Does Light Quanta have mass?
socratus
1.
According to Michelson-Morley experiment light quanta
moves with constant speed: c=1.
The physicists say it is result of lack mass at light quanta.
2.
According to GRT gravitation bends light quanta.
This fact was tested by experiment and showed that
Einstein was right.
But to be bend from the straight line light quanta
must have a mass.
3.
If light quanta has mass when according to SRT, moving
with constant speed c=1 its mass become infinite.
That is impossible.
4.
School’s question: What is Light Quanta?
======================= . .
P.S.
On my opinion without to understand what " The Law
of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to single light quanta this question
connot be solved.
( And , please, don’t forget about dualism of light quanta:
as a particle without mass ( ?), and a wave as a - ? )
================= . .
Bob Remeaux
> 1.
> According to Michelson-Morley experiment light quanta
> moves with constant speed: c=1.
> The physicists say it is result of lack mass at light quanta.
> 2.
> According to GRT gravitation bends light quanta.
> This fact was tested by experiment and showed that
> Einstein was right.
> But to be bend from the straight line light quanta
> must have a mass.
GRT explains that gravitation is a distortion of spacetime, which
explains the apparent bending of light. Light does not need mass to be
deviated - it is entirely due to the distortion of spacetime.
Y.y.Porat
you are right!!
light is bending next sun
because it has mass
your considerations are not the only one
there are even simpler ones
it is
E=hf
h is EXPERIMENTAL !! and
and h contains mass
(scalar X Kilogram Meter^2 X 1/sec )
alltogether
scalar X Kilogram meter ^2/sec ^2
as any other energy !!!t
that is meaningless without mass
moreover
th e PHYSICS RULE rule is much **wider ::
**: NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS **!!
and if the fucker mathematician physicists
do not understand it now
they will understand it later
(and the sooner the better )
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Y.y.Porat
------------------
it is not space time
i actually discovered that is -----
witches on brooms !!!.........
and better beware of them
or else you will be punished by heaven !!!
space has no properties except
hosting matter
got it once and forever ??
any attraction frorce is a property of MASS
bny sending some unknown yet
messengers
it is in the Em force
it is in the magnetic
and it is in gravitation as well !!!
got it for once and for all suckers
(and crooks )??
and if you dont mind
even at the Em force
**it is not photons **.....that do the job
your theories are crippled
just occasional partial successes
that send you to sleep on your
''laurels '''
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Androcles
"Bob Remeaux" <br...@gmaill.invalid> wrote in message
news:73u1mlF...@mid.individual.net...
Where does it say that, then? Quote the chapter and verse, shithead.
Eric Gisse
Really?
Does it "contain" the same amount of mass in other systems of units?
[snip rest]
socratus
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)
Danny
"socratus" <isr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44f13f4e-b98b-4cb3...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps he should have experimented instead of brooding.
Y.y.Porat
------------------
idiot
go learn about how a physics formula
is built and used
besides
by the formula (experimental one)
E=hf
i dont show at the first stage quantites
i show QUALITATIVELY!!
that the photon energy has mass
and the next prove of mine is that
**there is just one kind of mass*
no relativistic and no schmelativistic
just one
and .....
if so ???
the mass in hf is The mass
no matter how you will call it
is
**The mass **
so
no mass no real physics!!
no higgs no virtuals without mass
no particles with
on shell
off shell etc
even not for a fraction of a second--
no off mass shell
another conclusion as for now
dumb mathematicians
with no basic physics 'touch'
cannot be leaders of pioneering physics
now
dont answer me
because we know already you insane
responses
insane iresponsible and dishonest
dishonest because i cant believe that
after so many dsicussions and proves
and blown higgs bubbles
nothing entered
*even to your parrots mins *
ps
thank you for not bothering me by diverting
my answer to somewhere else
Bye
Y.P
--------------------------
socratus
The quanta has mass, but no rest mass as it does not rest.
Socratus:
It is no law. It is physicists’ opinion, it is some kind of
silly ‘Copenhagen’s interpretation’ the laws of Nature.
#
Light Quanta plays very important role in the Nature.
Why does the Nature need the ‘stupid’ light quanta if it can go
or knows to go only by straight line. Is the Nature so ‘fool’
to create unusual important particle?
Or maybe the interpreter’s fantasies make It and us to be stupid.
========== .
Benj
As usual, Einstein is STILL smarter than anyone here! He at least
knows what he DOESN'T know!
Dorn.Strich
> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Well, he was a lazy bum. He did not follow Edison's dictum that
genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Einstein must have
thought that genius is 1% perspiration and 99% public relations.
socratus
but light quanta has not the rest mass/energy E=Mc^2 ?
The Nature, God or physicists.
====================================
Y.y.Porat
> The common opinion:
> The quanta has mass, but no rest mass as it does not rest.
Hey Mr genius
if you sit on your chair
it means that you have a different mass than if you walk??
and when you walk and then stop
something in your mass changed ??
why should it change??
and if you claim that the burden of prove is on you!!
if you write it as
F=gama m a
who told you that mass is canging:
while you can write it
with your same maths as
F/Gamma = m a
AND m REMAINS CONSTANT !!
got it genius ??
just a litle different matematical presentation
and all you relativistic mass
is farting off !!
the only differenc is a tiny better
and sound physics understanding
(that does not force you to
INVENT A NEW KIND OF MASS!)
keep well
use your own mind
and stop being the common parrot
Y.P
-------------------------
who on earth lowed you to invent many kinds of mass??
just becauseyou and others could not think that
th ephoton is a limit case
that *can move at c **???
Eric Gisse
I have. Wake me when you realize a supposedly measurable quantity that
depends on the choice of units is not physically meaningful.
[...]
hhc...@yahoo.com
> "Bob Remeaux" <b...@gmaill.invalid> wrote in message
Amen to that comment!
I know that I am a party pooper, but I have to wonder where posters
like these get their rather bizarre concept of physics, since it
becomes obvious to any moderately educated reader, that they have
never cracked a textbook on the subject. I am a physicist, hence I
know that Einstein never completed his General Theory of Relativity.
Laymen appear to believe that he did, and are constantly trying to
apply it to subjects that they have no hope of grasping.
I believe that the blame falls on the doorsteps of booksellers like
Barnes and Noble, and to the authors that write this speculative crap
and sell it to the public for the simple purpose of augmenting their
income.
Harry C.
Androcles
<hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:279f069c-4d8c-42c9...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Amen to that comment!
Harry C.
================================================
v^2/c^2 is greater than one for all v <c.
1 - v^2/c^2 is less than one.
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than one.
One divided by (something less than one) is greater than one,
i.e. 1 / 0.5 = 2 and two is greater than one.
Why do they call it the Lorentz contraction when it is an Einstein
expansion?
tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Substituting for x its value,
tau = (t-v.(vt)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= (t-t.v^2)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than one, hence tau less than t.
Why do they call it time dilation when it is time compression?
Are all theoretical physicists so fucking stupid that schoolboy algebra
has them defeated and why should any moderately educated reader
even bother cracking a text book on the subject since Einstein was
clearly an incompetent moron?
I believe that the blame falls on the doorsteps of fuckheaded
schoolteachers and morons claiming to be physicists that write this
speculative crap and sell it to the public for the simple purpose of
augmenting their income by building super colliders and launching
gravity probes and searching for black holes and dork energy at
enormous cost.
Furthermore, why haven't you, Conover, who claims to be a physicist,
pointed out long ago that Einstein was clearly an incompetent moron?
Y.y.Porat
------------------
if something is right in the MKS system
it is right for any other legitimate system
and while we say that there are lkilograms
in hf
it has mass dimension in any other system
my claim for mass in the photon
is at the first stage
a QUALITATIVE claim
(the quantitative can come later
but does not change the physics principle )
lets see how long it willtake you
to admit it .....
Y.P
---------------
Eric Gisse
Y.y.Porat wrote:
[snip]
> my claim for mass in the photon
> is at the first stage
> a QUALITATIVE claim
> (the quantitative can come later
> but does not change the physics principle )
> lets see how long it willtake you
> to admit it .....
> Y.P
> ---------------
Why would I admit to something that which is disproved by observation?
When are you going to learn that dimensional analysis is merely a
consistency check - NOT a predictive tool?
Name one observed quantity whose magnitude - or even existence - can
be determined wholly through such dimensional considerations.
Y.y.Porat
> Y.y.Porat wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > my claim for mass in the photon
> > is at the first stage
> > a QUALITATIVE claim
> > (the quantitative can come later
> > but does not change the physics principle )
> > lets see how long it willtake you
> > to admit it .....
> > Y.P
> > ---------------
>
> Why would I admit to something that which is disproved by observation?
> When are you going to learn that dimensional analysis is merely a
> consistency check - NOT a predictive tool?
who said that a prove must be predictive
of something else (that does not belong to the specific issue ??
wthile the prove that mass is there is
ALREADY THERE !!in hf
how many times i have to remind you that
E=hf
is a super experimentally proven formula
so i can predict that if F will be
f1 the E will be E1
perfectly unequivocal
but nothing to do with the question
whether hf mas mass or not
the prove mas is there is already done
the moment that formula wa created
9provided you know and understand
how a physics formula is created and used !!
if you dont understand that
nothing will do !!
if i say that
F = ma
and the dimension analysis showes that this formula is composed of
some scalars multiplies by
kilogran meter /second ^2
can you say that force has nothibng to do with mass??
iow
can you say that you can ommit the mass there
and the formula will still be valid ??
the meaning of that formula
is not just a mathematical meaning
any part of it has a
PHYSICAL MEANING !!
if metaphorically you compare the dimension of a formula to the legs
of it
can you cut one of its legs and it will still be the same ??
ie
the prediction was done much before me ...
yet the insight about what are its components (*all of them - no one
overlooked !!!!!)
that has nothing to do with predictions
except that if mass was getting in
it will be conserved there
btw conservation of mass was discovered by chemistry long ago
it is a pitty that methematicain physicists
didnt learn and internalize basic chemistry
so the first one to analyze all the components that make the hf--
without forgetting any of them -
was first done by ..........??
actually all sane physicists admited that
the energy of photon has mass
but their 'explanation was
'but it is 'relativistic mass'
ie
they **invented an ad hock a new kind of mass WHY ??
because the paradigm that
NO MASS CAN REACH c !!!
but then came Porat and claimes;
if you want to straighten alll of it up
to work in harmony
without ad hock inventions of
**NEW PHYSICAL ENTITIES **
you must accept a new insight that
THE PHOTON IS AN **EXCEPTION * TO THE RULE
THAT
'NO MASS CAN REACH c !!
but for that
one must have a creative human mind
not a parrots mind
anyway
i am getting tired about your ability
to learn something that is not written in your books
BYE
Y.P
--------------------------
>
> Name one observed quantity whose magnitude - or even existence - can
> be determined wholly through such dimensional considerations.
--------------------
Eric Gisse
[snip all]
Physics contends that photons have zero mass. Observation supports the
claim that photons have no mass.
Why is this an issue? Five years running and you can't make an
argument past "BUT THERE'S MASS IN THE ENERGY UNIT!!!!"
Y.y.Porat
-------------
BYE
Y.P
-----------------
Tom Roberts
> my claim for mass in the photon
is wrong in QED and in the standard model. Note these are the theories
of modern physics that define what "photon" means.
It is QUITE CLEAR that in these theories the photon has no mass: neither
the Lagrangian nor the photon propagator have a mass term.
Tom Roberts
Dorn.Strich
Explain renormalization imbecile!
G=EMC^2 Glazier
mutual mass attraction,as experiments have proven. Wheeler told us all
there is is attracted by gravity. TreBert
Sam Wormley
David, you don't have the background to understand renormalization.
You never did answer my question about whether or not you post while
you are supposed to be working for your employer.
Dorn.Strich
> Dorn.Strich wrote:
Jumping on the sword for Tom Roberts... Well, that's a waste. Again,
if you can, explain renormalization...
Sam Wormley
Dorn.Strich
Sam, having a link does not mean you understand it. In the same way,
having a complete Encyclopedia Britannica does not mean you know
everything in it.
Again Sam, tell us what you know about renormalization? It is okay to
defer and admit you are only a community college teacher and this is
way beyond you.
Dono
>
> David, you don't have the background to understand renormalization.
> You never did answer my question about whether or not you post while
> you are supposed to be working for your employer.
Dork is a mental patient at the VA hospital.
Dorn.Strich
Why does DoNut still think acceleration=gravity? Choose one:
a) DoNut is a monkey.
b) DoNut is a monkey with dung in his DoNut hole.
c) DoNut is a monkey with rotting dung in his DoNut hole.
d) DoNut is an Australopithecus.
e) DoNut is a subhumanoid.
f) All of the above.
Y.y.Porat
--------------
right
now tell that tothe parrots
Y.P
----------------------
Y.y.Porat
----------------
i sent a respond to wormley
but i dont see it so here it is in short again::
even Gisse understood at last
that the photon ENERGY has mass
(one has to be a blockhead not to get it
now a question folowing the above":
so
we have two kinds of mass
1
a photon that has mass AND energy
2
a photon that has energy but bot mass
3
may be even
a photon that has no energy and no mass
so my question is :
how can we find the difference
between case 1
and case 2
above??
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Tom Roberts
> On 7 Απρ, 09:44, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Y.y.Porat wrote:
>>> my claim for mass in the photon
>> is wrong in QED and in the standard model. Note these are the theories
>> of modern physics that define what "photon" means.
>> It is QUITE CLEAR that in these theories the photon has no mass: neither
>> the Lagrangian nor the photon propagator have a mass term.
>
Renormalization is a procedure of accounting for infinite sums of
diagrams in the perturbation approximation to QED (and other QFTs such
as the standard model -- I'll discuss only QED). In QED it results in a
change in the mass and charge of the electron (from "bare" mass and
charge to "dressed" mass and charge); the fields are also dressed. This
handling of infinite sums of diagrams cancels the infinities that would
otherwise occur in the bare computations (known as ultraviolet
divergences). There is a different procedure (regularization) for the
infrared divergences.
Renormalization is applied to the perturbation APPROXIMATION to the
theory, and does not affect the theory itself. In particular, it does
not affect the mass of the gauge boson (the photon). This is a direct
consequence of the gauge invariance of the theory (which also holds in
the perturbation approximation). Renormalization does not affect the
fact that in QED the Lagrangian has no mass term for photons; and in the
perturbation approximation the photon propagator has no mass term.
Perhaps if you spent less time posting nonsense to the net, and more
time STUDYING, you would learn something. You also need to learn about
your personal limits and failings.
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
You do not even know what a Lagrangian is.
Y.y.Porat
----------------
we already know that Gisse is a genious
now lets examine wormley genious:
Gisse as (thank Godness)
understood at last that
the PHOTON ENERGY has mass
9wormley did nt get even that
but one day if some physicsist will write it in a book
he willl have something to QUOTE
now if th eenergy of the photon
has mass 9and one neds to be an ibecil
not to understand it at last
so ??
now we have invented two kinds of photons :
1
a photon that has mass plus energy !!
2
kind 2
that has Energy but no mass
3
and maybe 3
a photon that has no energy and no mass ??
now the question is
how can you detect the difference between ***your photon*** No 1
and photon No 2 ???
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Eric Gisse
That would have been a good question to ask 5 or 6 YEARS ago.
Why don't you do some research on Proca's equations? God knows they
have been mentioned to you at least a thousand times.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------------
Sam Wormley
> On 7 Απρ, 11:11, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Dorn.Strich wrote:
>>> On 7 Απρ, 10:42, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> David, you don't have the background to understand renormalization.
>>>> You never did answer my question about whether or not you post while
>>>> you are supposed to be working for your employer.
>>> Jumping on the sword for Tom Roberts... Well, that's a waste. Again,
>>> if you can, explain renormalization...
>> Start here, David:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
>
> Sam, having a link does not mean you understand it. In the same way,
> having a complete Encyclopedia Britannica does not mean you know
> everything in it.
What is important, David, is whether YOU understand what Renormalization,
especially since you are asking about it!
>
> Again Sam, tell us what you know about renormalization? It is okay to
> defer and admit you are only a community college teacher and this is
> way beyond you.
<laughing>
Y.y.Porat
i have no idea about
Procas equations or ideas
idid my insights and findings
independently
but anyway why dont you answer
your answer to my above questions
about
how to detect the difference between
""photon No 1""
""and photon NO 2" above
and help wormley about it
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
Eric Gisse
Again - Proca's equations. The behavior of a massive photon is
distinguishable from a massless photon.
Perhaps you should do some research? Or is it past that date when
you've spent half a decade arguing with ignorance?
Y.y.Porat
hand savings is not enough!!
WHAT IS distinguishable between a massive photon
and a massless photon??
btw
does a massless photon has energy ??
you see it is not enoughto play chess
with youself
2
i would like to here your understandings
not Procas
if you menstion it
i t means that *you *know something about it
and examined it
WITH YOUR OWN MIND .....
i would like to hear at lest the little you know about it
or else it is empty h and wavings
it should not be too complicated
and if too complicated than
probably nonsense physics
----------------
> Perhaps you should do some research? Or is it past that date when
> you've spent half a decade arguing with ignorance?
fo r me it is dead simple
no mass - no real physics !!
interesting that you talk about ignorance
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Dorn.Strich
And you cannot graduate. What are the Top Nine reasons Eric cannot
graduate?
Dorn.Strich
<laughing> Deferral acknowledged <laughing>
Dorn.Strich
That's an excellent copy and paste. Now let us see if you understand
it. Here are a few questions.
1) What is the logical and physical basis of renormalization?
I'll help you out. The answer is nothing.
2) What is the template used to correct QFT via renormalization?
I'll help you out again. The answer is non-relativistic quantum
mechanics.
3) What is the problem with applying renormalization in quantum
gravity?
I'll let you fry on this one. Holler when you need my help.
Eric Gisse
The solution has been put in front of you for F I V E Y E A R S
now. FIVE YEARS. Look it up.
[snip]
warm...@shaw.ca
Light is simply the visual proof that electromagnetic energy (mass)
has colided with mass.
Tom Roberts
> On 7 Απρ, 11:57, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Renormalization is a procedure of accounting for infinite sums of
>
> That's an excellent copy and paste.
Now let's see if you can substantiate that -- show from where it was
copied and pasted.
Tom Roberts
Y.y.Porat
-------------------
i asked you to tell us what have *you
personally* learned form it
and you dont answer
just hand waving !!
if you learned that there are
massive photons
and massles photons
you wasted your time
and wasting the precious time of others as well !!
no mass no real physics
is a new simple powerful
and efficient basic of science
Y.P
----------------------
Eric Gisse
You ask the question like the answer matters. I'm not the one who is
making the assertions that the photon has mass. *I'M* not the one who
is wholly ignorant of the theory surrounding the entity you have been
arguing about for 6+ years.
>
> if you learned that there are
> massive photons
> and massles photons
> you wasted your time
I learned that there is a treatment of either case. They are not
simultaneously true - learn to read.
> and wasting the precious time of others as well !!
> no mass no real physics
> is a new simple powerful
> and efficient basic of science
>
> Y.P
> ----------------------
Physics by catchphrase is as powerful as it is difficult to express
the thought.
Y.y.Porat
there are no two cases
if your theory assumes two cases
of photon
you are waiting your time!
you can take it from me or not
as you like it
lived long enough (unlike you)
to learn and be mathematically sure
that
**th e photon has mass**
no compromises about it
and no hot snow !!
no holding a long stick
on both of its ends etc etc
that is the best of my understanding
right now
it is a result of a long study and flowing
carefully whats going on in our wast information supply of our
world
and if you remember
i predicted long ago that for instance
no Higgs and no schmigs will be found
(though personally i am not a person of
extremes and not the type
that thinks he is 100 percent holding the absolute truth without
never considering about being wrong )
no mass no real physics
Y.P
---------------------------
------------------------
Eric Gisse
Learn to read. I just said that was not the case.
[snip]
> and if you remember
> i predicted long ago that for instance
>
> no Higgs and no schmigs will be found
When the "prediction" is based off the personal preference of a
retired - near senile - structural engineer with no education in
physics, you might as well flip a coin.
When tasked to make a _quantitative_ prediction you come up massively
short.
[snip rest]
Dorn.Strich
How convenient for you to snip the tough questions. Here they are
again. I have answered the first two. You only have one left
unanswered. Tell me if that is too hard for you.
PD
No, Tom made the right move in this game. Your predictable gambit was
to follow one ridiculous statement and Tom's response with three more
ridiculous statements aimed to generate three responses from Tom, in
an effort to keep someone busy by flinging ridiculous statements. It's
a hobby with you. Tom's response was to ask you to substantiate
something you say.
It's well known that you don't like to substantiate anything you say,
because that's not part of the game you want to play. You want other
people to substantiate what they say, but to evade the same on your
own part.
Don't you tire of being predictable and unimaginative? If manipulation
is your goal in life, don't you think you could become better at it?
PD
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
Nope. Tom followed the relativist gambit which is to divert the issue
at all costs when the relativist cannot answer the question. It is
the same gambit that you, Eric, Dirk, Sam and Paul uses. What's new.
PD
Those who do not submit to your cheezy manipulations are "diverting
the issue at all costs". Yes, of course.
PD
PD
> On 8 Απρ, 09:32, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't you tire of being predictable and unimaginative? If manipulation
> > is your goal in life, don't you think you could become better at it?
>
> > PD
>
> Nope.
That's what I thought.
Tom Roberts
> On 7 Απρ, 20:04, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Dorn.Strich wrote:
>>> On 7 Απρ, 11:57, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Renormalization is a procedure of accounting for infinite sums of
>>>> diagrams in the perturbation approximation to QED [...]
>>> That's an excellent copy and paste.
>> Now let's see if you can substantiate that -- show from where it was
>> copied and pasted.
>
I grow tired of your insults and boorish behavior. Show from where my
description of renormalization was "copy and pasted", or apologize for
your remark and admit you were wrong. Until then I won't bother to jump
through hoops for you.
_I_ know that I wrote those remarks from my general
knowledge, not "copy and paste" from anywhere.
Tom Roberts
Dorn.Strich
You're not obliged to respond. But here are the questions again in
case somebody wants to help you out, though I doubt it. Not because
they don't want to but because they cannot.
PD
Eric Gisse
Dave, what do you hope to have accomplished for your time on this
newsgroup?
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
Much more than you. You have been here for a decade, and in that
time, you have not graduated. You also have not explained anything
successfully to anybody.
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
Still using the relativist gambit? :-)
PD
So if someone doesn't jump on one of your third-grade dares, then it
must be a relativist?
Is this another example of your (If P, then Q) -> (If Q, then P)
logical leaps?
PD
doug
Dorn.Strich wrote:
Strich has not graduated in that time.
Strich has not successfully explained anything to anyone.
Strich has failed in all his attempts to attack relativity.
Strich has failed to refute any experiments.
Strich has failed at...
papa...@hotmail.com
Tom, this wacko character is not here to learn or to be polite with
anybody. He has no social education at all. He just wants to make
everyone clear he has an IQ of 200, five doctoral degrees, and nothing
anyone here can say to him, will convince him of being wrong, as he
considers all of us as idiots and schizos.
The mere fact we, knowing his behavior and intentions, respond to all
the nonsense he writes, speaks bad of ourselves. The only thing he
deserves from us is to just ignore him. That will, for sure, piss him
off, as it is also a characteristic of his behavior to look for
answers (look how when he does not receive a comment on one of his
post he will repeat the same post again and again).
I'm just ignoring him.
Miguel Rios
Dorn.Strich
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
It appears that your brain merely serves to prevent your skull from
collapsing.
If you used your brains instead of your mouth, then maybe I can start
listening. How can you convince me I am wrong when all you have to
offer are ad hominems. Does that work in your family?
It is amusing to watch all the slaves protect their high priest Tom
Roberts, who brings the occasional dream from Einstein.
doug
The title is theoretical as you have not cornered anyone. We have
hurt ourselves laughing at your failures but that is different.
PD
Need a fact checker?
PD
Nobody can convince a brick that it is wrong. That is an advantage you
share with a brick.
The objective is not to convince you of anything. Cranks cannot be
convinced of anything. That is the distinguishing feature of cranks.
Sam Wormley
>
> Much more than you. You have been here for a decade, and in that
> time, you have not graduated. You also have not explained anything
> successfully to anybody.
Hey David, what to discuss physics? Perhaps you are having trouble
with some predictions of relativity theory. Would you like to engage
in a discussion, here on USENET with me?
socratus
1.
This debate is ‘ hurricane in cup of coffee’
2.
This debate is ‘ deaf ’s dispute’.
3.
From Huyghens / Newton’s time the discussion
about light quanta doesn’t stop.
And we can debate 100 years more and other 100 years,
but without to understand what ‘ The Law of Conservation
and Transformation of Energy/ Mass’ means ( according
to one single light quanta ) this dispute will be endless.
Houyhnhnm to Googles.
============= . .
Y.y.Porat
BYE fucken incurable psychopath moron
Y.P
------------------------
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics:
> Y.y.Porat wrote:
> > my claim for mass in the photon
>
> is wrong in QED and in the standard model. Note these are the theories
> of modern physics that define what "photon" means.
>
> It is QUITE CLEAR that in these theories the photon has no mass: neither
> the Lagrangian nor the photon propagator have a mass term.
>
> Tom Roberts
Honest Roberts, your Master John Baez was quite enigmatic about this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5f3d12021141e34c
John Baez, Oct 27 1995: "You can see that I did not assert anything
about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never
talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the
photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."
Now Master John Baez does not care about the photon's mass. More
precisely, Master John Baez does not give a shit about the photon's
mass:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
Master John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which
tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum
mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity,
which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics
into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Y.y.Porat
---------------------
Hi PD
you have some greetings from
a higgs Boson that i met on the street
he does not think that you are a crook
demagogue ......
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.y.Porat
> On Apr 7, 5:54 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7 Áðñ, 09:44, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Y.y.Porat wrote:
> > > > my claim for mass in the photon
>
> > > is wrong in QED and in the standard model. Note these are the theories
> > > of modern physics that define what "photon" means.
>
> > > It is QUITE CLEAR that in these theories the photon has no mass: neither
> > > the Lagrangian nor the photon propagator have a mass term.
>
> > > Tom Roberts
>
>
> You do not even know what a Lagrangian is.
-----------------
Psychopath imbecile
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Jeff▲Relf
“ Dave, what do you hope to have accomplished
for your time on this newsgroup ? ”.
The same thing he accomplishes by playing solitaire on his PC,
it takes his mind off his limited options.
Mr. Strich feels General Relativity has limited and devalued humanity,
much in the same way some feel Darwin's Evolution has.
Einstein threatens Strich's “ religion ”: quantum weirdness.
PD
Strich9 had his electroshock therapy this morning and will need a
short while to recover himself.
Jeff▲Relf
I'd ask him how many medications he was taking, incluing beer,
but I doubt he'd give us a straight answer.
Dorn.Strich
> Renormalization is...
Here are the questions the relativists have been avoiding...
1) What is the logical and physical basis of renormalization?
I'll help you out. The answer is nothing.
2) What is the template used to correct QFT via renormalization?
I'll help you out again. The answer is non-relativistic quantum
mechanics.
3) What is the problem with applying renormalization in quantum
gravity?
I'll let you guys fry on this one.
Dorn.Strich
Sure. Let us take the neutrino for example. Why does reltivity
predict it to be massless?
PD
It doesn't.
Dorn.Strich
Let us take this one step at a time. You are too dumb for a complex
discussion.
1.) Is helicity a frame-dependent quantity? Yes or No?
PD
That depends on whether the particle with the helicity is subluminal
or luminal.
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since you abhor a luminal frame, let us take this one on a subluminal
frame.*
Is helicity of a subluminal particle a frame-dependent quantity? Yes
or No?
_____________________________________________________________
* Sidebar: Here again note that relativity has to distinguish between
a luminal versus a subluminal frame. While it is supposed to extend
the laws of physics to all frames, it continues to make exceptions for
the cases it is supposed to described.
PD
Yes.
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> * Sidebar: Here again note that relativity has to distinguish between
> a luminal versus a subluminal frame. While it is supposed to extend
> the laws of physics to all frames,
It is "supposed to" do no such thing. It makes a statement about what
is true for a certain class of frames and no other.
Dorn.Strich
2.) Since helicity is frame-dependent for a subluminal particle, then
the helicity of a non-massless neutrino should be frame-dependent, yes
or no?
PD
Yes.
Sam Wormley
Relativity DOES NOT address neutrinos.
Dorn.Strich
Well there goes the discussion you were bragging about. It ends in a
TKO as you are unable to continue...
Relativity has implications in neutrino helicity which you are
ignorant of.
Dorn.Strich
3.) Since helicity of a non-massless neutrino is frame dependent,
should we expect helicity of said neutrino to be purely left-handed,
purely right-handed, or either?
(This is a bit more difficult than binary yes/no, but I am still
giving you a choice between only 3 options. My apologies.)
PD
One would expect to find both, though not in equal amounts of course.
The domination of the left-handed over the right-handed component, as
measured, is fully consistent with both the Standard Model and with
relativity. This is discussed in some length in the references I gave
you.
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The correct answer is either. And right now (as you have found out in
your research), only left-handed neutrinos exist.
Let me summarize that:
1) Helicity is frame-dependent.
2) Neutrino helicity is frame dependent.
3) We expect both left and right handed neutrinos.
4) Experiment only finds left-handed neutrinos.
5) Experiment contradicts the relativistic prediction of the
occurrence of both left and right hand neutrinos.
PD
The correct answer is the one I gave you.
> And right now (as you have found out in
> your research), only left-handed neutrinos exist.
Who says that? Did you read the articles I gave you links to?
>
> Let me summarize that:
>
> 1) Helicity is frame-dependent.
> 2) Neutrino helicity is frame dependent.
> 3) We expect both left and right handed neutrinos.
> 4) Experiment only finds left-handed neutrinos.
Are you saying that experiment has ruled out the existence of right-
handed neutrinos? Please cite your reference for this.
Experiment has found no Earth-like planets around other stars. Is this
equivalent to experiment ruling out the existence of Earth-like
planets around other stars?
PD
Experiment finds elements with atomic number 1-116 and 118, but not
117. Does this mean that experiment has ruled out the existence of
element 117?
PD
Experiment has only found physically bound star systems with hierarchy
up to 4. Does this mean that experiment has ruled out hextuple star
systems?
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where is your right handed neutrino?
Where is your right handed neutrino?
Where is your right handed neutrino?
(Note: this is not a giveaway question so expect it to be rhetorical.)
(Note: your tantrum does not change the facts.)
Dorn.Strich
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where is your right handed neutrino?
Where is your right handed neutrino?
Where is your right handed neutrino?
At present, there is only experimental confirmation for left-handed
neutrinos.
You can froth in the mouth all day, it still does not change the
fact. Tell me when you are back in reality and ready to discuss
science, if at all...
PD
It's rarer than our sensitivity presently, at least from what would be
expected from current neutrino mass estimates, and therefore what the
fraction of right-handed neutrinos is estimated to be.