RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS ABOUT THE PHOTON MASS

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e668a90057feb?

On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:

"Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."

A curious person asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why
not?"

John Baez replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I
know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here
because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring,
boring."

The curious person could have asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a
gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes
c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?"

John Baez would have replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed
of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational
field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless
discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring,
boring."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e668a90057feb?
:
: On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:
:
: "Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."
:
: A curious person asked:
:
: "Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why
: not?"
:
: John Baez replied:
:
: "You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I
: know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here
: because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring,
: boring."
:
: The curious person could have asked:
:
: "Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a
: gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
: c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes
: c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
: observer?"
:
: John Baez would have replied:
:
: "You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed
: of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational
: field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless
: discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring,
: boring."
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
In other words Baez pretends he knows what mass is.
I'm so fantastically clever I know what mass is too, but
if I told you then it would be boring.
If you guess right, then I told you so.
Get it wrong and you can blame Baez.

Androcles wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e668a90057feb?
:
: On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:
:
: "Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."
:
: A curious person asked:
:
: "Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why
: not?"
:
: John Baez replied:
:
: "You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I
: know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here
: because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring,
: boring."
:
: The curious person could have asked:
:
: "Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a
: gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
: c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes
: c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
: observer?"
:
: John Baez would have replied:
:
: "You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed
: of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational
: field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless
: discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring,
: boring."
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
In other words Baez pretends he knows what mass is.
I'm so fantastically clever I know what mass is too, but
if I told you then it would be boring.
If you guess right, then I told you so.
Get it wrong and you can blame Baez.

The question:

"Does the speed of light vary in a gravitational field in accordance
with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a
gravitational field, becomes c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of
the light source and the observer?"

can (and should) be answered without necessarily considering the
related question:

"Does the photon have a mass?"

Of course, in a normal situation the two questions would always be
considered together. However in Einstein's world the situation is by
no means normal and Einsteinians would take any opportunity to convert
the second question into a red herring. One should not give them such
opportunities: the first question alone is fatal for Einstein's
relativity.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
: ups.com...
: :
:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e668a90057feb?
: :
: : On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:
: :
: : "Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."
: :
: : A curious person asked:
: :
: : "Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why
: : not?"
: :
: : John Baez replied:
: :
: : "You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I
: : know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here
: : because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring,
: : boring."
: :
: : The curious person could have asked:
: :
: : "Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a
: : gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
: : c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes
: : c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
: : observer?"
: :
: : John Baez would have replied:
: :
: : "You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed
: : of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational
: : field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless
: : discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring,
: : boring."
: :
: : Pentcho Valev
: :
: In other words Baez pretends he knows what mass is.
: I'm so fantastically clever I know what mass is too, but
: if I told you then it would be boring.
: If you guess right, then I told you so.
: Get it wrong and you can blame Baez.
:
: The question:
:
: "Does the speed of light vary in a gravitational field in accordance
: with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a
: gravitational field, becomes c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of
: the light source and the observer?"
:
: can (and should) be answered without necessarily considering the
: related question:
:
: "Does the photon have a mass?"
:
: Of course, in a normal situation the two questions would always be
: considered together. However in Einstein's world the situation is by
: no means normal and Einsteinians would take any opportunity to convert
: the second question into a red herring. One should not give them such
: opportunities: the first question alone is fatal for Einstein's
: relativity.
:
: Pentcho Valev

Find a flaw in this argument:

1) We measure mass by applying force and measuring acceleration.

2) Acceleration is overcoming inertia.

2a) "Inertia" is shorthand for Galileo/Newton's first law.

"Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
thereon."

2b) Acceleration is Galileo/Newton's second law:

"The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force
impressed;
and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is
impressed."

3) Intuitively, matter has mass; by definition, by observation, by
experience.

4) Newton's third law is conservation of momentum.

"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual
actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to
contrary parts."

5) Photons are not matter, they are the electromagnetic transfer of energy.
Photons come in pairs. For every photon there is an equal and opposite
rephoton; a restatement of Newton's third law in a different situation.

6) A photon is the wave superposition of two or more oscillators which only
move once (the so-called "quantum" of energy).

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/rephoton.gif

6a) The total energy of two photons is mc^2.

7) Asking if a photon has mass is asking if a photon has inertia.

8) The path of a photon is curved in a rotating frame:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...r/fw/crls.rxml

9) By observation of 9) Photons have inertia.
10) Photons are not matter.

11) Whatever matter is, we can only detect it by it radiating energy by
reflection or its own emission.

12) Newton was puzzled by "action at a distance", yet accepted the
existence of matter axiomatically. It's a given. What he did not know of
was the periodic table, the Bohr model of the atom or electrodynamics.

I suggest we reverse that old, worn out way of thinking and accept
action-at-a-distance as a given and then ponder over matter.


The pieces of the puzzle are all there. Yes, the photon has mass. One can
apply a force to it and nudge it from its path. That's what a diffraction
grating or prism does.
What a photon lacks is matter. The photon is the link between
action-at-a-distance
and matter, a line of enquiry to investigate.

What *IS* matter?

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.
The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to
hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his
ntelligence." -- Einstein.

"Androcles" wrote in message k...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
: ups.com...

[snip of usual exchange of irrelevancies]

I suggest we reverse that old, worn out way of thinking and accept
action-at-a-distance as a given and then ponder over matter.

That sums it up pretty well.
The return to Aristotle of the "Electronic Engineer, Professionally"

Dirk Vdm

On May 18, 11:52 am, "Androcles" wrote:

Snipped nonsense, because I know it ****es Androcles ("Roar!") off.

Find a flaw in this argument:

Only one?


3) Intuitively, matter has mass; by definition, by observation, by
experience.

Wow, very deep understanding of particle physics.


4) Newton's third law is conservation of momentum.

So you agree with the law of conservation of ANGULAR momentum, too?


"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual
actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to
contrary parts."

5) Photons are not matter, they are the electromagnetic transfer of energy.
Photons come in pairs. For every photon there is an equal and opposite
rephoton; a restatement of Newton's third law in a different situation.

Yet the existence of SINGLE photons is a requirement of the Law of
conservation of angular momentum!

Suppose we have emission from a 2P (3/2) or 2P (1/2) state to a 1S
state, say in sodium (Ken Seto's obsession). An electron in a p
orbital has a angular momentum quantum number of 1 [for a total
angular momentum of sqrt(2) h bar]. An electron in a p orbital has 0
angular momentum. After emission, the angular momentum is sqrt(2) hbar
less than it was before.

The question for the (ersatz) "engineer" is: what happened to the
missing angular momentum? Haven't we violated the Law of conservation
of angular momentum?


6) A photon is the wave superposition of two or more oscillators which only
move once (the so-called "quantum" of energy).

Blah, blah, blah. Roar, roar, roar.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/rephoton.gif

6a) The total energy of two photons is mc^2.

7) Asking if a photon has mass is asking if a photon has inertia.

No, it isn't.


8) The path of a photon is curved in a rotating frame:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...r/fw/crls.rxml

9) By observation of 9) Photons have inertia.
10) Photons are not matter.

11) Whatever matter is, we can only detect it by it radiating energy by
reflection or its own emission.

What about absorption?


12) Newton was puzzled by "action at a distance", yet accepted the
existence of matter axiomatically. It's a given. What he did not know of
was the periodic table, the Bohr model of the atom or electrodynamics.

What is all this nonsense about the Bohr model? Even Bohr dropped the
model when much better stuff came along (QM).


I suggest we reverse that old, worn out way of thinking and accept
action-at-a-distance as a given and then ponder over matter.

Maybe take the splinter out of your paw first. Roar!


The pieces of the puzzle are all there. Yes, the photon has mass. One can
apply a force to it and nudge it from its path. That's what a diffraction
grating or prism does.
What a photon lacks is matter. The photon is the link between
action-at-a-distance
and matter, a line of enquiry to investigate.

What *IS* matter?

Is Androcles the cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz?


"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities."

i.e., Androcles, hanson, malibu, Ken Seto, Y. Porat, ...

"The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to
hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his
intelligence." -- Einstein.

On May 18, 1:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/d28e668a...

On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:

"Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."

A curious person asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why
not?"

John Baez replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I
know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here
because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring,
boring."

While I don't agree that the topic is boring, I do agree that it isn't
easy to understand, so I'll try to explain it. Photons don't exist.
Nothing that doesn't exist has mass.

From the relativistic (Minkowskian) viewpoint, there doesn't even
exist em radiation period, not even in the form of classical em waves;
charges interact directly with one another, and the delay that we see
is a result of our mistaken Galilean observational perspective. Time
is other than what Newton said it was, that is, it is not the same
time here as it is there. The em field of a charged particle subtends
space and time, rather than space alone.
There exists a coordinate system in which the field of a charged
particle remains perfectly rigid, but in that system the field extends
through time as well as space, which is contrary to our "assumed"
perspective of things existing only from moment to moment.

I've heard the photon-mass debate a million times in this NG, to the
point that it really is boring, boring, boring, but not the subject,
just argument itself. It's the SOS. The QM approach, empirically valid
as it may be, is not an explanation of things, it is only a
statistical quantification. QM physicists should refrain from offering
up philosophical interpretations as fact, and especailly as
counterargument to arguments against their philosophical
interpretations.


The curious person could have asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a
gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes
c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?"

This is simple algebra, and I've never seen a worse example of
deriving a solution. If V=0, then the equation reduces to c' = c. That
you blindly quote this stupidity over and over is good reason to
suggest that you're nothing other than a troll in this group.


John Baez would have replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed
of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational
field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless
discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring,
boring."

Pentcho Valev

On May 19, 9:31 am, RP wrote:
On May 18, 1:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/d28e668a...

On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:

"Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."

A curious person asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why
not?"

John Baez replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I
know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here
because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring,
boring."

While I don't agree that the topic is boring, I do agree that it isn't
easy to understand, so I'll try to explain it. Photons don't exist.
Nothing that doesn't exist has mass.

You state as a fact what seems more like an opinion.
Photons have (spin) angular mometum. If photons "don't exist", the law
of conservation of angular momentum falls apart. Along with it, the
understanding of which electronic transitons occur, and how often they
occur (what we call "selection rules")

If you can explain why s- d transitions don't occur, or why p-p
transitions don't occur, or why d-d transitions for high spin Fe 3+
occur with such a small probability, I'm all ears.


From the relativistic (Minkowskian) viewpoint, there doesn't even

exist em radiation period, not even in the form of classical em waves;
charges interact directly with one another, and the delay that we see
is a result of our mistaken Galilean observational perspective.

But EM interactons never propogate faster than c.

Time
is other than what Newton said it was, that is, it is not the same
time here as it is there. The em field of a charged particle subtends
space and time, rather than space alone.
There exists a coordinate system in which the field of a charged
particle remains perfectly rigid, but in that system the field extends
through time as well as space, which is contrary to our "assumed"
perspective of things existing only from moment to moment.

I've heard the photon-mass debate a million times in this NG, to the
point that it really is boring, boring, boring, but not the subject,
just argument itself. It's the SOS. The QM approach, empirically valid
as it may be, is not an explanation of things, it is only a
statistical quantification. QM physicists

ALL physicists are QM physicists :-)

should refrain from offering
up philosophical interpretations as fact, and especailly as
counterargument to arguments against their philosophical
interpretations.

Often they don't, agreeing with Dirac "Just shut up and calculate."
However, being that QM is the most tested and most accurate model of
the universe ever created, we are fond of using it to poke holes in
other's philosophical musings.


The curious person could have asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a
gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes
c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?"

This is simple algebra, and I've never seen a worse example of
deriving a solution. If V=0, then the equation reduces to c' = c. That
you blindly quote this stupidity over and over is good reason to
suggest that you're nothing other than a troll in this group.





John Baez would have replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed
of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational
field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless
discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring,
boring."

Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 19, 10:00 am, The_Man wrote:
On May 19, 9:31 am, RP wrote:





On May 18, 1:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/d28e668a...

On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:

"Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."

A curious person asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why
not?"

John Baez replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I
know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here
because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring,
boring."

While I don't agree that the topic is boring, I do agree that it isn't
easy to understand, so I'll try to explain it. Photons don't exist.
Nothing that doesn't exist has mass.

You state as a fact what seems more like an opinion.

If special relativity is opinion, then I retract my statement

Photons have (spin) angular mometum. If photons "don't exist", the law
of conservation of angular momentum falls apart. Along with it, the
understanding of which electronic transitons occur, and how often they
occur (what we call "selection rules")

Photons don't have anything, because they don't exist. Momentum is
globally conserved, not locally conserved. The solution to the
radiation reaction problem is that there isn't a reaction, just an
action. Electrons are foward acting particles. The past light cone
contains events that influence the electron, the foward light cone
those events that it influences. There is no experimental evidence of
electron recoil under the influence of its own emitted radiation.
Before replying please note a distinction between a single electron
and an array of electrons, the latter of which produces feedback
effects.


If you can explain why s- d transitions don't occur, or why p-p
transitions don't occur, or why d-d transitions for high spin Fe 3+
occur with such a small probability, I'm all ears.

The atom is an electronic structure in equilibrium. Some states are
unstable and others impossible. Please explain why my computer cannot
emit a 5terahertz signal.




From the relativistic (Minkowskian) viewpoint, there doesn't even

exist em radiation period, not even in the form of classical em waves;
charges interact directly with one another, and the delay that we see
is a result of our mistaken Galilean observational perspective.

But EM interactons never propogate faster than c.

"In our theory c play the role of infinity".

Please distinguish between "directly" and "instantaneous".


Time
is other than what Newton said it was, that is, it is not the same
time here as it is there. The em field of a charged particle subtends
space and time, rather than space alone.
There exists a coordinate system in which the field of a charged
particle remains perfectly rigid, but in that system the field extends
through time as well as space, which is contrary to our "assumed"
perspective of things existing only from moment to moment.

I've heard the photon-mass debate a million times in this NG, to the
point that it really is boring, boring, boring, but not the subject,
just argument itself. It's the SOS. The QM approach, empirically valid
as it may be, is not an explanation of things, it is only a
statistical quantification. QM physicists

ALL physicists are QM physicists :-)

should refrain from offering
up philosophical interpretations as fact, and especailly as
counterargument to arguments against their philosophical
interpretations.

Often they don't, agreeing with Dirac "Just shut up and calculate."

So it was Dirac who said that? In a previous thread it seemed that
nobody could come up with a direct reference.

However, being that QM is the most tested and most accurate model of
the universe ever created, we are fond of using it to poke holes in
other's philosophical musings.

Well and good. I don't argue against its empirical merit.


The curious person could have asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a
gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes
c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?"

This is simple algebra, and I've never seen a worse example of
deriving a solution. If V=0, then the equation reduces to c' = c. That
you blindly quote this stupidity over and over is good reason to
suggest that you're nothing other than a troll in this group.

John Baez would have replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed
of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational
field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless
discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring,
boring."

Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 19, 12:25 pm, RP wrote:
On May 19, 10:00 am, The_Man wrote:





On May 19, 9:31 am, RP wrote:

On May 18, 1:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/d28e668a...

On Oct 25, 1995, John Baez wrote in sci.physics:

"Nonetheless, it's a fact that a photon has a nonzero momentum."

A curious person asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that it has nonzero mass? If not, why
not?"

John Baez replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I
know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here
because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring,
boring."

While I don't agree that the topic is boring, I do agree that it isn't
easy to understand, so I'll try to explain it. Photons don't exist.
Nothing that doesn't exist has mass.

You state as a fact what seems more like an opinion.

If special relativity is opinion, then I retract my statement

Photons have (spin) angular mometum. If photons "don't exist", the law
of conservation of angular momentum falls apart. Along with it, the
understanding of which electronic transitons occur, and how often they
occur (what we call "selection rules")

Photons don't have anything, because they don't exist. Momentum is
globally conserved, not locally conserved. The solution to the
radiation reaction problem is that there isn't a reaction, just an
action. Electrons are foward acting particles. The past light cone
contains events that influence the electron, the foward light cone
those events that it influences. There is no experimental evidence of
electron recoil under the influence of its own emitted radiation.
Before replying please note a distinction between a single electron
and an array of electrons, the latter of which produces feedback
effects.



If you can explain why s- d transitions don't occur, or why p-p
transitions don't occur, or why d-d transitions for high spin Fe 3+
occur with such a small probability, I'm all ears.

The atom is an electronic structure in equilibrium. Some states are
unstable and others impossible.

A sodium atoms is electronically excited by heating it. Sodium emits
light at two very specific wavelengths. These correspond to
transitions from 2P 3/2 - 1S0, or 2P 1/2 - 1S0. In the proces, the
atom "loses" 1 unit of orbital angular momentum. Where did it go? This
is a simple question...

The 1 unit of orbital angular momentum is carried away by the photon,
which has a spin angular momentum of 1. We never see electronic
transitions involving changes of anything OTHER than 1 unit of angular
momentum.

If you can tell us how you can derive all the selection rules (for
both 1 electron and multi-electron atoms) WITHOUT a photon, all of
chemistry and physics would be glad to hear it. Not the least, that
you would also have to explain the photoelectric effect, and how TV's
work.

Please explain why my computer cannot
emit a 5terahertz signal.

When you turn it on, it almost surely does emit in the Terahertz range
(since this is the range of IR)




From the relativistic (Minkowskian) viewpoint, there doesn't even

exist em radiation period, not even in the form of classical em waves;
charges interact directly with one another, and the delay that we see
is a result of our mistaken Galilean observational perspective.

But EM interactons never propogate faster than c.

"In our theory c play the role of infinity".

"plays the role of infinity" and EQUALS infinity are NOT the same
thing. The fact that the speed of light was NOT infinity was already
known by the 18th century.


Please distinguish between "directly" and "instantaneous".

Time
is other than what Newton said it was, that is, it is not the same
time here as it is there. The em field of a charged particle subtends
space and time, rather than space alone.
There exists a coordinate system in which the field of a charged
particle remains perfectly rigid, but in that system the field extends
through time as well as space, which is contrary to our "assumed"
perspective of things existing only from moment to moment.

I've heard the photon-mass debate a million times in this NG, to the
point that it really is boring, boring, boring, but not the subject,
just argument itself. It's the SOS. The QM approach, empirically valid
as it may be, is not an explanation of things, it is only a
statistical quantification. QM physicists

ALL physicists are QM physicists :-)

should refrain from offering
up philosophical interpretations as fact, and especailly as
counterargument to arguments against their philosophical
interpretations.

Often they don't, agreeing with Dirac "Just shut up and calculate."

So it was Dirac who said that? In a previous thread it seemed that
nobody could come up with a direct reference.

It is one of those aporcryphal stories, but the sentiments are
consistent with those of Dirac.


However, being that QM is the most tested and most accurate model of
the universe ever created, we are fond of using it to poke holes in
other's philosophical musings.

Well and good. I don't argue against its empirical merit.





The curious person could have asked:

"Are you therefore asserting that the speed of light varies in a
gravitational field in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) which, in the absence of a gravitational field, becomes
c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?"

This is simple algebra, and I've never seen a worse example of
deriving a solution. If V=0, then the equation reduces to c' = c. That
you blindly quote this stupidity over and over is good reason to
suggest that you're nothing other than a troll in this group.

John Baez would have replied:

"You can see that I did not assert anything about the variable speed
of light. I know how the speed of light varies in a gravitational
field, but I never talk about it around here because the endless
discussion of the variability of the speed of light is boring, boring,
boring."

Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -