swansont Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited October 26, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. So how is this not you just making stuff up still? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 So how is this not you just making stuff up still? His username is finnish for illusion...nuff sed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 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?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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? 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Why 122 nm? Why not 121.5? It's an arbitrary choice so it's not a valid basis for a calculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Please check and recheck the replies in your first thread. I can't really be bothered to add more to them before you appreciate the points already made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) 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? Which brings us to another question: Are you saying photons cannot display wave properties because it is a 'solid' object? Let's do an analysis. Hypothesis: Photons have mass that can be calculated by theory(if there is one) Objective: To find the mass of a photon by calculating. variables: i) photon mass Procedure: i)Apply equation in theory. ii)Look at the answer Result: photon mass is calculated. For most of us: Hypothesis is not accepted as it does not conform to experimental results. For you: Hypothesis is accepted as...well, because you accept your theory. Do you see why this is so strange for us? Edited November 9, 2012 by Mellinia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unity+ Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I would have to disagree with the idea that photons would have mass because it goes against the Higgs field's way of working. If photons had mass, they couldn't go faster than the speed of light, which is the irony. However, if the Higgsfield does not exist, I would only agree that photons have some sort of property similar to mass, but mass for a photon is farther out there to the explanations we have today. However, as any scientist would agree, nothing is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Photons have mass and I'll prove it. We can agree that light is electromagnetic radiation therefore photon are packets of electromagnetic radiation it really is no different than a radio wave. both travel at the speed of light both are composed of the same thing electromagnetic waves the only difference is that light is packets of radiation and the case of a radio wave propagated from a standard antenna is a continuous circular magnetic wave with it's electrical component. Explain this to me if a photon has no mass then a magnetic field would have no mass which would mean it would have no inertia to keep it from slowing down from the force it has, as when it is collapsing in an inductor, in the case of an radio wave. To prove that it does have mass if you took a superconducting toroid and energized it with a magnetic field energy would have to go into the magnetic field that has mass energy equivalency, therefore photons have mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 No, photons have momentum, not mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I didn't know that momentum had another equation than mass*velocity no mass no momentum. The entire theory of relativity and E=m*c^2 is built on that equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 E=mc2 is not the whole form of the equation. The full equation is E = sqrt((mc2)2 + (pc)2) where p is momentum. When the momentum factor is zero, the equation simplifies into the familiar E = mc2 When the mass factor is zero, as is the case with photons, the equation simplifies into E = pc, so p = E/c. I didn't know that momentum had another equation thanmass*velocity Well, then, you've learned something new, so the day isn't a total waste. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I've looked at that equation before but I totally forgot about it. There's one problem with that equation assuming no rest mass and E=pc to have E you must have mass to to make E possible. p has to be equal to (relativistic mass)* velocity*c. If photons have any energy they must have relativistic mass when velocity =c, so therefore photons must have mass. Small mistake E has to be equal (relativistic mass)*velocity*c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Nope, the day was a waste for you after all. to have E you must have mass to to make E possible. Wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Photons have mass we can also speak of charge to represent the mass of the energy. Not a charge to mass ratio ; but only the unique one "quantum" of mass. That represent one photon of course. That's mean that the photon is the first representation of smallest possible of mass Why not Edited November 21, 2012 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 How can you deny this 1. light is electromagnetic radiation 2. If magnetic fields have rest mass then light would have to have mass. This experiment would confirm or deny it. Using a super conducting air core toroid, measuring its mass before a high current is established in it, then establish a high current with it's resultant magnetic field in the toroid them measure the energy input then remeasure the mass of the toroid to determine if it has gained mass, if it has gained mass then the magnetic field must have mass, and with no mass gained then a magnetic field must be massless. This test will settle the question once for all for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 That's means that the photon is the first representation of smallest of masses one photon = one packet = one quantum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Photons have mass and I'll prove it. We can agree that light is electromagnetic radiation therefore photon are packets of electromagnetic radiation it really is no different than a radio wave. both travel at the speed of light both are composed of the same thing electromagnetic waves the only difference is that light is packets of radiation and the case of a radio wave propagated from a standard antenna is a continuous circular magnetic wave with it's electrical component. Explain this to me if a photon has no mass then a magnetic field would have no mass which would mean it would have no inertia to keep it from slowing down from the force it has, as when it is collapsing in an inductor, in the case of an radio wave. To prove that it does have mass if you took a superconducting toroid and energized it with a magnetic field energy would have to go into the magnetic field that has mass energy equivalency, therefore photons have mass. I think it'd be quite hard to cover all of your misconceptions about electromagnetic radiation and photons here. I'd suggest that you had a read of a good electrostatics and then electrodynamics books and then have a read of QED by Feynman. It may just be because of it all being in together but there seems to be some strange classical mechanics misconceptions as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 From my point of view : 4π generate one packet : http://up.sur-la-toile.com/i16M6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 How can you deny this 1. light is electromagnetic radiation 2. If magnetic fields have rest mass then light would have to have mass. But they don't, so this is moot. 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