[Bishadi]

is that like slapping 2 magnets together and seeing a spark of light....

or can you explain a chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen....  where did the light come from?

point being, all energy upon mass is a photon of light in one fashion or another, as since no energy 'photon' is floating around without being within a field (associated) ever...

Can you explain the physics of those words, I couldn't understand them.

and probably why physics is not your best subject 

i.e... 

So does Virial Theorem says that mass is additive? Probably you have to study physics a little bit more before talking about strange things.

quit pointing fingers monkey.....  read what Virial is and how kinetic energy is addressed within and then maybe do some homework

but no, i am not agreeing with you...... as it appears you are one of them monkeys on a board that rather than do the work, you bark at folk about how great you think today's material is, but all you are doing is quoting other folk....

i was a 15 year old kid working through equations you may still have not even observed  (i.e. Virial is like calculus to cosmology.... kind of basic 100 class)... 

that was over 25 years ago

energy has mass boy


here let's let someone else share a bit with you

This is a consequence of the Virial theorem, which mandates that in a stable system of gravitating particles there must be a proportional balance between the magnitudes of their kinetic and potential gravitational energies. The former must be equal to half the latter.

For example, as a stable, hot, compact proto-star forms from a cold, diffuse cloud of gas and dust, energy conservation ensures that gravitational potential energy is converted into an equal amount of other forms of energy. The condensing gas cloud heats up and radiates energy. In this process the virial theorem mandates that the internal kinetic energy added to the gas be only half the converted potential energy, if the proto-star is to form quasi-statically and not to oscillate. The balance of half the converted potential energy must be dissipated from the condensing star as radiant energy during the normal process of star formation.

In short, the virial theorem tells the star to shine, as it were; shine out into interstellar or ultimately intergalactic space, where plenty of room for emitted photons has been cleared by earlier condensations.

The relevance of the virial theorem to cosmology is the following. The real universe is lumpy. It is composed of a hierarchy of stable (on human time scales) compact astronomical structures, ranging from gas clouds, planets and stars through globular clusters and galaxies to clusters of galaxies. All these structures are thought to have formed by the gravitational condensation of more diffuse arrangements of matter.

Ultimately, all the radiation emitted by condensing matter over the estimated 13.8-billion-year life of the universe has been derived gravitational potential energy

so when you address me, you can call me sir............ boy

I have a real tough time dealing with ignorance

if you want to learn, then shut up and pull up a chair (ask quality questions as no one is going to put it on your lap)

if not then go lay by your dish

[Bishadi]

sorry to the rest of the forum.....

the reason why the understanding of light having mass, or better still why energy is misuderstood, is because of the error in plancks constant

[lightarrow]

So does Virial Theorem says that mass is additive? Probably you have to study physics a little bit more before talking about strange things.

quit pointing fingers monkey.....  read what Virial is and how kinetic energy is addressed within and then maybe do some homework

I studied Virial theorem at university, for the first time, in 1982, in the course of Mathematical Analysis II. So? Does it say that mass is not additive? Really I don't understand. []

but no, i am not agreeing with you...... as it appears you are one of them monkeys on a board that rather than do the work, you bark at folk about how great you think today's material is, but all you are doing is quoting other folk....

Sorry, but it's not me  who should do the work: since you're stating a new theory, that is that mass is additive, than it's you that should do the work and show us your New Theory. I've read the paper you linked, where is written that mass is additive? Of course, in specific cases it is, otherwise what Chemistry is based on? But in general is not.

i was a 15 year old kid working through equations you may still have not even observed  (i.e. Virial is like calculus to cosmology.... kind of basic 100 class)... 

that was over 25 years ago

Ok, I admit it is very clever for a 15 y.o. boy. And what did you do then? Did you take a degree in physics, mathematics or else? Just to know who I'm talking to. I studied physics for 4 years at univ. but didn't take the degree, but I have never heard of your theory.

energy has mass boy

Only if you give it to (take it from) a stationary body.

so when you address me, you can call me sir............ boy

Certainly, when you will have shown that you really deserve it, not before.

I have a real tough time dealing with ignorance

if you want to learn, then shut up and pull up a chair (ask quality questions as no one is going to put it on your lap)

if not then go lay by your dish

Ok, some posts ago I made this statement:

<<Not only: while a single photon has NO mass, a system of two photons travelling in two different directions DO have mass!>>

and you replied:

"ooops...
i disagree, that is a math error, not reality
to see your 2 examples you can see the contradictions"

I can PROVE my statement:

E² = (Mc²)² + (cP)²

E = energy of the two photons' system = E₁ + E₂ = 2E₁, with two equal photons, where E₁ is a single photon's energy (energy is additive).
M = mass of the two photons' system.
P = momentum of the two photons' system = P₁ + P₂ where P₁ and P₂ are the momenta of the  photon 1 and 2, respectively.

A single photon's momentum is, in modulus: |P₁| = |P₂| = E₁/c.

So, if the two photons are not travelling in the same direction:

|P| = |P₁ + P₂| < 2|P1| = 2E₁/c

so

P² = |P|² < 4E₁²/c²   →   -P² > -4E₁²/c²

(Mc²)² = E² - (cP)² = (2E₁)² - c²P² > 4E₁² - c²4E₁²/c² = 0

so

(Mc²)² > 0

that is

M > 0.

Can you prove it's false?


(P.S. Since a single photon's mass m = 0, that also shows that M ≠ m + m, that is, mass is NOT additive).

[Bishadi]

OK


I have a few ways of addressing this but will keep it short.

Observing a photon as a particle is an incorrect idea.  Have you noticed I keep writing ‘per se photon’?

Energy itself is the electric and magnetic field upon mass or a line item f upon mass.

So to perform the system (experimentally capable), now each point of exchange much be addressed, rather than affixing a value to the ‘space’ itself as a particle.   i.e…. a guitar string carries a resonance, not a particle.

The correct model shares a value can be affixed but not as a point particle or a photon representing the energy.  Energy is upon the structures (mass).   i.e….  ever notice the field (magnetic/electric) is far greater in size than the dimensions of a particle.  Such that a radio wave is quite large in reference to a x wave length.

OR another way to observe that “e” is of a system is when isolating an electron, a system must be created to isolate the unit.  So there’s now an entanglement to that system to be addressed in which the state of the mass can be measured.

Let me give you an idea to think on;  if an asteroid was going roughly 65k mph, way out in space, you would not see much action, but if it hits the atmosphere, then we see a big fire ball.

When sending a particle through an accelerator, do you really think the speed is what is increasing the mass to the particle?   Remember all that energy surrounding that machine and all them fields are energy being cut through; at almost the speed of c. 

That’s your additive mass.

SO no matter how fun they make the math of today’s physics, you must remember; each set of theorem may have an experiment to match a portion, but be certain there is no math published that will stand up to all the experiments.

There is a huge change on the horizon and yours truly is working on how to release this mess without simply publishing the math.

[lightarrow]

SO no matter how fun they make the math of today’s physics, you must remember; each set of theorem may have an experiment to match a portion, but be certain there is no math published that will stand up to all the experiments.

There is a huge change on the horizon and yours truly is working on how to release this mess without simply publishing the math.

First you say that a mathematical theorem: "Virial Theorem", proves your idea; now you say that mathematics doesn't count...
Furthermore, you still haven't answered my questions.
Sorry but I think I won't answer you anylonger.
Regards.

[Bishadi]

SO no matter how fun they make the math of today’s physics, you must remember; each set of theorem may have an experiment to match a portion, but be certain there is no math published that will stand up to all the experiments.

There is a huge change on the horizon and yours truly is working on how to release this mess without simply publishing the math.

First you say that a mathematical theorem: "Virial Theorem", proves your idea; now you say that mathematics doesn't count...

  it shares how incorrect the foundations of energy are...... 

Furthermore, you still haven't answered my questions.

because like above yu be having reading and math trouble

if you read; then you will see what is being said

Sorry but I think I won't answer you anylonger.
Regards.

  probably the best way to for you to save face

[Flyberius]

OK


I have a few ways of addressing this but will keep it short.

Observing a photon as a particle is an incorrect idea.  Have you noticed I keep writing ‘per se photon’?

Energy itself is the electric and magnetic field upon mass or a line item f upon mass.

So to perform the system (experimentally capable), now each point of exchange much be addressed, rather than affixing a value to the ‘space’ itself as a particle.   i.e…. a guitar string carries a resonance, not a particle.

The correct model shares a value can be affixed but not as a point particle or a photon representing the energy.  Energy is upon the structures (mass).   i.e….  ever notice the field (magnetic/electric) is far greater in size than the dimensions of a particle.  Such that a radio wave is quite large in reference to a x wave length.

OR another way to observe that “e” is of a system is when isolating an electron, a system must be created to isolate the unit.  So there’s now an entanglement to that system to be addressed in which the state of the mass can be measured.

Let me give you an idea to think on;  if an asteroid was going roughly 65k mph, way out in space, you would not see much action, but if it hits the atmosphere, then we see a big fire ball.

When sending a particle through an accelerator, do you really think the speed is what is increasing the mass to the particle?   Remember all that energy surrounding that machine and all them fields are energy being cut through; at almost the speed of c. 

That’s your additive mass.

SO no matter how fun they make the math of today’s physics, you must remember; each set of theorem may have an experiment to match a portion, but be certain there is no math published that will stand up to all the experiments.

There is a huge change on the horizon and yours truly is working on how to release this mess without simply publishing the math.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as for once I feel like agreeing with you, but a few more commas would go a long way to helping get your ideas across.

[Bishadi]

Please don't take this the wrong way, as for once I feel like agreeing with you, but a few more commas would go a long way to helping get your ideas across.

no offence taken

if i was perfect i would be walkin on water


an idea to convey that light has mass was just realized; when the life of a person is gone can they carry their own weight?

[lightarrow]

Nonsense. I suggest the moderator to close this thread.

[that mad man]

Thanks Andrew K Fletcher for the info and link.

Now I know it was called a Crooks radiometer and are still made I will get me another. []


Something I still have a problem with understanding.

If light acts like an electromechanical wave on the surface of a body and a shiny surface makes the electrons oscillate giving out EM radiation (reflection?)  then why doesn't a non shiny surface do the same. The actions of the wave I would have thought been the same in that they are exciting electrons on the surface whatever the case.

I hope that is not a stupid question.

[lyner]

A metallic reflector doesn't absorb the energy as the electrons oscillate because it's a good conductor. A poor conductor will absorb some energy as the electrons move so it will not reflect as much energy.

[Bishadi]

Mad man,

this interpretation by sophia is well off and please nobody follow that because it has nothing to do with reflection of light or photon exchanges.

Conduction is passing through and has nothing to do with reflections or refractions.

A metallic reflector doesn't absorb the energy as the electrons oscillate because it's a good conductor. A poor conductor will absorb some energy as the electrons move so it will not reflect as much energy.

look up the photoelectric effect (Einstein's Nobel) as well look up black body radiation.

by combining these 2 plus the ideas of the double slit experiment

then realize mass released energy when a threshold is met

it why the waves of light are shared to separate into bands as th energy can only release upon an energy threshold is reached for the mass that interacts with the light.

This is why certain mass (elemental structures) as used for each color of the spectrum.

remember; light exchanges based on the structures

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Would the dark sail generate more heat and it is the heat rather than the light that causes the sails to rotate as it expands the air pushing against the small amount of air and the glass sphere? and could the light from the reflective sail also assist the heating of the dark sail? Would a thermal imaging device confirm this?

Must get one of these myself

Mad man your most welcome

[Bishadi]

Would the dark sail generate more heat and it is the heat rather than the light that causes the sails to rotate as it expands the air pushing against the small amount of air and the glass sphere? and could the light from the reflective sail also assist the heating of the dark sail? Would a thermal imaging device confirm this?

maybe look up 'recoil' or even see how this is observed at MIT

http://www.rle.mit.edu/cua/research/project02/project02_recoil.htm

Photon Recoil in Dispersive Media

The momentum of a photon in a dispersive medium is of conceptual and practical importance. When a photon enters a medium with index of refraction n, the electromagnetic momentum changes from h/l to nh/l where, l is the vacuum wavelength of the photon, and h is Plank's constant. Momentum conservation requires that the medium now has a mechanical momentum corresponding to the change in the photon’s electromagnetic momentum. Recently, there have been discussions about what happens to an atom when it absorbs a photon within the medium. Is the recoil momentum nh/l, the electromagnetic momentum? Or, if one assumes no momentum is left in the medium is the recoil momentum h/l. We have measured a systematic shift of the photon recoil momentum due the index of refraction of a Bose Einstein condensate.
 

 

or even the old 05 publication

Photon Recoil Momentum in Dispersive Media

Gretchen K. Campbell, Aaron E. Leanhardt, Jongchul Mun, Micah Boyd, Erik W. Streed, Wolfgang Ketterle, and David E. Pritchard

MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics and Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

(Received 31 January 2005; published 4 May 2005)

A systematic shift of the photon recoil momentum due to the index of refraction of a dilute gas of atoms has been observed. The recoil frequency was determined with a two-pulse light grating interferometer using near-resonant laser light. The results show that the recoil momentum of atoms caused by the absorption of a photon is nk, where n is the index of refraction of the gas and k is the vacuum wave vector of the photon. This systematic effect must be accounted for in high-precision atom interferometry with light gratings

[Bishadi]

K Pachucki and S G Karshenboim

Max-Planck-Inst. fur Quantenoptik, Garching bei Munchen, Germany

Abstract. A new recoil correction to the Lamb shift of order ( mu 3/M2)(Z alpha )4 has been found. This correction depends on the nuclear spin, and is associated with the absence of a zitterbewegung term in the Breit Hamiltonian for spin 0 and 1 nuclei. 

that spin should be corrected to represent 'l' or an amplitude

i.e... if we have an atom at x state, then a y imposition will have a different value, then if x is less or greater than its original state

or simply; whether to put a coat on depends on the environment

Towards tests of QED in Lamb-shift measurements of highly charged ions
V. A. Yerokhin 1 2 *, A. N. Artemyev 3, T. Beier 1, I. A. Goidenko 2, L. N. Labzowsky 2, A. V. Nefiodov 4, G. Plunien 5, V. M. Shabaev 1 2, G. Soff 5
1Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, Planckstrasse 1, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
2Department of Physics, St. Petersburg State University, Oulianovskaya 1, Petrodvorets, St. Petersburg 198504, Russia
3Centro de Química Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVIC, Apartado 21827, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela
4Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, 188350 Gatchina, St. Petersburg, Russia
5Technische Universität Dresden, Mommsenstrasse 13, D-01062 Dresden, Germany
 
email: V. A. Yerokhin (yerokhin@pcqnt1.phys.spbu.ru)

*Correspondence to V. A. Yerokhin, Department of Physics, St. Petersburg State University, Oulianovskaya 1, Petrodvorets, St. Petersburg 198504, Russia.

Träger eines Humboldt-Forschungsstipendiums (holder of a Humboldt research scholarship).

Abstract
The present status of theoretical predictions for the Lamb shift in heavy few-electron ions is reviewed. We compare theoretical predictions with experimental data and discuss perspectives of testing quantum electrodynamics in a new region: the region of the strongest electrical fields available at present for experimental study. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 

basically measuring the 'state' of each before measuring the recoil


ooops... i just realized that last reference is from Russia......  does this site have preconditions for observing data from all over the world?

[that mad man]

A metallic reflector doesn't absorb the energy as the electrons oscillate because it's a good conductor. A poor conductor will absorb some energy as the electrons move so it will not reflect as much energy.

What happens then when you use a piece of transparent glass sheet as the reflector as any reflection with a glass sheet can also produce an almost perfect image, no metallic reflector there unless silica is classed as metallic. A loss would be expected because of the inverse square law and would be measurable.

Sorry, I still have problems understanding the basics and I would like to know where I am getting it wrong. Truly, I need to know!

Getting back to the crooks radiometer, what happens if it was in a total vacuum?

It seems odd to me now that I had one when I was a child.

[Mr. Scientist]

does it?

If it has a mass in kilograms, it would have an obsurd value of 10^-51.

[Dimi]

Does all light have heat?

Or is it possible to have cold light?

I don't know much about the subject and I got lost reading most of it ~ but is it possible that instead of viewing it with having a mass, how about it causes a chemical change due to the heat?

Would heat have a mass instead or is it just a chemical change?

Don't grill me

[Pmb]

This is one of those subjects that one can argue endlessly on. The most important thing to remember here is that you first have to decide what the definition of the term mass you are choosing to use. After that is determined then one can then easily prove whether light has mass or not.  It is clearly and demonstratively a matter of the record that there are two definitions of the term mass in usage in the physics literature today. Some authors’ use the term “mass” to refer to “proper mass” while others it to refer to “relativistic mass”. Relativistic mass reflect the sum of the following properties of matter
Inertial mass – This is the property of light which determines its momentum                   
Active gravitational mass – Light can generate a gravitational field.
Passive gravitational mass – Light is affected by gravity.
The following is list of relativity textbooks which employ the definition of of mass which gives it mass

Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological, Rindler, Oxford Univ., Press, (2001), page 120
According to Einstein, a photon with frequency n has energy hn /c2, and thus (as he only came to realize several years later) a finite mass and a finite momentum hn/c.
From Introducing Einstein's Relativity, Ray D'Inverno, Oxford Univ. Press, (1992), page 50
Finally, using the energy-mass relationship E = mc2,, we find that the relativistic mass of a photon is non-zero and given by
m = p/c.

Combining these results with Planck's hypothesis, we obtain the following formulae for the energy E, relativistic mass m, and linear momentum p of the photons:
E = hf             m = hf/c2            p = hf/c
Special Relativity, A. P. French, MIT Press, page 20
Let us now try to put together some of the results we have discussed. For photons we have
E = cp
and

m = E/c2

(the first experimental, the second based on Einstein's box). Combining these, we have
m = p/c

[Mr. Scientist]

Does all light have heat?

Or is it possible to have cold light?

I don't know much about the subject and I got lost reading most of it ~ but is it possible that instead of viewing it with having a mass, how about it causes a chemical change due to the heat?

Would heat have a mass instead or is it just a chemical change?

Don't grill me

Think of it as a unit of heat/energy which can differentiate due to something it inherently has as a wavelength. The higher and the lower the wavelengths give the particle its given intrinsic energy. It is the smallest unit of energy known on the standard.

But suffice to say, the photon should not have a mass due to relativity. I could give you loads of math on the subject, but it depends on how savvy you are on calculations.