|
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me: I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either - just that it's the way the math works out. That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question becomes whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some original observation, or whether the maths as information is as fundamental, if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I decided to let that line of inquiry drop. |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont- email.me: I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either - just that it's the way the math works out. That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question becomes whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some original observation, or whether the maths as information is as fundamental, if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I decided to let that line of inquiry drop. I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my lack of understanding of the basics behind it. Looking back 50 years (back when subatomic particles such as quarks, muons, etc. were still in an early theoretical stage), I wish I would have become a theoretical physicist. Not that I would have won a Nobel Prize or anything (I wouldn't), but I think my life would have been much more enjoyable. I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to be involved. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m16b3a$d52$1@dont-
email.me: I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to be involved. I got into electronics too, but it had more to do with the little neon bulbs than the maths. The things totally fascinated me as a kid. :) IO was never good at maths, I only got to grips with logarithms because I needed them to make a phase mod synth actually happen, with my own code. Maybe my use of word 'metaphysical' is badly chosen, what I really mean is that no usefully predictive theory (so far as I know) models information in a coherently or structured link as mass is to energy. If it did the worth of maths changes entirely from an explanatory device, to a means of actually making stuff. The patterns of numbers are as 'out there' as any physical discovery, so perhaps this is so. The bit that does get tangled with metaphysics is that if this is so, then our thought (as well as our observations, a fact already established in quantum theory) shapes our world in ways more fundamentally direct than we usually imagine. It opens up questions as to whether the ever present risk of war is due to the human obsession with it rather than anything else, and perhaps the reason that physists, despite having created the atomic bomb, tend not to 'do war' precisely because they're usually too busy thinking deeply about other things. :) |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
On 10/9/2014 10:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:19 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 10/8/2014 9:06 PM, rickman wrote: On 10/8/2014 7:14 PM, wrote: gareth wrote: wrote in message ... gareth wrote: wrote in message ... All electromagnetic radiation is photons, no matter what generated the photons, be it a burning match or current in a conductor. By just a naming convention, or by detectable individual wave packets? By over 100 years of research into the nature of electromagnetic radiation. Were I to transmit a single unmodulated carrier at 3.6MHZ, how many of your photons per second would be generated, and, as each photon is a packet with amplitude rise and fall times, why isn't the extra bandwidth due to that AM detectable? Likely because your assumptions and questions are babble. Start with "each photon is a packet with amplitude rise and fall times". They are not. Each photon has an energy E=hf, where f is frequency and h is Planck's constant. No packets, no rise and fall times. That's not perfectly correct. A photon may not be a wave packet, but it is a particle with mass and size which could be interpreted as having rise and fall times. However... they are all identical and any one photon could not be modulated. Rick, While agree with your statement, I have another problem with physics as a whole. Einstein proved that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate ANY mass to the speed of light. However, photons seem to have mass and travel at the speed of light. My knowledge of physics does not allow me to resolve this contradiction. Start he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity 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. You just don't get it. A photon has no rest mass. It only has it's engergy. If it had rest mass and had to be accelerated to the speed of light not only could it not accelerate to c, it couldn't accelerate instantaneously to *any* speed. The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E = mc^2. -- Rick |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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. 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. -- Rick |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip Looking back 50 years (back when subatomic particles such as quarks, muons, etc. were still in an early theoretical stage), I wish I would have become a theoretical physicist. Not that I would have won a Nobel Prize or anything (I wouldn't), but I think my life would have been much more enjoyable. I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to be involved. FWIW I started out to be a theoretical physicist then read a bunch of salary surveys comparing pay scales for various science related professions. I changed my major to engineering the next day. -- Jim Pennino |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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. 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 :) -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 10/9/2014 1:19 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 10/8/2014 9:06 PM, rickman wrote: On 10/8/2014 7:14 PM, wrote: gareth wrote: wrote in message ... gareth wrote: wrote in message ... All electromagnetic radiation is photons, no matter what generated the photons, be it a burning match or current in a conductor. By just a naming convention, or by detectable individual wave packets? By over 100 years of research into the nature of electromagnetic radiation. Were I to transmit a single unmodulated carrier at 3.6MHZ, how many of your photons per second would be generated, and, as each photon is a packet with amplitude rise and fall times, why isn't the extra bandwidth due to that AM detectable? Likely because your assumptions and questions are babble. Start with "each photon is a packet with amplitude rise and fall times". They are not. Each photon has an energy E=hf, where f is frequency and h is Planck's constant. No packets, no rise and fall times. That's not perfectly correct. A photon may not be a wave packet, but it is a particle with mass and size which could be interpreted as having rise and fall times. However... they are all identical and any one photon could not be modulated. Rick, While agree with your statement, I have another problem with physics as a whole. Einstein proved that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate ANY mass to the speed of light. However, photons seem to have mass and travel at the speed of light. My knowledge of physics does not allow me to resolve this contradiction. Start he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity 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. You just don't get it. A photon has no rest mass. It only has it's engergy. If it had rest mass and had to be accelerated to the speed of light not only could it not accelerate to c, it couldn't accelerate instantaneously to *any* speed. 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... -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip 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... This is rather circular, but... It comes from the energy of the photon and the energy of the photon comes from whatever created the photon. Specificially it come from the energy-momnetum relation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity Look at the paragraph labled: The relativistic energy-momentum equation. One way to look at it is that relativistic mass is not a real mass but an effect that is equivelant to a mass. If you really want to have something to wonder about, read up on tachyon fields and imaginary mass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_field -- Jim Pennino |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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 |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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 |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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 |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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 |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
|
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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 ================== |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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 ================== |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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 ================== |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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 |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
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 ================== |
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$1@dont-
email.me: But by definition, anything moving at the speed of light must be massless, because it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate even an electron to that speed. Which means a photon cannot have mass. Agreed, (though mass-energy it does have), Not why I posted though, I find that the interestign thing is this term 'speed'. A 'speed' is something that CAN be reached, so what interests me is that the timing of light's travel seems to have other things to be known, starting with why it even appears to be a 'speed' and why it has the value it has. Studies of refractive index don't seem to have cracked this, but Bose-Einstein condensates seem to be doing dramatic things that might. |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
On 10/10/2014 4:04 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m17bvm$cm0$1@dont- email.me: But by definition, anything moving at the speed of light must be massless, because it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate even an electron to that speed. Which means a photon cannot have mass. Agreed, (though mass-energy it does have), Not why I posted though, I find that the interestign thing is this term 'speed'. A 'speed' is something that CAN be reached, so what interests me is that the timing of light's travel seems to have other things to be known, starting with why it even appears to be a 'speed' and why it has the value it has. Studies of refractive index don't seem to have cracked this, but Bose-Einstein condensates seem to be doing dramatic things that might. That's true. But what is also interesting is there is no absolute velocity - only relative velocity. However, there is a maximum speed, and the effect of time dilation in respect to relative speed is interesting. Einstein's equations showing how this works were pure genius. But I'm not familiar with what a Bose-Einstein condensate is doing in this area . Could you please elucidate? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m18uud$pa8$1@dont-
email.me: But I'm not familiar with what a Bose-Einstein condensate is doing in this area . Could you please elucidate? I wish I could! All I know is that someone 'slowed light to a crawl' by passing it through one. I knos so little about it that I can't make useful thoughts about the comment. I'm also unsure or relativistic effects. When I read about it, I got as far as reading of some transformative 'foreshortening' described in one book, only to get completely foozled, and read later than that whole notion was badly described to the point of beign wrong anyway. Whatever the theory says, I never found a translation into English that I could grasp. The one thing I did get was that the approach to this 'speed', a quantity defined as if on a linear continuum, is unapproachable and that all attempts to do so seem to result in exponential chages tending to infinity. For that reason, and that alone, I assume it is not a speed, no matter how it may look. But that is just how it feels to me when I try to think about it. |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
On 10/10/2014 3:45 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m18uud$pa8$1@dont- email.me: But I'm not familiar with what a Bose-Einstein condensate is doing in this area . Could you please elucidate? I wish I could! All I know is that someone 'slowed light to a crawl' by passing it through one. I knos so little about it that I can't make useful thoughts about the comment. I remember an article recently in one of the magazines which indicated scientists had actually stopped a pulse of light for a indefinite time. I also remember where they slowed light down to a very slow speed. I don't remember that Bose-Einstein condensates were involved, but I'm not sure. I'm also unsure or relativistic effects. When I read about it, I got as far as reading of some transformative 'foreshortening' described in one book, only to get completely foozled, and read later than that whole notion was badly described to the point of beign wrong anyway. Whatever the theory says, I never found a translation into English that I could grasp. The one thing I did get was that the approach to this 'speed', a quantity defined as if on a linear continuum, is unapproachable and that all attempts to do so seem to result in exponential chages tending to infinity. For that reason, and that alone, I assume it is not a speed, no matter how it may look. But that is just how it feels to me when I try to think about it. Well, one thing - the speed of light is not actually a constant. It is a constant in vacuum, but in other materials it is slower. So if the friction/viscosity effects of glass were ignored, for instance, you'd still have a maximum velocity. It would just be rather significantly less than in a vacuum. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m19tmu$snl$1@dont-
email.me: Well, one thing - the speed of light is not actually a constant. It is a constant in vacuum, but in other materials it is slower. So if the friction/viscosity effects of glass were ignored, for instance, you'd still have a maximum velocity. It would just be rather significantly less than in a vacuum. That's true.. refractive index and such. I read recently that a negative refractive index can exist, but I don't remember how that works. The thing is, once the light leaves the glass and returns to air or vacuum, normal 'speed' is instantly resumed. :) Maybe that Bose Einstein condensate (it was definitely such, though the same name occurs in other things even less understood by me) had basically just a humungous refractive index, but I don't think I read of any obvious relation to refraction either in that slowed-light report, so I tend to have a 'watch-this-space' view in its general direction. I suspect it will take several reports of new things before some pattern emerges than I will understand. I'm wary of thinking of refractive index's effects as friction or viscosity. I suspect that those notions relate to things with rest mass and electrical charges and don't model closely to what light is up to. At the risk of sounding silly, I think Terry Pratchett had a point when he said that wherever light gets to, the dark is already there, waiting for it. Personally I think that neither exists without the other, and the only reason we can posit 'nothing' is because we can posit 'a thing'. Whether such talk obstructs or helps science I am never entirely sure. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com