illuusio

Why 122 nm?

Why not 121.5?

It's an arbitrary choice so it's not a valid basis for a calculation.

You can't be serious, are you? It doesn't matter what wave length is picked, you get the same mass anyway.

What interaction are you discussing that creates this photon? A 10.2 eV photon is created as the result of a transition from n=2 to n=1. Is that what you're referencing? Where does the radius of a proton come into play? The Bohr radius, i.e. the most probable distance for the n=1 state, is 52.9 pm

We can't discuss the interaction at the moment (gag order) Neither why radius of proton is important.

Lets keep the focus on those two hypothesis and derived photon mass.

Well, the stuff you sent me has not filled me with excitement.

That's fine with me. I can do it by myself, it takes just a bit longer.

I, for one, do not want someone who doesn't understand general relativity trying to tell me what time is. I get enough of that crap from philosophers who like to idly muse about what gravity is.

Nice attitude! Keep on rocking

Don't you think that it might be your fault and not the fault of several tens of others (some of whom do this kind of stuff for a living)?

 

To assume that all the people who have pointed out problems with your conjectures (they're not theories) are dillusional brings with it a level of conceitedness that makes me say...interesting.

 

If all the cars on the highway seem to be traveling in the opposite direction to you, is it you or them who is in the wrong lane?

Sure it's my fault, at least partially. I'm provocative and arrogant, but I do want to shake you guys up. But it's weird to say that my thoughts are dillusional. You can easily test my theory! And your metafore sucks. You agree that shit is good, you must agree, billions of flies can't be wrong

Mainstream physics shows that photons are massless. You cannot use the bits you choose and ignore the rest. Either you're in or you're out. So no, I do not comprehend how you are picking and choosing which bits to use. Your posts do not help, you appear to have picked pretty much random equations and put in numbers you've pulled out of the air and padded it with assumptions none of which seems to fit together or flow. It's not science so there can not be any scientific arguments other than go learn what the existing theories say and what the evidence is.

Could be more specific? What do you mean by choosing bits and ignoring the rest?

If I do two hypothesis on photon, what's wrong with that? Maybe you should call your friends to help you and lock this thread You are in trouble here!

I'm actually quite surprised that there is no one willing to collaborate with me. I don't know what to say... other than... interesting.

So how is this not you just making stuff up still?

I'm not making stuff up other than two hypothesis. The rest is pure common physics and math. Can you comprehend?

Can you make scientific counter arguments on my reasoning?

His username is finnish for illusion...nuff sed.

No shit Sherlock?!

Example? Where someone who doesn't understand anything beyond high school math would be able to contribute?

Well, I hope that here is plenty of people with higher understanding of math than high school level.

Why 10.16 eV?

 

Why should a photon with a wavelength of 122 nm have a radius of 0.8 fm? I mean, a proton/antiproton interaction should have about the same size, right? Even bigger, perhaps. But there the photon will be 939 MeV.

http://en.wikipedia....violet#Subtypes

Radius of photon can't be larger than a radius of proton due to creation of photon between proton and electron (case Hydrogen).

What do you mean by proton/antiproton interaction? pair production or annihilation emissions? Photon size might actually grow when energy is increased to the point when photon pair production happens. Hmm... interesting.

There are no derivations nor reasons. Only assumptions.

No derivations? What derivations you do need in case of rotating moving object? I think that you can Google derivations for energy calculations in this case What reasons you do need? I made hypothesis that should make you happy.

How does a photon come from empty space?

 

Maybe somebody sent it?

I'm not a religious person, BUT I do wonder how everything got started... There must be some kind of force involved outside our Universe. With force I don't mean force of higher power, but actual force and it's source.

Sure it's possible that net energy in Universe is zero, but what ignited it? Some kind of disturbance maybe, but on what and what disturbance?

No, it's objectively true that your equation is unfounded.

 

If you want to do something about that (and you should) please provide some foundation for it.

Unfounded in what sense? Total energy in case of moving rotating object is as I previously stated. Ok, maybe I should make also hypothesis that photon is a solid object. Happy now?

Similar concept.

This is a gravity case. But it does not happen.

 

But in that gravitation case object absorbs energy and radiates it too. Photon experiences blue shifting.

How does the photon come from the empty space?

 

It doesn't. It's created from the "stuff" between electron and nucleus, that's my hypothesis. Modern physics don't have answers to your question because physics is nothing but math these days.

I think we are done here Dr. Swanson, do your dirty work!

Light is outside of the acting region of the Higgs field. So, talking about the mass is meaningless. If you'd like to argue about it's mass, first deny Higgs field existence.

I don't see any reason why having a mass in photon and Higgs field should contradict. Higgs boson interacts with heavier particles. Photon ain't heavier particle.

That's not so much a hypothesis as an unfounded assumption. Yes, your equation is unfounded, we've talked about the requirement for derivations before.

Right... it's quite subjective to say that given hypothesis is an unfounded assumption. Are you working in science world?

You've not provided a hypothesis. You've provided some made up numbers. With an unfounded equation. Same old. Great to see you've not listened to any of the advice given in previous threads.

How about hypothesis that photon has a mass? And you think that E_tot = E_kinetic + E_rotational is unfounded if photon has a mass? Think again.

Yep plucked out of thin air like all the others. Pretty bored of this now. Your ideas have no founding in reality, sorry, you've been shown this several times, it's old now.

? What a heck you are talking about? Could you be more specific?

Could you concentrate on my given hypothesis and results derived from it? Are you a staff member? Can't be You are the worst example of bad behaviour here!

You've had three or four opportunities to justify the numbers you used, but have yet to do so. That's not how you convince people you are a diligent researcher, worthy of collaboration.

Que? 122 nm wavelength and it's energy 10.16 eV? You mean radius of photon! right? If photon is created because of electron and nuclei compress *piip* then radius can't be much bigger than radius of nuclei.

Oh, plucked out of thin air like your other predictions?

What are you referring at?

It's a victory that I asked you to show that you didn't pull numbers out of your ass?

 

You didn't actually answer that question. Yes, I noticed.

You lost your balance for a short while, yes, I noticed

Your question wasn't respectful enough worthwhile to answer. But no, numbers are not from my ass

And your numbers were not generated via rectal retrieval?

Wow! I consider this as a victory!

I fail to see how you can in one sentence dismiss EM and then say your results agree with an aspect of special relativity.

Well, obviously I mean that EM interaction is not understood properly. Photon-electron interactions are real thing, and this time I mean REAL (concrete) thing. If SR agrees with my results, good for it.

So the experimental results are wrong because they're based on what we know, whereas the nonsense you spout is correct because you say it is.

 

There's seems to be some serious congnitive dissonance at work here.

I made a hypothesis and it gives reasonable results. It's not a matter of belief.

Wait, isn't that when you have negative feelings due to holding two conflicting ideas simultaenously?

 

His ideas are not internally conflicting, they just rely on emotional reasoning and logical fallacy.

 

"My gut feeling tells me i am right, therefore everyone else must be wrong" as opposed to "I am angry/sad/surprised because my theory and mainstream physics theories clash"

Excellent distribution to the topic! .... not.

Interesting... you can derive (with previous hypothesis) equation for redshifting without any constants, sweat!

Ok, tomorrow is the deadline So it seems that I have to pick up that Nobel prize to myself. I'll remember this forum in my speech