Challenge to mathematicians and scientists

What's wrong with m=h/c*1/Lambda? (m: Masse, h: Planksches Wirkungsquantum, c: Lichtgeschwindigkeit, Lambda: Frequenz des Lichts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBP4SYlVVh8

 

That it is based on E=mc^2 which is not true for photons.

The working they made says that E = mc^2 = pc which is wrong. E=mc2 is only true for massive particles at rest, E=pc is only true for massless particles travelling at the speed of light. They are not equal which the text assumes.

 

Sorry, but you just dont see it in the sciences. Most everything of any advancement is based on 'light' across the globe.

You accept that 'particles' are what moves energy, and I disagree.

The fields have more to do with the energy/mass exchanges, in all time(s), than any per se particles. There is no particle that is 'photon'. It is all a field (electromagnetic) (all cases).
That FACT of reality, is what you fail to comprehend. And the proof can be found, by rehashing the Double Slit experiment. Open a thread on DSE and see for yourself.

they dont. ie.... there has NEVER been a PERFECT vacuum anywhere, ever, to prove the claim.

that is all BS.

the p680 is based on the wavelengths in the 680nm SIZE, are you telling the forum that the photon is 680nm in size?

How about the microwave oven (2468 if I remember), in that the single wavelength is what is heating the food, not 'photons'. Magnetron chambers are imposing a wavelength, not photons at the 2468 microwave size.

hey bro........ i do not trust your science, because you dont have the depth and continuing pursuit in which to understand. For example: the EPR in itself, which is half a century old, was a brilliant method of evidence that QM is incorrect and you dont have the yahoos to sustain reality over just hanging on to what you have been led to believe.

You're almost religious to the ignorance.

 

If you take the mass of the photon (Lambda=630 nm) in the example (m=3.5*10^-36 kg) then you are able to calculate the energy. That's not difficult.

I don't have any idea what you call E=pc. And I also don't have any idea what you like to "discuss" with me and why.

 

Its been a while since I studied physics. That sounds reasonable. You can come up with a figure for what the energy of a photon is equivalent to, if it was massive. Which doesn't at all mean or imply that it necessarily is.

 

The fact that it isn't difficult doesn't make it right. They're using faulty (albeit easy) formulae and come up with a faulty answer.

For a photon, the relation E=pc holds, where E is the total energy of the photon, p is the momentum of the photon and c is the speed of light. The momentum is related to the wavelength and frequency, which gives something along the lines of what the link was saying. Edit: link, E=pc is mentioned on the line before E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.

For a massive particle at rest, the relation holds that E=mc^2, where E is the total mass energy of the particle, m is the rest mass of the particle and c is the speed of light. Note that photons are not massive particles at rest and therefore, the students were mistaken in using that for the energy mass. That's why they're coming up with the wrong answers.

As for what I wanted to discuss, I heard that some people were claiming photons to have mass and I'd like to see what evidence they have of this. Having been provided with evidence I think is faulty, I will point out the flaws and deem the claim unsubstantiated.

 

I don't know what a photon is. I never saw one. The allspying NSA might know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTwq1_9VH68

 

Actually, you rarely see anything _but_ photons.

 

If you think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrkgdj0bVAo

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncD4YEn4de8

 

Got it: E=pc=hv so: p=hv/c=h/Lambda. Nevertheless I don't know what you like to say - but I'm sure you are thinking you know what you are speaking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRdTiFQoQLA

 

Aha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE3HhJrNj58

 

When I was posting in this thread, I wasn't allowed to attribute mass to photons.

Has someone fallen asleep at Quality Control?

I'm only asking....

​

 

Really? Did a mod stop you?

 

I decided to clicky your name and select ‘View Profile’.

​

I wasn’t being literal. A member refused to entertain the possibility that ‘Light’--whatever that is--has any Mass. I refused to reject the possibility that it does and that its weight is “small-enough”. (I’m quoting myself. I’m too lazy to provide the link.)

<*cough*>

If Martians fell from the sky
What would that do to God?

​

 

While it is slightly gratifying to me that you feel your arguments require bolstering by pictorial insults, it is starting to get a little tiresome.

 

I aim to gratify, though the window dressing does not serve that function. In other words, you misconstrue the purpose of these elements.

Here:

​

You happy now?

No. The reason? It could be that you are one of those Lefty types.

​

 

Does light 'entangle' mass?

That is how to know, what the gravity is, in the first place.


.

 

Please, Mr. Please!!;-- copy-paste the entire post?!?

I would ban you for 24 hours if I had the keys to the forum.

All-too-shoddy Bashadi.

Hey, that’s what I’m going to call you from now on.

(Credit: F.Nietzsche)

What meaning are you conveying--if any--with the use of single quotes?

Are you aware that you employ ‘entangle’ as a verb in your question? If you describe this ‘entanglement’, then I will answer your question.

I will address the bit below after I receive the bit above.

 

No.

I aint here for your entertainment

been banned more than most

I increased the font size for what I wanted to address of your post. That is my choice!

I break up many and any post to Address each line, that i find that I want too.

If you are asking why I posted 2 lines, neither are single quotes, i just wrote them. They were to see if you could bridge the concepts.

Words entangle mass. And that was 'entangle' in a sentence, as a verb, which is IN FACT true.

But do you understand them statements?

WE (you and I) are articulating, with the use of 'words'. No mass, exchanging, just the 'energy' (light). You tapped on your keys, affected me to do the same, with just 'words'. Both preexisting, and yet non existing until created.

don't get bit replying with 'stupids' any more,

O tay?

 

I'm shocked that you understood so little. I was very explicit in my question about the single quotes around the subject word, in opposition to double quotes and very direct in asking you to describe the action for the verb. If you didn't realize that you asserted that the photons preformed an action--or affected one--then I misjudged your abilities.

I see now that I thought you were asking a substantive question about quantum mechanics!!!!!! LMFAO!!!!! Man do I feel STUPID!!!!! BAHA HA!!!!

I was asking you to make a clarification.--someone help me here, please....."them statements"?...."O tay"?

I've been Bishadi'd!!!!

 

uh, errr, uhhh...

em, light, per se photon; is what you capture (exchange) when you see. It is what is required for even a single molecule to exist, from any atoms (elements) combining.

All action within nature requires light in one wavelength or another. (speed is not a property of nature, nor is it a force)

Light/em (per se photon), when divided (split) and upon 2 different locations, no matter the time/distance (d/t), will be entangled (share a potential).

Read the EPR. QM is wrong and always has been.

I dont 'walk the planck' as it is short of truth and many are drowning because of it.

Did i state that gravity is just entanglement?

Or that 'words entangle mass'?

If that is the case, then perhaps step away from the forum and spend the weekend (month/years/the rest of your life) learning as you are in a period in history, in which the whole of what many have been led to believe, is changing. It's a paradigm shift. ie.... the world aint flat, god aint playing dice and the combining of the three disciplines of knowledge will occur.


.

 

Bish...Photons are BOTH Particles and Waves.

They are in fact a Quantum Particle/Wave Form and as such a single Photon Particle exists at INFINITE POSITIONS upon a Wave Length.

They DO NOT exist as a material physical body at just one position.

Your statement....."You accept that 'particles' are what moves energy,"....means absolutely no sense.

In fact ALL Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Photons, Electrons, Mesons, Quarks, Gluons, Fermions, Leptons, Higgs-Bosons...are ALL PARTICLE/WAVE FORMS of ENERGY.

So what exactly are you trying to say in what I have quoted above?

Do yourself a favor. Try to realize that I am BEYOND just some state of being informed of this subject and I am extremely well versed in Quantum Mechanics.

Above Alpha...p.s...Take a bit of time to look at this link that details the ANGULAR SPIN MOMENTUM of a Photon as it will give you a bit of understanding of why a LASER can do what it does but has NO MASS.

LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_angular_momentum_of_light

 

That's a description, not reality.

the p680, is upon a structure.

Sorry, you fail.

A method of comprehending this, is to hold a hot piece of iron and a cold one, and try to comprehend the only difference, is the energy upon that mass (light in one wavelength or another, causing the resonance (heat)) all cases for any element.

It aint gluons, higgs, gods, or any of the manymade particles (per se) of a spinner.

You're lost and really have no idea what you are saying.

sure it does. Idiots believe in (*)(*)(*)(*) like

In fact ALL Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Photons, Electrons, Mesons, Quarks, Gluons, Fermions, Leptons, Higgs-Bosons...are ALL PARTICLE/WAVE FORMS of ENERGY.

quacks, like these beliefs. How many higgs does it take to make a glass of h2o?

Elmers has glu, but nothing from the particle monkeys helps in the production.

EVERY electron, is just an entangled portion of an existing atom. Basic

that you have no idea except to mirror what some have come to accept.

but lack the integrity to realize EPR represents, nature represents, and fact underwrites the truth, that QM is wrong!

It always has been.

Call Milo Wolff (Manhatten Beach) (do a google), as it was me, at his desk, showing him that the angular momentum of a particle, is just the amplitude (in lay) of the wavelength. You dont have any practical application of a glu on your own butt, and now you are ranting on QM as if it is final.

go lay by your dish!

You are just as religious to what you have accepted as a zionist is, that they are chosen ones by god. I could care less,how you believe, if you cannot retain any integrity for the possibility that you are wrong (actually a fact, that you are wrong), then please, send up the kids that you are teaching, so we can both work on your ignorance.

 

In reply to your...HOT IRON question.

You are confusing HEAT....which is simply the vibrationary state of the matter that makes up the Iron. To HEAT UP a material such as an Iron Bar we can use Friction such as rubbing the bar with another material to do so. All that is happening is the Iron Atoms Orbiting Electron Fields are being disrupted by the Orbiting Electron Fields of Atoms making up the material rubbing the bar. Say we rubbed two Iron bars together.

The actual Iron Atoms particles of Mass...ie...the Atomic Nucleus of 26 Protons and 30 Neutrons surrounded by 26 Electrons orbiting in 4 orbits the first having 2 Electrons...the second having 8....third 14....fourth 2 Electrons.

The first electron orbit in an Atom is full when it has 2 Electrons. The second is full when it has 8...the third orbit needs 8 Electrons to fill it if it is the last orbit or 18 Electrons if it is not.

So the Iron Atoms making up the two Iron Bars have their 1st and 2nd orbits full but the 3rd orbit having 14 is not full with it's 14 Electrons as it would need a total of 18 to fill it. It's 4th orbit has 2 Electrons. The 4th, 5th, 6thand 7th Orbits if existing in an Atom can hold large numbers of Electrons but two or three orbits are often unfilled. They must ALWAYS have 8 Electrons before a new orbit is started. So in Iron in the 4th orbit there are 2 Electrons meaning that orbit is unfilled.

The last orbit of an Atom can NEVER HAVE more than 8 Electrons.

The number of Electrons in the Outer Orbit is important as far as Chemical Reactions. As well whether or not an Element will be Conductive, Magnetic, able to easily be Chemically Reactive all has to do with the the number of Electrons in it's Orbits, whether those orbits are full or not and specifically whether the last orbit is full or not.



http://www.chem4kids.com/files/elements/art/026_orbital.gif

Now as we rub two Iron Bars together the Electron Orbital Fields surrounding the atomic nucleus' of the Iron Atoms repel each other and cause the the Electron Fields to oscillate thus cause the Atomic Nucleus' to oscillate or vibrate. THAT VIBRATIONARY STATE IS HEAT.

Friction is but one way to achieve this as anything that might interfere with the vibrationary state of the fields such as certain frequencies of Light and as well UV-Light is at a specific frequency to cause CHEMICAL REACTIONS such as when Ozone is created.

1. Creation: an oxygen molecule is split (photolyzed) by higher frequency UV light (top end of UV-B, UV-C and above) into two oxygen atoms (see figure):
O2 + UV &#8594; 2O
Each oxygen atom then quickly combines with an oxygen molecule to form an ozone molecule:
O + O2 &#8594; O3

Heat is also created when any substance that exists at a Higher Vibrationary State such as the Air or the Flame of a gas torch where that materials Atomic Electron Orbits disrupt the orbits of the Iron Bar and cause the Bars Electron Fields to begin to vibrate or oscillate at a higher vibrationary state.

In all this I have shown you it is simply....KINETIC TRANSFER as with the exception of a Nuclear or Thermonuclear Reaction or Matter/Antimatter Reaction....KINETIC ENERGY TRANSFER via transfer of the vibrationary state of one material to another is how HEAT is generated.

AboveAlpha