Jump to content
elas

Particle Structure

Recommended Posts

energy is photons

Let me rephrase that: energy [math]E [/math] is photons [math](\hbar\nu)[/math], which have a mass equivalent [math] (=E/c^2)[/math]; mass is the condensed form of energy, and has, or acquires, a (rotating) vector, or degree of freedom, that energy alone (photons with a pun) doesn't have. Mass can acquire energy otherwise, due to its inertial properties (say in a gravitational field, what the hey), or by absorbing energy, apart from the energy it is equivalent to -but the inertia it has means it can't ever reach the same travel velocity as energy. Charge is another kind of potential (also connected to photons), that behaves like gravity, but is balanced (gravity has no opposite 'charge').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred56

 

energy E is photons

 

The CLF model explains the origin of vacuum force and matter. It follows that in the CLF model:

 

All the properties of a particle are the products of vacuum force and matter

 

This includes energy and mass. Now if you are saying that energy and mass existed before vacuum and matter, then explain the origin of energy and mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me rephrase that: energy [math]E [/math] is photons [math](\hbar\nu)[/math], which have a mass equivalent [math] (=E/c^2)[/math]; mass is the condensed form of energy, and has, or acquires, a (rotating) vector, or degree of freedom, that energy alone (photons with a pun) doesn't have. Mass can acquire energy otherwise, due to its inertial properties (say in a gravitational field, what the hey), or by absorbing energy, apart from the energy it is equivalent to -but the inertia it has means it can't ever reach the same travel velocity as energy. Charge is another kind of potential (also connected to photons), that behaves like gravity, but is balanced (gravity has no opposite 'charge').

 

Just so we're on the same page, you do realise that this is gibberish, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you do realise that this is gibberish, right?

No, perhaps you could illustrate this by writing down a bit of your own. And I daresay you are translating everything you read, possibly, into your own version of English. Assuming you know what English means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent", blah blah blah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent", blah blah blah

Mmm... blah blah blah

 

Oh, and rah rah rah...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to be one of the most substantive physics conversations in the history of humankind. Wow... It's almost too much to grasp with all this proof and support of each differing position. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has to be one of the most substantive physics conversations in the history of humankind. Wow... It's almost too much to grasp with all this proof and support of each differing position. :D

 

It's not exactly non-orthodox to say that there are other forms of energy than photons (the other gauge bosons, for a start) and the number of arguments recently over whether the photon has mass (it doesn't) meant that I didn't think justifying the point by referring to E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 being the correct equation (as opposed to E = mc2) again would be productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jakiri

Fred56

 

The aim of this forum is to explain and expand the CLF model. It is not sufficient to say someone is wrong without explaining why.

 

Currently I am trying to find a way of including massless particles in the CLF model; in order to do so it seems it is necessary to explain 'energy'. So I am grateful for any view on either mass or energy.

Thanks to the replies on this and other forums I now have a mental outline of the route to be followed. In order to meet the standard expected by swansont I am going to start by reading 'Concepts of Mass', before getting down to work. This should be ready in one or two weeks; meanwhile any additional comments on energy and/or mass would be appreciated.

 

The SFN anthem ought to be the song with the line "I'll get by with a little help from my friends" so lets keep it friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent"

 

Maybe Mr. Budding Einstein can work this lot out for everyone (and prove that his namesake was mistaken in claiming the opposite to the above, rather unfounded but otherwise emphatic statement):

A metal has a workfunction of 4.3 V. What is the minimum photon energy (in Joules) to emit an electron from this metal through the photo-electric effect? What is the photon frequency in Terahertz and the photon wavelength in micrometers? What's the corresponding photon momentum? What is the velocity of a free electron with the same momentum?

 

Unless, of course, he would rather put the photoelectric effect in the "blah blah" tray?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Mr. Budding Einstein can work this lot out for everyone (and prove that his namesake was mistaken in claiming the opposite to the above, rather unfounded but otherwise emphatic statement)

 

This doesn't work as a rhetorical construct, because you introduce referring to me as "Mr Budding Einstein" and then mock me for it in the same sentence.

 

Unless, of course, he would rather put the photoelectric effect in the "blah blah" tray?

 

This doesn't work as an argument because photons have momentum without having mass, which you would know if you looked at E2 = m2c4 + p2c2. Talking about them having mass is meaningless.

 

You cannot use E = mc2 for light because it's Erest = mrestc2, and it is impossible to get a photon at rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've moved this thread to speculations. I pointed out a while back that I am not familiar enough with Tsui's work to go through a detailed analysis, and haven't paid much attention to it in the interim, but it's clear that this is speculative despite the mathematical underpinnings that distinguish it from many other threads.

 

Elas, your dismissal of the point-like nature of the electron with many (and varied) experimental results is just a handwaving and not substantive. Also, your model predicts many particles that have not been observed. An explanation of how to observed these particles would be in order. I'm sure there are other objections that could be made or have been within the thread.

 

Being on this forum does not prevent further duscussion, but it also will not mislead a casual visitor to think this is mainstream physics.

 

Others: stay on topic and knock off the sniping. If you want to discuss the nature of photons and the differences between rest mass and relativistic mass, go find other threads where it's discussed, or start a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You cannot use E = mc2 for light because it's Erest = mrestc2, and it is impossible to get a photon at rest.

 

The last part of this sentence is absolutely correct, photons (and everything else), never get to stop and have a rest.

But why can't you say [math] E = \hbar\nu [/math], and the equivalent mass is [math] E/c^2 = \hbar\nu/c^2 [/math], which is what your objection appears to be? Notice the term 'm' does not appear...

And why do you claim: 'Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equiv[a]lent"'. This statement is clearly the opposite of Einstein's. So are you going to have a crack at the (exam) question I posted? Would you like a definition of "work-function of a metal"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember to keep the energy formulas for massless particles separate from the energy formulas that allow for massive particles and you will be fine ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last part of this sentence is absolutely correct, photons (and everything else), never get to stop and have a rest.

 

No, just things that travel at the speed of light (or superliminal velocities, but they're not really relevent).

 

But why can't you say [math] E = \hbar\nu [/math], and the equivalent mass is [math] E/c^2 = \hbar\nu/c^2 [/math], which is what your objection appears to be? Notice the term 'm' does not appear...

 

Because it's not equivilent to the mass (and it's h, not hbar)? As has been shown previously, E = hc/lambda (or however you want to present it) can be derived from E2 = m2c4 + p2c2.

 

To get to E = mc2, you have to take the above equation and set the momentum to zero. It is impossible to do this for the photon, and is only possible with massive particles because you can define inertial frames where they're at rest (hence Erest and mrest).

 

And why do you claim: 'Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equiv[a]lent"'. This statement is clearly the opposite of Einstein's.

 

Oh dear lord.

 

So are you going to have a crack at the (exam) question I posted? Would you like a definition of "work-function of a metal"?

 

What part of that question requires that the photon has a mass (or equivilent quantity)?

 

It's trivial to demonstrate that the photon, or any particle which travels at c, is massless from the relativistic form of momentum, p = mv/SQRT(1-v2/c2).

 

As v=c, the denominator goes to zero and momentum goes to infinity with non-zero m. For zero m, the fact that from the above equation relating E, m and p that E2 - p2c2 = some constant (in this case, zero) shows that it can have non-zero momentum whilst having zero mass.

 

You're not denying that the photon has energy, presumeably, so the parts of the question, in order:

 

1. Without bothering to convert into joules, this is trivially 4.3eV as the kinetic energy of the electron is non-negative. You can't be denying that the photon has energy, so this is consistent.

 

2. Use E=hc/lambda and E=hf, plug in the numbers. See above.

 

3. E=cp. Derived from E2 = m2c4 + p2c2, setting m to zero. This assumes that m = zero, otherwise the photon has an undefined momentum due to p = gamma mv.

 

4. Use p = gamma mv. This part is nothing to do with photons.

 

What part of the photoelectric effect was inconsistent with the photon being massless again? Please remind me, although something tells me that the very definition of a "plug in the numbers" question that relies upon the photon being massless isn't going to be overthrowing that dastardly scientific orthodoxy that the photon is massless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swansont

 

I am disappointed with your decision for the following reasons.

 

I've moved this thread to speculations. I pointed out a while back that I am not familiar enough with Tsui's work to go through a detailed analysis

 

It is not just a question of Tsui’s work but of the whole field of Hall fractions and their division into groups. Every predicted particle (found or unfound) is matched to a Hall fraction; this produces (for the first time) a mathematical relationship between Hall fractions, observed mass, de Broglie wavelength and energy. I explain (for the first time) the cause of the groups and the relationship between groups. Nobel prize winners Tsui et al, showed the connection between Hall fractions and particles.

 

Elas, your dismissal of the point-like nature of the electron with many (and varied) experimental results is just a handwaving and not substantive.

 

The point like nature of particles is a product of Quantum theory, the radii of particles is a product of Classical theory. The observation of point-like particles arises from the manner in which experiments are conducted. (What experiment proves the photon to be a point-like particle?)

 

Also, your model predicts many particles that have not been observed. An explanation of how to observe these particles would be in order.

 

Many are observed in Hall fraction experiments. They are probably also observed in particle collision experiments. At CERN only 3 out of each batch of 80000 results is selected for investigation.

 

I'm sure there are other objections that could be made or have been within the thread.

 

Please mention those I have not dealt with.

 

The core of my complaint is that you are using QT terms to dismiss a classical theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear lord.

I don't think an appeal to the spirit world is going to help here.

photons (and everything else), never get to stop and have a rest.
just things that travel at the speed of light (or superliminal velocities, but they're not really relevent).

Sorry, this makes little sense to me, or to the relevant question (why don't photons have a mass equivalent?).

Are you avoiding the required substantiation of your claim which is the exact opposite of Albert Einstein's conclusion? (JaKiri: Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent") sic.

 

Then, in your last post, we see: "You can't be denying that the photon has energy, so this is consistent." which disagrees totally with your earlier post: "Energy is not photons". Are you saying a photon "carries energy around", in some container? That a photon is "something" which can have energy?

 

Einstein said (some time ago): "It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing —a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E = mc², in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa."

 

You seem to understand this, but then go on to claim, apparently, that he got it all wrong.

 

As to the photoelectric question (which is from a grad. Physics exam), why are you asking: "What part of that question requires that the photon has a mass (or equivilent quantity)?"

 

where does the question ask about the mass of anything? Except you know (I hope) that electrons have mass...

 

Time to ante up, dude. Please explain why photons have no mass equivalent, and why photons "are not energy".

 

P.S. you did notice I used the "wrong" form of the constant -Dirac's version instead of Planck's- well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, in your last post, we see: "You can't be denying that the photon has energy, so this is consistent." which disagrees totally with your earlier post: "Energy is not photons".

 

All daschunds are dogs, therefore all dogs are daschunds!

 

Are you saying a photon "carries energy around", in some container? That a photon is "something" which can have energy?

 

Depends how you look at it. Sure, why not!

 

Einstein said (some time ago): "It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing —a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E = mc², in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa."

 

You seem to understand this, but then go on to claim, apparently, that he got it all wrong.

 

I could point out again how this refers to a rest mass, but why bother when you're just trying to argue from authority?

 

Even if you hadn't grossly misrepresented what the quote was about, it doesn't mean anything because statements are meaningless without evidence to back them up (and since we're dealing with the repurcussions of theory here, mathematics is a form of evidence).

 

Einstein also said "God does not play dice", which is not only consistent with what he believed, as he proposed that quantum mechanics was deterministic using hidden variables, but also wrong. Bell's Theorem, and the Bell test experiments, have the random elements of quantum mechanics actually random.

 

[edit]

 

I wrote this post in a different order to that which appears here, so by the time I came back to talk about this I had forgotten you had bolded "vice versa". Lets look at the quote:

 

very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa

 

Yep, certainly true. I'm not sure why this is relevent though as you appear to have misunderstood the meaning of the word "converted". Lets have a look:

 

a plowshare may be converted into a sword and vice versa

 

But a plowshare isn't a sword. And a photon does not have mass.

 

I'm struggling to comprehend why I have to explain what the concept of "change" is.

 

[/edit]

 

As to the photoelectric question (which is from a grad. Physics exam)

 

Hot damn. I'd be ashamed asking that at GCSE (assuming the topic was covered, or the equations were given). The only thing which isn't just "Remember equation used in the photoelectric effect, plug in numbers to equation used in the photoelectric effect" is the final part, which uses special relativity. And you just plug in the numbers.

 

why are you asking: "What part of that question requires that the photon has a mass (or equivilent quantity)?"

 

If you think back to the dark ages of the world where you originally asked me to solve the question, you quoted where I said "Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent""*, and I thought that perhaps as you brought it up again in the context of photons being massless it was relevent to that.

 

*Thank you for correcting my spelling mistake here, it was noted but I decided to not go back and edit the original post because you shouldn't change art, you dig?

 

where does the question ask about the mass of anything? Except you know (I hope) that electrons have mass...

 

Strawman. I specifically said the mass of a photon, as you yourself noted above.

 

Time to ante up, dude. Please explain why photons have no mass equivalent

 

Oh ok I'll get right on that with something new I haven't already posted in the threa...

 

It's trivial to demonstrate that the photon, or any particle which travels at c, is massless from the relativistic form of momentum, p = mv/SQRT(1-v2/c2).

 

Oh :(

 

Or we could use the way that General Relativity was experimentally verified initially (as the photon is massless, it is unaffected by gravity under Newtonian gravity), with the observation of light from distant stars being "bent" around the sun.

 

Or, how about this

 

E2 = m2c4 + p2c2

 

But E = hf, p = hf/c

 

Hence h2f2= m2c4 + h2f2c2/c2

(with the final term having c2 cancel)

 

Rearranging, h2f2 - h2f2 = m2c4

 

m2c4 = 0

 

c =/= 0, hence m = 0.

 

This is simple undergraduate stuff. Mechanics and relativity is the first topic in our physics course, which many non-physicists take.

 

I was going to dig up a question sheet, and quote one at you that requires the mass of the photon to be zero in order for it to work, but now I can only find my chemistry and material & mineral sciences notes from back then.

 

and why photons "are not energy".

 

This isn't what you said. You said "Energy is photons".

 

I'm sorry if I argue against what you actually say rather than something you don't, at least you're being morally consistent by arguing against things that I didn't write.

 

So that's ok then.

 

P.S. you did notice I used the "wrong" form of the constant -Dirac's version instead of Planck's- well done.

 

I'm sure to make this into a certificate of some kind, print it out and put it on my mantlepiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure there are other objections that could be made or have been within the thread.

 

Please mention those I have not dealt with.

 

The core of my complaint is that you are using QT terms to dismiss a classical theory.

 

Ben asked about the anomalous magnetic moment.

 

This isn't about terminology.

 

Observations show the electron size to be much smaller than the classical radius (using the classical radius, as Ben has already noted, has relativistic implications) and your response to this was the results were consistent with your theory. That's not enough. You have to predict these results and exclude other explanations as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2

 

But E = hf' date=' p = hf/c

 

Hence h2f2= m2c4 + h2f2c2/c2

(with the final term having c2 cancel)

 

Rearranging, h2f2 - h2f2 = m2c4

 

m2c4 = 0

 

c =/= 0, hence m = 0.[/quote']

 

What does this say about the equivalent mass that Einstein refers to? Answer: absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zilch.

You have just illustrated (rather clumsily) that photons have no intrinsic mass (something other people occasionally refer to as "rest mass").

 

and why photons "are not energy".

 

This isn't what you said. You said "Energy is photons".

Please stop trying to confuse things. You said it first' date=' so explain why you said it.

Well, Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent", blah blah blah
...remember?

 

I'm struggling to comprehend why I have to explain what the concept of "change" is

You and me both. I would say a course in Logic and possibly a review of the meanings of 'transitive' and 'commutative' might help...

 

One more time, just so we're clear: Photons have a mass equivalent, as Einstein demonstrated when explaining the photoelectric effect (among other papers he wrote). Photons have no intrinsic mass, but because they are (pure) energy, they are therefore equivalent to some mass. [/me]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does this say about the equivalent mass that Einstein refers to? Answer: absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zilch.

You have just illustrated (rather clumsily) that photons have no intrinsic mass (something other people occasionally refer to as "rest mass").

 

OK right, now we're on the same page. Yes, there is a quantity of mass which is, in terms of energy, equivilent to the energy of a given photon.

 

In my defense, it's very difficult to tell when you're merely communicating badly and when you're doing things like the following:

 

Please stop trying to confuse things. You said it first, so explain why you said it.

 

...remember?

 

I remember, in my first post in the thread, quoting you saying

 

energy [math]E [/math] is photons [math](\hbar\nu)[/math]

 

which was itself a clarification of

 

energy is photons

 

Confusion abounds!

 

One more time, just so we're clear: Photons have a mass equivalent, as Einstein demonstrated when explaining the photoelectric effect (among other papers he wrote). Photons have no intrinsic mass, but because they are (pure) energy, they are therefore equivalent to some mass. [/me]

 

Yep. Stupid meandering over!

 

With that context, what you said earlier was still silly (energy is not photons, the speed of light is not the speed of energy [although you could use this as shorthand for something more correct], it's the inertial mass that stops it reaching c, not the inertia [mass is, in classical mechanics, the restistance to change in inertia, but this is again a problem in terminology] and whatnot. In summation: what you meant is reasonably correct, what you said is nonsensical in places which, coupled with your prose style [which is forgiveable, mine's pretty bad, especially this sentence], made it difficult to understand and therefore I called it gibberish.

 

Your repeated reference to that photoelectric question remains mystifying to me though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mention of the photoelectric effect is probably as an example of photons having momentum.

 

Others have said that they dislike the terms "rest mass" and "relativistic mass"; misunderstandings like these are why these terms are useful. I don't think I've heard the term "equivalent mass" before, thought. OK, I looked it up and "equivalent mass" is used in all sorts of ways for different subjects.

 

Fred56, I would recommend you replace "equivalent mass" with "relativistic mass" for this particular purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swansont

 

That's not enough. You have to predict these results and exclude other explanations as well.

Quantum theory deals with [prediction we do not need another prediction theory. Constant Linear Force theory deals with structure.

 

Observations show the electron size to be much smaller than the classical radius

 

This can be explained by asking ‘what is being observed?’

Here I have to modify my explanation of mass. Reading the opening chapters of Jammer’s ‘Concepts of Mass’ I realize I had discovered the answer long ago in some work on atomic structure, but failed to realize its significance.

Look at the graph in reply 33 and note that:

 

Force plus antiforce = mass.

 

Where force is the Linear Vacuum Force

and antiforce is the force of the Elasticity of Matter

 

Now turn to atomic structure where the mass and radius are both found by experiment. Use atomic mass to construct a table similar to that shown in reply 33. Next using the table, construct a graph of the density per unit of volume for force and anti-force The results are shown below, in graph form.

 

Graph A matches the expectations of quantum physicist with its point like structure, the weak outer regions are not observed by experiment.

 

Graph B is an enlargement of the vacuum field nucleus (from graph A). Note how this compares with our explanation of baryon structure.

 

Graph C is a graph of the anti-force (the elastic force of matter.) (Similar graph lines accompany most Tables of the Elements.) This shows the Atomic Radius of Classical Physics. We suggest that logically particles can be expected to have similar structure.

 

We are saying that both the Quantum and Classical views of particle radii are correct; they simply apply to different aspects of particle structure.

 

We intend to expand on this aspect of the CLF model of particle and atomic structure in a new pdf file. Meanwhile it is suggested that we have shown that there is nothing speculative about our view on point-like particles on the contrary, we have offered a better explanation of point-like particles than is currently offered by Quantum theorist. The proposal complies with Jammer’s explanation of inertial mass in which all energy is kinetic and therefore in the CLF model energy is a product not a property.

itptn5.37.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the units and variable labels for the graphs above? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Force plus antiforce = mass.

 

Where force is the Linear Vacuum Force

and antiforce is the force of the Elasticity of Matter

What about photons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.