On 10/9/2014 5:12 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:09 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only
thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question
becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as
fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.


Yes and no. I'm also trying to consider it in the QM domain, but there
is just too much unknown about it. And while we may have to accept
things without explanation, that's only because we don't have the
explanation yet. Much like the Curies and Roentgen not being able to
understand radiation and X-rays, respectively, even though they could
observe the results.

That is an assumption. There are many aspects of QM that simply don't
have an underlying reason. At least when they do the math it simply
says this will happen without an explanation. QM is full of that sort
of thing. Classical mechanics has fewer things that aren't based in
deduction.


Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.


That's simple. The last time a guy approached me, I was repelled!
Unlike that cute gal at the bar last night... Too bad I'm married

Ok. But no understanding of the why, eh?

--

Rick

On 10/9/2014 5:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E
= mc^2.


I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

When a proton is accelerated and the mass quadruples, where does that
extra mass come from?

--

Rick

On 10/9/2014 5:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E
= mc^2.


I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

Another question... when subatomic particles are created in pairs from
energy, where does the mass come from?

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E
= mc^2.


I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

When a proton is accelerated and the mass quadruples, where does that
extra mass come from?

Photons are not accelerated; they either exist and are travelling at the
speed of light (in the medium) or they don't exist.

And before you ask, the speed change in the local frame due to a change
in medium is instantaneous, which would be impossible if they had rest
mass.


--
Jim Pennino

On 10/9/2014 7:46 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E
= mc^2.


I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

When a proton is accelerated and the mass quadruples, where does that
extra mass come from?

Photons are not accelerated; they either exist and are travelling at the
speed of light (in the medium) or they don't exist.

And before you ask, the speed change in the local frame due to a change
in medium is instantaneous, which would be impossible if they had rest
mass.

No one has said a photon has rest mass. In fact it is impossible for it
to have rest mass since it can never be at rest...

--

Rick

On 10/9/2014 7:02 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:12 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:09 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in
news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only
thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question
becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as
fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.


Yes and no. I'm also trying to consider it in the QM domain, but there
is just too much unknown about it. And while we may have to accept
things without explanation, that's only because we don't have the
explanation yet. Much like the Curies and Roentgen not being able to
understand radiation and X-rays, respectively, even though they could
observe the results.

That is an assumption. There are many aspects of QM that simply don't
have an underlying reason. At least when they do the math it simply
says this will happen without an explanation. QM is full of that sort
of thing. Classical mechanics has fewer things that aren't based in
deduction.


Not that we understand at this time. Just as there weren't underlying
reasons to the Curies and Roentgen.


Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.


That's simple. The last time a guy approached me, I was repelled!
Unlike that cute gal at the bar last night... Too bad I'm married

Ok. But no understanding of the why, eh?


Oh, I understand why - very well! To both cases.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On 10/9/2014 7:04 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E
= mc^2.


I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

When a proton is accelerated and the mass quadruples, where does that
extra mass come from?


It comes from the energy used in the acceleration of the proton, based
on Einstein's equations. Mass and energy are just different
manifestations of the same thing.

But by definition, anything moving at the speed of light must be
massless, because it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate
even an electron to that speed. Which means a photon cannot have mass.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On 10/9/2014 7:10 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E
= mc^2.


I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

Another question... when subatomic particles are created in pairs from
energy, where does the mass come from?


I have no idea - which is why I'm asking these questions.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 10/9/2014 9:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 7:04 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E
= mc^2.


I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

When a proton is accelerated and the mass quadruples, where does that
extra mass come from?


It comes from the energy used in the acceleration of the proton, based
on Einstein's equations. Mass and energy are just different
manifestations of the same thing.

So why do you have trouble understanding where the relativistic mass of
a photon comes from? Is the exact same thing but without the rest mass.


But by definition, anything moving at the speed of light must be
massless, because it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate
even an electron to that speed. Which means a photon cannot have mass.

Yes, it has no *rest mass*. The rest mass is what limits the
acceleration. You are thinking in a circle and you can't seem to get
out of the loop. Rest mass vs. relativistic mass. One is present even
at rest while the other is a result of the energy added as a function of
its speed.

--

Rick

On 10/9/2014 9:56 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 9:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 7:04 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its
energy, E
= mc^2.


I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

When a proton is accelerated and the mass quadruples, where does that
extra mass come from?


It comes from the energy used in the acceleration of the proton, based
on Einstein's equations. Mass and energy are just different
manifestations of the same thing.

So why do you have trouble understanding where the relativistic mass of
a photon comes from? Is the exact same thing but without the rest mass.


But if it's moving at the speed of light, it can't have any mass.
Einstein did not differentiate between rest mass and relativistic mass.


But by definition, anything moving at the speed of light must be
massless, because it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate
even an electron to that speed. Which means a photon cannot have mass.

Yes, it has no *rest mass*. The rest mass is what limits the
acceleration. You are thinking in a circle and you can't seem to get
out of the loop. Rest mass vs. relativistic mass. One is present even
at rest while the other is a result of the energy added as a function of
its speed.


No, I'm not thinking in circles. According to Einstein, mass is mass.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================