Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

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.

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.

Nor can they be accelerated.


--
Jim Pennino

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 10/9/2014 9:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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.

Maybe you need to learn more about mass in general, including rest
mass... a quote from wikipedia page on the Higgs Boson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_b...entific_impact

"about 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the
proton and neutron) is due instead to the kinetic energy of quarks and
to the energies of (massless) gluons of the strong interaction inside
the baryons."

Photons are not alone nor especially unique.

--

Rick

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 10/9/2014 10:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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.

Now you are smoking dope...


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.

If you say so.

--

Rick

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 10/9/2014 10:40 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 9:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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.

Maybe you need to learn more about mass in general, including rest
mass... a quote from wikipedia page on the Higgs Boson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_b...entific_impact

"about 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the
proton and neutron) is due instead to the kinetic energy of quarks and
to the energies of (massless) gluons of the strong interaction inside
the baryons."

Photons are not alone nor especially unique.


Yes, I'm familiar with baryons, the Higgs Boson, fermions, quarks and
the like. But the quote from Wikipedia is not proven and is far from
universally accepted. Many more physicists believe that mass comes from
the interaction of subatomic particles with the Higgs field; no Higgs
field, no mass. But they don't understand the details yet.

Really - Wikipedia is NOT a good resource for this type of thing.

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

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

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 10/9/2014 10:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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.

Now you are smoking dope...


And now you are trolling. This discussion is over.

But I would recommend you learn more of what you're talking about. I
may not understand the math, but I do understand Einstein's thoughts on
the subject. I've studied it enough.

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

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

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 10/9/2014 10:57 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:40 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 9:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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.

Maybe you need to learn more about mass in general, including rest
mass... a quote from wikipedia page on the Higgs Boson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_b...entific_impact

"about 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the
proton and neutron) is due instead to the kinetic energy of quarks and
to the energies of (massless) gluons of the strong interaction inside
the baryons."

Photons are not alone nor especially unique.


Yes, I'm familiar with baryons, the Higgs Boson, fermions, quarks and
the like. But the quote from Wikipedia is not proven and is far from
universally accepted. Many more physicists believe that mass comes from
the interaction of subatomic particles with the Higgs field; no Higgs
field, no mass. But they don't understand the details yet.

Really - Wikipedia is NOT a good resource for this type of thing.

Yes, it is far from perfect... but I think you misunderstand the issue
with mass more than Wikipedia is wrong. The nice thing about Wikipedia
is that it does provide references so you can follow the information
back to the source... and yes, I have seen Wiki articles twist the
information and in once case claimed the opposite of what the reference
said. But in this case Wikipedia is not wrong...

The Higgs field gives rise to the mass of elementary particles, most of
them anyway. But the proton and neutron are not elementary particles...
So don't compare apples and oranges. Do you get your mass from the
Higgs field? I get mine from eating too much popcorn.

From an interesting but long discussion of some of the issues...

http://profmattstrassler.com/article...higgs-faq-2-0/

"Other things get their masses from sources other than the Higgs
particle. The majority of the mass of an atom is its nucleus, not its
lightweight electrons on the outside. And nuclei are made from protons
and neutrons — bags of imprisoned or “confined” quarks, antiquarks and
gluons. These quarks, antiquarks and gluons go roaring around inside
their little prison at very high speeds, and the masses of the proton
and neutron are as much due to those energies, and to the energy that is
needed to trap the quarks etc. inside the bag, as it is due to the
masses of the quarks and antiquarks contained within the bag. So the
proton’s and neutron’s masses do not come predominantly from the Higgs
field."

So even much of the "rest mass" of neutrons and protons comes from the
relativistic mass of the elementary particles comprising these
particles. Don't get all bent out about photons having relativistic
mass and not rest mass. Mass happens...

--

Rick

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 10/9/2014 11:00 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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.

Now you are smoking dope...


And now you are trolling. This discussion is over.

But I would recommend you learn more of what you're talking about. I
may not understand the math, but I do understand Einstein's thoughts on
the subject. I've studied it enough.

Then you are going to miss the surprise ending! I figured out what you
aren't understanding... at least one thing you aren't understanding.

--

Rick

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

rickman wrote in :

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.


CM and QM have more in common than I was led to beleive at first, especially
when it comes to direct observations. My first reading told me that position
and momentum (as well as time and energy) were two mutually exclusive
proprties, one being known while the other could not be known. The
'Heisenberg Uncertaintainty Principle (though I think there was a Pauli's
Exclusion Principle somewhere too, but I can't remember being told much about
that one, Heisenberg (and Bohr) were the big names in anything I read.

Anyway, I ended up with some thought experiment. (Good enough for
Schroedinger, good enough for me...) I imagined a dancer leaping across a
stage. I imagines a photographer adjusting the exposure time of a camera to
capture each moment, trying to get the best out of the uncertain light and
timing. I decided that as an aggredate of particles, the dancer, and the
film, and the passing photons, should still show something of the QM
behaviour, very directly, straight to out human perception. If it were not
so, how could we make ANY observations to prove any theory?!

I realised that a logn exposure would blur the image, giving big clues as to
the momentum of the ebent but blurring the position, and conversely a short
exposure can get precise position and leave a great deal of uncertainty about
momentum, for example motion of an arm relative th the rest of the dander's
body.

Some years later the things I read about QM started saying this too! That the
degree of informational accuracy about one property WAS on a continuum of
certainty, just as in CM observations. This did not surprise me, but it did
please me better than the older notion of absolute 'focus' on one or the
other. Perhaps books for laymen just got better written, I don't know...

This went further though. I also decided that after examining the photo at
length, and considering other contexts after the event, both position AND
momentum could be known with precision.

I'll admit to being surprised when that too was recently stated by scientists
to be the case for QM too, as well as CM. it is now recognised that AT THE
TIME OF THE EVENT, the uncertainty priciple applies, but there is what I call
a temporal bandwidth that applies, outside of which more certainty is had
about both properties.

My current thought is that eventually QM, having belped build the tools that
see where Bohr said we could not see, will also show us a great deal about
our perception of time, and therefore time itself.

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m17bvm$cm0$1@dont-
email.me:

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.


Agreed, (though mass-energy it does have), Not why I posted though, I find
that the interestign thing is this term 'speed'. A 'speed' is something that
CAN be reached, so what interests me is that the timing of light's travel
seems to have other things to be known, starting with why it even appears to
be a 'speed' and why it has the value it has. Studies of refractive index
don't seem to have cracked this, but Bose-Einstein condensates seem to be
doing dramatic things that might.