Massless Energy & Nothing.

[Tormod]

I hope someone read this thread and came to the conclusion that energy has mass. You know if I just reached that one individual... It'd b all worthwhile. sniff

 

Science is not a battle. If you have not convinced anyone it probably boils down to a couple of things: The way a theory is presented, the way it is argued and defended, the way it is compared to other theories.

 

The "winner" in science, if you like, is never the "correct" theory but the theory that best describes what we observe.

 

If your ideas turn out to be correct, then eventually they will catch on. But nobody who starts a thread by saying "I only started learning about physics a month ago" can expect to be seen as a serious contender! Never, ever give up - if your theory is worth fighting for, keep finding evidence for it. Or consider whether it might be wrong.

[WebFeet]

Fighting a losing battle.

 

And I worked so hard. Phew.

How can you regard it as a loss when you now know more than you did before?

Not only that, but by posing the questions you cause others to re-evalute what it is they thought they already knew.

 

Everybody wins, isn't that worthwhile ?

[Damo2600]

It's just a little disheartening when I try so hard to put forward logical reasoning which appears to fall on deaf ears. Any arguements I do make get ignored, misrepresented or someone just changes the subject. It appears that my arguements are rarely even read properly. I have no problem with someone pointing out my mistakes and I have no problem correcting myself in this case. "A person who never made a mistake, never made anything" - an intelligent person once told me. I find though that others aren't so gracious. People are so eager reply in respect to pointing out the errors with my post. They find it so difficult to point out the parts that are not errors? You put forward a strong case and nobody tries to oppose it they just forget what you just said.

 

I'm a little tired of having to read responses that are overly 'overquoted'. Posts often get chopped and responses are not directed at the post but merely the post in parts.

Tormod asks that people keep quoting to a minimal. So few actually do this. Do you think the person doesn't remember exactly what they wrote?

 

Some threads on this forum consists entirely of full post quotes.

 

You are probably right Tormod my answers are not the difficulty all the time, but my obvious lack of experience. I am learning rather quickly though. It just makes you less inclined to put in effort if people are spouting stuff like 'energy has no mass'. Think about it light is energy. Our entire planet is energy. The next logical conclusion would be that energy and mass are two separate things. OR mass exists only on the level of particles. It's crank science. Developed and presented in a very pleasing format. The formulas are new and impressive and we get sucked in in a very big way.

 

Who am I to fight mainstream science...

 

Yes Web Feet I did enjoy myself learning this stuff though.

 

Damien

[Tormod]

It's crank science...<snip>...Who am I to fight mainstream science...

 

If nothing else, this attitude is what alienates you. You call others' views "crank science" when in fact it is the mainstream science of modern particle physics we are talking about.

 

You do not come forth as being a humble person at all. You call us confused and argue many sides of the topic at once which makes it almost impossible to take you seriously. You also keep posting at an almost unheard of rate. You have posted all your posts in, what, 4 topics? It might help to participate in other topics as well, I am 100% sure you have a lot to contribute if you could appreciate that there is so much more to science than getting everyone to listen to *your* views on *your* theory!

[Damo2600]

Oh and light can travel at the SoL, regardless of the fact it has mass, because it has no inertial mass.

 

:circle:

[WebFeet]

Oh and light can travel at the SoL, regardless of the fact it has mass, because it has no inertial mass.

Inertial mass is the basis against which mass is measured.

What makes energy/light different from everything else is that because it can never travel slower than the speed of light it can never have inertial mass.

 

You have to treat the whole Universe/Science as a very large conundrum. IMHO, all the main clues have already been provided. The trick is to put them in the right order to solve the puzzle.

 

Our entire planet is energy. The next logical conclusion would be that energy and mass are two separate things. OR mass exists only on the level of particles.

Inertial mass is the key here.

You accept that light has no inertial mass, in which case the second of your two statements, assuming that by particle you mean photon, would not be the case. So wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the first statement is the way to go?

 

Don't fight mainstream science - use it.

[Damo2600]

No problems. Been nice talking to you on this thread.

 

Damien

[lindagarrette]

Higgs particle found. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3546973.stm

 

I doubt anyone can explain what mass really is. We know it exists because of gravity but what is it made up of?

 

The Standard Model omits a rather pivotal trait of particles—their mass. "The major question in particle physics is why any elemental particle would have any mass at all. The most natural theory would have all the particles with no mass, just like the photon," says Melvin J. Shochet of the University of Chicago and Fermilab. But there's plenty of mass in the universe, making such a theory obviously wrong. Unlike other standard-model particles, the Higgs boson interacts with another particle in proportion to the particle's rest mass—its mass when standing still. Yet at least part of that mass only exists because of the interaction between the particle and the Higgs boson.

 

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010310/bob9.asp

[OmegaX7]

:shrug: O.K., - - I've been watching this thread develope; intresting.

I'd like to know what problems present themselfs when trying to unifie gravity with the other forces. If you all can, I'd like some detailed analogies. Perhaps someone could give an example of an experiment that highlites the issues at hand. At what point in regression to t=0, do we expect these forces "where as one?"

Thanks. :circle:

L8R

"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules."

[BlameTheEx]

How does energy attract energy ?

 

If energy were to attract energy the would have to be some sort of emission from the energy to facilitate such an attraction. If so, what is powering the emission. If the energy itself were powering it, then this would result in a reduction in its own energy. If a photon's graviational field consumed its own energy, then the half life of photons could be calculated based on their energy level.

Currently we can look at Galaxies as they were billions of years ago. The light that we see, or rather that Hubble sees, was emitted billions of years ago. Surely if every photon generated its own graivtational field, they would become depleated of energy long before they reach here, billions of years later.

 

You never get something for nothing, unless you collect taxes.

Then presumably a magnet or a charged particle must have some sort of emision? They also have the power of atraction. Do electrons and protons loose energy over time?

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod

 

Don't be too quick to congratulate Webfeet.

 

Mass has no more dimensions than Energy. Mass is simply proportional to Energy. You just have to divide your energy by C^2. Again I am talking about Mass as opposed to Rest Mass.

[WebFeet]

Then presumably a magnet or a charged particle must have some sort of emision? They also have the power of atraction.

Electromagnetic field.

Do electrons and protons loose energy over time?

If they emit an electromagnetic field, then the answer would have to be yes. The question then is, do they have the ability to absorb energy to maintain their field strength ?

[Damo2600]

I have adequately shown that group velocity never slows down. The moment light exists and starts moving it is already moving at the speed of light (edit: It has no inertial mass whereby it needs to gain momentum before it reaches SoL). Density doesn't slow down the group velocity of light. In water it has the exact same group velocity however due to shortened wavelengths it is approximately %75 c. It has a seperate constant speed of light in water. An even denser material will have an equal group velocity (as light in vacuo) yet another slower speed of c. There is no way to slow down the group velocity of light. Therefore light cannot have inertial mass because inertial mass has to do with changing velocities. It has no rest mass because it never stops. If a light ray is absorbed within an atom it no longer exists as a wave i.e. the energy has been absorbed.

 

If you capture moving light in a box it has mass. What does this mean?

 

Light has mass. Full stop.

 

Damien

 

Not living in a dream world.

[Qfwfq]

mc^2 = Ec^2 - pc^2

 

No,

 

p = 0

Sorry, Damien, if I goofed up saying how to put the right powers of c back in, Friday, in my hurry to get back home for the weekend. :circle: Here's the right form, when using different units for spacelike and timelike intervals:

 

1) (mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2

 

It can be figured anyway by dimensional analysis. Anyway, if you square each side of the more famous E = mc^2 you get 1) in the p = 0 (zero momentum) case. Similarly, squaring E = pc gives an equation equivalent to 1) in the massles case.

 

One might ask, why not write it as E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 to make it easier? Fair question, the answer being that in the Lorentz covariant formulation, m is a scalar and energy-momentum is a 4-vector. The minus sign is due to the Minkowsky metric of space-time geometry.

[Damo2600]

If you square both sides you get

 

E^2 = m^2.c^2.c^2

 

E^2 = p^2c^2

 

Add them together:

 

2E^2 = m^2c^4 +p^2c^2

 

(mc^2)^2 = 2E^2 - (pc)^2

 

Hey you didn't add the two E^2.

 

It should be:

 

2E^2

 

Shouldn't it?

 

Damien

[Qfwfq]

Add them together:

No, wait, I didn't say to add them together. I said that you get 1) in either of two cases, according to which of the two things you do. Therefore:

It should be:

 

2E^2

 

Shouldn't it?

No.

 

It should be (mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2, a general equation from which the famous E = mc^2 can be derived, for the zero-momentum case, or from which E = pc can be derived, for the massless case.

[Damo2600]

E = mc^2

 

E = pc

 

E = mc^2 + pc

 

How did you get that Qwfwq?

 

Damien