 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / February 2007mass of the photon
http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf Tony Fleming Ph.D. www.unifiedphysics.com tfleming@unifiedphysics.com > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf > > Tony Fleming Ph.D. > > www.unifiedphysics.com > tfleming@unifiedphysics.com this analytic expression for the mass of the photon comes from the self-field theory as applied to the hydrogen atom. It shows the internal workings of the atom to be a collision-based physics. > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > self-field theory as applied to the hydrogen atom. It shows the > internal workings of the atom to be a collision-based physics. ------------------ so may be you can tell us in figures what is the smalles mass of a photon in KG?? TIA Y.Porat --------------------------------------------- > > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > self-field theory as applied to the hydrogen atom. It shows the > > internal workings of the atom to be a collision-based physics. Utter crap. > ------------------ > so may be you can tell us in figures > what is the smalles mass of a photon in KG?? Zero - in whatever system of units you desire. > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------------------------------- > > > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf > > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Zero - in whatever system of units you desire. >------------------------ yes indeed that is the amount of brain in the students parrot skull from Alaska that cant finish his BSc Y.P ------------------------ > > > > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > parrot skull from Alaska > that cant finish his BSc Please tell us what degrees you have, and where you got them, so that we all know not to trust any graduates from those schools. > Y.P > ------------------------ > > > > > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > we all know not to trust any graduates from those schools. > ---------------------- th e issue is not what i know or not the issue is waht you and others pretent to know and it is obvious that you know very little you could not answer a simple basic question of the OP post i have no pretentions of knowing very much as yiou delude youself and others to know and that is my job to show to wake you from your paradize of fools and crooks btw have a look at : http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html and you will see how little i know. ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- > > > > > > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > ---------------------- > th e issue is not what i know or not Actually, it is. > the issue is waht you and others pretent to know > and it is obvious that you know very little [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and that is my job to show > to wake you from your paradize of fools and crooks The question was answered already. The photon is massless. > btw > have a look at : > > http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html > and you will see how little i know. You have no idea how true that is. > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------- > > > > > > > tflemi...@hotkey.net.au wrote: > > > > > > > >http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mas... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > and that is my job to show > > to wake you from your paradize of fools and crooksThe question was answered already. The photon is massless. Eric here's an experiment for you: SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Theory compared with experimental observation AIM: What is the mass of the photon given that QFT's answer is ZERO; while SFT's answer is AN ANALYTIC EXPRESSION (actually SFT has two analytic expressions, probably more) RESULTS?? http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of% 20the%20Photon.pdf What I want you to do is to calculate the relative error of teh two mathematics SFT and QFT. > > > > > > > > tflemi...@hotkey.net.au wrote: > > > > > > > > >http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mas... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > What I want you to do is to calculate the relative error of teh two > mathematics SFT and QFT.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - --------------------------------- and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result of my prediction a few years ago it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system ) the smallest posible photon mass!!!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result > of my prediction a few years ago > it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system ) > the smallest posible photon mass!!!! h/cc = Et/cc = mt That's not mass, retard. The mass, anyhow, applies to the matter that the fot?n leaves off. -Aut The correct and exact answer if hf/c^2 the mass depends on the frequency. You can weigh it by using a light beam trapped betwen mirrors, weigh before and after inserting the light. You could use a semi - silvered mirror facing a normal mirror put in a microbalance in darkness and then put a beam from a laser through the half silvered part. The mass will increase by nhf/c^2 where in the the average number of trapped photons. Y.Porat wrote: > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result > of my prediction a few years ago > it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system ) > the smallest posible photon mass!!!! > The correct and exact answer if hf/c^2 the mass depends on the frequency. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > it is exactly h/c^2 kg (in the MKS system ) > > the smallest posible photon mass!!!!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - an experiment for you all: SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Theory compared with experimental observation AIM: What is the mass of the photon given that QFT's answer is ZERO; while SFT's answer is AN ANALYTIC EXPRESSION (actually SFT has two analytic expressions, probably more) RESULTS?? http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%2... What I want you to do is to calculate the relative error of the two mathematics SFT and QFT. > The correct and exact answer if hf/c^2 the mass depends on the frequency. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ----------------------- i tend to agree at least theoretically 9because as for now i donmt see a tool that can measure photon mass exatly) ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- > The correct and exact answer if hf/c^2 the mass depends on the frequency. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The mass will increase by nhf/c^2 where in the the average number of trapped > photons. still the mass of the matter, not of the fotòns--liht is by definition a happening, not a thing > > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result > > of my prediction a few years ago [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -Aut ------------------------------ retard you have to multiply it by 1.0000/time unit i thought it is obvius even to a retard like you i was meaning the NUMERIC FIGURE!! got it parrot ?? see my thread: 'The mass of the photon defined theoretically by Y.Porat' from a few years ago not goos spelling there but good physics i told you parrot that generally you see some trees but you dont see the forest may be even not trees but some falling leaves (:-) Y.Porat ---------------------------- Y.Porat --------------------------- > > > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result > > > of my prediction a few years ago [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's not mass, retard. The mass, anyhow, applies to the matter that > > the fotòn leaves off. > retard > you have to multiply it by > > 1.0000/time unit As you'v no time unit, you'v no smallest mass. > i thought it is obvius even to a retard like you > i was meaning the > NUMERIC FIGURE!! > > got it parrot ?? parrot of whom? -Aut > > > > and if you dont mind that gives exactly the result > > > > of my prediction a few years ago [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > As you'v no time unit, you'v no smallest mass. -------------------- the time unit is just formally to get even with the dimesion analysis numerically in the MKS system it is h/c^2 and it fits nicely to the experiments thought those experiments are not subtle enough as it is now (the experimental tools as now ar enot acuarate enough) and even so it is close enough to the experimental results > --------------- ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- > > > > > > > > > tflemi...@hotkey.net.au wrote: > > > > > > > > > >http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mas... [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Y. the SFT expression is m_gamma = h_bar*vel_electron/(4*c^3) which evaluates to 0.214 x 10^(-53) kg. as per the abstract. > Y. the SFT expression is m_gamma = h_bar*vel_electron/(4*c^3) which > evaluates to 0.214 x 10^(-53) kg. as per the abstract. m_jamma "=" 'h'v_e/4ccc = Etv_e/4ccc2pi = mtv_e/4c2pi = ms_e/4c2pi -> You are a dumb liar. The "vel" would need to be acceleration; even then, the last c is a fake rate as it'd need to apply to a boost and not be there for the sake of celerity, or wavely propagation. -Aut > > > > > > > > > > tflemi...@hotkey.net.au wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mas... [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - Show quoted text ----------------------- so please calculate the value of h/c^2 in mks and see what you get ..............!!! and i have even a physical explanation to it: h is indivisible !!! it can be only in whole units and 1.000xh is the smallest the c^2 is just to get even withthe dimensions of mass ATB Y.Porat ----------------- ATB Y.Porat -------------------- > > > > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > parrot skull from Alaska > that cant finish his BSc Ah. Now you have moved on to the "Making sh.t up about my education" phase. > Y.P > ------------------------ > > > > > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Now you have moved on to the "Making sh.t up about my education" phase. ----------------------- actually me and many others do not give much sh.t about formal degrees we have seen too many idiot PHds and others that didnt have a high degree that were brilliant not only in mumbling but in advancing science scince is full examples of the other kind of people..... now before being a scientist one must be a **human being**.............................!! Y.Porat ---------------------- In sci.physics, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote on 20 Jan 2007 00:58:09 -0800 <1169283489.741113.6410@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >> > > http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf >> > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Zero - in whatever system of units you desire. Not that the rest mass of a photon will be much in any event; the maximum value I can come up with is about 1.1 * 10^-35 kg (400 nm), and that's assuming Newtonian concepts. This can also be represented as 6.2 eV. (The actual energy of a 400nm photon would be half that.) http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310595 suggests an upper bound at the far lower mass of 10^-35 eV, though I don't know what wavelength they're assuming. >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> ---------------------------------------------  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Does anyone else remember the 1802? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics, Eric Gisse > <jowr.pi@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > suggests an upper bound at the far lower mass of 10^-35 eV, though > I don't know what wavelength they're assuming. ------------------------------------------------------ very nice! now take that momentum and divide it by c and you will get themass that is log ago known to me yet i was thinking that if by any chance the op poster can get it **by another way or approach* IT COULD BE A NICE CROSS VERIFICATION TO MY CLAIMES actually i am not the only one with those claimes more and more cleaver open minded people (that are more physicists than dumb mathematicians)-- are getting it!! (and that gets eric Shaise the disturbed student from alaska and other littl eparrots- into pannic ie toloose their 'gripp' on what they were gambling so long!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- ATB Y.Porat --------------- > -- > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net > Does anyone else remember the 1802? > ------------------------------------------------------ > very nice! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > into pannic > ie toloose their 'gripp' on what they were gambling so long!! How do you choose which words to misspell, catenate and split? What decides where you will abandon English grammar and where you will keep it intact? As this particular post very effectively demonstrates, it's all quite artificial. Bob Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein In sci.physics, Y.Porat <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote on 21 Jan 2007 00:13:56 -0800 <1169367236.206891.309880@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>: >> In sci.physics, Eric Gisse >> <jowr.pi@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > very nice! > now take that momentum and divide it by c Not quite that simple. First, in Newtonian mathematics E = 1/2 m v^2 and p = mv; therefore E = 1/2 p v and p = 2E / v. Second, v != c in Newtonian theory, although if one measures from a point motionless to the source one gets either c or c - w, depending on whether one assumes c relative to the source, or one assumes c relative to a rigid aether (where w is the velocity of the source relative thereto). Of course all experiments to date tend to support the notion that p = E/c (which can be derived from the formula E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 with m=0), and that a photon's speed is measured to be c no matter what the motion of source and observer is. Third, Hexenmeister hasn't a clue anyway. :-) The round-trip time of a light pulse from here to the moon is about 2.6 seconds, and is measured on a fairly routine basis. Such measurements allow for precise determination of the moon's motion. (The data is available though I'd have to find it again. I do know it's out there since I copied it at one point; the data clearly shows the Earth's rotation and to a lesser extent the Moon's changing distance between perigee and apogee. I know there's an observatory in France that took such measurements, and there are a few here in the US as well.) Also, as a very simple illustration, if one takes the formula x = r * cos(theta) y = r * sin(theta) and runs theta from 0 to 2*pi, the point (x,y) will travel through a distance 2 * pi * r but the endpoints at theta=0 and theta=2*pi are coincident and therefore 0 units apart. [rest snipped] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows. Because it's not a question of if. It's a question of when. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics, Y.Porat > <y.y.porat@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > -- > -------------------------- Thank you now i don't get into the question about speed of light relevant to the mass of photon problem 2 the formula : E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 does not apply to the photon !!!! to understand it is the difference between a thinking physicist and a mathematician that thinks he is a physicist!! that formula is relevant only in a mixture case of particles plus photons for the photon it is only E=mc^2 (which is the original formula of Einstein so if p=mc than m=p/c just as simple as that for the photon (and of course there are many photons ps Mr Bob how is the spelling now ?? (:-) do you mind some physics as well ?? btw if i am in a good mood i use the new spell checker of Google it is a blessed new tool !! anyway this is not a literature ng ..... ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- > > In sci.physics, Y.Porat > > <y.y.porat@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > i don't get into the question about speed of light > relevant to the mass of photon problem ...because you are an idiot... > 2 > > the formula : > > E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 > does not apply to the photon !!!! Actually, it does. You are just too stupid to see why. > to understand it is the difference between a thinking physicist > and a mathematician that thinks he is a physicist!! Remind us, what is your education in physics? That's right. Shut the f.ck up. > that formula is relevant only in a mixture case of particles > plus photons Wrong. > for the photon it is only > > E=mc^2 (which is the original formula of Einstein Wrong. > so if > p=mc than Also wrong. > m=p/c > just as simple as that for the photon > (and of course there are many photons *ALSO* wrong. > ps > Mr Bob [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it is a blessed new tool !! > anyway this is not a literature ng ..... Yes, god forbid you learn to spell. This post took less than 45 seconds to write out completely. If I can do it, so can you. > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------- lectures and teaches his Pupil Porat: > to the The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >> > -------------------------- >> Thank you. now >> i don't get into the question about speed of light >> relevant to the mass of photon problem [Jower] > ...because you, Porat, are an idiot... [Yehi] >> the formula : >> E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 >> does not apply to the photon !!!! [Jower] > Actually, it does. You are just too stupid to see why. [Yehi] >> to understand it is the difference between a thinking physicist >> and a mathematician that thinks he is a physicist!! [Jower] > Remind us, what is your education in physics? > That's right. > Shut the f.ck up. [Yehi] >> that formula is relevant only in a mixture case of particles >> plus photons [Jower] > Wrong. [Yehi] >> for the photon it is only >> E=mc^2 (which is the original formula of Einstein [Jower] > Wrong. [Yehi] >> so if p=mc than [Jower] > Also wrong. [Yehi] >> m=p/c >> just as simple as that for the photon >> (and of course there are many photons [Jower] > *ALSO* wrong. [Yehi] >> ps Mr Bob how is the spelling now ?? (:-) [Jower] > Yes, god forbid you learn to spell. This post took less than 45 seconds > to write out completely. If I can do it, so can you. [hanson] ... ahahahaha... Eric, at least you must give unconditional credit to Yehi for him having labeled your as the "Jower". Do you know what that means in Polska Yiddish?... ahahaha... Listen, Jower, one day you'll make a fine physics teacher, but the current social environment will not allow your above used type of instruction. OTHO the situation may revert and be again like it was when Prof. Fraunfelder used to lecture us: "Anyone who does not get it right, right now... must line up in front of the blackboard and I personally will stick a propeller in your a.shole and let you fly out of this august institution"... Heidi, the only girl in class stared at him with saucer sized eyes, in horror. Slowy, Fraunfelder walked up to her and yelled into her face: "What are you looking at like this for !? I ain't f.cking you, am I?" Heidi cried and the terror went on..... ahahahaha... A few days later Fraunfelder entered, smilingly waving a pink letter of reprimand in front of us, looking at Heidi: "So, your useless stud complained to the Admin on your behalf. You, Miss Henning, are alright, but if I catch that Beau of yours I will stick a propeller in his a.shole also"... Then very slowly & with deliberation Fraunfelder tore & shredded his pink reprimand and threw the shreds in her face and said: "Go to the Dean and his Admin goons and tell'em to come down here so that I can stick propellers into the a.sholes too!.... Don't you little fools understand that I am educating you?".... Jower, doesn't that feel like Balsam on your cold Alaskan soul? Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha.... ahahaha.... ahahahanson Constipated Jower: "I don't give a sh.t what you believe - it is wrong." 9 Nov 06 "I don't give a sh.t about philosophy." 16 Nov 06 "perhaps you could explain to me why I should give a sh.t? " 20 Nov 06 "Plus some other stuff like proofs, which I don't honestly give a sh.t about. " 25 Oct 06 Until Jower is force-fed an enema he'll never get anywhere or understand mathematics. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in news:sy8th.524$dN2.80@trnddc07 , http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/87d3dbce97bae3fc > ... ahahahaha... Yehiel's Jower "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> > who appears to function and be Porat's teacher and confidant in > news:1169486053.347443.103500@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [Andro] Constipated Jower: "I don't give a sh.t what you believe - it is wrong." 9 Nov 06 "I don't give a sh.t about philosophy." 16 Nov 06 "perhaps you could explain to me why I should give a sh.t? " 20 Nov 06 "Plus some other stuff like proofs, which I don't honestly give a sh.t about. " 25 Oct 06 Until Jower is force-fed an enema he'll never get anywhere or understand mathematics. [hanson] ahahaha.... AHAHAHA... You are a good diagnostician Dr. Andro. But let me add that the cause for Jower's unsavory condition may be "environmental": Low humidity of cold, arctic air in Fairbanks. Desiccates him too much... or OTOH, perhaps.... Jower "don't give a sh.t" because Yehi doesn't wanna "take a sh.t" ahahaha.... ahahahanson > "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in news:sy8th.524$dN2.80@trnddc07 , > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/87d3dbce97bae3fc [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Jower "don't give a sh.t" because Yehi doesn't wanna "take a sh.t" > ahahaha.... ahahahanson It's fuckin' dark and cold enough in England this time of year, it must be hell in Alaska when they have to run to the Fairbanks reading room in the snow. http://tinyurl.com/3bhynp I can see why giving a sh.t would be a big deal to an Esquimeaux like Jower. As we say in England "Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey". http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwordorigins/brassmonkeys Actually this is the brass monkey the sailors were referring to, and what did they care? But it's no longer politically correct on the internet to say so. http://www.exoticandoriental.co.uk/acatalog/New-Brass-Buddha.jpg > > "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in news:sy8th.524$dN2.80@trnddc07 , > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/87d3dbce97bae3fc [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > did they care? But it's no longer politically correct on the internet to say so. > http://www.exoticandoriental.co.uk/acatalog/New-Brass-Buddha.jpg ------------------------- hahahaha thanks for the laughs guys!! anyway lets forget about Gisse =Jower and other disturbed leeches and creeps we have no time for nonsense physics of parrots as them!! let them play with their own sh.t and we will march on !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- In sci.physics, Y.Porat <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote on 22 Jan 2007 08:13:45 -0800 <1169482425.622578.68470@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >> In sci.physics, Y.Porat >> <y.y.porat@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > m=p/c > just as simple as that for the photon Nice try, but for a photon m = 0 and p = E/c. The latter is readily verified by Compton scattering. The former is a little more difficult; the best I can do there is note that diffraction gratings work. Yes, there is a connection! Briefly, a diffraction grating is wavelength-dependent; in Newtonian theory, the movement of the light source will not affect the observed wavelength of the light. Since gratings are routinely used to determine velocity (and observe line shifts in the Frauenhofer lines), it's clear Newton isn't at play here. > (and of course there are many photons > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------------------- Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics, Y.Porat > <y.y.porat@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > Nice try, but for a photon m = 0 and p = E/c. It is the proper mass (aka "rest mass") that has the value of zero. The inertial mass (aka "relativistic mass") which has the value of m = p/v by definition. Anything else and you're simply discussing semantics. Pete In sci.physics, Pmb <peter102560_nospam@comcast.net> wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:36:25 -0500 <M7OdnbgKHpBg4SrYnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@comcast.com>: >> In sci.physics, Y.Porat >> <y.y.porat@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > inertial mass (aka "relativistic mass") which has the value of m = p/v by > definition. Anything else and you're simply discussing semantics. An interesting subpoint. I am thinking rest mass but it's certainly possible Y. Porat would prefer relativistic mass; however, AIUI relativistic mass is a bit out of fashion anyway. > Pete Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111: while(bit&BITMASK) ; -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Jan 25, 5:03 am, The Ghost In The Machine <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics, Pmb > <peter102560_nos...@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > relativistic mass is a bit out of fashion anyway. > ----------------------------- '''Y,Porat wouild prefer relativistic mass????????!!!!!''' i am the last one on earth to prefere relativistic mass my innovation idea is that THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS: REST MASS!! it can be in motion but still the same rest mass (in motion) and rest mass in motion is energy !! no mass --no real physics !! (hey!! how could you come to your stragne' quoting' of me?? ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------- > > Pete-- > #191, ewi...@earthlink.net [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - > In sci.physics, Pmb > <peter102560_nospam@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > possible Y. Porat would prefer relativistic mass; however, AIUI > relativistic mass is a bit out of fashion anyway. I can't see that relativistic mass is out of fashion. In fact my GR textbook by Schutz uses it. There is a list of people that use the concept on the internet from univeresities to national labs. Ask yourselfd this question - If a person teaches the concept of rel-mass then wouldn't it seem strange if he himself never used it? For a list of textbooks, universitiess and national labs that use it please see http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/relativistic_mass.htm Notice especially this Cern - The Cyclotron "The real limiting factor is the basic design - all particles must orbit at the same frequency, whatever their speed. As particles approach the speed of light, however, they behave as if their mass is increasing. Accelerating them becomes more difficult and they start to lag behind the oscillating electric field. As cyclotrons approached 20 MeV they began to reach their limits and a new design had to be produced." Notice that it simply says "mass" and *not* "relativistic mass". Some people claim that this does not exist today. Pete In sci.physics, Pmb <peter102560_nospam@comcast.net> wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:30:16 -0500 <R8udnQTI6MtDPyXYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>: >> In sci.physics, Pmb >> <peter102560_nospam@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > If a person teaches the concept of rel-mass then wouldn't it seem strange if > he himself never used it? I wouldn't know; I don't think I ever got that far. :-) > For a list of textbooks, universitiess and national labs that use it please > see [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > electric field. As cyclotrons approached 20 MeV they began to reach their > limits and a new design had to be produced." One of the more interesting aspects -- which Dumbledore aka Androcles aka Hexenmeister aka Whatever The Hell He Is This Week doesn't appear to be able to get around in a nice fashion -- is that the specifications of the Large Hadron Collider require near-c for the proton, since the beam frequency is 11.245 kHz around a just-shy-of-27 km circumference, with an energy (7 TeV) that, were this a Newtonian universe, have them going more than 120x lightspeed. Admittedly, there is the problem of brehmsstrahlung, but I doubt it's major. > Notice that it simply says "mass" and *not* "relativistic mass". Some people > claim that this does not exist today. Both are concepts anyway. One can measure mass by using a pan scale, but that's not a direct measurement of mass; it's more a counterbalancing of two torques caused by two masses in a uniform (within a few millions or billionths of a percent, anyway) gravitational field [*]. In a weightless environment, one might be able to use magnetic fields if both masses are known to be ferromagnetic, or just spin the entire space station and carefully position the scale so that its pivot point is directly underneath the spindle (so that one approximate the uniform centripetal acceleration again). One can measure weight by using Hooke's law and careful calibration. Ideally, we'd actually *count* Avogadro's Number (6.022 * 10^23) and define that as 12 grams of carbon. At 1 femtosecond an atom it would only take just over 19 years. :-) We might cheat a bit by counting only 5.01833 * 10^22 atoms, and get 1 gram of carbon; that would only take 1.59 years or so -- assuming Maxwell's Demon is willing to work for us for that long. And of course an accelerator has to take into account the increase in relativistic mass as the proton increases speed. Otherwise, the beam goes out of sync. Presumably, the LHC developers know what they're doing (I don't, but then I don't claim to be a particle physicist :-) ). > Pete [*] the so-called "doctor's scale" can be thought of as an assymetric pan scale. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #11823822: signal(SIGKILL, catchkill); -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics, Pmb > <peter102560_nospam@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 192 lines] > [*] the so-called "doctor's scale" can be thought of as an > assymetric pan scale. Why even bother with illiterate "bown" ? He's soon dropped his Best Wishes. hf/c^2 >> http://unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20th e%20Photon.pdf >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > self-field theory as applied to the hydrogen atom. It shows the > internal workings of the atom to be a collision-based physics. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.