Challenge to mathematicians and scientists

No. If light striking a surface adds weight to it; and being in shadow means that a surface still receives light - but less of it; all that means is that the shadowy area has gained mass from the LIGHT that is reaching it. Not from the SHADOW, which represents the difference in light between that area and the surrounding area. I am running out of ways to keep saying the same thing.

 

Yes and no. You must try to breathe calmly. I know this is hard to digest.

Any thing. Every thing. All things. We all have mass; And, I am typing; I will assert things, yes.

Let’s look at this sentence:

(^)

“Infinite states of position along”? What is that?

Infinite states?

Are we talking about the same infinity?

If you say so.

I say photons do have mass and it is very small.

Are you going to say my small is too big and I’m going to be vaporized?

Don’t even think about that because I’ve already told you that the mass is small enough.

Now do you understand?

 

The Question


Do photons have mass? Because the equations E=mc2, and E=hf, imply that m=hf/c2 . Is it so?

The Answer

No, photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc2.

LINK....http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec06.html

Go to this link it will explain how Photons exist at infinite positions within a Wave Packet.

AboveAlpha

 

Well, I should commend you for a cessation of the limbs-a-flailing and caps-locks syndrome. Do you know what I bring to this discussion? A dictionary and a nose for referents.

I have to reveal that I did not read all the words and letters of myriad sprawl within this post of yours; that is, until now! Aren’t you thrilled?!?

You, apparently, affect an I’ll-spell-it-out-for-you approach with the ROCK/TREE/FORCE/MASS demonstration. It brought to mind a quip by an infamous radio personality, G. Gordon Liddy: “It’s not speed that kills; It is differential speed that kills.” He was referring to the relative speeds of cars interacting...

Anyway, (‘myriad sprawl...until now’) I’m going to draw attention to this sentence (caps-alert!):

Who can untangle ‘potential’ from the ‘infinite’? Yes, some quantity or measure may approach infinity. Let’s try this: ‘...the mass of that object approaches infinite mass’. You’ve stated that the mass of the object increases.

On another board, a Philosophy board, I had this sub-name: ‘Dividing by zero’. (Perhaps it was ‘Divided by zero’, I don’t recall.)

Again, I assert that the mass is “small enough” and you may imagine my fingers ever-so-tiny-ly positioned and with my eyes squinting.

Now do you understand?

 

I forgot to ask about something from this post:

(To the question, do photons have mass?)

I’d say that’s a contradiction; it’s ludicrous to assert that something can have momentum without mass. On the other hand, if you insist that photons have momentum, then I will adduce that toward them having mass.

I don’t think any of that helped anything.

 

Do you realize that you are arguing for the existence of the shadow?

You’ve done that repeatedly.

Are you one of those who believes in ghosts?

​

 

Why shouldn't I believe that shadows exist? Does the word not refer to a phenomenon that is clearly and extremely trivially demonstrable? Unlike, you know, ghosts.

 

Just how small does something have to be, such that if you multiply it by infinity, the answer is not infinite?

 

Hey, that's a brain-teaser question. I won't step into that!

 

This guy is a little flustered because his exposure to real scientific work has perhaps been limited.

Look into lamb shift, or even the fine structure constant to offer the comprehension that the AA members, apparently have never been exposed too.

To the macro, the model that the AA is ranting, seems to be true but that is because the cause of the 'gravity' is not understood to these folk.

Next thing you may read is that mass, bends space when in reality the fields of the energy are what are causing the motion, in the first place, let alone the field, affecting the space.


The whole of the sciences is changing and this guy would perhaps rather gather his team, and kill everyone, than realize that perhaps he and the whole of what he thinks is true, is BS and would rather yell, scream and shoot people, than evolve.



.



dude, find another subject, because your science is antiquated and about obsolete.

 

Light does not have weight but it does have force that can be mathematically equated to weight. Weight is a the force of gravity relative to the mass of an object so gravity is the "force" that causes a "mass" to have weight.

There can be opposing forces that negate each other resulting in no "weight" of an object with mass. An airplane in level flight has no "weight" because the force of gravity is negated by the differential air pressure on the wing because of the air foil design. If an airplane had "weight" where there weren't two forces acting in opposite directions it would fall out of the sky.

Mass, force, and energy can all be mathematically equated but mass and energy are not the same and neither actually represent "weight" that is a measurement of the mutual gravitational attraction of two objects of mass unaffected by other forces. Math allows comparisons but does not change anything from what it is into something it isn't.

 

You didn't address literally anything he said. Photons have no mass, so do you have something to actually say to that? Where the hell did shooting people come into this?

 

Depends on your description of a photon?

The p680 structure of photosynthesis, shares a 'yes'. That the wavelength held upon that mass, is an existing structure to use to prove the point. Lavoisier, shared the 'caloric' for any to comprehend. (go read)

Remember, I speak in the first. You are being shown a path, that if you are 'in the scientific field', you will find, each line item i post can not only be verified with todays technology but you can now read the comprehension, versus just accepting the existing beliefs and mathematically converting to a 'particle' (relative) and considering all em, just as a particle, going fast upon an electron. (which is the incorrect analogy, logically (and of fact) because the 'size' of the fields and entanglements are omitted (removed from the causality).

The lamb shift (experiments) in themselves, should be enough to comprehend, to recognize the evidence.

Mathematically; lavoisier has a simple calculation to assist both the logic and make it comprehensible. Keep in mind, he didnt know that the 'energy' itself is just the light (em; all cases) and that each structure can only sustain specific wavelengths, in specific environments. But you know that, from being here with me. (note the colors, all around you)

Him and I have had previous conversations on this forum. Find them and you will see that he claims to be a leader of some special special group of killers.

His posts show me that he is well educated in the complacently accepted systems of knowledge. (ie.... just following who trained him and the ideologies, that were held within that period-arena)

but like many old schooled, stepping out of line to think for themselves and actually do the homework, is not his style, apparently.

.

 

Ordinarily I would ask a person to provide the Math or Scientific Proof for their statements.

But upon reading your post here it is obvious that what your are saying is nothing more than GIBBERISH and you will not be able to provide such things.

As well...I AM NOT A KILLER!

I am a problems solver and it is my sometimes job to solve such problems in a non-violent manner.

AboveAlpha

 

What do you mean by "descrpiton of a photon"? I'm not talking about descriptions of photons, I'm talking about photons. Is there more than one description of a photon?

What does photosynthesis have to do with the mass of a proton?

No idea what you're trying to say here. English isn't your first language, is it?

The lamb shift deals with hydrogen... not photons.

The hell does 18th century chemist have to do with a photon's mass or lack thereof?

 

I offer real world application, while others like to believe what they have been taught, without thinking and using the material knowledge.

Have you ever even wondered what the living process is all about?

Here are basics to enable stability to the conversation.

[/b]P680


Definition

noun

The reaction center chlorophyll (or the primary electron donor) of photosystem II that is most reactive and best in absorbing light at wavelength of 680 nm.


Supplement

P680 is a group of pigments that are excitonically coupled or that act as if the pigments are a single molecule when they absorb a photon. It derived its name after the wavelength (in nanometers) at which it is best in capturing. In this case, it is the 680 nm of the electromagnetic spectrum.

P680 is the strongest biological oxidizing agent known at present


http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/P680

strongest oxidizing agent known ....... and of the 680nm wavelength. Nothing there about a particle in the 680nm size.

non violent is the best

but I had a different impression. I would love to be wrong about you as I actually liked you for a few posts.

i do find your scientific knowledge to be obsolete.

 

Yep

and you had no idea about that either?

i didnt mention a proton. Did you?

English is my first language and science is my best subject. Apparently you have issues with both?

wow........ some people really Do NOT like to read, learn or even step back when in a conversation that is over their head.

At the heart of the process is the exchange force by which charges interact by the exchange of photons (the exchange force model of the electromagnetic force). There can be a self interaction of the electron by exchange of a photon as sketched in the Feynman diagram at left. This "smears out" the electron position over a range of about 0.1 fermi (Bohr radius = 52,900 fermis). This causes the electron spin g-factor to be slightly different from 2. There is also a slight weakening of the force on the electron when it is very close to the nucleus, causing the 2s electron (which has penetration all the way to the nucleus) to be slightly higher in energy than the 2p(1/2) electron

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/lamb.html

from describing photosynthesis, to conservation to 'energy' itself ........... lavoisier was in all there and again, you just dont want to learn and why you ask such rediculous questions when confronted with reality.

You need to learn a bit more before debating in this arena.

 

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' mods, you need to fix my restrictions, so that I can edit, any time i want """"""""""""""""""""""""""

I offer real world application, while others like to believe what they have been taught, without thinking and using the material knowledge.

Have you ever even wondered what the living process is all about?

Here are basics to enable stability to the conversation.

P680


Definition

noun

The reaction center chlorophyll (or the primary electron donor) of photosystem II that is most reactive and best in absorbing light at wavelength of 680 nm.


Supplement

P680 is a group of pigments that are excitonically coupled or that act as if the pigments are a single molecule when they absorb a photon. It derived its name after the wavelength (in nanometers) at which it is best in capturing. In this case, it is the 680 nm of the electromagnetic spectrum.

P680 is the strongest biological oxidizing agent known at present


http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/P680

strongest oxidizing agent known ....... and of the 680nm wavelength. Nothing there about a particle in the 680nm size.



non violent is the best

but I had a different impression. I would love to be wrong about you as I actually liked you for a few posts.

i do find your scientific knowledge to be obsolete.

 

Bishadi...I am EXTREMELY knowledgeable in Physics and Chemistry.

I hold multiple degrees and as well for a time I was an Assistant Professor specific to the fields of study detailed in this topic.

I am also well versed in Mathematics, Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics...and I am capable of understanding as well as engineering equipment and instruments that are a practical application result of such understandings.

THAT...determines whether or not any Knowledge of Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics is worthwhile and a REALITY. If what a person knows about something can be used to design and build something that is based upon that person knowledge...well then that persons knowledge is a reality of the behavior and actions of the Physical Laws of our Universe.

If a person is saying something is so...like you are saying Photons have MASS...and it is IMPOSSIBLE to develop a practical application for such a statement as any attempts are failures...WELL THEN WE WOULD KNOW THAT YOUR BELIEFS...ie....PHOTONS HAVE MASS....IS INCORRECT.

I challenge you to give me....ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE...of a practical application where Photons having Mass exists!

I know you can't provide this as Photons don't have MASS!

But try anyways.

AboveAlpha

 

Actually it doesn't. Photons are energy that have "force" based upon the wave of the energy that "force" can be mathematically be compared to mass but that does not equate to being mass. It is a mathematical comparison of the force of energy with the properties of mass. Photons, because they have force, act like a particle that has mass but a photon remains a form of energy and is not a particle with mass.

 

What you have posted is NOT a practical application.

In fact what you have posted is in reference to what would seem a Biological Solar Cell.

This is ABSOLUTE PROOF....given to me in your own post that Photons cannot have MASS.

For Photons to be used either as light taken in by a plant where that light is used to create a chemical reaction that allows a plant to use the results of this chemical reaction as food.....of if the same is being done to create a biological solar cell modeled after a plants solar intake for such a reaction..............................................

......................a specific Light Frequency must be used or in this case a specific frequency upon the spectrum of light given to us by the sun will be used to create this chemical reaction.

The FACT that Photons exist at FREQUENCY shows us that a Photon is both Particle and Wave.

That FACT means...............A PHOTON CANNOT HAVE MASS AND A PHOTON DOES NOT HAVE MASS.


In your desire to present something that you had thought would show Photons have mass....you mistakenly posted a practical application on this forum that actually PROVES THEY DON'T.

Please don't talk to me about how you feel my scientific knowledge is obsolete.

You don't even understand PHYSICS OR PARTICLE PHYSICS.

If you were in a room with never mind a bunch of scientists of physicists....but even if you were in a room with a bunch of CABLE TV INSTALLERS.....THEY WOULD LAUGH YOU RIGHT OUT OF THE ROOM FOR SAYING WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED! LOL!

AboveAlpha

 

No one else wrote that 'interpretation' but you.

i dont see any other post, with that description of a photon. So it does matter and you're wrong too.

Like a 'potential difference'?

Or am i misreading YOUR interpretation?

So a photon aint a particle?

what's that 'force' causally defined? Dont tell me it is the speed of the particle!


.

 

Really? Then let me clarify: as it is found, applying in nature and reality. And not as the uneducated tells people.

nope

The p680 and the combining of mass, to make a structure, that is larger, based on the 680nm wavelength of energy is found in the sciences of most all plant life known.

If you said, 'This is ABSOLUTE PROOF....given to me in your own post that' the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, then I would agree with you but I cant believe some of the stuff you post.

Maybe someone read something i wrote 30yrs back and realize that the waveLENGTH is important to comprehend a transfer of energy between any points of time and mass. ie...... at least they are doing science and modeling nature, versus modeling QM

can you post up who the people are that are actually capable of building THAT solar cell?

no particle there

sorry...... you just posted one of them antiquated versions again.

perhaps I have to rerere-educate you on what the photon and/or mass is.

really?

And how is that?

I can see that. You're opinion is like debating creation with a preacher; some lie to themselves and really have no care for the honor of being responsible for their actions.

Before I had hair on my yahoos, I was doing Einstein's field equations.................

I perhaps have more time in the sciences, then you've spent eating hot meals, for you whole life.

and cable is antiquated too


geeze.....

 

darn it. And i was hoping only a few have been ruined by what you believe.

I was wrong, now it appears, you just mislead, anyone that will accept you as being edumacated

all of mankind is 'capable' but your beliefs of the descriptions are hindering your understanding, of nature!

So you can you gather an isotope of u235 without the spining/ centrifigal force. ie..... which wavelength can be used?

particle physics and qm, cant define nature, life or the evolution and why the schools of the world cannot teach their children the truth on these matters

nature and the universe is what I am talking about.

you keep 'walking the planck' right off the deep end.

gibberish

i did, p680

you believe what you like

just stop telling people, that it is what is real because then you are misleading.

 

Nope, so why don't you get off your high horse and explain what you're talking about. What are these multiple descriptions of photons?

...Yes, it is the topic of the conversation.

Apparently so, your English is absolute atrocious and I'm still judging your scientific abilities.

Well, yes, sorry, I should have said that the lamb shift has nothing to do with the mass of the photon, which is what we are talking about.

What does this have to do with the mass of a photon?