You are not logged in.
Okay, not trying to be mean here, but I am intending to humble...
You are right and 75+ years of the greatest minds that our world has known are wrong?
Hardly
You have displayed the complete inability to even start to conceve of the quantum nature of matter and energy, you continue to insist on the use with obviously broken and oft contradicted Newtonian physics, and contine to claim that somthing that is preposterous even when confronted by reasoning based on the foundations of thermodynamics that you CAN understand using your simplified "billiard ball" nature of the universe.
I'm sorry, but you either get with the program or this discussion is meaningless.
[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 doesn't have to EXCEED the speed of light: if somthing that has mass were to be AT the speed of light, it would have infinite momentum energy. Since light travels at light speed, and does not have infinite energy, it must therefore have no mass!
[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
The mear fact that it exists means it has mass. That goes with anything in the universe.
Offline
No it does not. That is a classical rule for particle and macroscale physics which is obsolete and proven wrong by the particle character of photons.
Energy doesn't have mass, and it exsists.
[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
Wrong,
Does it exist in the universe? If it does, it takes up space, and therefore it has mass.
Offline
No, you are wrong. Energy in your limited narrow way of thinking is entirely apart from matter, seperate and exsisting as somthing else. Matter and energy are different things, as Einstein said in E=mc^2. He didn't say m=mc^2, did he?
Energy, in "your" physics, is not matter. Only matter, by your physics, is required to occupy space. Energy is not bound by this requirement, or any other requirement like that of matter.
[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 matter has energy all matter has mass therefore all energy has mass.
Offline
No, because not all energy has mass. Energy is not matter, even by your highschool-level physics applications. That "E" and the "M" are on opposit sides of the equal sign.
[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 matter has energy all mass has energy all matter has mass therefore all energy has mass.
Offline
What you just wrote:
Matter has energy
(Matter has mass)
Mass has energy
This is not being disputed, but the reverse is not true. Energy doesn't have to have mass. You may be thinking you can't have energy just off by itself, it must be manifested by some physical property of matter. IE there is no free (unconneceted) energy
Oh yes there is. And it IS photons, which are NOT made of matter.
[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
Well, as I have said we just can't measure the mass of these at rest photons yet because they are so small. Has anyone ever tried to or have they always thought they were non existant so no one never bothered?
Offline
No no no... it is not a matter of smallness, its ZERO. If it were not ZERO, then light would have infinite energy! Unless you are willing to claim that Newton AND Einstein AND Quantum Theory are all wrong? That basicly all of the modern science of physics is WRONG? You are even basing your own arguments on Newtonian physics!
There is also no way to measure it directly, it can only be inferred, since nothing in the universe moves at zero speed. You know how to extrapolate to zero on a graph... if you do that with an electron, you get a nonzero value for mass. If you do that with a photon, you get either zero or a nonsense 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
The center of the universe moves at zero speed.
Offline
Space does not have a "speed" or "motion" persay, and the center of the universe is just a point in space. Nothing special about it in any thermodynamic sense. The photons there would be moving anyway... There is nowhere in the universe that any matter or energy can stop except black holes, and that is because of time dialation, not kenetic motion.
[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
When we can measure it directly one day we will find out that photons at rest do have mass.Although, it will be small.
Offline
No, this is not possible.
A photon will always assume the maximum possible speed in the medium through which it travels, which is dependant primarily on the density of the material. You would need a material of infinite density to reduce its speed infinantly all the way down to zero, and there can be no such thing. This would also violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which applies to all particles quantum or not when you take into account zero point field.
There is no way... it was hard for even the great physics minds accept that some things like this CANNOT be, that is it is against the physical laws that govern the universe to observe a photon at rest... As I have shown, and for a multitude of other physics concerns which even I don't understand, a photon cannot have a rest mass. Zero. None. Period.
[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
The only way I can conceive of it being possible it to confine it by gravity to slow it down but it would have to be a very powerfull gravity field of some sort.
Offline
Relativity still dictates that it must have zero rest mass, this is not avoidable. The conservation of energy is not avoidable. Therefore, it would take infinite energy to create a photon were it not massless, even < 1 x 10^(-9999999999999999999)g etc, and that photon would carry more than the sum of the energy in the universe. Unless you intend to say Einstein's relativity if false, which has been proven right experimentally on many occasions, then the photon must have zero mass.
The photon in a gravity field does not actually slow down, the gravity field actually bends the flow of time, slowing down the photon from the point of view outside the gravity field, but to the photon it is still moving at the speed of light. Sorry, this won't work either.
If its a question between Einstein and Errorist, i'm betting on Einstein.
Edit: Think of it like this... the photon isn't slowing down, its being caught in a region of space where time doesn't flow as fast, not that it has actually lost its motion energy. Like a fish swimming against the current, the fish isn't moving as fast as it would in still water, but its still swimming at the same speed with the same energy.
[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?
Did you not miss some 0's out?
There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
--Arthur Buller--
Offline
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.
Schrodingers Cat is probably in my top ten book list (for sceince books at least), for a science book it explains things in simple terms - something of use for many!
There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
--Arthur Buller--
Offline
How do we know a photon is not traveling in circles as it moves along?
Offline
And what would this have to do with anything relating to the mass of photons?
Unless you can think of somthing that would circumvent the conservation of energy, then you are stuck. And if you did come up with somthing, I would call you a quack.
[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
Let me expound a moment... the gravitational effect on time in the vicinity of a black hole has been OBSERVED by a telescope. The gasses swirling around move slower than they should, even though they lose no energy.
[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
Schrodingers Cat is probably in my top ten book list (for sceince books at least), for a science book it explains things in simple terms - something of use for many!
In Search of Schrodinger's Cat is pretty old - probably going on 20 years now - but it's a great introduction to the basics of quantum physics. Gribbin wrote another book called in Search of Schrodinger's Kittens but it wasn't as good.
Offline
Schrodingers Cat Got hit by photons and got kilt because photons have mass.
Offline