Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Photon and Matter = Life and Death.
29 views
Skip to first unread message
sadovnik socratus
May 18, 2013, 7:19:48 AM5/18/13
to
Photon and Matter = Life and Death.
=.
Why is connection between Photon and Matter is equal
to connection between Life and Death ?
My explanation.
QED try to understand the interaction between photon
and matter. In 1985 Richard Feynman wrote the result
of QED's searching :
‘ The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.
. . . . . . . . . . .
The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter page 10. /
=..
Can Nature be absurd ?
Is our intellect or Nature absurd ?
The answer is simple: Nature is in a harmony but our
acceptation and meaning of It is absurd.
==.
Light, quantum of light (photon) is a particle which takes very
important part in our life.
The interaction of photon with matter is possible to observe
in crystals and in vital organisms.
(every living being needs light / photon.)
Now everyone think that photon is an undeveloped particle and
it seems nonsense to say that photon can evolve,
taking interaction from simple to complex system and
be bearer of information / consciousness.
But on the one hand, nobody knows what photon is.
On the other hand , photon can move with different speeds:
constant speed c=1 , and faster c>1, and in my opinion
can have zero speed c=0.
( the common opinion that photon never can stop is not a law,
it is a supposition)
And if photon can use two different inner impulses (spin)
h ( photon behaves like corpuscular )
and h*=h/2pi ( photon behaves like wave )
for its independent movement
( it means photon itself decided how to act,
what kind of movement to do) then I say:
to take decision how to act can only a thinking particle.
And as in the ancient Veda is written t the consciousness
can develop from a vague wish to a clear thought.
=.
The simplest atom hydrogen consists on proton and electron.
Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV.
But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out from
atom as a quantum of light with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron
emits quantum of light, but where this quantum of light is hidden
in the electron, in which pocket ?)
So, it is possible to say that atom with photon/ electron is
absolutely
different from atom without photon/ electron.
The atom with photon/ electron is a living system.
The atom without photon/ electron is a dead system.
The same is about complex and biological atoms.
===..
In the ancient Veda also is written that the Universe is consist on
two
different particles: purusha ( a spiritual or conscious element )
and
prakrti ( a mechanical-matter particle)
The interaction between mind /consciousness elements
(purusha- photon/ electron) and matter particles (prakrti- proton )
created everything.
==.
There is nothing new under the Sun:
every new idea has some sort of precedent or echo from the past.
===..==.
All the best
Israel Socratus
===…
P.S.
I want to thank awori achoka and Philip Benjamin :
reading their comments helped me to come to this conclusion.
=.
=.
Why is connection between Photon and Matter is equal
to connection between Life and Death ?
My explanation.
QED try to understand the interaction between photon
and matter. In 1985 Richard Feynman wrote the result
of QED's searching :
‘ The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.
. . . . . . . . . . .
The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter page 10. /
=..
Can Nature be absurd ?
Is our intellect or Nature absurd ?
The answer is simple: Nature is in a harmony but our
acceptation and meaning of It is absurd.
==.
Light, quantum of light (photon) is a particle which takes very
important part in our life.
The interaction of photon with matter is possible to observe
in crystals and in vital organisms.
(every living being needs light / photon.)
Now everyone think that photon is an undeveloped particle and
it seems nonsense to say that photon can evolve,
taking interaction from simple to complex system and
be bearer of information / consciousness.
But on the one hand, nobody knows what photon is.
On the other hand , photon can move with different speeds:
constant speed c=1 , and faster c>1, and in my opinion
can have zero speed c=0.
( the common opinion that photon never can stop is not a law,
it is a supposition)
And if photon can use two different inner impulses (spin)
h ( photon behaves like corpuscular )
and h*=h/2pi ( photon behaves like wave )
for its independent movement
( it means photon itself decided how to act,
what kind of movement to do) then I say:
to take decision how to act can only a thinking particle.
And as in the ancient Veda is written t the consciousness
can develop from a vague wish to a clear thought.
=.
The simplest atom hydrogen consists on proton and electron.
Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV.
But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out from
atom as a quantum of light with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron
emits quantum of light, but where this quantum of light is hidden
in the electron, in which pocket ?)
So, it is possible to say that atom with photon/ electron is
absolutely
different from atom without photon/ electron.
The atom with photon/ electron is a living system.
The atom without photon/ electron is a dead system.
The same is about complex and biological atoms.
===..
In the ancient Veda also is written that the Universe is consist on
two
different particles: purusha ( a spiritual or conscious element )
and
prakrti ( a mechanical-matter particle)
The interaction between mind /consciousness elements
(purusha- photon/ electron) and matter particles (prakrti- proton )
created everything.
==.
There is nothing new under the Sun:
every new idea has some sort of precedent or echo from the past.
===..==.
All the best
Israel Socratus
===…
P.S.
I want to thank awori achoka and Philip Benjamin :
reading their comments helped me to come to this conclusion.
=.
Y.Porat
May 18, 2013, 7:26:15 AM5/18/13
to
did you know that the photon has mass
the only regular mass ie not relativistic mass??
did you see my prove for that ???
TIA
Y.Porat
================================
john
May 18, 2013, 11:14:04 AM5/18/13
to
On Saturday, 18 May 2013 05:19:48 UTC-6, sadovnik socratus wrote:
snippage...
There is incoming energy from all the other matter
in the Universe- at many, many different-but-connected
frequencies. The proton is absorbing these energies-
thus creating gravity and inertia- and when parts of
the electron fall back to the center BECAUSE they
are no longer radiating, they are given these energies
and shot back out to continue being part of the
cloud of radiating bodies that makes up an electron.
When there is more incoming energy than the proton needs
to replace what the electron is using, it collects at the
poles as a pair of 'accretion discs', which will grow,
pushing the electron structure to a higher-energy
configuration. When the pair of discs get big enough to
push the electrons to their next 'sweet spot', the
sudden change causes the discs to repel each other away
from the atom as a pair of photons.
john
snippage...
>
> But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out from
>
> atom as a quantum of light with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron
>
> emits quantum of light, but where this quantum of light is hidden
>
> in the electron, in which pocket ?)
>
I will explain to you where the photon comes from.
> But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out from
>
> atom as a quantum of light with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron
>
> emits quantum of light, but where this quantum of light is hidden
>
> in the electron, in which pocket ?)
>
There is incoming energy from all the other matter
in the Universe- at many, many different-but-connected
frequencies. The proton is absorbing these energies-
thus creating gravity and inertia- and when parts of
the electron fall back to the center BECAUSE they
are no longer radiating, they are given these energies
and shot back out to continue being part of the
cloud of radiating bodies that makes up an electron.
When there is more incoming energy than the proton needs
to replace what the electron is using, it collects at the
poles as a pair of 'accretion discs', which will grow,
pushing the electron structure to a higher-energy
configuration. When the pair of discs get big enough to
push the electrons to their next 'sweet spot', the
sudden change causes the discs to repel each other away
from the atom as a pair of photons.
john
sadovnik socratus
May 18, 2013, 11:52:01 PM5/18/13
to
I am simple sure that photon must have mass in vacuum.
#
A New Limit on Photon Mass.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
=.
But I am also sure that the mass and energy of photon
becomes different when it jumps out from vacuum
==.
sadovnik socratus
May 19, 2013, 12:17:54 AM5/19/13
to
My explanation is much simpler:
About 96% of the matter in the whole Universe is unseen
dark matter/energy. Nobody knows what it is.
And only about 4% is physical /classical matter.
It is possible to suggest that from
96% of unseen dark matter/energy was created the 4%
of the known matter.
It is possible to suggest that this unseen dark matter/energy
consist on virtual particles (according to Dirac) and they can become
(in some way, for example - through vacuum fluctuation)
real particles (for example: photons and electrons|).
And these real particles created the visual matter universe.
All the best
socratus
Y.Porat
May 19, 2013, 3:43:16 AM5/19/13
to
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:52:01 AM UTC+3, sadovnik socratus wrote:
> On May 18, 2:26 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:19:48 PM UTC+3, sadovnik socratus wrote:
>
> > > Photon and Matter = Life and Death.
>
> >
>
> > > =.
>
> >
> On May 18, 2:26 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:19:48 PM UTC+3, sadovnik socratus wrote:
>
> > > Photon and Matter = Life and Death.
>
> >
>
> > > =.
>
> >
> ilip Benjamin :
>
> >
>
> > > reading their comments helped me to come to this conclusion.
>
> >
>
> > > =.
>
> >
>
> > =======================
>
> > did you know that the photon has mass
>
> > the only regular mass ie not relativistic mass??
>
> >
>
> > did you see my prove for that ???
>
> >
>
> > TIA
>
> > Y.Porat
>
> > ================================
>
Sadovnik wrote
>
> >
>
> > > reading their comments helped me to come to this conclusion.
>
> >
>
> > > =.
>
> >
>
> > =======================
>
> > did you know that the photon has mass
>
> > the only regular mass ie not relativistic mass??
>
> >
>
> > did you see my prove for that ???
>
> >
>
> > TIA
>
> > Y.Porat
>
> > ================================
>
>
> I didn't see your prove that photon has mass.
>
> I am simple sure that photon must have mass in vacuum.
>
> #
>
> A New Limit on Photon Mass.
>
> http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
>
>
>
> =.
>
> But I am also sure that the mass and energy of photon
>
> becomes different when it jumps out from vacuum
>
> ==.
========================
> I didn't see your prove that photon has mass.
>
> I am simple sure that photon must have mass in vacuum.
>
> #
>
> A New Limit on Photon Mass.
>
> http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
>
>
>
> =.
>
> But I am also sure that the mass and energy of photon
>
> becomes different when it jumps out from vacuum
>
> ==.
Porat wrights in answer :
ok i will do again for you the prove
it is astonishing simple !!
and historically important
BTW done copy rightly about more than 5 years ago
it is based the Plank historic formula
E=hf
h dimension is
6.4 exp -24 times Kilogram meter ^2 /second
( quote from memory i am not sure about the -24
anyway no difference )
and than times f ie number of cycles per second
-----
the main point is in the dimensions of h
so
we have above in h -- Kilograms right
now the punch question
where the hell you see in that hf formula
ANYTHING TO MULTIPLY THOSE KILOGRAMS
WITH ZERO
OR ANY GAMMA FACTOR (1/( 1/1 -v@/c^2)
??
in short
there is nothing in that plank formula
to multiply those kilograms
not by zero nor by any gamma factor
CONCLUSIONS
THE KILOGRAMS OF MASS THERE (in hf )
ARE
THE ORDINARY MASS
NOT ZERO NOR RELATIVISTIC
JUST THE ORDINARY KILOGRAMS OF MASS !!!
BTW
later i defined the smallest phootn energy:
E MIn = hf times n
while
0 > n <<<< 1.000 !!
ie
H=hf is not the smallest single photon photon energy
but the above formula of mine
and even later i equated that n to
the
SCALAR PART OF PLANK TIME
and got the
the smallest photon energy is
about exp -80 joule
and the smallest photon mass
about (listen carefully
about exp -90 Kilograms of the ordibnary mass !!
and now you understand why it is considered zero
but
IT IS NOT ZERO THEORETICALLY
AND IT IS REVOLUTIONARY IMPORTANT
FOR INSTANCE
IF ENERGY HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS
NO NEED FOR THE F EN HIGGS BOSON TO 'GIVE MASS TO ALL PARTICLE
BECAUSE guess what )
BECAUSE IT IS ENERGY WHICH GIVES MASS TO PARTICLES !!
just as simple as that (E = m c ^2 as well
and the photon as i prved above has mass
that can move at c !!
(an exception case of mass movement
because even mathematically
while v -c gamma factor in undefined
O K ?)
Q E D
-----
TIA
Y.Porat
======================================================
Y.Porat
May 19, 2013, 7:37:36 AM5/19/13
to
Mr Sodovnik
you didn t answer if you agree with /understand
my above prove that
THE PHOTON HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS
THOUGH EXTREMELY SMALL NOT ZERO AND NOT RELATIVISTIC MASS !!
TIA
Y.Porat
=====================
hanson
May 19, 2013, 10:15:12 AM5/19/13
to
Sadly "sadovnik socratus" from soc. ratus
<is.so...@gmail.com> wrote:
=.Photon and Matter = Life and Death.=.
Israel Socratus
>
hanson wrote:
Isi listen. You certainly have the gift of gab when you don't
suck ratus. So, the only interesting but not new speculation
of yours is about the origin of Dark matter, which you can
look up on the web in great detail.
>
Since you have posted some equations like
E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV, I trust that you may find interest
in a semi quantitative speculation of the ratio of Luminous vs.
Dark matter, that has been around since Sommerfeld
introduced the fine-structure constant (a) in 1916.
>
It is defined as a = e^2/(hbar*c) = ~ 7.30E-03
"Nobody knows what it is". But speculations abound, incl.
that it is a "measure of the EM strength interaction" and
may involve Gravitation too, because the numerical value
of 2pi*a, which is the same as e^2/(h*c) = a(d) = ~ 4.59E-02
which is the ~ 4% of dark matter that you were talking about,
and may shed "light" onto this still dark mystery after all.
>
Run with it and have fun.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
<is.so...@gmail.com> wrote:
=.Photon and Matter = Life and Death.=.
Why is connection between Photon and Matter is equal
to connection between Life and Death ?
<snip personality cult worship & parroting text book crap>
to connection between Life and Death ?
>
In the ancient Veda also is written that the Universe is
consist on two different particles: purusha ( a spiritual
or conscious element ) and prakrti ( a mechanical-matter
particle) The interaction between mind /consciousness
elements (purusha- photon/ electron) and matter particles
(prakrti- proton ) created everything. There is nothing new
In the ancient Veda also is written that the Universe is
consist on two different particles: purusha ( a spiritual
or conscious element ) and prakrti ( a mechanical-matter
particle) The interaction between mind /consciousness
elements (purusha- photon/ electron) and matter particles
\under the Sun: every new idea has some sort of precedent
or echo from the past.
My explanation is much simpler (says Isarel Socaratus):
or echo from the past.
About 96% of the matter in the whole Universe is unseen
dark matter/energy. Nobody knows what it is. And only about
4% is physical /classical matter.
It is possible to suggest that from 96% of unseen dark
matter/energy was created the 4% of the known matter.
It is possible to suggest that this unseen dark matter/energy
consist on virtual particles (according to Dirac) and they
can become (in some way, for example - through vacuum
fluctuation) real particles (for example: photons and electrons|).
And these real particles created the visual matter universe.
---
dark matter/energy. Nobody knows what it is. And only about
4% is physical /classical matter.
It is possible to suggest that from 96% of unseen dark
matter/energy was created the 4% of the known matter.
It is possible to suggest that this unseen dark matter/energy
consist on virtual particles (according to Dirac) and they
can become (in some way, for example - through vacuum
fluctuation) real particles (for example: photons and electrons|).
And these real particles created the visual matter universe.
Israel Socratus
>
hanson wrote:
Isi listen. You certainly have the gift of gab when you don't
suck ratus. So, the only interesting but not new speculation
of yours is about the origin of Dark matter, which you can
look up on the web in great detail.
>
Since you have posted some equations like
E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV, I trust that you may find interest
in a semi quantitative speculation of the ratio of Luminous vs.
Dark matter, that has been around since Sommerfeld
introduced the fine-structure constant (a) in 1916.
>
It is defined as a = e^2/(hbar*c) = ~ 7.30E-03
"Nobody knows what it is". But speculations abound, incl.
that it is a "measure of the EM strength interaction" and
may involve Gravitation too, because the numerical value
of 2pi*a, which is the same as e^2/(h*c) = a(d) = ~ 4.59E-02
which is the ~ 4% of dark matter that you were talking about,
and may shed "light" onto this still dark mystery after all.
>
Run with it and have fun.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Brad Guth
May 19, 2013, 11:45:08 AM5/19/13
to
>
> =.
> But I am also sure that the mass and energy of photon
> becomes different when it jumps out from vacuum
> ==.
What if it jumps out of aether?
> =.
> But I am also sure that the mass and energy of photon
> becomes different when it jumps out from vacuum
> ==.
Brad Guth
May 19, 2013, 11:48:49 AM5/19/13
to
Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
Brad Guth
May 19, 2013, 6:03:11 PM5/19/13
to
On May 18, 4:19 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
responsible for everything we sense, then perhaps the trillion frame
per second camera (aka Femto camera) can help to objectively verify
exactly what any given photon and its minimal mass particle are
capable of doing.
Notice how never once is there one singular originating photon wave
and its supposed particle identified as having been objectively
recorded, to see if the original wave and its particle actually moves,
or is simply getting transponder replicated along a given path by way
of a given quantum medium or aether FIFO node as having created or
replicated another stationary photon wave.
Trillion frame per second (“femto camera”)
http://petapixel.com/2012/07/26/ted-talk-on-femto-photography-camera-that-snaps-at-one-trillion-fps/
hanson
May 19, 2013, 7:08:33 PM5/19/13
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
If aether is everywhere <snip crap>
<
hanson wrote:
Brad, you are not rolling in the right circles.
NOT a single time did Isi mention or refer to "aether".
>
Israel Socratus <is.so...@gmail.com> wrote
about =.Photon and Matter = Life and Death.=.
If aether is everywhere <snip crap>
<
hanson wrote:
Brad, you are not rolling in the right circles.
NOT a single time did Isi mention or refer to "aether".
>
Israel Socratus <is.so...@gmail.com> wrote
about =.Photon and Matter = Life and Death.=.
Why is connection between Photon and Matter is equal
to connection between Life and Death ?
to connection between Life and Death ?
<snip personality cult worship & parroting text book crap>
>
>
In the ancient Veda also is written that the Universe is
consist on two different particles: purusha ( a spiritual
or conscious element ) and prakrti ( a mechanical-matter
particle) The interaction between mind /consciousness
elements (purusha- photon/ electron) and matter particles
(prakrti- proton ) created everything. There is nothing new
consist on two different particles: purusha ( a spiritual
or conscious element ) and prakrti ( a mechanical-matter
particle) The interaction between mind /consciousness
elements (purusha- photon/ electron) and matter particles
\under the Sun: every new idea has some sort of precedent
or echo from the past.
or echo from the past.
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2013, 7:34:25 PM5/19/13
to
On 5/19/13 5:03 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> If aether is everywhere, displaced by ordinary matter and essentially
> responsible for everything we sense, then perhaps the trillion frame
> per second camera (aka Femto camera) can help to objectively verify
> exactly what any given photon and its minimal mass particle are
> capable of doing.
Of course, that's not the way the universe is, Brad. BTW, we have a
> If aether is everywhere, displaced by ordinary matter and essentially
> responsible for everything we sense, then perhaps the trillion frame
> per second camera (aka Femto camera) can help to objectively verify
> exactly what any given photon and its minimal mass particle are
> capable of doing.
very fruitful tool dealing with photons and matter, titles Quantum
Electrodynamics (QED). An excellent combination of the quantum
mechanics and special relativity.
Y.Porat
May 20, 2013, 3:13:07 AM5/20/13
to
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:48:49 PM UTC+3 > > The interaction between mind /consciousness elements
Mr Goth
did you saw my calculation for photon mass as
exp-90 Kilogram ??!!!
did you follow my theoretical prove
(based on E=hf )
the photon has mass - the **only mass that exist **??
TIA
Y.Porat
>
> > (purusha- photon/ electron) and matter particles (prakrti- proton )
>
> > created everything.
>
> > ==.
>
> > There is nothing new under the Sun:
>
> > every new idea has some sort of precedent or echo from the past.
>
> > ===..==.
>
> > All the best
>
> > Israel Socratus
>
> > ===…
>
> > P.S.
>
> > I want to thank awori achoka and Philip Benjamin :
>
> > reading their comments helped me to come to this conclusion.
>
> > =.
>
>
>
> 1e-51 gram seems a tad heavy for a photon.
>
>
>
> Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
============================
> > (purusha- photon/ electron) and matter particles (prakrti- proton )
>
> > created everything.
>
> > ==.
>
> > There is nothing new under the Sun:
>
> > every new idea has some sort of precedent or echo from the past.
>
> > ===..==.
>
> > All the best
>
> > Israel Socratus
>
> > ===…
>
> > P.S.
>
> > I want to thank awori achoka and Philip Benjamin :
>
> > reading their comments helped me to come to this conclusion.
>
> > =.
>
>
>
> 1e-51 gram seems a tad heavy for a photon.
>
>
>
> Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
Mr Goth
did you saw my calculation for photon mass as
exp-90 Kilogram ??!!!
did you follow my theoretical prove
(based on E=hf )
the photon has mass - the **only mass that exist **??
TIA
Y.Porat
hanson
May 20, 2013, 3:25:04 AM5/20/13
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Snip "sadovnik socratus"'s semi reasonable speculations
to let Brad Guth's earth-shaking intellect stand out and
shine since Brad submitted that>
>
(a) 1e-51 gram seems a tad heavy for a photon.
(b) Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
>
hanson wrote:
As I promised you, Brad, in thread "Re: "I Am Not A Crook",
I said: "I will lead you over the hurdles and try to make you
understand what the scientific notation of numbers, which
you have recently discovered & throw around withy wanton,
really mean"....
>
So, Brad, let us begin, forgetting your "tad" & question (b)
and ask you, whether you agree that ...
(1) if one photon is 10^-51 gr, it then will take
(2) 10^+51 such photons to make up 1 gr of mass.
>
Do you agree so far, Brad? Please do not lament
for whatever reason, just say "Y/N/?" & I will continue
with step (3)
<Snip "sadovnik socratus"'s semi reasonable speculations
to let Brad Guth's earth-shaking intellect stand out and
shine since Brad submitted that>
>
(a) 1e-51 gram seems a tad heavy for a photon.
(b) Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
>
hanson wrote:
As I promised you, Brad, in thread "Re: "I Am Not A Crook",
I said: "I will lead you over the hurdles and try to make you
understand what the scientific notation of numbers, which
you have recently discovered & throw around withy wanton,
really mean"....
>
So, Brad, let us begin, forgetting your "tad" & question (b)
and ask you, whether you agree that ...
(1) if one photon is 10^-51 gr, it then will take
(2) 10^+51 such photons to make up 1 gr of mass.
>
Do you agree so far, Brad? Please do not lament
for whatever reason, just say "Y/N/?" & I will continue
with step (3)
Y.Porat
May 20, 2013, 3:26:25 AM5/20/13
to
idiot parrot Wormley
photons has nothing to do with relativity !!
E=hf
it was found 5 years before relativity
2
the photon mass is an exception to the SR rule that
''no mass can reach c
the mass of the photon is an exception to that rule
since
in E=hf
there is nothing to multiply mass
not by zero
nor by any gamma!!
do you (blockhead) know another reason why ??
because even **mathematically **
While v-c
GAMMA FACTOR IS UNDEFINED EVEN MATHEMATICALLY
and that is only one reason on to of all other reasons
why the photon mass - moves at c !!
got it once and for all blockhead parrot ??
you are another among to many
walking damages --to real advance of science !!
Y.Porat
===========================
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 8:36:35 AM5/20/13
to
On May 19, 4:08 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
The usual <snip crap> robo reply by hanson, as intellectually
meaningless as always.
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If aether is everywhere <snip crap>
> <hanson wrote:
>
> Brad, you are not rolling in the right circles.
> NOT a single time did Isi mention or refer to "aether".
>
> Israel Socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> If aether is everywhere <snip crap>
> <hanson wrote:
>
> Brad, you are not rolling in the right circles.
> NOT a single time did Isi mention or refer to "aether".
>
meaningless as always.
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 8:41:41 AM5/20/13
to
quantified. Call it whatever you like, but aether is still as good of
name as anything.
The Femto camera should look at those slit and pinhole interfered
photons, in order to objectively see why one photon can be in multiple
places at the same time.
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 8:45:16 AM5/20/13
to
Is that 1e-90 kg for a 1000 nm photon?
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 9:22:51 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 7:45 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> 1e-90 kg seems a likely photon mass.
No Brad, Photons are massless bosons.
> 1e-90 kg seems a likely photon mass.
hanson
May 20, 2013, 1:42:49 PM5/20/13
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
"If aether is everywhere" <snip crap> and hen
Brad became unhappy because
>
hanson wrote:
Brad, you are not rolling in the right circles.
NOT a single time did Isi mention or refer to "aether".
>
Israel Socratus <is.so...@gmail.com> wrote
hanson wrote:
Brad, you are not rolling in the right circles.
NOT a single time did Isi mention or refer to "aether".
>
hanson
May 20, 2013, 2:12:23 PM5/20/13
to
"Sam Wormley"
Sam, over night, Brad lowered his photon
mass from "1e-51 gram" down to "1e-90 kg".
>
Sam, in/under realistic conditions
what is the difference between Brad's
"1e-90 kg" and your "massless"?
>
I tried to make Brad aware of what his
"1e-90 kg" or his "1e-51 gram" means.
Brad, didn't get it or didn't wanna know.
>
You, Sam, being the teacher type should
take over in/for what I wrote, & help Brad:
No Brad, Photons are massless bosons.
>
>
hanson wrote:
>
>
Sam, over night, Brad lowered his photon
mass from "1e-51 gram" down to "1e-90 kg".
>
Sam, in/under realistic conditions
what is the difference between Brad's
"1e-90 kg" and your "massless"?
>
I tried to make Brad aware of what his
"1e-90 kg" or his "1e-51 gram" means.
Brad, didn't get it or didn't wanna know.
>
You, Sam, being the teacher type should
take over in/for what I wrote, & help Brad:
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 2:50:43 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 1:12 PM, hanson wrote:
> Sam, over night, Brad lowered his photon mass from "1e-51 gram" down
> to "1e-90 kg".
First of all, Brad does not do estimates. He just makes stuff up.
> Sam, over night, Brad lowered his photon mass from "1e-51 gram" down
> to "1e-90 kg".
Have you ever known Brad to look up and post scientific data?
hanson
May 20, 2013, 4:01:55 PM5/20/13
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/20/13 1:12 PM, hanson wrote:
>> Sam, over night, Brad lowered his photon
>> mass from "1e-51 gram" down to "1e-90 kg".
>
>
> On 5/20/13 1:12 PM, hanson wrote:
>> Sam, over night, Brad lowered his photon
>> mass from "1e-51 gram" down to "1e-90 kg".
>
"Sam Wormley" wrote:
> First of all, Brad does not do estimates.
> He just makes stuff up.
> Have you ever known Brad to look up
> and post scientific data?
>
hanson wrote: Sam: yes, yes & no,... BUT
> First of all, Brad does not do estimates.
> He just makes stuff up.
> Have you ever known Brad to look up
> and post scientific data?
>
you, having been/are a Remedial Night
school professor for folks like Brad, should
use your expertise for this:
>
--------- Here it is, Sam ------------
>
hanson tried to make Brad aware of what his
"1e-90 kg" or his "1e-51 gram" means.
Brad, didn't get it or didn't wanna know.
>
You, Sam, being the teacher type should
take over in/for what I wrote, & help Brad:
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
(a) 1e-51 gram seems a tad heavy for a photon.
(b) Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
>
hanson wrote:
As I promised you, Brad, in thread "Re: "I Am Not A Crook",
I said: "I will lead you over the hurdles and try to make you
understand what the scientific notation of numbers, which
you have recently discovered & throw around withy wanton,
really mean"....
>
So, Brad, let us begin, forgetting your "tad" & question (b)
and ask you, whether you agree that ...
(1) if one photon is 10^-51 gr, it then will take
(2) 10^+51 such photons to make up 1 gr of mass.
>
Do you agree so far, Brad? Please do not lament
for whatever reason, just say "Y/N/?" & I will continue
with step (3)
---------- Have at it, Sam -----------
Brad, didn't get it or didn't wanna know.
>
You, Sam, being the teacher type should
take over in/for what I wrote, & help Brad:
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
(a) 1e-51 gram seems a tad heavy for a photon.
(b) Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
>
hanson wrote:
As I promised you, Brad, in thread "Re: "I Am Not A Crook",
I said: "I will lead you over the hurdles and try to make you
understand what the scientific notation of numbers, which
you have recently discovered & throw around withy wanton,
really mean"....
>
So, Brad, let us begin, forgetting your "tad" & question (b)
and ask you, whether you agree that ...
(1) if one photon is 10^-51 gr, it then will take
(2) 10^+51 such photons to make up 1 gr of mass.
>
Do you agree so far, Brad? Please do not lament
for whatever reason, just say "Y/N/?" & I will continue
with step (3)
Y.Porat
May 21, 2013, 9:32:10 AM5/21/13
to
Thank you
i didnt bother to calculate its wave lenth
yet
my above definition is UNEQUIVOCAL !
AND YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND ITSPRACTICAL MEANING
it means thatno one even will be able
not to detect it
so
nor to measure it
but still it has an enormous practical use THEORETICALLY
just'' a little example''
if the photon has mass - the only mas !!
all the huge pompous story about Higgs Boson
and all the huge propaganda campaign
is one big bluff B Sh
ie
dead at arrival
because it is not the spooky Boson that gives mass to all
particles
but just simple
energy is doing it !!!
E=m c ^2 and E - hf
just as smple as that
and that makes battalions of ''physicists
out of income !!
got the private income interests problem ....!!
BTW
did you follow my simple prove
based on E=hf
that
the photon has mass - the only mass
ie
not zero
nor relativistic !!
just mass the only mass
TIA
Y.Porat
=================================
Y.Porat
May 21, 2013, 9:35:06 AM5/21/13
to
imbecile shameless crook dreck !!
a walking damage for some real advance
go back to your orchestra conducting
Y.Porat
============================
Y.Porat
May 21, 2013, 9:40:31 AM5/21/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 9:12:23 PM UTC+3, hanson wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Brad Guth wrote:
>
> 1e-90 kg seems a likely photon mass.
>
> >
>
> "Sam Wormley"
>
> No Brad, Photons are massless bosons.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Sam, over night, Brad lowered his photon
>
> mass from "1e-51 gram" down to "1e-90 kg".
>
> >
>
> Sam, in/under realistic conditions
>
> what is the difference between Brad's
>
> "1e-90 kg" and your "massless"?
==================
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Brad Guth wrote:
>
> 1e-90 kg seems a likely photon mass.
>
> >
>
> "Sam Wormley"
>
> No Brad, Photons are massless bosons.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Sam, over night, Brad lowered his photon
>
> mass from "1e-51 gram" down to "1e-90 kg".
>
> >
>
> Sam, in/under realistic conditions
>
> what is the difference between Brad's
>
> "1e-90 kg" and your "massless"?
Hi Hanson my friend
PLEASE KEEP MY COPYRIGHT S !!
and be more accurate
exp -90 is not from Brad
it is an old copyright of mine Y.Porat !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
===========================
>
> >
>
> I tried to make Brad aware of what his
>
> "1e-90 kg" or his "1e-51 gram" means.
>
> Brad, didn't get it or didn't wanna know.
>
> >
>
> You, Sam, being the teacher type should
>
> take over in/for what I wrote, & help Brad:
>
> >
>
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <Snip "sadovnik socratus"'s semi reasonable speculations
>
> to let Brad Guth's earth-shaking intellect stand out and
>
> shine since Brad submitted that>
>
> >
>
> (a) 1e-51 gram seems a tad heavy for a photon.
>
> (b) Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
>
> >
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> As I promised you, Brad, in thread "Re: "I Am Not A Crook",
>
> I said: "I will lead you over the hurdles and try to make you
>
> understand what the scientific notation of numbers, which
>
> you have recently discovered & throw around withy wanton,
>
> really mean"....
>
> >
>
> So, Brad, let us begin, forgetting your "tad" & question (b)
>
> and ask you, whether you agree that ...
>
>
>
> (1) if one photon is 10^-51 gr, it then will take
>
> (2) 10^+51 such photons to make up 1 gr of mass.
>
> >
>
> Do you agree so far, Brad? Please do not lament
>
> for whatever reason, just say "Y/N/?" & I will continue
>
> with step (3)
hanson
May 21, 2013, 1:04:17 PM5/21/13
to
"Yehiel.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Yehiel wrote:
Yo, Yehi, my dear old haver.
Of course, it is your "COPYRIGHT S", Yehi, &
apparently, like the subject line suggests, it
appears to be a "Matter of Life & Death" to you.
>
So therefore, Yehi, you should bitch, rattle & roll
against Anti-Semite Brad Guth who praised it
but without giving credit to you, Yehi. Pity.
>
Thanks for the laughs, though, Yehi... ahaha....
ahahahaha... ROTFLMAO... ahahahahanson
-- hanson wrote:
>>
Brad Guth wrote:
1e-90 kg seems a likely photon mass.
>
>>
Brad Guth wrote:
1e-90 kg seems a likely photon mass.
>
Yehiel wrote:
Hi Hanson my friend
PLEASE KEEP MY COPYRIGHT S !!
and be more accurate
exp -90 is not from Brad
it is an old copyright of mine Y.Porat !!!
ATB -- Y.Porat
Hi Hanson my friend
PLEASE KEEP MY COPYRIGHT S !!
and be more accurate
exp -90 is not from Brad
it is an old copyright of mine Y.Porat !!!
>
Yehiel wrote:
Yo, Yehi, my dear old haver.
Of course, it is your "COPYRIGHT S", Yehi, &
apparently, like the subject line suggests, it
appears to be a "Matter of Life & Death" to you.
>
So therefore, Yehi, you should bitch, rattle & roll
against Anti-Semite Brad Guth who praised it
but without giving credit to you, Yehi. Pity.
>
Thanks for the laughs, though, Yehi... ahaha....
ahahahaha... ROTFLMAO... ahahahahanson
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 3:37:49 PM5/21/13
to
their job of keeping K-12s and others away from Usenet/newsgroups,
because it's all about protecting their own public funded job-security
and that of future generations of public funded jobs that's at risk.
Photons likely have or represent a nonzero mass, and there's certainly
no shortage of photons to go around.
Our resident mainstream puppet and certified infomercial spewing
parrot Sam, really doesn't have any other option.
Y.Porat
May 22, 2013, 3:40:11 AM5/22/13
to
Mr Guth
please be more accurate
we are in sci remember
so my question to you is
did you follow how i got that
mas of the single photon as
exp-90 Kilograms ??
it is above in this very thread
and many years ago as well
see for instance
' a better new definition of the real single photon
claiming that
E=hf
isnot energy of a single photon
but a huge bundle of single photons
because
E=hf
is one second defined
while experimentally photon energy
can be detected and emitted
in much much less that one second
my first step for it was done here
a few yeas ago as
E Photon min = hf times n
while
0 > n <<< 1.0000
later i quoted that n to
the scalar part of Planck time
and got that
mass of smallest photon as
about exp - 90 Kilograms !!
by dividing above energy
by c ^2
----------------
is that precedented to you or others
if not
and what do you think about it ?
do you know anything precedented to it ??
please show us a precedent to that
ie
not just abstract hand waving
2
do you believe that copyrights should be respected ??
TIA
Y.Porat
====================
-
Y.Porat
May 23, 2013, 8:04:24 AM5/23/13
to
again "
if there was no space which is COMPLETELY EMPTY
NO MOVEMENT COULD BE DONE WHATSOEVER
did you get it ??
if not just think a little bit
and you will get it
if not
i will try to help you
2
now you claime that Aether is found next to masses
so ??
why not conclude that
ALL FORCES ARE PROPERTIES OF MASS ?/!!
AND NOT OF SPACE !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
=================================
sadovnik socratus
May 24, 2013, 12:23:14 AM5/24/13
to
Photon is not only an object, it is also a subject . . . . . .
. . . . the king photon is dead, long live the king photon
=.
Quantum jumps of light recording the birth and death of a photon in a
cavity
Quantum jumps of light recording the birth and death of a photon in a
cavity : Abstract : Nature
===…
. . . . the king photon is dead, long live the king photon
=.
Quantum jumps of light recording the birth and death of a photon in a
cavity
Quantum jumps of light recording the birth and death of a photon in a
cavity : Abstract : Nature
===…
Sam Wormley
May 24, 2013, 1:10:20 AM5/24/13
to
On 5/23/13 11:23 PM, sadovnik socratus wrote:
> Photon is not only an object
Let's be clear, not an object in the Newtonian sense.
> Photon is not only an object
> A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all
> other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for
> the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The
> effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic
> and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this
> allows for interactions at long distances. Like all elementary
> particles, *photons are currently best explained* by quantum mechanics
> and *exhibit wave�particle duality*, exhibiting properties of both
> waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by
> a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a
> particle giving a definite result when its position is measured.
>
> The modern photon concept was developed gradually by Albert Einstein
> to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical
> wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for
> the frequency dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability
> of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. It also
> accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of
> black body radiation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck,
> had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which light is
> still described by Maxwell's equations, but the material objects that
> emit and absorb light, do so in amounts of energy that are quantized
> (i.e., they change energy only by certain particular discrete amounts
> and cannot change energy in any arbitrary way). Although these
> semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum
> mechanics, many further experiments[2][3] starting with Compton
> scattering of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923,
> validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized. In
> 1926 the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name photon for these
> particles, and after 1927, when Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize
> for his scattering studies, most scientists accepted the validity
> that quanta of light have an independent existence, and Lewis' term
> photon for light quanta was accepted.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Sam Wormley
May 24, 2013, 1:15:49 AM5/24/13
to
On 5/20/13 2:26 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> photons has nothing to do with relativity !!
>
> E=hf
> it was found 5 years before relativity
Photons we postulated by A. Einstein to explain experimental
> photons has nothing to do with relativity !!
>
> E=hf
> it was found 5 years before relativity
observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light.
In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency
dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter
and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium.
Relativity was also introduced by A. Einstein in the same year,
In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency
dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter
and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium.
1905, but that was a different matter.
Brad Guth
May 24, 2013, 1:23:17 AM5/24/13
to
masses" (aka aether) is vibrating or operating at or FTL, they
probably can't be detected or much less quantified by conventional
methods.
However, the star(s) SS433 seems to have been contributing a lot of
something.
Sam Wormley
May 24, 2013, 1:36:48 AM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/13 12:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Indeed, forces can be interpreted as masses.
No Brad. Forces are carried by bosons.
> Indeed, forces can be interpreted as masses.
> open http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~heroux/images/Particle_chart.jpg
Y.Porat
May 24, 2013, 5:47:10 AM5/24/13
to
Sam
since you are late in getting new findings
i will do it again for you
after may be 20 other attempt to reopen your mind
so
i proved that the photon has mass
EVEN IF IT MOVES AT c !!
AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WIT ANY RELATIVITY !!
AGAIN
IT HAS NOTHING TODO WITH ANY RELATIVITY !!
can you stick it intoyour head once and for all ??
if not here it is again
(unbelievable simple !!
can you immagine why
lets make a simple examination of the dimensions
of E=hf
did you even learned in your high school how to do it ??
so
the dimension of photon Enengy that Planck found experimentally
with nothing to do with relativity)in his experiments )
are a follows
E photon = 6.6 exp -34 (just a scalar figure ) times
Kilogram meter ^2 / Second times
number of wave lengths per second (ie f )
full stop for thinking people
yet if you are not one
here more insights
about wHat there is
and not least - in ***what THAT THERE IS NOT THERE** !!
1
there is nothing in that above formula
to multiply *anything* there including those kilograms )
by zero !!
ie
the kilograms there are not zero !!!!!
but multiplied by 6,6 exp -34 etc
yet still it is not zero !!
2
there is nothing in that formula that is
The Gamma factor !!! 1 /(1- V^2 /c^2 )
right ???
so
why -the hell-!! say any thinking physicist
THAT THE MASS OF THE PHOTON ''IS RELATIVISTIC ???
nothing in that EXPERIMENTAL FORMULA
TO JUSTIFY IT !!
and now i will tell you why after all
all those '[cleaver physicists said
'the massof the photon is relativistic ''
it was because of the unjustified paradigm that
''no mass can reach c ' !!
it it was not right not cleaver
because we know experimentally that
as mass become smaller and smaller it
comes
CLOSER AND CLOSER TO c !!!
so if for instance the mass of the real single photon
as i calculated by using that PLANK TIME !!
is ay
about exp -90 kilograms (an historic finding )
than no reason why
it not move at c !!
exp -90
is a figure no human being can ever realize !!
yet it cam from ca;cualtions and examination of the formula
E=hf
understanding that ***one second* (of f
is a human inversion
i showed even by a trivial experiment with a led torch
and a photoelectric cell
that a photon can be created and detected
in
MUCH LESS THAT ONE SECOND
so i inserted for that f
the shortest time duration known
ie
THE PLANK TIME !!
WHICH IS ..( I CAN T REMEMBER BY HEART just now
it is exp - may tiny figures exp - '''' please help me quoting
anyway
by that i got the mass of the smallest photon
by dividing its energy by c^2
and please note again
it is not zero
nor relativistic !!
and mind you
that simple calculation is
believe it or not
it is a revolution in modern physics !!
for inatance
IF THE PHOTON ENERGY AND ENERGY AS A WHOLE
HAS MASS
THAT WHO ON EARTH NEED FOR INSTANCE THE F EN
HIGGS BOSON (TO ''GIVE MASS TO ALL PARTICLES'
WHILE IT IS ENERGY IN A LOT OF QUANTITY CASES
of photons
TO DO IT !!----
---IE GIVE ITS ''BUILT IN ' MASS --- TO VARIOUS PARTICLES ???!!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
=========================================
Y.Porat
May 24, 2013, 8:29:49 AM5/24/13
to
and !!
all forces are a property of mass
not of space !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
=====================================
sadovnik socratus
May 24, 2013, 9:57:44 AM5/24/13
to
My opinion about photon as a basis of SRT.
=.
SRT is based on four facts.
Fact number 1:
The constant speed of photon in vacuum is minimal.
( from vacuum's point of view and tachyon theory )
Fact number 2:
The inertia of photon depends on its potential energy: E=Mc^2
In 1905 Einstein asked:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content ?”
As he realized the answer was:
“ Yes, it depends on E= Mc^2 ”
It means that inertia of quantum particle (photon, electron )
depends on E= Mc^2 ( nobody explains the details of such
possibility of inertia movement. How can E=Mc^2
be responsible for inertial movement of quantum particle ? )
Someone wrote to me:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is, would win a Nobel Prize. “
Fact number 3:
Every speed and energy
( including the speed and energy of photon ) are relative.
Speed, energy, impulse . . . . etc they are physical parameters
which belong to one, single quantum particle.
If you change one parameter all others will change automatically too.
For example :
In 1916 Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c.
If you change one electron's parameter all others parameters
also will be changed and the electron's energy will change too.
Take, for example, electron in atom.
Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV.
But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out from atom
with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron emits quantum of light,
but where this quantum of light is hidden in the electron, in which
pocket ?)
In vacuum the energy of electron is E=Mc^2 (according to SRT and
Dirac),
but when someone parameter is changed then electron jumps out from
vacuum with energy E=h*f. ( effect of vacuum fluctuation ).
Fact number 4:
The Lorentz equations explain the transformations (revolving
movement)
of quantum particles using the Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck inner impulse
of particle: h* = h/ 2pi.
===.
P.S.
" Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /
#
Question:
Can quantum of light change its constant speed ?
Answer: Internet: Faster-than-light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light . . .
. . . etc . . . etc . . .
===…
Y.Porat
May 25, 2013, 10:10:44 AM5/25/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 4:57:44 PM UTC+3, sadovnik socratus wrote:
> My opinion about photon as a basis of SRT.
>
> =.
>
> SRT is based on four facts.
>
>
>
> Fact number 1:
>
> The constant speed of photon in vacuum is minimal.
>
> ( from vacuum's point of view and tachyon theory )
>
>
>
> Fact number 2:
>
> The inertia of photon depends on its potential energy: E=Mc^2
>
> In 1905 Einstein asked:
>
> “ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content ?”
>
> As he realized the answer was:
>
> “ Yes, it depends on E= Mc^2 ”
>
> It means that inertia of quantum particle (photon, electron )
>
> depends on E= Mc^2 ( nobody explains the details of such
>
> possibility of inertia movement. How can E=Mc^2
>
> be responsible for inertial movement of quantum particle ? )
>
> Someone wrote to me:
>
> “An old professor of mine used to say
>
> that anyone who can answer that question
>
> what inertia is, would win a Nobel Prize.
================================
> My opinion about photon as a basis of SRT.
>
> =.
>
> SRT is based on four facts.
>
>
>
> Fact number 1:
>
> The constant speed of photon in vacuum is minimal.
>
> ( from vacuum's point of view and tachyon theory )
>
>
>
> Fact number 2:
>
> The inertia of photon depends on its potential energy: E=Mc^2
>
> In 1905 Einstein asked:
>
> “ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content ?”
>
> As he realized the answer was:
>
> “ Yes, it depends on E= Mc^2 ”
>
> It means that inertia of quantum particle (photon, electron )
>
> depends on E= Mc^2 ( nobody explains the details of such
>
> possibility of inertia movement. How can E=Mc^2
>
> be responsible for inertial movement of quantum particle ? )
>
> Someone wrote to me:
>
> “An old professor of mine used to say
>
> that anyone who can answer that question
>
> what inertia is, would win a Nobel Prize.
no need for a nobel for such a simple question ~~ (:-)
there are two kinds of movement in particles
1
the linear of circular movement of the
center of its mass
2
listen carefully !:
an **inner CIRCULAR MOVEMENT** OF ITS COMPONENTS !!
BY THE SPEED OF LIGHT !!and since it is internal
closed movement
you cant detect it
UNTIL THE PARTICLE IS DISMANTLED TO ITS INNER COMPONENTS !!
need one a Nobel for that
?
how about that ??
---------------
>
>
>
> Fact number 3:
>
> Every speed and energy
>
> ( including the speed and energy of photon ) are relative.
>
> Speed, energy, impulse
---------------
>
>
> Fact number 3:
>
> Every speed and energy
>
> ( including the speed and energy of photon ) are relative.
>
> Speed, energy, impulse
and here is where you and too many others are wrong !!
THE PHOTON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY RELATIVITY !!
hjow many times i have toexplain to parrots like you
that energy (photons )
are an exception to the rule
that no mass can reach c '''
while v= c
the gamma factor is EVEN MATHEMATICALLY UNDEFINED !!
it becomes zero /zero !!
got it
so where is your Nobel for me (:-)
------
. . . . etc they are physical parameters
>
> which belong to one, single quantum particle.
>
> If you change one parameter all others will change automatically too.
>
> For example :
>
> In 1916 Sommerfeld found the formula of electron
================
formula of what ???
_____________________________
>
> If you change one electron's parameter all others parameters
>
> also will be changed and the electron's energy will change too.
>
> Take, for example, electron in atom.
-----------------
> If you change one electron's parameter all others parameters
>
> also will be changed and the electron's energy will change too.
>
> Take, for example, electron in atom.
again
you mix and confuse inner energy
with external energy !!!
-----------------
>
> Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV.
>
> But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out from atom
>
> with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron emits quantum of light,
>
> but where this quantum of light is hidden in the electron, in which
>
> pocket ?)
=================
> Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV.
>
> But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out from atom
>
> with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron emits quantum of light,
>
> but where this quantum of light is hidden in the electron, in which
>
> pocket ?)
anothe wrong basic assumption
THE ELECTRON IS NOT A POINT PARTICLE
IT IS SUB COMPOSED !!!
===========================
>
> In vacuum the energy of electron is E=Mc^2 (according to SRT and
>
> Dirac),
>
> but when someone parameter is changed then electron jumps out from
>
> vacuum with energy E=h*f. ( effect of vacuum fluctuation ).
>
>
>
> Fact number 4:
>
> The Lorentz equations explain the transformations (revolving
>
> movement)
>
> of quantum particles using the Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck inner impulse
>
> of particle: h* = h/ 2pi.
>
> ===.==============
> In vacuum the energy of electron is E=Mc^2 (according to SRT and
>
> Dirac),
>
> but when someone parameter is changed then electron jumps out from
>
> vacuum with energy E=h*f. ( effect of vacuum fluctuation ).
>
>
>
> Fact number 4:
>
> The Lorentz equations explain the transformations (revolving
>
> movement)
>
> of quantum particles using the Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck inner impulse
>
> of particle: h* = h/ 2pi.
>
but i explained to you just above
the electron does not revolve around the Nucleus !!
and has nothing to do while in Atom
with any relativity !!
your picture on your mind
about structure of matter
is one big wrong mess !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
>===========================
>
>
> P.S.
>
> "
sadovnik socratus
May 29, 2013, 3:55:52 AM5/29/13
to
QEQ explains the interaction between light and matter.
In 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote about QED:
‘ The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange. ‘
. . . . . . .
‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter page 10. /
=====..
Everybody can choose :
What is strange and absurd the human's logical
scientific thought or Nature ?
==..
In 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote about QED:
‘ The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange. ‘
. . . . . . .
‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter page 10. /
=====..
Everybody can choose :
What is strange and absurd the human's logical
scientific thought or Nature ?
==..
Brad Guth
May 29, 2013, 11:55:01 AM5/29/13
to
On May 23, 5:04 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
analogy.
Brad Guth
May 29, 2013, 11:56:43 AM5/29/13
to
aether.
Sam Wormley
May 29, 2013, 12:08:11 PM5/29/13
to
On 5/29/13 10:56 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Your invisible and unquantified "bosons" are a direct analogy to
> aether.
There is no aether. On the other hand bosons are observed hand have
> Your invisible and unquantified "bosons" are a direct analogy to
> aether.
measurable properties.
open http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~heroux/images/Particle_chart.jpg
open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
Y.Porat
May 30, 2013, 3:03:31 AM5/30/13
to
Mr Guth
you never answered to inevitable question ?
for real quantitative science
(unlike bubling
ie
HOW MANY KILOGRAMS OF AETHER ARE THERE IN
ONE CUBIC METER OF SPACE ??
end of basic question
2
is it clear to you that
had there not been
complete empty space beside occupied space
no motion what soever could be done !!!
some honest answers are un3evitable
if we want to deal with REAL SCIENCE
TIA
for your honest answer !!!
Y.Porat
=====================================
0 new messages