mass is light.

Brad Guth wrote:
Sorry about that one. I meant Hubble photon mass of 5.81e-66g, that
which I believe becomes worth a nearly resting photon mass of
6.4555e-83 gram. Though I also believe there's a perfectly good
conjecture as based upon similar laws of physics offered by team KECK.
-
Brad Guth




Try to ignore those that deride our serious posts. The fact that
Goddard Research Center is trying hard to determine a photon's mass,
and the Hubble Telescope people as well, pretty much shows that
determining whether or not a photon has mass is quite important. The
quote below is from the Hubble Site:

"A nonzero photon mass would have major implications, such as
longitudinal electromagnetic waves in vacuum and the
frequency-dependent velocity of light. For Lakes' experiment, a cosmic
vector potential predicted by some theories should be detected. It was
not. Source: Phys. Rev. Lett., 2 March"

If your calculation are correct, and the weight is roughly times 10 to
the -83, then Goddard's inability to accuratly weigh photons below
times 10 to the -48 may explain why they were unable to detect Mass.

I am still trying to figure out where this 'massless photon' concept
came from. Einstein clearly states that Pure Energy would mean the
'speed of light squared', not the 'speed of light' as those that are in
the Box are saying. Apparently, however, photons are very small mass
objects. Quite a challenge.


tomcat

Brad Guth wrote:
Sorry about that one. I meant Hubble photon mass of 5.81e-66g, that
which I believe becomes worth a nearly resting photon mass of
6.4555e-83 gram. Though I also believe there's a perfectly good
conjecture as based upon similar laws of physics offered by team KECK.
-
Brad Guth


tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
Team KECK and a few others have also established the mass that's
associated with photons. That number represents an extremely small
amount of mass that's even less if those photons are nearly resting,
such as photons associated with a black hole which might actually
represent a form of dark matter or dark energy as safely surrounding
the likes of antimatter, as being what I believe represents the other
90% of mass in the universe.

There is no shortage of photons.
-
Brad Guth


I would love to see a reference on that 'Team KECK' photon mass
statement. Went looking for something on it, but couldn't find
anything.

I did find this, however:

"A nonzero photon mass would have major implications, such as
longitudinal electromagnetic waves in vacuum and the
frequency-dependent velocity of light. For Lakes' experiment, a cosmic
vector potential predicted by some theories should be detected. It was
not. Source: Phys. Rev. Lett., 2 March"

Apparently, photon mass is of some importance.

tomcat




The quote below speaks for itself. It seems that the concept of a
massless photon is 'assumed', not verified in any way.


"Estimate of photon mass is listed in 2004 compendium
Dmitri Ryutov's paper "The Role of Finite Photon Mass in
Magnetohydrodynamics of Space Plasmas," which appeared in a plasma
physics journal in 1997, has recently piqued the interest of particle
physicists and astrophysicists worldwide. Ryutov's upper estimate of
a finite photon mass has been selected to appear in the 2004 edition of
the Review of Particle Physics, a biannual authoritative compendium of
particle data, as the best estimate of photon mass to date, eight years
after the original discussion.
For calculations, photon mass is assumed to be zero, but physicists
have been trying for years to determine how small the mass actually is.
The finite-mass photon is perfectly compatible with Einstein's
relativity theory. Ryutov suggested an upper limit based on
observations of the solar wind: The photon mass is less than the
electron mass divided by 10 billion of trillions. Still, even this tiny
mass would have a strong effect on large-scale astrophysical phenomena,
says Ryutov.
Contact: Dmitri Ryutov (925) 422-9832 )."


I know the "finite-mass photon is perfectly compatible with Einstein's
relativity theory" because I derived the mass of the big juicy red
photon using Einstein's relativity theory. And, here is the basis of
the so called massless photon concept:

"For calculations, photon mass is assumed to be zero, but physicists
have been trying for years to determine how small the mass actually
is."

The "calculations" are for those anchored to a BOX. It is for those
that can't get out of the BOX. When the mass is finally determined, as
I have done here on the Usenet for those that listen to it's better
posters, the BOX people will go deaf, dumb, and blind. Remember, they
can't imagine life outside the . . . BOX.


tomcat

"tomcat" wrote:

Try to ignore those that deride our serious posts.

If you think Brad Guth's posts are serious...well, I have nothing
constructive to offer you on that front.

I am still trying to figure out where this 'massless photon' concept
came from.

It comes from the assumption that the speed of light is a constant that
is measured identically in all inertial frames of reference. That
assumption is extremely well tested.

Einstein clearly states that Pure Energy would mean the
'speed of light squared', not the 'speed of light' as those that are in
the Box are saying.

Pure energy need not be moving.

The idea of squaring a velocity is meaningless.

Basically, you're reading the equation wrong. It has nothing whatsoever
to do with velocity. It simply describes the amount of energy inherent
in a certain mass, stating that mass and energy are equivalent. What
was once considered separate conservation of energy and conservation of
mass are now a unified conservation of mass-energy.

Apparently, however, photons are very small mass
objects. Quite a challenge.

Very small mass indeed -- every test says the mass is zero. Just like
the tests that say there is no aether.

Alan Anderson wrote:
"tomcat" wrote:

Try to ignore those that deride our serious posts.

If you think Brad Guth's posts are serious...well, I have nothing
constructive to offer you on that front.

I am still trying to figure out where this 'massless photon' concept
came from.

It comes from the assumption that the speed of light is a constant that
is measured identically in all inertial frames of reference. That
assumption is extremely well tested.

Einstein clearly states that Pure Energy would mean the
'speed of light squared', not the 'speed of light' as those that are in
the Box are saying.

Pure energy need not be moving.

The idea of squaring a velocity is meaningless.

Basically, you're reading the equation wrong. It has nothing whatsoever
to do with velocity. It simply describes the amount of energy inherent
in a certain mass, stating that mass and energy are equivalent. What
was once considered separate conservation of energy and conservation of
mass are now a unified conservation of mass-energy.

Apparently, however, photons are very small mass
objects. Quite a challenge.

Very small mass indeed -- every test says the mass is zero. Just like
the tests that say there is no aether.



There are a lot of assumptions here. The assumption of all frames of
reference measuring the speed of light as the same. And, yes, I am
familiar with the Michaelson Morley experiment in the 1800's.

The assumption that there is no aether. This is currently being
challenged. Quantum Foam is thought to be a possible aether.

When you say I am reading [ E = M C ^ 2 ] incorrectly, let me remind
you that E stands for energy, M stands for mass, and C stands for the
speed of light and, finally, ^ 2 stands for squared. Once again, I
think you are introducing some 'assumptions' here.

Light is very strange stuff. It can be slowed down and speeded up as
well. If it exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum it flows backward.
And then we have Cherenkov Radiation where light is given off by
particles that exceed the speed of light in a given medium.

Cherenkov Radiation Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

So, we are dealing with pretty weird, strange, almost magical, stuff
called light. If photons really do have little, tiny mass even
relative to electrons and neutrinos then it 'might' be possible that
photons are the building blocks, not quarks. Or, to put it differently
it 'might' be that photons make up the quarks and, maybe, even the
'strings'. They are strange little things that seem to know when they
are being watched.

Well, I am not claiming to have all of this figured out. But having
this discussion has been enlightening to me and to others I think too.
Art Deco would probably enjoy it too except that his brain is locked in
a box somewhere and can't get out.


tomcat

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

that was one of the most moronic
songs ever written by anyone, ever...
It was about "feelings," not rationality or
reality. Many millions have died on the alter of feelings.

Uhh, Rand... it's a song. A pop song. Over the millennia, a great many
songs, poems, dramas, etc. have been about feelings (no tendentious
quotation marks) rather than rationality or reality. If they all get
up your nose so much, you must spend a lot of time in that huff.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:52:35 -0400, in a place far, far away, Alan
Anderson made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"tomcat" wrote:

Try to ignore those that deride our serious posts.

If you think Brad Guth's posts are serious...well, I have nothing
constructive to offer you on that front.

Well, they're probably serious to Brad.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:23:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

that was one of the most moronic
songs ever written by anyone, ever...
It was about "feelings," not rationality or
reality. Many millions have died on the alter of feelings.

Uhh, Rand... it's a song. A pop song. Over the millennia, a great many
songs, poems, dramas, etc. have been about feelings (no tendentious
quotation marks) rather than rationality or reality. If they all get
up your nose so much, you must spend a lot of time in that huff.

I don't pay attention to most of them (and I'm not opposed to songs
about feelings, per se). It's just that particular one that irks me,
because it's become an anthem for the thoughtless.

A "magnetofluxgate" is one example of an "inwardly directed"
anti-electromagnetic field drive - an advanced technology that
utilizes a tempic field effect to "port" real objects into
past or future time frames "caudaceously". The translation is
positronic, meaning opposite to the rotation of the electron
around the nucleus, for a particularly aligned "polarization".

The directivity of an electron "cloud" is an example of
"polarization", with the difference that a "positronic" cloud
forms opposite to the "electron" cloud. Radiation results in
the flow of ions from negative electron clouds to these posi-
tive "clouds", resulting in "current". Since this reaction is
almost instantaneous, one would be required to create a "bot-
tled" effect over the positronic cloud, in order to "filter
out" any of the field effects that are induced by the magneto-
fluxgate, by "tuning the coils" to resonate (chirp) at specific
frequencies that are non-naturally resonant with some
preselected, polarized substance (e.g., Bi-IV).

I believe that this technology has already been "discovered"
and even "utilized" somewhat. How much, and to what extent, no
one knows. But I can say that, now, there is no such thing
as "FTL" per se, if the "ether" already "stores" particular infor-
mation w.r.t. time & location of "synchronized synchronicities",
for which the availability becomes "tapped into", when a phase
envelope containing the natural frequencies of a system become
"pink noise amplified", in order that the new "carrier wave" re-
mains sublimated (bottled) with the geodymic transfer of real
mass, across great distances.

"FTL" would then be, not "faster than light" but "multi-
parallel processed" outside of being "visually perceived".

In article . com,
tomcat wrote:

So, we are dealing with pretty weird, strange, almost magical, stuff
called light. If photons really do have little, tiny mass even
relative to electrons and neutrinos then it 'might' be possible that
photons are the building blocks, not quarks.

If photons have mass, then that says that the EM force has an
exponentially decaying range - and non-infinite.

'Might' is a pretty unscientific term in this case.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.