You are not logged in.
Anything with mass has kenetic energy as long as there is movement and a collision. This includes photons which have mass.
Offline
But the converse, that all things that have energy and move must have mass, is not true.
Also, photons don't really collide with things in the classic sense, they are absorbed... the "regular" rules concerning particles don't work.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
All things that have mass have energy.All things that have energy have mass. You may not think so but it is true.We just can't see the photon yet because it is so small. But one day we will.
Offline
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stu … acore.html
^_ Is this what your talking about, except instead of Antiprotons using a laser?
The MiniTruth passed its first act #001, comname: PATRIOT ACT on October 26, 2001.
Offline
Yes, it should work with some modifications of course!!!Photons have mass!!!
Offline
Nooo hold on there... this page is talking about protons, not photons. It has nothing at all to do with light, the beam that the beam-core drive speaks of is a beam of electrons and positrons, not photons. The plasma core doesn't have anything to do with photons as a linear accelerant at all, and only deal with random thermal motion. There is no means to modify this system to achieve practical thrust by using a laser for linear acceleration.
This is an application of physics, the question fo the nature of photons lies not in application but theory. Theory states clearly that photons have a zero rest mass. Theory also states the photons do not transfer momentum in the classic sense of macroworld physics. These are the issues that are to be addressed, and hence are what you should be concerned with.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Theory states clearly that photons have a zero rest mass.
Theory is not difinitive. If you have a mass that is motion then how can that mass be non massive if it is still? You can not have it both ways!!!
Offline
AH but theories that work can only be trumped by superior theories that work better. Whats yours?
Again, you are using macroscale rules on the quantum level, that the photon need not have mass to carry energy, which we mathematicly equate with the mass required for a classical particle to carry that energy as momentum. This mass doesn't really exsist as the classical mass you understand, but is what is called "apparent mass," it acts like it, but it isn't really there, and vanishes when it slows down.
There is no true mass within the photon, we only pretend that it does so that it fits in with Einstein. So yes, we CAN have it both ways, just the numbers have to be fudged a little... but it works, and so it is true enough for me unless somebody comes up with somthing that proves it wrong.
Again, the rules of the big don't work on things of the small.
Edit: Its like altering the units of the number in order to take it from one equation to the next, if you want an engineering analogy, even though it is still the same number.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
We have arrived at the point where we can measure the effects of a moving photon in this day and age. However, we do not have the technology to measure this photon mass as it is slowing all the way down to a rest mass. Remember, the particle is ever so small but moving ever so fast. In this state of its exixtance it is measurable. However, in its other state of existance (rest mass) it is not measurable with todays technology
Offline
Again no, you are not understanding... it really IS zero.
Why? Because if it were NOT zero, it would violate laws of physics. Remember that law of conservation of energy thing? Well guess what, if light had true mass, that would violated, because at the speed of light it would have infinite energy. Tell me again where you intend to get infinite energy?
It is not a question of technology, it is simple inferance... it must have zero mass or else it could not do what it does.
I suggest you look up a good quantum mechanics reference, like "In Search of Schrodingers' Cat" or anything to do with wave mechanics of light.
Edit: If it is like a classic particle, then it is subject to Einstein's relativity, and so would have infinite momentum, and hence infinite energy, since it is traveling at and not below the speed of light. If photons are classic particles as you insist, where does this energy come from? Where does it go?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Here is my theory on it. This is the calculated mass of a photon 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 grams that is tiny by anyones standards.
But this figure had to be calculated while it was in motion @186,000Mps. Now what would the weight of the particle be if we slowed it all the way down to zero
Offline
Relativity only deals with the ratio of the increase in apparent mass, it is a multiplier, so you must have some nonzero rest mass to begin with if it has that very small figure at 1C.
Zero times anything is zero, but any nonzero number reguardless how small devided by a nonzero number is still a nonzero number. It would be a small figure, as calculated using Euler's equation on previous pages, but it could not be zero.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
You cannot weasel out of this by adding zeros before the decimal place... if photons do behave as classical particles, how do you account for this incongruity?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
It could be that it is infinitely small but not zero. But I think it is calculable.
Offline
Infinitely small is an abstract term... that would mean that it could not be calculated, and is meaningless. Try again.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
And if it is infinitely small (mass), then it can't impart any momentum, nor behave like a classical particle.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Here is an analogy. Lets say the Universe is a single H2 atom and a photon is the size of a real present day H2 atom. What would that ratio be. We don't know because we don't have the technology to figure that one out yet.
Offline
Which ratio are you referring to? Your analogy makes no sense.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
And if it is infinitely small (mass), then it can't impart any momentum, nor behave like a classical particle.
Yes it can. There is a formula we just don't know it yet!! If it has mass it has to impart momentum just like a classic particle.
Offline
Okay, let me put it this way... for anything to have infinitely small mass is nonsense, it is a mathematical impossibility, it doesn't work in any equation or system of mathematics, presently known or unknown.
Also, it would preclude your laser engine to work, since the inertia it would impart would also be infinitely small, and hence essentially zero. Anything times "infinitely small" IS infinitely small, the number itself does not change when manipulated with noninfinite numbers.
Hence, it makes no sense logicly.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Infinitely small but incredbly fast with imense momentum,and kenetic energy at impact.Remember, the ions are being bombarded millions of times within the crossection and length of the tube by the photons from behind. The tube has the same charge as the ions to protect it from erosion.
Offline
No it wouldn't, because any number or velocity, even light speed, multiplied by an infinitely small number is meaningless. You wind up back where you started,
# x I.S. = I.S.
So, your photon violates the behavior of classical particles at any speed.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Oh and if it has mass... ANY MASS AT ALL... it would still violate the conservation of energy because it would still have infinite energy due to its momentum.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Hey thats right something else that needs to be rewritten in the books.
Offline
Actually,it can't exceed the speed of light so it can't have infinite momentum.
Offline