Re: MASS OF THE PHOTON?
FrediFizzx
news:b337f5db.04112...@posting.google.com...
| AN ANALYSIS OF THE
| ENERGY-MOMENTUM 4 VECTOR EQUATION
| AND THE MASSLESS PARTICLE
|
|
|
| A wise man once said, regarding theoretical physicists, "They are
| often 'algebraically' correct in their 'proofs', while fumbling on the
| interpretation."
|
| Einstein gives the mass of radiation as m = E/c^2, that of the photon
| being
| h nu/c^2.
|
| The energy of the photon is given as E = pc = h nu.
|
| Then there is the oft misinterpretation of the energy-momentum 4
| vector equation.
|
| One interpretation of the said equation, E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, is
| as follows:
|
| "If we set the m in the right hand first term to zero, then we get E =
| pc
| which we know is true. This shows that the mass of the photon is
| zero."
|
| THE FALLACY:
|
| Following is a brilliant analysis by Jim Redgewell:
|
|
|
|
| EINSTEIN'S ENERGY FORMULA
|
| Page created 9 February 2003 www.daftwat.com
|
| Many people are familiar with the formula E = mc² , but this is a
| simplified version of the following formula:
|
| E^2 = mc^2 + p^2 c^2
|
|
| This formula takes into account the momentum 'p'. When p = 0, then E =
| mc².
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
| INTERJECTION by vergon:
| It is imperative to note here that first and foremost, mathematical
| expressions are required to reflect the physical conditions.
| In this case there are two ways to set p to zero. One is to have the
| object at rest - then as a result mc^2 is the rest energy at rest. The
| other is to set p to 0 by setting the mass to 0 then both m and p
| would be 0 and E would equal 0. Redgewell has obviously chosen the
| former.
| We must exercise caution and practice astuteness when manipulating
| mathematics.
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
|
| PYTHAGORAS
| The formula can be written differently to show that it is in fact
| based upon the Pythagoras theorem:
|
| E^2= (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
|
| ENERGY
| The next observation to be made, is that the above formula is in fact
| the following two formulas applied at right angles to each other.
|
|
| E = hf E = mc^2
|
| Obviously, the next step is to prove that pc = hf. So let's start with
| the formula for wavelength:
|
|
| lambda = h/p
|
|
| THE MATHS
| .
| p = h/lambda c = f lambda pc = h/lambda x f lambda . . pc
| = hf
|
| So the maths has worked out well. So basically, the formula has two
| energy functions which are vectors applied at 90° to each other. One
| of the energy functions is for matter at rest and the other is for
| matter in motion.
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
| INTERJECTION:
| This author is not sure what Redgewell means by " matter in motion".
| Since the equations above used to develop this result are equations of
| radiation (photon) then we can assume the matter spoken of is the mass
| of the photon. This would be distinct from ponderable mass (physical
| bodies) the kinetic energy given for such being E = (gamma -1) mc^2.
| Therefore, the energy-momentum 4 vector equation is not applicable to
| ponderous mass. This despite the fact it was developed, in part, from
| the equation for ponderable mass.
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
| PHOTONS
| The rest mass of a photon is zero, so the first part of the equation
| tends to zero. A photon travels at the velocity of light and at this
| speed it has mass. Therefore, the energy of a photon is given by the
| second part of the equation. So a photon has a momentum of mc and
| therefore, the energy of a photon is pc, and is equal to mc². So once
| again E = mc².
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
|
| COMMENT:
|
| We have here a peculiar coincidence. mc^2 is the kinetic energy of the
| photon - but also the rest energy of ponderous mass.
|
| Or is it a coincidence? We might draw the conclusion that the rest
| energy of ponderous mass is convertible to the kinetic energy of the
| photon - both being mc^2, i.e., with no change in absolute dimensions.
| Of course the atomic bomb proves this true.
|
|
|
| In further consideration, every equation for momentum contains MASS
| and motion. Therefore, E = pc states that the photon in flight has
| momentum, p = (h nu/c). And we observe (h nu/c^2) = m. Thus
|
| (h nu/c^2)c = mc = p -- and pc = mc^2.
|
| Therefore, we see that whereas mc^2 is the rest energy for a ponderous
| mass it is also the kinetic energy of a photon.
|
|
| We also note that the photon in flight possess momentum and that there
| can be no momentum without mass. Therefore, the photon possess mass.
| This is the same position taken by Einstein when he declared the mass
| of radiation to be m = E/c^2.
|
| When faced with that fact, those who misinterpret the equation try to
| maintain their position of a mass-less photon by declaring a new
| physics whereby there exists momentum with no mass.
|
| The problem is, they cannot substantiate that.
|
| The overall result is that there is no such thing as a mass-less
| particle -- of any kind.
Only if you want to think that gauge bosons are like fermions.
| The objective universe consists only of matter, the space between
| matter - and the motion of matter in that space. All else are concepts
| in the mind of man.
|
| If matter (mass) is removed, there is left only empty space.
Well, that certainly is debatable. If we have an electromagnetic field in
this "empty" space, is it really empty? Does the EM field have mass? Or
just energy?
FrediFizzx
Y.Porat
> AN ANALYSIS OF THE
> ENERGY-MOMENTUM 4 VECTOR EQUATION
> AND THE MASSLESS PARTICLE
>
>
>
> A wise man once said, regarding theoretical physicists, "They are
> Therefore, the energy-momentum 4 vector equation is not applicable to
> ponderous mass. This despite the fact it was developed, in part, from
> the equation for ponderable mass.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> PHOTONS
> The rest mass of a photon is zero, so the first part of the equation
> tends to zero. A photon travels at the velocity of light and at this
> speed it has mass. Therefore, the energy of a photon is given by the
> second part of the equation. So a photon has a momentum of mc and
> therefore, the energy of a photon is pc, and is equal to mc². So once
> again E = mc².
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> COMMENT:
>
> We have here a peculiar coincidence. mc^2 is the kinetic energy of the
>
> Or is it a coincidence? We might draw the conclusion that the rest
> energy of ponderous mass is convertible to the kinetic energy of the
> Of course the atomic bomb proves this true.
>
>
>
> In further consideration, every equation for momentum contains MASS
> and motion. Therefore, E = pc states that the photon in flight has
> momentum, p = (h nu/c). And we observe (h nu/c^2) = m. Thus
>
>
> Therefore, we see that whereas mc^2 is the rest energy for a ponderous
> mass it is also the kinetic energy of a photon.
>
>
> We also note that the photon in flight possess momentum and that there
> can be no momentum without mass. Therefore, the photon possess mass.
> This is the same position taken by Einstein when he declared the mass
> of radiation to be m = E/c^2.
>
> When faced with that fact, those who misinterpret the equation try to
> maintain their position of a mass-less photon by declaring a new
> physics whereby there exists momentum with no mass.
>
> The problem is, they cannot substantiate that.
>
> The overall result is that there is no such thing as a mass-less
> particle -- of any kind.
>
> in the mind of man.
>
> If matter (mass) is removed, there is left only empty space.
>
>
>
> 1998
--------------
Hi Vergon
i agree to most of your article
see my thread:
'The mass of the photon defined theoretically by Y.Porat'
which it seems that it was that article that arouse you
into that issue
now
i dont agree with you that 'the rest mass os the photon is zero'
one of my postulates sayes that:
any physical phenomena that can be sensed , directly or indirectly
throgh our senses - has mass!!'
there is only ** one kind of mass**
no relativistic and no 'shmelativistic' mass
so energy is mass in motion (even energy 'has mass'!)
now in my above thread i claimed that
E(photon) = h/C^2 times 1.000/time unit (in mks it is just 1.0000)
and i claimed that the above is the *smallest photon mass* because.....
*photons* hase many masses (depends on how many 'f' they have
in each individual case.
and i claimed as a result that there is no smaller photon mass than the above,
and experimantal data until now is not far away from that theoretic prediction.
we cannot at this stage know 'exactly' about the acuracy of that data
iow the experimental data is not idle (fine?) enough at this stage
to decide about the differnece between the above prediction, and existing data.
all the best
Y.porat
------------------
Josef Matz
Could the photon mass explain the einsteins angle when passing the sun ?
Could the photon field at mercur explain the perihelion movement ?
I am not an expert in SR mechanics and GR mechanics. Can anybody answer this
?
V ertner Vergon
Vergon:
Good point. Another poster and I were discussing dark matter (which he
brought up)and I opined the same thing. That radiation permeated the
universe -- and that since it has mass it and neutrinos may account
for most if not all of dark matter.
V ertner Vergon
VERGON:
Sorry to bust your bubble but that is not true. I wrote a book in 1976
that had the mass -- not of the photon -- but of the elemental unit of
which a multiplcity composed the photon. In short h/c^2 is the mass of
the element that makes up the photon.
That unit I called "THE quantum".
It is also the mass of the quantum that makes up the mass of the
electron, proton and neutron. In short, the same element is the
composition of light and ponderous matter. That is obvious in pair
production and the atom bomb where one is converted to the other.
The frequency of a particle or photon reveals how many quanta it is
composed of. Each element of frequency is a quantum. That's why the
frequency number of the particle (or photon) times the mass of the
quantum yields the mass of the particle or photon. n * m_quantum =
m_particle
After the book, I went on to show that the quantum had spin and that
created the electric moment and the magnetic moment -- which together
produce e m rdiation.
I agree with your postulate -- and have one of my own which more or
less says the same thing:
POSTULATE:
The objective universe consists only of matter, the space between
matter and the motion of matter in that space. All else are concepts
in the mind of man.
*****
e m radiation is the movement of matter through space.
> now
> i dont agree with you that 'the rest mass os the photon is zero'
VERGON:
When a photon is absorbed, the mass of the photon becomes part of the
mass of the absorbing body (electron, actually). The photon no longer
exists. Since it no longer exists we can, in that sense, say it has no
mass.
Best regards,
Vert
FrediFizzx
I think your problem is that you think mass and energy are the same thing.
An EM field generally has no mass. A photon has no mass. However a system
of two or more photons can have mass in a loose sense. It is not what I
would call "practical" mass. In my vacuum charge theory, photons do not
even need to have mass. So why give it to them? The radiation permeating
the Universe does not account for dark matter. That would be dark energy if
anything.
FrediFizzx
Y.Porat
> > Hi Vergon
> > i agree to most of your article
> > see my thread:
> > 'The mass of the photon defined theoretically by Y.Porat'
> > which it seems that it was that article that arouse you
> > into that issue.
>
> VERGON:
>
> Sorry to bust your bubble but that is not true. I wrote a book in 1976
> that had the mass -- not of the photon -- but of the elemental unit of
> which a multiplcity composed the photon. In short h/c^2 is the mass of
> the element that makes up the photon.
> That unit I called "THE quantum".
i came to my suggestion of the photon mass independant and not knowing
about your book
actually untill now i have no idea about whats in your book
it was a development of threads and fierce discussions with
Bjoern feuerbacher that (to be honest was the 'cathalisator'
to that finding
only that he rejects untill this very moment, my above findings.
2 h\C2 is not mass just check th eunits
it has to be multilplied by (timeunit) exp -1
anyway we agree that numerically in the mks system it is
*the smallest posible mass* after correcting the units.
---------------
>
> It is also the mass of the quantum that makes up the mass of the
> electron, proton and neutron. In short, the same element is the
> composition of light and ponderous matter. That is obvious in pair
> production and the atom bomb where one is converted to the other.
>
> The frequency of a particle or photon reveals how many quanta it is
> composed of. Each element of frequency is a quantum. That's why the
> frequency number of the particle (or photon) times the mass of the
> quantum yields the mass of the particle or photon. n * m_quantum =
> m_particle
----------
ok it seems that we agree that energy is mass inmotion!!
that is as well a conclusion of mine utterly independant of
your conclusions. ie i got it as an extrapolation of
what is known from macrocosm.
imho in that sense macrocosm is not different than microcosm!
---------------
>
> After the book, I went on to show that the quantum had spin and that
> created the electric moment and the magnetic moment -- which together
> produce e m rdiation.
and did you suceeded with it ?
>
> I agree with your postulate -- and have one of my own which more or
> less says the same thing:
>
> POSTULATE:
>
> The objective universe consists only of matter, the space between
> matter and the motion of matter in that space. All else are concepts
> in the mind of man.
> *****
--------------
in additin to it :
space is *nothing* and nothing cannot have proprrties
except giving the dustance between particles and matter
so space has no 'curvature' and no 'shmervature'
is that as well your postulates??
what makes any attraction force is
a basic paerticle that i call 'the Circlon)
that moves *naturally* in aclosed circle!!
is that as well one of yoyur postulates ???
------------------
>
> e m radiation is the movement of matter through space.
>
>
>
> > now
> > i dont agree with you that 'the rest mass os the photon is zero'
>
> VERGON:
>
> When a photon is absorbed, the mass of the photon becomes part of the
> mass of the absorbing body (electron, actually). The photon no longer
> exists. Since it no longer exists we can, in that sense, say it has no
> mass.
----------------------
that is not (imho) and argument that the photon has no *rest mass*
so here again is a difference btween us
the photon migh tbe absorbed but we cannot detect the mass increment
of that new combinatin only because .....
the different in rest mass of the combination is too tiny
for our instruments!!
best regards
Y.Porat
-----------------
>