[PmbPhy]

Consider the electron-positron annihilation


If the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum is
-m+m=0

Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?
Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the pair positron-electron is transformed in the annihilation?

Going back to the start of this thread I see that we all missed the obvious error in this post and I'm ashamed to admit that I missed it myself too.

Conservation of mass: If the mass of anti-particle was actually negative like CD asserts then the total mass would be zero. However the total mass after the annihilation is not zero regardless of how one defines mass as invariant mass or relativistic mass. The invariant mass of a photon is zero but it has both energy and momentum and the energy and momentum of two identical particles traveling in opposite directions (which will be the case in these reactions). In that case the invariant mass of the system is non-zero. It actually has the value of the (total energy of the electron + positron)/c².

Conservation of energy: If the energy of the antiparticle was negative the mass of the particle then the sum of the two is zero. However there are to photons after the reaction which have a non-zero total energy. Therefore the energy is not conserved. This means that the assumption of negative energy is false.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

Courier of darkness is back with a vengeance.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

Consider the electron-positron annihilation


If the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum is
-m+m=0

Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?
Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the pair positron-electron is transformed in the annihilation?

Going back to the start of this thread I see that we all missed the obvious error in this post and I'm ashamed to admit that I missed it myself too.

The problem is, there is no error in my post.

[guest39538]

m=A word that explains something we dont understand that we weigh in kg that is equal to newtons of force in an inertial reference frame.

[guest39538]

Antimatter most certainly doesn't fall up since it behaves dynamically like matter. However have you read the Bondi article on negative mass? I forget what it says since its been many years since I've read it but it's surely not popscience media, that's for sure.

See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf

Yes I've read it. It isn't popscience, but with respect, it's bad science that results from a lack of understanding of mass and gravity, along with a touch of "lost in math". And I will reiterate: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. If you take away all the energy, the body does not exist, and you can't take away more energy. Ditto if you shorten a pencil to 0cm. It no longer exists, and you can't make it shorter.

The mass of a body is not a measure of its energy content. The mass of a body is a metric unit of quantifiable ''weight'' represented in kg on a set of scales, the intentions of the word mass was to represent the summation of all energies within a body, but the intentions are lost somewhere.


Mass should be represented m==E_σ

However m represented by kg is a direct indistinguishable relationship to Newtons of force and F=ma.

[jerrygg38]

   According to my theory in my book, the property of mass is the result of a spherical momentum oscillation. An electron has an oscillation within its radius. The positron has a 180 degree phase difference in its oscillation as compared to the electron.. In addition both have degrees of linear and angular momentum. When you add an electron to a positron, you get a cancellation of the spherical momentum. This results in two photons. The energy is conserved and the photons now have high amounts of linear momentum. 

[guest39538]

   According to my theory in my book, the property of mass is the result of a spherical momentum oscillation. An electron has an oscillation within its radius. The positron has a 180 degree phase difference in its oscillation as compared to the electron.. In addition both have degrees of linear and angular momentum. When you add an electron to a positron, you get a cancellation of the spherical momentum. This results in two photons. The energy is conserved and the photons now have high amounts of linear momentum.

Mass is entropy related, I do not know why you mention the above which I do not understand to mean anything, can you simplify that into layman terms?

[jerrygg38]

Mass is entropy related, I do not know why you mention the above which I do not understand to mean anything, can you simplify that into layman terms?

   The physics that we learn has two types of basic wave motion. A photon has linear motion and at the same time has a degree of spin motion.  thus it has both linear and angular momentum.  There is one other type of motion which causes mass and inertia. If we take a ball of energy and compress and expand it, it will have spherical motion. This form of momentum is responsible for mass. This form of energy was left out of the scientific discussion because we readily measure linear and orbital forms of energy but we do not readily measure the energy of a spherical compression/expansion oscillation. thus mass and gravity are spherical forms of forces and energy which have been overlooked.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

This joker is way beyond help since he refuses to address all the proofs I've leveled against his bogus claims. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it let's take it to our private forum. Okay?

Agreed.................

At least this is in the forum where it belongs. I.e. this thread was moved here because it's outside the domain of mainstream physics meaning that what the OP claims are all WRONG.

Just because my thread was moved here does not mean that my claims are all
WRONG.

in fact, my claims are correct.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

He just can't fathom that he's wrong. What's bad about it is that he refuses to make an statement about why his claims should be taken as valid nor has he made an attempt to prove that he correct. He also ignores all the proof that he's wrong too.

I am not wrong.

Of course you are. Haven't you read the responses to your claims? Can't you see that your thread was moved to the New Theories Forum? That only happens when the claims made by the OP don't conform to mainstream physics like your bogus claims.

I repeat:

just because my thread was moved here, does not mean that my claims are bogus. You have presented no evidence against me except that my thread was moved here.

We know a nutcase when we see them because they insult people who explain their errors to them or say that they're wrong and that's all you've been doing since you got here is claiming that you know what's right and we don't because we're ignorant. The fact is that I've been a physicist for 30 years and you're merely an ignorant layman who refuses to state or prove why he thinks he's right.

I have not insulted anyone. It is you who is insulting. You don't know who I am. You did not explain my error, you only said that I must be wrong because my thread was moved here.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

The rest is more of the same stupid garbage. You don't deserve any help because you're not intelligent enough to grasp it.

I don't need any help. I did not ask for any help. It is you who needs help.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

this thread was moved here because it's outside the domain of mainstream physics meaning that what the OP claims are all WRONG

Using this kind of logic, one can say that all the claims in all the threads here are all WRONG, the threads were moved here because they are all WRONG, all the new theories are WRONG.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m  = m₀/sqrt{1 - v²/c²} because that was derived on the assumption that the particle is a tardyon, not a luxon. The definition of relativistic mass is given implicitly as the m in p = mv. Therefore m = p/v. Since v = c for a photon m = p/c. Substituting in E = pc or p = E/c we end up with m = E/c²

Lets examine more closely whether photons really have a well defined momentum:

The relativistic mass formula is m= m₀/

The relativistic momentum is

for a photon v=c and

the problem is,  for a photon m₀ = 0 and therefore we end up with p =c


So, are you implying that p = mc = c is well defined?

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m  = m₀/sqrt{1 - v²/c²}

I did not make an error, the relativistic mass formula is m= m₀/

Are you going to explain why do you think that photons have well defined relativistic mass?

I told that photons have relativistic mass m =

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

He just can't fathom that he's wrong. What's bad about it is that he refuses to make an statement about why his claims should be taken as valid nor has he made an attempt to prove that he correct. He also ignores all the proof that he's wrong too.

You are ignoring the proof that you are wrong:

In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass

It is you who is unable to grasp that photons don't have a well defined relativistic mass:

photons have relativistic mass m =

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

He just can't fathom that he's wrong

You are wrong, and it is clear now that you don't want to admit it. I have given you enough time to answer.  I am no longer waiting. You can have your false beliefs, they are worthless. You don't want to admit that your assertions are not physics, you don't know the laws of physics, you are just making assertions and they are wrong.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

so you have decided to remain silent.

you have decided to let me continue my monologue.

and it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner.

did you think that I needed you?

no.

it was you who needed my help.

I have told why mass can be negative.

[katoomba]

I don't think so.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

I don't think so.

You do sound convincing considering that you created an account only to tell that you don't think so....as if the laws of physics cared what you think. Do you have multiple accounts here?

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

So you thought that it is a good idea to let Courier of darkness continue his monologue?

And it seems that there is a conspiracy to isolate Courier of darkness.....so I am forced
to hide the consequences of my mega science.........