@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Because the energy of a photon isn't connected to its speed but its frequency. Are you asking "why is the energy of a photon connected to its frequency instead of it speed"? Cause then I have a response for you. Why is an elephant?

Does a photon have mass?

http://mashable.com/2012/02/24/power-felt/

Last edited by Lou on 26-Feb-2012 at 01:52 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Does a photon have mass?

It's most likely impossible to conduct a experiment to verify the photon mass is zero. This is not due to our ability but the properties of a photon itself. Indirectly the mass has been measured. Though there is much dispute as to the accuracy and error boundaries of our current knowledge. Signs are mixed. They indicate the mass at rest is zero and there's a very slight mass when in motion. But, again this is mostly postulates without sufficent evidence. To date there's no massive conclusion.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Feb-2012 at 02:01 AM.

@Lou

That's a good, practical idea (except for the part where they want you to wrap your cellphone in it instead of just making the dang cellphone out of this sort of material in the first place.

But recapturing waste heat from people, ICEs and electronics is a seriously good idea.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Does a photon have mass? It's most likely impossible to conduct a experiment to verify the photon mass is zero. This is not due to our ability but the properties of a photon itself. Indirectly the mass has been measured. Though there is much dispute as to the accuracy and error boundaries of our current knowledge. Signs are mixed. They indicate the mass at rest is zero and there's a very slight mass when in motion. But, again this is mostly postulates without sufficent evidence. To date there's no massive conclusion.

Oh reall? Then how are solar sails possible?

Now if there is a mass-energy equivalence, think about this: http://news.discovery.com/space/gamma-rays-einstein-theory.html

So do photons then have difference masses?

@Lou

Quote:

Does a photon have mass?

Since the light from distant objects is occasionally gravitationally lensed, and since light cannot escape from beyond the event horizon of a black hole, it is reasonably safe to assume that photons have some mass. However since the effects are so minute, it would be fair to say that a photon is light.

I am really sorry about that, I tried very hard but in the end I just couldn't stop myself.
Very bad puns aside I seem to remember the figure of 42x10^-36g as the mass equivalent of a single photon.

As well as solar sails, I also remember a particular toy from a few years ago.

Quote:

So do photons then have difference masses?

As has already been explained, the different energy levels of photons are a function of their frequency. The mass, like the speed, is pretty much a constant

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Does a photon have mass? Since the light from distant objects is occasionally gravitationally lensed, and since light cannot escape from beyond the event horizon of a black hole, it is reasonably safe to assume that photons have some mass. However since the effects are so minute, it would be fair to say that a photon is light. I am really sorry about that, I tried very hard but in the end I just couldn't stop myself. Very bad puns aside I seem to remember the figure of 42x10^-36g as the mass equivalent of a single photon. As well as solar sails, I also remember a particular toy from a few years ago. Quote: So do photons then have difference masses? As has already been explained, the different energy levels of photons are a function of their frequency. The mass, like the speed, is pretty much a constant

I'm just leading you down a trail here.

So now look at how the colliders take their measurements. They are measuring eV since there is a mass-energy equivalence, YET one photon can have 1,000,000 times more energy than another because of its frequency....yet the 'rest mass' of all photons are the same. What are they measuring really?

So what is the mass of anything really? If it doesn't vibrate, it has no energy, if it has no energy, it has no mass. It can be miniscule but vibrate so fast that it has alot of energy. So why can't a single proton contain ALOT of energy?

@Lou

We don't necessarily know WHY protons and photons store energy in different manners. We're just fairly certain they do.

But they aren't the only things that do.

Think of cars vs fuel, for instance. Fuel is delivered at a certain velocity by a pump but that isn't what gives the car the energy. The chemical energy of the fuel is. Also, different types of fuel have different amounts of energy per liter/kg/whatever.

Man, if I had a dollar for every time I mistyped fuel as fual in this post I would have a lot of money. I even mistyped it in this comment about mistyping it. Dunno why. It's not much of a freudian slip.

Protons DO sometimes have other energies, though. Like when being subjected to NMR in an MRI machine. And when heated up.

But if a car slams into you on the highway I don't think your main concern is gonna be its spin or its temperature. Unless either are in the extremes

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

I was simply trying to show that based on the volume of a proton, that it could have the energy density of a black hole, potentially.

The term 'mass' in science has different meanings in different places. It's a long story...

@Lou

Quote:

I was simply trying to show that based on the volume of a proton, that it could have the energy density of a black hole, potentially.

'could...potentially' -- What you have created is a postulate. No one has disagreed that we can postulate blackholes at the center of atoms. Indeed postulates are completely open and accepting of any fanciful idea. And in actuality I have accepted the said postulate.

The question we are trying to get to is do we have a postulate that fairly represents reality. The next step on this journey is to take a look at the evidence concerning protons and concerning blackholes. Indeed if two objects have the same properties they may well be the same object. Perhaps we want to call this the walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck evidence step. Turns out that the properties of protons and blackholes are incongruent. For example the density of a proton is many orders of magnitude too small to create a blackhole.

So, now that we've accepted the postulate (note we always have) and the evidence is against said postulate we must reject one of the two. Either the evidence is wrong, or the postulate is wrong. In this case the problem is the postulate. Instead of creating a theory better explaining reality the postulate created a dead end. Overall that's a good thing because we are now a step closer to reality having wed out one of potentials for what reality could be.

Now to your line of thinking that we don't know why it's true so therefore must accept it can be true - we did that many many posts ago. You simply refuse to accept that evidence can be used to reject a postulate. Instead you want to promote that postulate to reality without proof. If you want to do that, go for it. But, fairly call it what it is. FAITH!

@BrianK

Re: Phoenix Lights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bFTUYzekwM

Peter Jennings' witnesses completely contradicts your supplied disproof. However, it seems there were 2 incidents that night. The 2nd incident where video tape was supplied from a video at 10pm do look like the flares in your debunking video. The early evening incident was not flares. This was probably staged after the fact in order to offer a debunkable report.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I was simply trying to show that based on the volume of a proton, that it could have the energy density of a black hole, potentially. 'could...potentially' -- What you have created is a postulate. No one has disagreed that we can postulate blackholes at the center of atoms. Indeed postulates are completely open and accepting of any fanciful idea. And in actuality I have accepted the said postulate. The question we are trying to get to is do we have a postulate that fairly represents reality. The next step on this journey is to take a look at the evidence concerning protons and concerning blackholes. Indeed if two objects have the same properties they may well be the same object. Perhaps we want to call this the walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck evidence step. Turns out that the properties of protons and blackholes are incongruent. For example the density of a proton is many orders of magnitude too small to create a blackhole. So, now that we've accepted the postulate (note we always have) and the evidence is against said postulate we must reject one of the two. Either the evidence is wrong, or the postulate is wrong. In this case the problem is the postulate. Instead of creating a theory better explaining reality the postulate created a dead end. Overall that's a good thing because we are now a step closer to reality having wed out one of potentials for what reality could be. Now to your line of thinking that we don't know why it's true so therefore must accept it can be true - we did that many many posts ago. You simply refuse to accept that evidence can be used to reject a postulate. Instead you want to promote that postulate to reality without proof. If you want to do that, go for it. But, fairly call it what it is. FAITH!

Faith is what dooms you.
MASS = ENERGY
LIGHT HAS MASS
LIGHT's ENERGY IS TIED TO ITS FREQUENCY
ENERGY IS A FLUCTUATION FROM ZERO POINT
MASS IS A FLUCTUATION FROM ZERO POINT
MASS IS TIED TO FREQUENCY.

So in E=mc^2, considering c is the speed of light, a photon is an elementary packet with a mass based on it's vibration/frequency. Then all matter can exhibit this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
E=hv
Is E not equal to E?
hv=mc^2
m=hv/c^2
Hence mass is a fluctuation from zero point...

Last edited by Lou on 28-Feb-2012 at 09:09 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Peter Jennings' witnesses completely contradicts your supplied disproof.

Not quite. We have different witnesses coming out with different views of the events. Jennings didn't interview everyone, or even a random sampling, so it is an incomplete record.

'5 lights' and a V shaped object. Others a triangluar craft. Other witnesses say the lights were independent and circling each other. Others disagree. The film here has a 7 light object. And yet another film (again recorded by those who claim it was the event of UFOs) shows them flying over the mountain. Lights are in a consistent direction and upwards trajectory - which could easily be flares dropped from a plane or helicopter. Inconsistencies abound. Concluding little green men is unfairly concluding without concrete proof. It perhaps was BigFoot in his custom UFO flying about, etc...

Quote:

This was probably staged after the fact in order to offer a debunkable report.

A postulate without proof and a logical failure used to disregard and keep your religion.

Quote:

LIGHT HAS MASS

Again this has not been fully established.

@Lou

Thought you might find these useful.
http://io9.com/5888322/critical-thinking-explained-in-six-kid+friendly-animations

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Peter Jennings' witnesses completely contradicts your supplied disproof. Not quite. We have different witnesses coming out with different views of the events. Jennings didn't interview everyone, or even a random sampling, so it is an incomplete record.

Do you have a comprehension problem? Peter Jennings flat out said their were 2 incidents in the same day and showed witnesses to both.

Quote:

'5 lights' and a V shaped object. Others a triangluar craft. Other witnesses say the lights were independent and circling each other. Others disagree. The film here has a 7 light object. And yet another film (again recorded by those who claim it was the event of UFOs) shows them flying over the mountain. Lights are in a consistent direction and upwards trajectory - which could easily be flares dropped from a plane or helicopter. Inconsistencies abound. Concluding little green men is unfairly concluding without concrete proof. It perhaps was BigFoot in his custom UFO flying about, etc...

So says our lord and twister- BrianK!

Quote:

Quote: LIGHT HAS MASS Again this has not been fully established.

And here's a paper that says it does:
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv2.pdf
Photons having mass is fully tested in solar sails, btw... Not to mention the mass-energy equivalence principle. I like how you pick and choose what to believe from your own religion...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Thought you might find these useful. http://io9.com/5888322/critical-thinking-explained-in-six-kid+friendly-animations

Oh? I got a video for you too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szvZ3ldTgjI

Last edited by Lou on 29-Feb-2012 at 04:03 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Do you have a comprehension problem? Peter Jennings flat out said their were 2 incidents in the same day and showed witnesses to both.

I accepted there was postulated two seperate events.

What we see here is you want to accept people's versions of events as the actual truth. I'd say it's due to your desire to believe that aliens are among us.

The difference is I recognize people are fallible. As such true understanding demands evidence outside of confession to demonstrate the truthfulness of the confession. While I'd love aliens to be here I love truth even more. As such what we're seeing is my standards of evidence are higher in quantity or quality.

Quote:

And here's a paper that says it does:

Acceptance comes through proof. The paper is an unproven postulate.

Quote:

So says our lord and twister- BrianK!...Oh? I've got a video for you too.

Your willingess to conduct personal attacks instead of discussing quality of evidence demonstrates your lack of understanding and lack of facts to your view. You keep up committing ad hominem fallacies. Perhaps someday you'll understand that cutting another down doesn't bring you up.

@Lou

Quote:

ENERGY IS A FLUCTUATION FROM ZERO POINT

Good timing on this post.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/cosmological-constant-in-a-bose-einstein-condensate.ars

Turns out ZPE as the cause for Dark Energy ends up being 10^120 too large to explain the effect. So do you really believe an energy that's orders of magnitude too large to be the cause is the actual cause? And the next question is what evidence do you have for your belief? Seems the current evidence contracts the claim that ZPE explains all energy.

Of course there always was is problem here. Zero Point Energy is the lowest state of energy. Thus, we can't extract it and use it. Now if we could extract it, it wouldnt' be ZPE. Now one postulate was that ZPE is refilled from other dimensions. The 10^120 factor pretty much ensures that other dimensions are highly unlikely to exist either.

Hmm... Unfortunately we're not at the end point that you desire. Science will continue today and tomorrow.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So says our lord and twister- BrianK!...Oh? I've got a video for you too. Your willingess to conduct personal attacks instead of discussing quality of evidence demonstrates your lack of understanding and lack of facts to your view. You keep up committing ad hominem fallacies. Perhaps someday you'll understand that cutting another down doesn't bring you up.

Perhaps you should stop linking me stupid links that take me for a simpleton then. Because that is essentially a personal attack of it's own.

You should also stop calling what I post "an unproven postulate" when your own beliefs and statements are also equally completely unproven.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: ENERGY IS A FLUCTUATION FROM ZERO POINT Good timing on this post. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/cosmological-constant-in-a-bose-einstein-condensate.ars Turns out ZPE as the cause for Dark Energy ends up being 10^120 too large to explain the effect. So do you really believe an energy that's orders of magnitude too large to be the cause is the actual cause? And the next question is what evidence do you have for your belief? Seems the current evidence contracts the claim that ZPE explains all energy. Of course there always was is problem here. Zero Point Energy is the lowest state of energy. Thus, we can't extract it and use it. Now if we could extract it, it wouldnt' be ZPE. Now one postulate was that ZPE is refilled from other dimensions. The 10^120 factor pretty much ensures that other dimensions are highly unlikely to exist either. Hmm... Unfortunately we're not at the end point that you desire. Science will continue today and tomorrow.

I already explained in the dark box with the light spheres example that light sources will repel each other. Galaxies that are too far away to be attracted by gravity will repel each other via radiation pressure. Please stop throwing words in my mouth...