illuusio Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) I calculated the mass of photon. If I make hypothesis that there is a mass, then E_tot = E_kinetic + E_rotational. I chose wavelength and it's energy (122 nm & 10.16 eV). I approximated that radius of photon is roughly 0.8 fm. The result was 3.6e-35 kg. Current estimates say that upper limit for photon's mass is roughly 1-e54 kg. Problem with current measurements is that they are based on current knowledge of gravitation and EM. Therefore those limits are not valid. Actually if I reduce kinetic energy (and use only "rest mass") from total energy my result agrees with E=mc^2 nicely (within appr accuracy). More details can be found from my signature. To be more clear. Photon energy is purely rotational energy if mass is at rest. Edited October 25, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Problem with current measurements is that they are based on current knowledge of gravitation and EM. Therefore those limits are not valid. 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illegal username Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 There's seems to be some serious congnitive dissonance at work here. 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I fail to see how you can in one sentence dismiss EM and then say your results agree with an aspect of special relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I made a hypothesis and it gives reasonable results. It's not a matter of belief. And your numbers were not generated via rectal retrieval? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 And your numbers were not generated via rectal retrieval? Wow! I consider this as a victory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Wow! I consider this as a victory! 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Oh, plucked out of thin air like your other predictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 Oh, plucked out of thin air like your other predictions? What are you referring at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Your question wasn't respectful enough worthwhile to answer. But no, numbers are not from my ass 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Right... it's quite subjective to say that given hypothesis is an unfounded assumption. Are you working in science world? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 There are no derivations nor reasons. Only assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now