wrote:
Photons are not particles because they have no rest mass; particles
by definition do.

Quantum ElectroDynamics tells us that nothing except
particles exist. Photons are *particles* with zero
rest mass. QED! (Get it? :-)

Would you like to hear about virtual particles?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Photons are not particles because they have no rest mass; particles
by definition do.

Quantum ElectroDynamics tells us that nothing except
particles exist. Photons are *particles* with zero
rest mass. QED! (Get it? :-)

Cecil, do you ever tire of playing semantic games?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Quantum ElectroDynamics tells us that nothing except
particles exist. Photons are *particles* with zero
rest mass. QED! (Get it? :-)

Cecil, do you ever tire of playing semantic games?

I never tire of semantic humor. A double meaning or,
even better, a triple meaning, is one of the things
that makes English so enjoyable. (And I really enjoy
the "wench for sell" over on rec.radio.swap.)

But seriously, QED indicates that everything that
exists is a particle, even if it has no rest mass,
even if it is only virtual.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:

...

No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not
a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...)

It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ...
the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our
future; presently we only have theories ...

I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more
than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves
appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians
will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And,
finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon.

We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although
we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it
to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations
and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that
before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to
fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final
conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we
do it all over again ...

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
the "wench for sell" over on rec.radio.swap.)
...

How much is the wench? What does that wench look like, there a pic? grin

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Really? I am going to have to see that one to believe it (not saying
it is incorrect though), a "something" with no mass--kinda like a
"ghost particle!"

It's old hat knowledge, John, and one of the reasons
why standing wave energy doesn't just stand there or
just "slosh around" as one guru asserted. If a photon
is slowed to zero velocity, its mass vanishes and
it ceases to be detectable. A photon's mass derives
from its speed-of-light velocity, i.e. it is 100%
kinetic. Any particle with a resting mass would necessarily
have infinite mass at the speed of light. Therefore, any
particle with a finite mass at the speed of light must
necessarily have a zero rest mass.

Cecil:

I know that is argued, and I suspect it all hogwash.

If "they" have to create theories depending on disappearing particles,
when you get one where you can take a look at one of them dern
"particles", that is just TOO desperate.

However, it does, in my personal opinion, suggest a STRONG relationship
of the "particles" to the ether--the ether cannot be seen nor detected
either ... (that is, IF it really exists, as I suspect it does ... )

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not
a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...)

It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ...
the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our
future; presently we only have theories ...

I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more
than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves
appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians
will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And,
finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon.

We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although
we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it
to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations
and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that
before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to
fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final
conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we
do it all over again ...

Ignorant nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...

Jim:

I do believe much of higher academia, and the subjects which drives it,
is above you, and confuses you--frankly, I think it all or most appears
as BS to you ...

That is too bad man. Perhaps a group centered around appliance usage
would better suit you ...

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Really? I am going to have to see that one to believe it (not saying
it is incorrect though), a "something" with no mass--kinda like a
"ghost particle!"

It's old hat knowledge, John, and one of the reasons
why standing wave energy doesn't just stand there or
just "slosh around" as one guru asserted. If a photon
is slowed to zero velocity, its mass vanishes and
...

Cecil:

One more thing ... On those those frisky, frolicking photons.

What would you attribute the fact the "photons" in HF behave much
differently then then the photons of VHF/UHF/SHF/LIGHT to?

JS

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:45:31 GMT, Dave
wrote:
Gauss' Law is for static electric charges and fields.

It is usually used for problems in electrostatics, but it is not
confined to such problems. The differential form of it is just one of
the Maxwell equations:

div E(x,t) = 4\pi\rho(x,t)

Integrate it over a fixed surface and you get the integral form, which
is Gauss's law. It is valid with time-dependent charge densities and
time-dependent electric fields.

--John