What a photon really is:
fitz
Old Pif
******************************************************************************************************************************
its orbital size decreases and the detector (your eye) now receives
the quantum of energy released from the severed sigma bond binding
energy (E=mc2).
******************************************************************************************************************************
What is "m"? Photon is massless, and you have two electrons and two
nuclei.
Me, ...again!
Go do a google search on the term "photon mass" and you will get many
links with varying claims, answers, estimates, and upper limits, etc.
and you have two electrons and two
> nuclei.
Um...what is the connection between the two electrons and two nuclei? And,
the photon?
Old Pif
He-He, you have a spirit of scientist. For that you need to click on
the link in the original post. After which I bet you ask the same
question.
Me, ...again!
Well, OK. I had a look at the guy's webpage and I'm not sure (honestly) to
what degree I should take it seriously. He makes a lot of connections
between things (and just like our economists who use theory and their
brains to make sweeping generalizations) and then makes statements that
are unqualified. I felt all manner of warning alarms as I read words on
the home page like "dystopian" and "Einstein" making what sounded like a
retraction, and then he signs one page with "thi...@infoIndia.com" and
the first thing I thought: is he is another Kamal?
Of course, I could be missing something. Perhaps you can clue me in a
little better. P.S. the links you can get on "photon mass" as I they came
up when I did the google search claimed, variously, that the photon had
zero mass or some small amount of mass. So, maybe I am making a sick joke,
but if you have nothing, or almost nothing, then does it matter?
Like Kamal's "Theory of Comparative Advantage" (which he says is a "law"
but I've seen it in many economics books as a "theory"), it seems to me
that there are a lot of caveats that need to be discussed, and maybe they
have no final answer. Like Newtonian physics and Quantum physics; under
some conditions one is better than the other, and under other conditions,
its the other way around.
;-)
Old Pif
> the first thing I thought: is he is another Kamal?
>
> Of course, I could be missing something. Perhaps you can clue me in a
> little better. P.S. the links you can get on "photon mass" as I they came
> up when I did the google search claimed, variously, that the photon had
> zero mass or some small amount of mass. So, maybe I am making a sick joke,
> but if you have nothing, or almost nothing, then does it matter?
>
> Like Kamal's "Theory of Comparative Advantage" (which he says is a "law"
> but I've seen it in many economics books as a "theory"), it seems to me
> that there are a lot of caveats that need to be discussed, and maybe they
> have no final answer. Like Newtonian physics and Quantum physics; under
> some conditions one is better than the other, and under other conditions,
> its the other way around.
>
> ;-)
Well, quite simply, the energy of emitted photon (or frequency if you
prefer this unit) is determined by the difference in energy of two
electron states. Electron system passes from one state (conformation)
to another and photon is emitted of absorbed dependent whether the
difference is positive or negative. It is a common concept. Whereas
Professor mentions something about E-m*c2 opening apparently the whole
new chapter in this business. The only difficulty is to understand
what m is? There is a wide choice in this problem. First of all two
electrons that creates the bond, second one or two nuclei dependent
whether he works with atoms or molecule. They are required because
free electron simply flies apart. And finally if he is one of the guys
who believe that photon has mass than the photon mass. I am curious
how he can get out of this woods.
Me, ...again!
OK....
Electron system passes from one state (conformation)
> to another and photon is emitted of absorbed dependent whether the
> difference is positive or negative.
OK
> It is a common concept.
Yeah, even I can figure that out.
Whereas
> Professor mentions something about E-m*c2 opening apparently the whole
> new chapter in this business. The only difficulty is to understand
> what m is?
Well, one has to ask of conversion of energy level from high to low is
100% in making a photon, or some of the energy goes someplace else?
Then, the question is if the energy in the photon is connected to the mass
of the photon divided by the square of speed of light. I abstain from
answering that.
There is a wide choice in this problem. First of all two
> electrons that creates the bond,
Can shared electrons (in a [covalent] bond) have different energy levels
than unshared electrons?
second one or two nuclei dependent
> whether he works with atoms or molecule.
First, nuclei should be independent since they have "similar energy
levels" but emit or absorbe X-rays, not visible photons.
Second, atoms are usually not individual but in a state or crystal or
liquid or gas and as molecules (H2, O2, etc.) no?
They are required because
> free electron simply flies apart. And finally if he is one of the guys
> who believe that photon has mass than the photon mass. I am curious
> how he can get out of this woods.
The guy sounds like an undergraduate with excess imagination and total
belief that you can take bolts and metal sheets and make airplanes without
nuts for the bolts. Like Kamal who thinks an economic theory is a law, and
therefore it has to work and not require experimental evidence.
phil scott
> On Dec 30, 6:23 pm, fitz <zeus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What a photon really is:
>
> >http://www.amperefitz.com/phton.htm
>
> > Click link.
>
> > Fitz
>
> its orbital size decreases and the detector (your eye) now receives
> the quantum of energy released from the severed sigma bond binding
> energy (E=mc2).
>
> What is "m"? Photon is massless, and you have two electrons and two
> nuclei.
its loopy think I believe... in spades, the theory does not accunt
for linear travel of a photon
as its supposed souces is dependent on an electron pair... supposedly
a free electron pair.