0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Your equation implies that the energy of a photon is always zero, which is obviously not the case.Your confusion arises from assuming that momentum is uniquely asssociated with mass. Einstein's analysis of radiation pressure shows that it isn't. The fundamental relationship is p = E/v by definition for all particles at all speeds. Now a photon clearly has energy and speed, so can exert a force since F = dp/dt by definition, so an absorbed or reflected photon can transfer momentum to the absorber or reflector.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 21/05/2016 16:29:37Starting from the relationship and the eaquation we can remove Planck's constant as a component of these equations. Since then the energy equation can be expressed as Since the speed of a wave can be expressed as then it can also be expressed as The interesting thing about the relationship is that the frequency/energy relationship and momentum are on the same side of the equation which can then be used to investigate the possible mechanisms of time dilation. Since the components can vary non uniformly.I wish you would write an index to your maths so people understand your representation, what is h etc?Anyway I have some clue of what you are trying to express, I expressE=c delta F?

Starting from the relationship and the eaquation we can remove Planck's constant as a component of these equations. Since then the energy equation can be expressed as Since the speed of a wave can be expressed as then it can also be expressed as The interesting thing about the relationship is that the frequency/energy relationship and momentum are on the same side of the equation which can then be used to investigate the possible mechanisms of time dilation. Since the components can vary non uniformly.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 22/05/2016 10:59:36OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.Energy = momentum c = planck constant c divided by length = planck constant divided by ?What is the last symbol and is that what you said?

OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.

acquisition

Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 22/05/2016 12:45:46Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.Please explain to mewhat you think ''mass' is Jeffrey? Mass=kg=G=N, mass and Newton's ''are'' the same thing....

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/05/2016 18:44:50The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass. Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?

Quote from: Thebox on 24/05/2016 18:50:05Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/05/2016 18:44:50The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass. Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/05/2016 18:59:34Quote from: Thebox on 24/05/2016 18:50:05Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/05/2016 18:44:50The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass. Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.No Jeff. the strong nuclear force remains constant and the sum of all ''charges'', a single particle has no mass,mass=snf+q =gYou may think I am deluded Jeff, but I am certain that ''you'' have it so wrong. Let me try to explain, please try to have an open mind and hear me out. Imagine a single particle ''floating'' around in a vast space where there was no other gravitational influence on the particle, the particle on a set of scales would ''weight'' relatively 0. There is no force being applied on the particle and the particle is not attracting anything. Ok let us say I live on a planet that had twice the gravity of the Earth, let us say this single particle on your scales ''weighs'' 1oz. What would it ''weigh'' on my scales?Please answer you will see later on the relativeness of this.

When considering how massless particle like the photon relate can be shown by the following relationships.Where setting mass equal to zero gives the desired result as expected. This indicates a very different relationship between the photon and time dilation.

To answer your question the object would weigh twice as much.