mass of the photon
tfle...@hotkey.net.au
tony fleming
this analytic expression for the mass of the photon comes from the
self-field theory as applied to the hydrogen atom. It shows the
internal workings of the atom to be a collision-based physics.
Y.Porat
so may be you can tell us in figures
what is the smalles mass of a photon in KG??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> tony fleming wrote:
> > tfle...@hotkey.net.au wrote:
> > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20the%20Photon.pdf
> > >
> > > Tony Fleming Ph.D.
> > >
> > > www.unifiedphysics.com
> > > tfle...@unifiedphysics.com
> >
> > this analytic expression for the mass of the photon comes from the
> > self-field theory as applied to the hydrogen atom. It shows the
> > internal workings of the atom to be a collision-based physics.
Utter crap.
> ------------------
> so may be you can tell us in figures
> what is the smalles mass of a photon in KG??
Zero - in whatever system of units you desire.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------------------------------
Y.Porat
yes indeed that is the amount of brain in the students
parrot skull from Alaska
that cant finish his BSc
Y.P
------------------------
>
The_Man
Please tell us what degrees you have, and where you got them, so that
we all know not to trust any graduates from those schools.
>
> Y.P
> ------------------------
> >
The Ghost In The Machine
<jow...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 20 Jan 2007 00:58:09 -0800
<1169283489....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Not that the rest mass of a photon will be much in any
event; the maximum value I can come up with is about
1.1 * 10^-35 kg (400 nm), and that's assuming Newtonian concepts.
This can also be represented as 6.2 eV. (The actual energy of
a 400nm photon would be half that.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310595
suggests an upper bound at the far lower mass of 10^-35 eV, though
I don't know what wavelength they're assuming.
>
>>
>> TIA
>> Y.Porat
>> ---------------------------------------------
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Does anyone else remember the 1802?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Eric Gisse
Ah.
Now you have moved on to the "Making shit up about my education" phase.
>
> Y.P
> ------------------------
> >
Y.Porat
th e issue is not what i know or not
the issue is waht you and others pretent to know
and it is obvious that you know very little
you could not answer a simple basic question of the OP post
i have no pretentions of knowing very much as yiou delude youself and
others to know
and that is my job to show
to wake you from your paradize of fools and crooks
btw
have a look at :
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
and you will see how little i know.
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.Porat
very nice!
now take that momentum and divide it by c
and you will get themass
that is log ago known to me
yet
i was thinking that if by any chance the op poster
can get it
**by another way or approach*
IT COULD BE A NICE CROSS VERIFICATION TO MY CLAIMES
actually i am not the only one with those claimes
more and more cleaver open minded people
(that are more physicists than dumb mathematicians)--
are getting it!!
(and that gets eric Shaise the disturbed student from alaska and other
littl eparrots-
into pannic
ie toloose their 'gripp' on what they were gambling so long!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
Eric Gisse
Actually, it is.
>
> the issue is waht you and others pretent to know
> and it is obvious that you know very little
> you could not answer a simple basic question of the OP post
> i have no pretentions of knowing very much as yiou delude youself and
> others to know
> and that is my job to show
> to wake you from your paradize of fools and crooks
The question was answered already. The photon is massless.
>
> btw
> have a look at :
>
> http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
> and you will see how little i know.
You have no idea how true that is.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
Y.Porat
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > tony fleming wrote:
> > > > > tfle...@hotkey.net.au wrote:
> > > > > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20the%20Photon.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > > so may be you can tell us in figures
> > > > what is the smalles mass of a photon in KG??
> > >
> > > Zero - in whatever system of units you desire.
> > >------------------------
> > yes indeed that is the amount of brain in the students
> > parrot skull from Alaska
> > that cant finish his BSc
>
> Ah.
>
> Now you have moved on to the "Making shit up about my education" phase.
actually me and many others do not give much shit
about formal degrees
we have seen too many idiot PHds
and others that didnt have a high degree that were brilliant
not only in mumbling but in advancing science
scince is full examples of the other kind of people.....
now before being a scientist
one must be a **human being**.............................!!
Y.Porat
----------------------
Bob Cain
> ------------------------------------------------------
> very nice!
> now take that momentum and divide it by c
> and you will get themass
> that is log ago known to me
> yet
> i was thinking that if by any chance the op poster
> can get it
>
> **by another way or approach*
> IT COULD BE A NICE CROSS VERIFICATION TO MY CLAIMES
> actually i am not the only one with those claimes
>
> more and more cleaver open minded people
> (that are more physicists than dumb mathematicians)--
> are getting it!!
> (and that gets eric Shaise the disturbed student from alaska and other
> littl eparrots-
> into pannic
> ie toloose their 'gripp' on what they were gambling so long!!
How do you choose which words to misspell, catenate and split? What
decides where you will abandon English grammar and where you will keep
it intact? As this particular post very effectively demonstrates,
it's all quite artificial.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Me
"tony fleming" <tfle...@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:1169275834.6...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Ghost In The Machine
<y.y....@gmail.com>
wrote
on 21 Jan 2007 00:13:56 -0800
<1169367236.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
Not quite that simple. First, in Newtonian mathematics
E = 1/2 m v^2 and p = mv; therefore E = 1/2 p v
and p = 2E / v.
Second, v != c in Newtonian theory, although if one measures
from a point motionless to the source one gets either c
or c - w, depending on whether one assumes c relative
to the source, or one assumes c relative to a rigid aether
(where w is the velocity of the source relative thereto).
Of course all experiments to date tend to support
the notion that p = E/c (which can be derived from
the formula E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 with m=0), and
that a photon's speed is measured to be c no matter
what the motion of source and observer is.
Third, Hexenmeister hasn't a clue anyway. :-) The
round-trip time of a light pulse from here to the moon
is about 2.6 seconds, and is measured on a fairly routine
basis. Such measurements allow for precise determination
of the moon's motion.
(The data is available though I'd have to find it again.
I do know it's out there since I copied it at one point;
the data clearly shows the Earth's rotation and to a
lesser extent the Moon's changing distance between perigee
and apogee. I know there's an observatory in France that
took such measurements, and there are a few here in
the US as well.)
Also, as a very simple illustration, if one takes the
formula
x = r * cos(theta)
y = r * sin(theta)
and runs theta from 0 to 2*pi, the point (x,y) will travel
through a distance 2 * pi * r but the endpoints at theta=0
and theta=2*pi are coincident and therefore 0 units apart.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.
Y.Porat
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics, Y.Porat
> <y.y....@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on 21 Jan 2007 00:13:56 -0800
> <1169367236.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > >> >> > >
> >> > >> >
Thank you
now
i don't get into the question about speed of light
relevant to the mass of photon problem
2
the formula :
E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
does not apply to the photon !!!!
to understand it is the difference between a thinking physicist
and a mathematician that thinks he is a physicist!!
that formula is relevant only in a mixture case of particles
plus photons
for the photon it is only
E=mc^2 (which is the original formula of Einstein
so if
p=mc than
m=p/c
just as simple as that for the photon
(and of course there are many photons
ps
Mr Bob
how is the spelling now ?? (:-)
do you mind some physics as well ??
btw
if i am in a good mood i use the new spell checker of Google
it is a blessed new tool !!
anyway this is not a literature ng .....
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Eric Gisse
...because you are an idiot...
>
> 2
>
> the formula :
>
> E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
> does not apply to the photon !!!!
Actually, it does. You are just too stupid to see why.
> to understand it is the difference between a thinking physicist
> and a mathematician that thinks he is a physicist!!
Remind us, what is your education in physics?
That's right.
Shut the fuck up.
>
> that formula is relevant only in a mixture case of particles
> plus photons
Wrong.
>
> for the photon it is only
>
> E=mc^2 (which is the original formula of Einstein
Wrong.
> so if
> p=mc than
Also wrong.
>
> m=p/c
> just as simple as that for the photon
> (and of course there are many photons
*ALSO* wrong.
>
> ps
> Mr Bob
> how is the spelling now ?? (:-)
>
> do you mind some physics as well ??
> btw
> if i am in a good mood i use the new spell checker of Google
> it is a blessed new tool !!
> anyway this is not a literature ng .....
Yes, god forbid you learn to spell. This post took less than 45 seconds
to write out completely. If I can do it, so can you.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
hanson
who appears to function and be Porat's teacher and confidant in
news:1169486053.3...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
lectures and teaches his Pupil Porat:
>
> Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:
> to the The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> > --------------------------
>> Thank you. now
>> i don't get into the question about speed of light
>> relevant to the mass of photon problem
>
> ...because you, Porat, are an idiot...
>
[Yehi]
>> the formula :
>> E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
>> does not apply to the photon !!!!
>
> Actually, it does. You are just too stupid to see why.
>
>> to understand it is the difference between a thinking physicist
>> and a mathematician that thinks he is a physicist!!
>
> Remind us, what is your education in physics?
> That's right.
> Shut the fuck up.
>
>> that formula is relevant only in a mixture case of particles
>> plus photons
>
> Wrong.
>
[Yehi]
>> for the photon it is only
>> E=mc^2 (which is the original formula of Einstein
>
> Wrong.
>
[Yehi]
>> so if p=mc than
>
[Jower]
> Also wrong.
>
[Yehi]
>> m=p/c
>> just as simple as that for the photon
>> (and of course there are many photons
>
> *ALSO* wrong.
>
[Yehi]
>> ps Mr Bob how is the spelling now ?? (:-)
>>
> Yes, god forbid you learn to spell. This post took less than 45 seconds
> to write out completely. If I can do it, so can you.
>
>
... ahahahaha... Eric, at least you must give unconditional
credit to Yehi for him having labeled your as the "Jower".
Do you know what that means in Polska Yiddish?... ahahaha...
Listen, Jower, one day you'll make a fine physics teacher, but
the current social environment will not allow your above used
type of instruction. OTHO the situation may revert and be again
like it was when Prof. Fraunfelder used to lecture us:
"Anyone who does not get it right, right now... must line up in
front of the blackboard and I personally will stick a propeller in
your asshole and let you fly out of this august institution"...
Heidi, the only girl in class stared at him with saucer sized eyes,
in horror. Slowy, Fraunfelder walked up to her and yelled into her
face: "What are you looking at like this for !? I ain't fucking you, am I?"
Heidi cried and the terror went on..... ahahahaha...
A few days later Fraunfelder entered, smilingly waving a pink
letter of reprimand in front of us, looking at Heidi: "So, your
useless stud complained to the Admin on your behalf. You,
Miss Henning, are alright, but if I catch that Beau of yours I
will stick a propeller in his asshole also"...
Then very slowly & with deliberation Fraunfelder tore & shredded
his pink reprimand and threw the shreds in her face and said:
"Go to the Dean and his Admin goons and tell'em to come down
here so that I can stick propellers into the assholes too!....
Don't you little fools understand that I am educating you?"....
Jower, doesn't that feel like Balsam on your cold Alaskan soul?
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha....
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
MathMagician
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:sy8th.524$dN2.80@trnddc07...
> ... ahahahaha... Yehiel's Jower "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com>
> who appears to function and be Porat's teacher and confidant in
> news:1169486053.3...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Constipated Jower:
"I don't give a shit what you believe - it is wrong." 9 Nov 06
"I don't give a shit about philosophy." 16 Nov 06
"perhaps you could explain to me why I should give a shit? " 20 Nov 06
"Plus some other stuff like proofs, which I don't honestly give a shit
about. " 25 Oct 06
Until Jower is force-fed an enema he'll never get anywhere or understand mathematics.
hanson
news:IE9th.125275$MO2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in news:sy8th.524$dN2.80@trnddc07 ,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/87d3dbce97bae3fc
> ... ahahahaha... Yehiel's Jower "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com>
> who appears to function and be Porat's teacher and confidant in
> news:1169486053.3...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
Constipated Jower:
"I don't give a shit what you believe - it is wrong." 9 Nov 06
"I don't give a shit about philosophy." 16 Nov 06
"perhaps you could explain to me why I should give a shit? " 20 Nov 06
"Plus some other stuff like proofs, which I don't honestly give a shit
about. " 25 Oct 06
Until Jower is force-fed an enema he'll never get anywhere
or understand mathematics.
>
ahahaha.... AHAHAHA... You are a good diagnostician Dr. Andro.
But let me add that the cause for Jower's unsavory condition may
be "environmental": Low humidity of cold, arctic air in Fairbanks.
Desiccates him too much... or OTOH, perhaps....
Jower "don't give a shit" because Yehi doesn't wanna "take a shit"
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
MathMagician
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:thcth.5600$U81.1617@trnddc06...
must be hell in Alaska when they have to run to the Fairbanks
reading room in the snow.
http://tinyurl.com/3bhynp
I can see why giving a shit would be a big deal to an Esquimeaux
like Jower. As we say in England "Cold enough to freeze the balls
off a brass monkey".
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwordorigins/brassmonkeys
Actually this is the brass monkey the sailors were referring to, and what
did they care? But it's no longer politically correct on the internet to say so.
http://www.exoticandoriental.co.uk/acatalog/New-Brass-Buddha.jpg
Y.Porat
hahahaha
thanks for the laughs guys!!
anyway
lets forget about Gisse =Jower
and other disturbed leeches and creeps
we have no time for nonsense physics of parrots as them!!
let them play with their own shit
and we will march on !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
The Ghost In The Machine
<1169482425....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Nice try, but for a photon m = 0 and p = E/c.
The latter is readily verified by Compton scattering.
The former is a little more difficult; the best I can do
there is note that diffraction gratings work.
Yes, there is a connection! Briefly, a diffraction
grating is wavelength-dependent; in Newtonian theory,
the movement of the light source will not affect the
observed wavelength of the light. Since gratings are
routinely used to determine velocity (and observe
line shifts in the Frauenhofer lines), it's clear
Newton isn't at play here.
> (and of course there are many photons
>
> ps
> Mr Bob
> how is the spelling now ?? (:-)
>
> do you mind some physics as well ??
> btw
> if i am in a good mood i use the new spell checker of Google
> it is a blessed new tool !!
> anyway this is not a literature ng .....
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.
Pmb
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:08gj84-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
It is the proper mass (aka "rest mass") that has the value of zero. The
inertial mass (aka "relativistic mass") which has the value of m = p/v by
definition. Anything else and you're simply discussing semantics.
Pete
tony fleming
On Jan 21, 8:45 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > The_Man wrote:
> > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > > > tony fleming wrote:
> > > > > > > tflemi...@hotkey.net.au wrote:
> > > > > > > >http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mas...
>
> > > > > > > > Tony Fleming Ph.D.
>
> > > > > > > >www.unifiedphysics.com
> > > > > > > > tflem...@unifiedphysics.com
>
> > > > > > > this analytic expression for the mass of the photon comes from the
> > > > > > > self-field theory as applied to the hydrogen atom. It shows the
> > > > > > > internal workings of the atom to be a collision-based physics.
>
> > > > > Utter crap.
>
> > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > so may be you can tell us in figures
> > > > > > what is the smalles mass of a photon in KG??
>
> > > > > Zero - in whatever system of units you desire.
> > > > >------------------------
> > > > yes indeed that is the amount of brain in the students
> > > > parrot skull from Alaska
> > > > that cant finish his BSc
>
> > > Please tell us what degrees you have, and where you got them, so that
> > > we all know not to trust any graduates from those schools.
> > > ----------------------
> > th e issue is not what i know or notActually, it is.
>
>
>
> > the issue is waht you and others pretent to know
> > and it is obvious that you know very little
> > you could not answer a simple basic question of the OP post
> > i have no pretentions of knowing very much as yiou delude youself and
> > others to know
> > and that is my job to show
> > to wake you from your paradize of fools and crooksThe question was answered already. The photon is massless.
Eric here's an experiment for you:
SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Theory compared with experimental observation
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??
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20the%20Photon.pdf
What I want you to do is to calculate the relative error of teh two
mathematics SFT and QFT.
The Ghost In The Machine
<peter1025...@comcast.net>
wrote
on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:36:25 -0500
<M7OdnbgKHpBg4SrY...@comcast.com>:
An interesting subpoint. I am thinking rest mass but it's certainly
possible Y. Porat would prefer relativistic mass; however, AIUI
relativistic mass is a bit out of fashion anyway.
>
> Pete
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
while(bit&BITMASK) ;
Y.Porat
On Jan 25, 5:03 am, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, Pmb
> <peter102560_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote
> on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:36:25 -0500
> <M7OdnbgKHpBg4SrYnZ2dnUVZ_vqpn...@comcast.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> >news:08gj84-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> >> In sci.physics, Y.Porat
> >> <y.y.po...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote
> >> on 22 Jan 2007 08:13:45 -0800
> >> <1169482425.622578.68...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>>> In sci.physics, Y.Porat
> >>>> <y.y.po...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote
> >>>> on 21 Jan 2007 00:13:56 -0800
> >>>> <1169367236.206891.309...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
> > definition. Anything else and you're simply discussing semantics.An interesting subpoint. I am thinking rest mass but it's certainly
> possible Y. Porat would prefer relativistic mass; however, AIUI
> relativistic mass is a bit out of fashion anyway.
> -----------------------------
'''Y,Porat wouild prefer relativistic mass????????!!!!!'''
i am the last one on earth to prefere relativistic mass
my innovation idea is that
THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS:
REST MASS!!
it can be in motion but still the same rest mass (in motion)
and rest mass in motion is energy !!
no mass --no real physics !!
(hey!! how could you come to your stragne' quoting' of me??
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
>
>
> > Pete--
> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
> Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
> while(bit&BITMASK) ;
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Y.Porat
> > > to wake you from your paradize of fools and crooksThe question was answered already. The photon is massless.Eric here's an experiment for you:
>
> SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Theory compared with experimental observation
>
> 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??http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%2...
>
> What I want you to do is to calculate the relative error of teh two
> mathematics SFT and QFT.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
---------------------------------
and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result
of my prediction a few years ago
it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system )
the smallest posible photon mass!!!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Pmb
I can't see that relativistic mass is out of fashion. In fact my GR textbook
by Schutz uses it. There is a list of people that use the concept on the
internet from univeresities to national labs. Ask yourselfd this question -
If a person teaches the concept of rel-mass then wouldn't it seem strange if
he himself never used it?
For a list of textbooks, universitiess and national labs that use it please
see
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/relativistic_mass.htm
Notice especially this
Cern - The Cyclotron
"The real limiting factor is the basic design - all particles must orbit at
the same frequency, whatever their speed. As particles approach the speed of
light, however, they behave as if their mass is increasing. Accelerating
them becomes more difficult and they start to lag behind the oscillating
electric field. As cyclotrons approached 20 MeV they began to reach their
limits and a new design had to be produced."
Notice that it simply says "mass" and *not* "relativistic mass". Some people
claim that this does not exist today.
Pete
Autymn D. C.
> and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result
> of my prediction a few years ago
> it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system )
> the smallest posible photon mass!!!!
h/cc = Et/cc = mt
That's not mass, retard. The mass, anyhow, applies to the matter that
the fotòn leaves off.
-Aut
tony fleming
> ------------------------------ Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Y. the SFT expression is m_gamma = h_bar*vel_electron/(4*c^3) which
evaluates to 0.214 x 10^(-53) kg. as per the abstract.
The Ghost In The Machine
<R8udnQTI6MtDPyXY...@comcast.com>:
I wouldn't know; I don't think I ever got that far. :-)
>
> For a list of textbooks, universitiess and national labs that use it please
> see
> http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/relativistic_mass.htm
>
> Notice especially this
>
> Cern - The Cyclotron
>
> "The real limiting factor is the basic design - all particles must orbit at
> the same frequency, whatever their speed. As particles approach the speed of
> light, however, they behave as if their mass is increasing. Accelerating
> them becomes more difficult and they start to lag behind the oscillating
> electric field. As cyclotrons approached 20 MeV they began to reach their
> limits and a new design had to be produced."
One of the more interesting aspects -- which Dumbledore
aka Androcles aka Hexenmeister aka Whatever The Hell He
Is This Week doesn't appear to be able to get around in
a nice fashion -- is that the specifications of the Large
Hadron Collider require near-c for the proton, since the
beam frequency is 11.245 kHz around a just-shy-of-27
km circumference, with an energy (7 TeV) that, were
this a Newtonian universe, have them going more than
120x lightspeed. Admittedly, there is the problem of
brehmsstrahlung, but I doubt it's major.
>
> Notice that it simply says "mass" and *not* "relativistic mass". Some people
> claim that this does not exist today.
Both are concepts anyway. One can measure mass by using
a pan scale, but that's not a direct measurement of mass;
it's more a counterbalancing of two torques caused by two
masses in a uniform (within a few millions or billionths of
a percent, anyway) gravitational field [*]. In a weightless
environment, one might be able to use magnetic fields
if both masses are known to be ferromagnetic, or just
spin the entire space station and carefully position the
scale so that its pivot point is directly underneath the
spindle (so that one approximate the uniform centripetal
acceleration again).
One can measure weight by using Hooke's law and careful
calibration.
Ideally, we'd actually *count* Avogadro's Number
(6.022 * 10^23) and define that as 12 grams of carbon.
At 1 femtosecond an atom it would only take just over 19
years. :-) We might cheat a bit by counting only
5.01833 * 10^22 atoms, and get 1 gram of carbon; that would
only take 1.59 years or so -- assuming Maxwell's Demon is
willing to work for us for that long.
And of course an accelerator has to take into account
the increase in relativistic mass as the proton increases
speed. Otherwise, the beam goes out of sync. Presumably,
the LHC developers know what they're doing (I don't, but
then I don't claim to be a particle physicist :-) ).
>
> Pete
>
[*] the so-called "doctor's scale" can be thought of as an
assymetric pan scale.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);
Me
You can weigh it by using a light beam trapped betwen mirrors, weigh before
and after inserting the light.
You could use a semi - silvered mirror facing a normal mirror put in a
microbalance in darkness and then put a beam from a laser through the half
silvered part.
The mass will increase by nhf/c^2 where in the the average number of trapped
photons.
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1169828790....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
tony fleming
On Jan 27, 9:34 pm, "Me" <m...@myself.com> wrote:
> The correct and exact answer if hf/c^2 the mass depends on the frequency.
>
> You can weigh it by using a light beam trapped betwen mirrors, weigh before
> and after inserting the light.
>
> You could use a semi - silvered mirror facing a normal mirror put in a
> microbalance in darkness and then put a beam from a laser through the half
> silvered part.
>
> The mass will increase by nhf/c^2 where in the the average number of trapped
> photons.
>
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:1169828790....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result
> > of my prediction a few years ago
> > it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system )
> > the smallest posible photon mass!!!!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
an experiment for you all:
SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Theory compared with experimental observation
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??
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%2...
What I want you to do is to calculate the relative error of the two
mathematics SFT and QFT.
Dumbledore_
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:1j8r84-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Why even bother with illiterate "bown" ?
He's soon dropped his Best Wishes.
Autymn D. C.
> Y. the SFT expression is m_gamma = h_bar*vel_electron/(4*c^3) which
> evaluates to 0.214 x 10^(-53) kg. as per the abstract.
m_jamma "=" 'h'v_e/4ccc
= Etv_e/4ccc2pi
= mtv_e/4c2pi
= ms_e/4c2pi
-> You are a dumb liar.
The "vel" would need to be acceleration; even then, the last c is a
fake rate as it'd need to apply to a boost and not be there for the
sake of celerity, or wavely propagation.
-Aut
Y.Porat
On Jan 26, 6:26 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result
> > of my prediction a few years ago
> > it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system )
> > the smallest posible photon mass!!!!h/cc = Et/cc = mt
>
> That's not mass, retard. The mass, anyhow, applies to the matter that
> the fotòn leaves off.
>
> -Aut
------------------------------
retard
you have to multiply it by
1.0000/time unit
i thought it is obvius even to a retard like you
i was meaning the
NUMERIC FIGURE!!
got it parrot ??
see my thread:
'The mass of the photon defined theoretically
by Y.Porat'
from a few years ago
not goos spelling there
but good physics
i told you parrot
that generally you see some trees
but you dont see the forest
may be even not trees but some falling leaves (:-)
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Autymn D. C.
> On Jan 26, 6:26 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:> Y.Porat wrote:
> > > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result
> > > of my prediction a few years ago
> > > it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system )
> > > the smallest posible photon mass!!!!
> h/cc = Et/cc = mt
>
> > That's not mass, retard. The mass, anyhow, applies to the matter that
> > the fotòn leaves off.
> retard
> you have to multiply it by
>
> 1.0000/time unit
As you'v no time unit, you'v no smallest mass.
> i thought it is obvius even to a retard like you
> i was meaning the
> NUMERIC FIGURE!!
>
> got it parrot ??
parrot of whom?
-Aut
Y.Porat
> On Jan 29, 1:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 6:26 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:> Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result
> > > > of my prediction a few years ago
> > > > it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system )
> > > > the smallest posible photon mass!!!!
> > h/cc = Et/cc = mt
>
> > > That's not mass, retard. The mass, anyhow, applies to the matter that
> > > the fotòn leaves off.
> > retard
> > you have to multiply it by
>
> > 1.0000/time unit
>
> As you'v no time unit, you'v no smallest mass.
--------------------
the time unit is just formally to get even with the dimesion analysis
numerically in the MKS system it is
h/c^2
and it fits nicely to the experiments
thought those experiments are
not subtle enough as it is now
(the experimental tools as now
ar enot acuarate enough)
and even so
it is close enough to the experimental results
>
> ---------------
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
----------------------
so please calculate the value of
h/c^2 in mks
and see what you get ..............!!!
and i have even a physical explanation to it:
h is indivisible !!!
it can be only in whole units
and 1.000xh is the smallest
the c^2
is just to get even withthe dimensions of mass
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Y.Porat
> The correct and exact answer if hf/c^2 the mass depends on the frequency.
>
> You can weigh it by using a light beam trapped betwen mirrors, weigh before
> and after inserting the light.
>
> You could use a semi - silvered mirror facing a normal mirror put in a
> microbalance in darkness and then put a beam from a laser through the half
> silvered part.
>
> The mass will increase by nhf/c^2 where in the the average number of trapped
> photons.
>
>
>
>
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result
> > of my prediction a few years ago
> > it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system )
>
> - Show quoted text -
i tend to agree
at least theoretically
9because as for now
i donmt see a tool that can
measure photon mass exatly)
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Autymn D. C.
> The correct and exact answer if hf/c^2 the mass depends on the frequency.
>
> You can weigh it by using a light beam trapped betwen mirrors, weigh before
> and after inserting the light.
>
> You could use a semi - silvered mirror facing a normal mirror put in a
> microbalance in darkness and then put a beam from a laser through the half
> silvered part.
>
> The mass will increase by nhf/c^2 where in the the average number of trapped
> photons.
still the mass of the matter, not of the fotòns--liht is by definition
a happening, not a thing