thunderbird-3.0b4&os=win&lang=en-US
Aleph
<_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov23.3.47am.Qr>, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid sat
>
> No, you ( Y.Porat ) have a problem following threads, I don't;
Again, we see Jeff's selfishness at work.
Its not *his* problem that his self centered, non-standard behavior makes
life hard for *every* one else, its every one else's problem.
> so it's up to you to solve YOUR PROBLEM... you CAN do it, if you want.
The easiest solution I would suggest for most people is to kill file you.
> A thread is a tree, a hierarchy.
> The title of posts don't determine the thread.
No, but it makes life easier for everyone else.
> Threads drift, titles should refect that, I ASSERT.
Your assertions are meaningless. They simply point out what an ass you are.
(Yes, I know that is a mixed metaphor, but I dont care)
> If you look at the “References:” line in the header of posts,
> you'll see how threads should be constructed.
Isn't that how google groups threads things? However, when a subject changes
it makes life hard for people. Why do *you* feel you have the right to
change the thread of a subject to make life harder for everyone else?
> I recommend you sign·up with Glorb, the NNTP server.
So, you are saying that to compensate for *your* selfish behavior, Poohrat
should pay money and change from using a web interface to a news reader
(which you will then object to because it wont handle UTF-8 in your dick
manner, or what ever your next self-obsessed activity is)
<snip meaningless-ness>
Michael Moroney
>Why would it matter if you ( e.g. Moroney )
>couldn't MEASURE the REST mass of a photon ? it doesn't.
Why does it matter to you enough to post known incorrect info to
sci.physics?
Measured mass of photon: < 1 * 10^-18 eV, or less than 10^-23 an electron
mass. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/tables/rpp2009-sum-gauge-higgs-bosons.pdf
This is almost the ratio of one molecule per mole, or one water molecule
in 18 g of water.
>When you accelerate 511 keV photons
>( by colliding them, as thunderstorms do every day )
>you get "pair production", electron-positron pairs.
Photon-photon interaction is extremely rare. They cannot interact
directly, only on a secondary level (when a photon interacts with a
virtual particle pair the second photon fluctuates into, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics)
The usual cause of pair production from a photon is the interaction of a
photon with more than 1.022 GeV with a mass (such as a nucleus) to produce
an e+e- pair. (A mass is required for conservation of momentum reasons)
>By "accelerate" I mean a change in direction;
>the speed doesn't increase, it drops.
Photons always move at c. Their speed never increases nor drops.
>Moroney fails to note that the NET CHARGE stays zero, static.
I never claimed there was a violation of conservation of net charge, just
that photons are uncharged, electrons are charged, thus electrons are not
photons. Once again you attack something I did not write. No wonder
you never directly quote what people write.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
It must be the coffee ( or meth ) talking.
What else could explain the way you ( Aleph ) stalk me, to gay·lame me,
to incite violence against me while telling others to plonk me ?
That's why I've “gagged” you, Aleph.
( my web·site explains what I mean by “gagged”, www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM )
As for Y.Porat, I suspect he's not using Google's threading option.
( Google's ·Threaded·View· is ultra slow and cumbersome;
if they were smart they'd show the “heritage” of each post, as I do.
My “heritage·Header” is very much like the end·part of a file·path.
Hell, Google's ·By·Date·View· won't even let you skip to the end;
Google Groups has lots of problems. )
You think Y.Porat can't afford 10 dollars per YEAR for an NNTP server,
for a better ·Threaded·View· ? !
No, he ( like you ) wants me to solve HIS PROBLEMS... it won't happen.
He ( and you ) are welcome to BITCH all day long, I enjoy the laughs.
Michael Moroney
>No, you ( Y.Porat ) have a problem following threads, I don't;
>so it's up to you to solve YOUR PROBLEM... you CAN do it, if you want.
Once again, you expect everyone else to change their behavior to comply
with _your_ whims. Here, you expect Porat to go install some software
he doesn't need and pay money (even if a trivial amount) for a news
server, when Google Groups apparently works fine for him -- other than
your posts. (Did you ever notice the mess you make of Google Groups
tree view?)
Did you ever consider changing _your_ behavior to make things easier for
other people? I didn't think so.
Not that Porat is a stellar example of respect for others. He can't even
be bothered to use a spelling checker to make his own posts legible. And
then there's all his childish namecalling.
>Threads drift, titles should refect that, I ASSERT.
What you want is the Summary: header.
Aleph
sci.physics on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:17:56 +0000 (UTC),
_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid <_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid> imparted these
words of wisdom:
>
>
> It must be the coffee ( or meth ) talking.
Projectionism is a bad thing, Relfwit.
> What else could explain the way you ( Aleph ) stalk me, to gaylame me,
Jeff, do you honestly think that people are incapable of reading the
other posts? Do you really think that your car azy quoting style
actually makes anyone think what you are saying is even a close
approximation of truth?
I still havent gay lamed you yet. Please repost the bit where I insult
you for being gay, rather than point out that your stalker obession of
Eric is pretty gay.
It is *your* mind that has read a gay subtext into things. There is a
reason for this.
> to incite violence against me while telling others to plonk me ?
Jeff, when did I incite violence against you? Is telling people to kill
file you worse than telling everyone to pay $10 a year for Glorb? Are
you on a retainer?
> That's why I've "gagged" you, Aleph.
Ooow. Scary. I feel so oppressed...
> ( my web site explains what I mean by "gagged" , www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM )
Yeah, it seems its slang for avoiding answering difficult questions.
Everything you say is full of shit. You cant even read your server log
files. You are monumentally clueless.
Have you identified my visits yet? Its not hard.
> As for Y.Porat, I suspect he's not using Google's threading option.
>
> <snip things no one cares about>
Jeff, once more why the fuck should anyone bow to *your* demands so they
can work around your retarded desire to fuck everything up?
Are you 10 years old?
> You think Y.Porat can't afford 10 dollars per YEAR for an NNTP server,
> for a better Threaded View? !
False assertion, as always. I dont care if he can or cant afford it, why
the fuck should he pay it?
> No, he ( like you ) wants me to solve HIS PROBLEMS... it won't happen.
You are his problem you selfish bastard. You are creating problems for
everyone else, but you are too self absorbed to realise that and make
changes.
Why do you even bother to write in English?
> He ( and you ) are welcome to BITCH all day long, I enjoy the laughs.
Not as much as I do, you seem to be uncomfortable with a lot of my
questions. That entertains me.
Your retardation is always going to be funny, which is why *I* havent
killfiled you.
--
Aleph
This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
to this account will be ignored.
Darwin123
> On Nov 21, 6:43 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> > 2) Electrons are charged, photons aren't. Electrons have mass, photons
> > don't. Electrons are fermions, photons are bosons. A statement like
> > "electrons are 'accelerated photons'" is completely ignorant of physics.
>
> --------------------
> the fucken mother that gave you birth
> IS VIRTUAL!!
This statement of yours is not offensive because it absolutely
does not make any sense. It isn't even a pun. Puns are supposedly the
lowest form of humor, but repeating words you don't understand is just
stupid.
Y.Porat
-------------------
Jeff
only this time listen to Aleph !!
you are not living alone !!
it you despise any others standards of behavior
you will be the first one to loos from that
(just an advice from an old man(
btw
you dont need to be all along a 'leaded sheep'--
once you have a very important case to fight for
go ahead fight for it
but it has to be a 'heavy cause '
not for nonsense technical trivialities !!
if you like to promote yourself to stand out
(it seems that that is the real cause for the above behavior)
you can do it by opening new thread as an op poster
TIA for considering us and our simple technical requests
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.Porat
> On Nov 19, 4:30 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I never said it was. I said you needed both in order to have a
> > > magnetic dipole moment.
>
> > So what about neutrino?
>
> According to the Standard Model, the neutrino is a fundamental
> chargeless particle, so it should not have a magnetic dipole moment.
> If it ever was discovered that the neutrino has a finite magnetic
> dipole moment, it would be back to the drawing board.
-------------
and you Igor forgot to tell us
that a very long time
the neutrino was considered massless (as your brain)
but only much later the glassless --
became massive!!
the fact that some mass is hard to detect
doe snot mean it doe snot exist
it is just out fault not to be able to find it
but there is a new golden rule in physics
that should be a light tower:
NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
one day
even a block head like you will get it
(or may be even discover it himself ?? (:-)
and only while it wil be discovered by a dumb mathematician like you
(only you !!).. only then
you will come out trumpeting it out (:-)
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------------
Aleph
f068ee...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Y.Porat sat down and wrote the
following words of wisdom:
> Jeff
> only this time listen to Aleph !!
Yeah, that must have made you choke.
><snip>
>
> TIA for considering us and our simple technical requests
He hasnt considered anyone except himself for decades.
Igor
I think all that doe snot is clogging up the logical receptors in your
brain.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Spin is a mistake. Rotation is more appropriate usage. Spin is when
rotation speed changes sizes.
The skater pulling in her arms. Spin is in the aether as this.
Mitch Raemsch
Darwin123
Y.Porat
day )
> >you get "pair production", electron-positron pairs.
>
> Photon-photon interaction is extremely rare. They cannot interact
> directly, only on a secondary level (when a photon interacts with a
> virtual particle pair the second photon fluctuates into, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics)
>
> The usual cause of pair production from a photon is the interaction of a
> photon with more than 1.022 GeV with a mass (such as a nucleus) to produce
> an e+e- pair. (A mass is required for conservation of momentum reasons)
>
> >By "accelerate" I mean a change in direction;
> >the speed doesn't increase, it drops.
>
> Photons always move at c. Their speed never increases nor drops.
>
> >Moroney fails to note that the NET CHARGE stays zero, static.
>
> I never claimed there was a violation of conservation of net charge, just
> that photons are uncharged, electrons are charged, thus electrons are not
> photons. Once again you attack something I did not write. No wonder
> you never directly quote what people write.
----------------------
idiot psrrot
here is what you quote:
quote of the parrot moroney:
Photon-photon interaction is extremely rare. They cannot interact
directly, only on a secondary level (when a photon interacts with a
virtual particle pair the second photon fluctuates into, see:
end of parros quote
now thwe question is
WHAT IS THAT VIRTUAL PARTICLE PAIR
THE SECOND PHOTON FLUCTUATE INTO ??
do you know what you are mumbling there ??
idiot parrot crook ??
----------
Y.P
--------------------
Igor
You are the master of nonsensical jibberish.
Aleph
684f38...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Wed,
25 Nov 2009 08:26:43 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted
these words of wisdom:
>
> here is what you quote:
> quote of the parrot moroney:
>
> Photon-photon interaction is extremely rare. They cannot interact
> directly, only on a secondary level (when a photon interacts with a
> virtual particle pair the second photon fluctuates into, see:
> end of parros quote
> now thwe question is
>
> WHAT IS THAT VIRTUAL PARTICLE PAIR
> THE SECOND PHOTON FLUCTUATE INTO ??
>
> do you know what you are mumbling there ??
> idiot parrot crook ??
Well done for broadcasting your cluelessness. Bravo kind sir.
Michael Moroney
>On Nov 23, 7:00 pm, >( by colliding them, as thunderstorms do every
>day )
>idiot psrrot
>here is what you quote:
>quote of the parrot moroney:
>>Photon-photon interaction is extremely rare. They cannot interact
>>directly, only on a secondary level (when a photon interacts with a
>>virtual particle pair the second photon fluctuates into, see:
>end of parros quote
>now thwe question is
>WHAT IS THAT VIRTUAL PARTICLE PAIR
>THE SECOND PHOTON FLUCTUATE INTO ??
I know you don't believe in virtual particles, because you don't understand
the physics behind virtual particles. So whatever answer I give will do
no more than to get me called names.
But I'll answer anyway, for anyone else who cares or wants to learn.
Usually an electron-positron pair.
Y.Porat
> On Nov 24, 5:02 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 10:09 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 10:16 am, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > According to the Standard Model, the neutrino is a fundamental
> > > > > chargeless particle, so it should not have a magnetic dipole moment.
> > > > > If it ever was discovered that the neutrino has a finite magnetic
> > > > > dipole moment, it would be back to the drawing board.
>
> > > > different...http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0601113
>
> > > If you notice, that paper doesn't actually say that the neutrino has a
> > > magnetic moment. It only provides a theoretical upper bound based on
> > > the most current observations. It's a lot like similar papers on the
> > > upper limit on photon mass.
>
> > What do You mean? In the paper I've linked there are both upper and
> > lower bounds ...
>
> Yeah, you're correct on that one. Apparently, after re-reading this
> paper, I see that it's based not on the conventional Standard Model,
> but on some sort of extended version of it. That's what I meant when
> I said "it would be back to the drawing board", since the conventional
> SM doesn't predict a magnetic moment for the neutrino. People are
> already anticipating new directions in which to take the SM and this
> paper is a good example.
--------------------
and now you can see some of those shamles crooks
just above that claimed that the experiment described by he op poster
WAS DONE AND ***EXPLAINED** 80 YEARS BEFORE ""
end of "quote ' !!!
and they are supposed to be
teachers of physics!!
not only yhat they are morons
they are shamelsss crooks as well
and as i said before :
a person without persoanl honesty and integrity
CANNOT BE A REAL SCIENTIST!!
because you cant cheat every body forever !!
now some remars to some morons and crooks above
that still steal ideas and relate it to themselves:
1
the electron is not a pint particle
most pepel here realized now
that spinn is not a sort of a spinning Gyroscope
it is some angle rotation around a longitudinal axis
90 deg or 180 deg and then locked at that position
now of you are not an idiot mathematician
you undesrstad imediately that
having a longitudinal axis
IS NOT FOR A POINT PARTICLE!!
(the head of those pompous mathematician
is a blocked forever point particle)
2
it means that a particle that has spin
must be subdivided to smaller orbital particles!!
or be a single orbital that is planar
extending on a plan
(one it is on a plan it has definit directions)
3
the more complicated and sub built is the particle
it has more descret directions
that are done by its sub constituents
and that we have bigger particles with more than
just 1/2 angular momentum
4
see how particles are built
from ligth ones to heavier ones
step by step in my abstract:
and how it is defined unequivocally by its
sub constituents
(it is not a 'porridge of antiparticles as the fucken
crippled current models suggest by their ignorance )
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-anbstract
(you have to press there on the link 'view' )
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
typo:
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
hope it is right now
Y.P
------------------------
Igor
> 1
> the electron is not a pint particle
You're right. It actually fills up a whole quart.
> 2
> it means that a particle that has spin
>must be subdivided to smaller orbital particles!!
Even a subatomic particle apparently understands how to make more
money in real estate.
> 3
> the more complicated and sub built is the particle
> it has more descret directions
That particle must be a female. Were it a male, it would never even
ask for directions.
> 4
> see how particles are built
That confims my response to #3.
Y.Porat
--------------------
imbecile mathematician Bolshevik !!
if you cant help
at least dont disturb
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.P
-----------------
Igor
You're disturbed enough for the both of us. By the way, didn't Sacha
Baron Cohen make a movie about you?