[talanum1]

On the other hand we already knew how photons were formed.

I don't see a mechanism at that reference.

[Bored chemist]

 

I don't see a mechanism at that reference.

Nobody can see anything in your so called explanation.

Just in case anyone missed the question.

What part of it does not make sense? 

Is there anyone reading this who knows what any part of tantalum1's diagram means?

[talanum1]

It just takes a little getting used to.

Anyway my model explains refraction and predicts refraction in the right direction. Doesn't total internal reflection suggest that a photon has structure?

[Bored chemist]

Doesn't total internal reflection suggest that a photon has structure?

No.
You can (and they did) model total internal reflection as a classical phenomenon.

It just takes a little getting used to.

Thus far, precisely zero people have got used to it and precisely one person thinks it's worth the effort.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Mass/ energy is just confusion and have no meaning .The K.E due to motion  shouldn't be treated as mass of  " compounds and elements " and affect the motion . Relativistic mass is just an invention.

The goal from below is if rest mass can't move at c then a photon shouldn't and if a photon moves at c then a rest mass should

Let me start with:
Let me refer to energy due to motion as " pure energy which is different from rest mass compounds and elements or matter"

Relativistic mass is rest mass " compounds and elements " added to it energy due to motion. Both can be treated as mass  this mass is " relativistic mass " with the same effect " preventing to reach c "S.R

If the above is true.Energy due to motion and rest mass  both can be treated as matter.
In this case  then why this specific energy can be treated as matter ? why not a photon ? if this is for the photon  then photon can be treated as matter and shouldn't move at c" A photon does move at c.

If the above is wrong and photon can not be treated as mass then energy due to motion also can not be treated as mass " because a photon and energy due to motion are both energy" .Energy due to motion is energy and photon is energy and if photon doesn't prevent itself from reaching c then this energy due to motion can not prevent rest mass to reach c .photon is not a special case it is energy and the energy preventing rest mass to reach speed of light is also energy.It is not scientific to describe some phenomenon that contradict physics as a special case only if we have an explanation if we do not have an explanation then we should a apply physical laws on that phenomenon since a photon and energy due to motion are both energy then any  thing applied to energy must be applied to a photon , we can't say F=ma for any mass but iron there must an explanation for that and a new knowledge that explains this .Not because we want to accept Einstein' theory of special relativity we refer to something contradicts it as a special case

If they are the same, rest mass " compounds and elements "  is just pure energy  like a photon and energy due to motion is just pure energy  then energy plus energy can move at c  just like a photon Energy plus energy is just a photon that can move at c, in this case a rest mass can move at c

If mass and energy are one,what is energy is mass and what is mass is energy then rest mass is a photon and can move at c

Einstein just made energy mass " moving object"  and energy energy " a photon "  he didn't know where energy is mass and where energy is energy and why.

[Bored chemist]

Relativistic mass is just an invention.

Then why, at places like CERN, do they have to bolt the magnets down to strongly?
The magnets produce a field which bends the path of the protons from a straight line into a circle.
And, of course there is a reaction force  which pushes back on the magnets.

But protons are really light- they have little mass so, there shouldn't be much reaction force.

But there is- that's why they need to use big bolts.

So, we know that relativistic mass is real.

So we know you are wrong.

[Kryptid]

Mass/ energy is just confusion and have no meaning

The fact that nuclear bombs work is proof that you are wrong.

If the above is true.Energy due to motion and rest mass  both can be treated as matter.

Matter is not interchangeable with mass. Objects can have mass and not be matter (case in point, the Z boson that carries the weak nuclear force).

why not a photon ?

The term "photon" is very specific. It refers to the quantum of the electromagnetic force. It is a boson particle with a spin of one, is electrically-neutral and does not have a rest mass. It something does not have those characteristics, then it isn't a photon.

In any case, every test of special relativity to date has passed. So if you are positing that special relativity has a flaw, then it is significantly more likely that you are mistaken than relativity being mistaken. Unless, of course, you can point out the flaws in the experiments. Can you?

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Mass/ energy is just confusion and have no meaning

The fact that nuclear bombs work is proof that you are wrong.

They work
E=mc² .but the  energy due to motion and rest mass shouldn't be added together. They are different .One is energy and the other is mass "compounds and elements" .So the Energy/Mass equivalence here is meaningless.

In any case, every test of special relativity to date has passed. So if you are positing that special relativity has a flaw, then it is significantly more likely that you are mistaken than relativity being mistaken. Unless, of course, you can point out the flaws in the experiments. Can you?

There is not a proof for relativistic mass .That is there is not a proof that mass increases and decelerate and prevent itself from reaching c.

The term "photon" is very specific. It refers to the quantum of the electromagnetic force. It is a boson particle with a spin of one, is electrically-neutral and does not have a rest mass. It something does not have those characteristics, then it isn't a photon.

Energy due to motion and energy of photon are both energy .I'm comparing between energy due to motion  and the energy we know that a photon contains

[Colin2B]

There is not a proof for relativistic mass .That is there is not a proof that mass increases and decelerate and prevent itself from reaching c.

So, you are going to ignore the evidence from accelerator experiments?
If Einstein had not come up with his theory, evidence from acceleration of nuclear particles would have made relatively and the mass/energy equivalence obvious and the equation has been tested to the degree that noone working in the field has any reason to doubt it.

[xersanozgen]

Every photon is a wizard.

The universe is filled with an infinite number of photons. and each of these photons moves away from its source at c speed. They even drags their source after them. They have the feature of shortening their own paths   to keep their speeds in c value.

* It is the mentality of special relativity theory.

[Bored chemist]

Mass/ energy is just confusion and have no meaning

The fact that nuclear bombs work is proof that you are wrong.

They work
E=mc² .but the  energy due to motion and rest mass shouldn't be added together. They are different .One is energy and the other is mass "compounds and elements" .So the Energy/Mass equivalence here is meaningless.

In any case, every test of special relativity to date has passed. So if you are positing that special relativity has a flaw, then it is significantly more likely that you are mistaken than relativity being mistaken. Unless, of course, you can point out the flaws in the experiments. Can you?

There is not a proof for relativistic mass .That is there is not a proof that mass increases and decelerate and prevent itself from reaching c.

The term "photon" is very specific. It refers to the quantum of the electromagnetic force. It is a boson particle with a spin of one, is electrically-neutral and does not have a rest mass. It something does not have those characteristics, then it isn't a photon.

Energy due to motion and energy of photon are both energy .I'm comparing between energy due to motion  and the energy we know that a photon contains

The mass is real- that's why there's about 26 tonnes of force acting on the magnets- without the relativistic mass it would only be about a six thousandth of that.

You can't just ignore evidence because you don't want to accept that it shows you are wrong.

[Bored chemist]

Every photon is a wizard.

The universe is filled with an infinite number of photons. and each of these photons moves away from its source at c speed. They even drags their source after them. They have the feature of shortening their own paths   to keep their speeds in c value.

* It is the mentality of special relativity theory.

The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Kryptid]

One is energy and the other is mass "compounds and elements"

What is "mass compounds and elements"? Is it something you invented?

There is not a proof for relativistic mass .That is there is not a proof that mass increases and decelerate and prevent itself from reaching c.

If it wasn't for relativistic mass, gold wouldn't be yellow: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/

If it wasn't for relativistic mass, mercury wouldn't be a liquid: https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/grad/601/CM2019/ed068p110.pdf

The universe is filled with an infinite number of photons.

Citation needed.

and each of these photons moves away from its source at c speed.

Only in the reference frame of the source.

They even drags their source after them.

No, they don't.

They have the feature of shortening their own paths   to keep their speeds in c value.

No, they don't.

* It is the mentality of special relativity theory.

No, it isn't. Your continual strawmanning of relativity is tiresome.

[xersanozgen]

Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 12:37:00
They have the feature of shortening their own paths   to keep their speeds in c value.

No, they don't.

If a star has  the speed  0.60 c , the way of a photon  becomes  L' = L (1 - v²/c²)^1/2 = 0.80  L.

The distance (that the photon does not travel yet) decreases.

As if  MAGIC TRİCK

[xersanozgen]

Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 12:37:00
The universe is filled with an infinite number of photons.

Citation needed.

Citation: LOGIC

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 12:37:00
The universe is filled with an infinite number of photons.

Citation needed.

Citation: LOGIC

OK, we know that the universe is finite.
So we know that there is only space (and energy)  in it for a finite number of photons.
so LOGIC, says you are wrong.

Yet you think logic says you ar right.
So, we can deduce that you do not understand logic.

That explains a lot.
Please refrain from further posting until you have learned to be rational.

[puppypower]

The equation E=mc2 is connected to a conservation of energy equivalency between mass and energy. If you wanted to know the energy output within a nuclear bomb design, you need to know the difference in mass, before and after, the boom. The mass burn will cause some of the mass to convert to energy. Energy conservation applies and can be calculated with E=mc2. Energy cannot be destroyed, but it can convert between different states/phases.

E=mc2 does not mean mass and energy are the same phenomena. They are two different phases with different properties. In Special relativity, mass cannot move at the speed of light, since that would require infinite relativistic mass.

Relativistic mass is a different phase from mass and energy. It is closer to the concept of dark matter, than it is to rest mass. Infinite dark matter or infinite relativistic mass would create a moving target universe, that would accelerate into a big crunch, and not allow a rest mass phase to be sustainable. The loose analogy is ice and water remain at 0C until all the ice melts or all the water solidifies, then only one phase will remain instead of two.

Many physicists do not like the concept of relativistic mass, since it implies a connection to energy conservation. Energy conservation messes up the concept of relative reference, since energy conservation is an absolute and cannot be relative. For example, If we have moving train and a stationary person, one can see the relative motion in time and space.

However, the energy would not be the same for both reference scenarios. A 50,000 ton train train needs more energy than a stationary man to move 10 mph. An energy balance of this two component system, will tell us who is moving in absolute terms. This energy balances messes up the relative reference magic trick, that can fool the eyes and instruments.

Relative reference, only works if you use only two out of the three equations of Special Relativity; t and d, but you cannot use m. The reason is the energy phases is connected to d and t, but energy is not the m phase, The direct evidence of our universe is based visual evidence; energy, which is not the same as mass. We infer mass from energy, but cannot measure mass directly, due to time lag and distances. Energy, when it reaches us, has separated from the mass since mass moves much slower.

If we could directly measure the mass and the relativistic mass of the universe, since these are different different phases from photons,  the universal energy balance be different from only measuring the energy. If mass and energy were the same thing, then two or three equation SR would work the same, and physics would not need to exclude relativistic mass to make relative reference work. The illusion of relative reference is an artifact of mass and energy not being the same.

The photon phase is interesting in that it moves at the speed of light c, while also having finite expressions in space and time; wavelength and frequency. If mass moved at c, space, time and mass for any and all quanta of mass, would always be uniform and maximized; infinite. There would be no variety, since infinite relativistic time, distance and mass would be the same for any mass quanta.

Energy is not limited this way, since it is a different type of phase from mass. It has both inertial and c characteristics, that are connected, by can act independently of each other. Photons are the bridge between c and the inertial states of mass/matter, which are all restricted to below c.

Another source of confusion in physics is the c reference; speed of light,  is really the ground state of the universe and not a ceiling state, even the speed of light is fast.  Matter and anti-matter only form at the upper limits of energy. We cannot form matter with radio waves, but rather we need to  increase the energy level to beyond gamma. Matter appears is at the ceiling, while radio waves are at the floor. The speed of light reference exists at the floor, and this floor partially anchors all photons; balloons, on a string, with matter clouds at the ceiling.

Photons are not entirely in the ground state of the c-reference. They also have potential within their finite inertial attributes; wavelength and frequency. The c-reference ground state have no inertial potential, similar to the photons. This can be approximated with only infinite wavelength photons. Infinite wavelength  is a far as you can red shift photons and remain the photon phase. After that one is in the c-reference ground state, where photons are not a valid phase.

The ground state at c, is like sea-level relative to water. Just as all the liquid water on the earth, from mountains, to rain clouds, to rivers, try to flow toward sea-level to minimize potential, matter, energy, and force move the ceiling toward the floor at c-level.

Gravity cause space-time to contract toward the c reference; singularity of the black hole. The other three forces convert matter to energy/photons which moves the inertial phases into a phase with one leg at c. The universal red shift is then moving all the photons in the direction of infinite wavelength. Can you see the pattern from celling to the floor at c-level?

The hard part is learning to stand upright; matter clouds and c-level floor, after being told to stand on your head for so long. The blood will flow from your brain, and make you dizzy at first.

[Bored chemist]

They are two different phases with different properties.

The word "phase" has a specific meaning in science.
And mass and energy are not "phases"
Calling them both "things" may look less sciencey, but at least it isn't wrong.

Relativistic mass is a different phase from mass and energy.

Tosh.
It's mass.

since energy conservation is an absolute and cannot be relative.

Energy is relative.
It depends on your point of view.
The middle of a tree has low gravitational energy compared to the top, but high energy compared to the bottom.

Another source of confusion in physics is the c reference; speed of light,  is really the ground state of the universe and not a ceiling state

No.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

@Colin2B
Yes a proton in a particle accelerator will approach c with no reach to c. And the proton decelerate in its motion . That doesn't mean proton has a relativistic mass.Deceleration does not necessarily  is due to mass increment.It is due to inertia increment. Mass/Energy equivalence is just a mess as I mentioned Reply#24

Inertia is proportional to mass .Bigger mass is bigger inertia and bigger deceleration.
As inertia is proportional to mass .We can replace mass with inertia  in the equation of S.R
I=I0/√(1-v²/c²)

The I0 is the inertia of a mass at rest. For each rest mass M0 kg there is a rest inertia I0, in which I=cM , c is a constant.
The factor 1/√(1-v²/c²) in Einstein equation above doesn't change because of the idea that velocity never reach c .But there will not be change in mass.The change is in mass inertia.

Think of a mass  m at  motion pushed by force F=ma , all these are constant , F, m and a. The velocity will multiply and will not reach c. And now think of this mass reached v velocity.This mass can collide a spring with some compression force and if v is bigger the force will be bigger.So the force by the spring to stop motion or to overcome inertia will be bigger for a bigger v. Inertia increases by the increment in v the equation above. . There is not increment in mass here.There is increment in inertia for the mass at motion .

Inertia is the resistance to move a mass and the resistance to stop this mass .Force in the spring or  inertia increases by the increment in velocity and that is  according to  Einstein's equation above.

There is not something called kinetic energy .Kinetic energy doesn't exist. Instead there is a work done .The work done by a force F to push a mass m is the work done by this force to a distance d this distance is at which v stops in a maximum value " no acceleration" .

We can consider work as force times distance d at this distance velocity reached a maximum constant v" no acceleration"

If I push a mass m with force F the work done is force times distance d.
The work done is :
W=ma*d
W= 1/2 (mv)/(t*d)
v=s/t
W=1/2mv²
1) W=1/2mv²   v is constant when acceleration stops and force stops
2)W=ma*d        d is constant . its value is the distance at which v stops increasing.

Equation 1 is work done on a spring.Work done by mass at constant velocity when it collides a spring.
Equation 2  is work done or force times d , d is the distance at which v reaches maximum" the same v as in the first equation "

The energy 1/2mv² only appears when the mass collides something .Then the 1/2mv² energy is just another way to calculate W=Fd .Because there is a relation between distance and constant  velocity we can write W=Fd in another way with respect to v  we can write it W=1/2mv²
The mass resists motion .Force overcame this inertia .Making a mass to move at constant speed . Then a mass possess this inertia this inertia a mass has possessed  appears in colliding spring.The inertia it possess is not a thing it is how this mass resists motion to reach constant v and how it will resist to reach 0 velocity.
.
A photon is energy and with no  rest mass" massless"  . A photon then does not have an inertia .In this case it can move at c .Nothing will decelerate it because no inertia and no resistance to its motion.Mass is mass energy is energy they are different things  . E=mc² is true but that doesn't mean energy behaves as mass .A photon is energy moves at c rest mass is mass doesn't move at c.This explains well a photon issue and a void the Energy/Mass wrong equivalence .

[Kryptid]

If a star has  the speed  0.60 c , the way of a photon  becomes  L' = L (1 - v2/c2)1/2 = 0.80  L.

Length contraction is reference frame dependent. In the reference frame where the star is actually measured to have a velocity of 0.6 c, there will be no length contraction. In the star's reference frame, there will be length contraction.

As if  MAGIC TRİCK

Just because something seems magical doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Citation: LOGIC

What is your logical reasoning?

A photon then does not have an inertia .

Actually, it does. A photon falls towards a source of gravity at the same rate as an object with mass does. A flashlight held horizontally will have its beam deflected towards the Earth (although this will be far too slight to notice with the human eye). It would be far more noticeable near a black hole.