you are welcome
Actually this is incorrect. The increased mass is a complicated function of BOTH the energy of the photon, E AND its momentum , p. You have just copied the silly wiki entry on this subject.
Besides, you still have to deal with your second and more serious mistale of sticking $$E/c^2$$ into Newton's law of gravitation and claiming (like Victor Espinoza) that "light has weight".
Good for you
When a photon is absorbed by a particle with mass, the increase of mass to the particle doing the absorbing is m=E/C^2.
IMHO, this is the mass equavelent of the photon.
I am not talking rest mass, just energy to mass converson for which the fourmuals stated work just fine.
IMHO, this is the mass equavelent of the photon.
I am not talking rest mass, just energy to mass converson for which the fourmuals stated work just fine.
I suppose part of the problem could be the language barrier, that, or you are witless.:shrug:
Photons do not produce waves. A photon has particle properties AND wave properties.
The comment, "a wave produces a touch" is meaningless.
V
victorespinoza
Guest
A wave it is produced by a touch. That is why I say that light has weight.
Good for you.
That isn't even coherent and even allowing for a tenuous interpretation its a complete non-sequitor.
color has as much weight as the atoms in a perfect vacuum.
on the other hand there is such a thing called an event horizon that says there is something to this.
god help me for asking but in your opinion which weighs more, red or purple?
as far as light "not reaching the clouds" because of gravity you are 100% dead wrong. the laser range finder placed on the moon by apollo 11 proves that conclusively.
That and the fact we can see other planets and stars at all. If light couldn't escape Earth it'd not escape the Sun and the Sun wouldn't shine.
That's why they call it "light", because its not "heavy".
what you said is funny.and why peole called the light ----light???not heavy.
Light does not produce a wave, light IS the wave. Your idea seems to come from someone who is touched. That will not translate well im sure.....
See Light is Heavy by M.B. van der Mark and G.W. ’t Hooft.
Light is massless, but it conveys energy/momentum, and if you trap a photon in a mirror-box you add mass to that system. It's because there's a symmetry between momentum and inertia. You can get a handle on this via a gedanken box of bullets. The bullets are pinging around inside the box, bouncing off the sides. If you increase the speed of the bullets you increase the energy content of the box, and you increase the mass of the box+bullet system. It's then harder to change its state of motion.
Light is massless, but it conveys energy/momentum, and if you trap a photon in a mirror-box you add mass to that system. It's because there's a symmetry between momentum and inertia. You can get a handle on this via a gedanken box of bullets. The bullets are pinging around inside the box, bouncing off the sides. If you increase the speed of the bullets you increase the energy content of the box, and you increase the mass of the box+bullet system. It's then harder to change its state of motion.
I agree. There are many references to this is physics literature. I don't understand the denial by Tach of the work, started by de Broglie in the 1920's.
To quote one, Understanding Relativity (1996) by Leo Sartori, University of Nebraska Physics-Astronomy Dept/Behlen Observatory US, Page 231, "Although the photon has no rest mass, we can used the equation 7:19 (E=Mc^2) to assign it a relativistic rest mass based on its energy: M=hf/c^2 which is what I said.
Similar derivations can be found in most physics books on the subject.
The rest of my post was algebra and physics I learned in Junior High School.
The facts always stand for themselves but sometimes must be restated or explained lest someone takes all posts at face value.
I do though, take umbrage, at Tach’s accusation that I copied “some silly wiki post “ and his assertion of “guilt by association" with the original thread author who’s poorly worded and ill though out theories make little sense. Perhaps Tach could rethink this answers in light of recent posts, or provide more information and reference concerning his point of view, so we could all consider it.
I’m not trying to start a “flame war” here, but believe that more civility between the members would add a great deal of value to this forum.
Thank you.
To quote one, Understanding Relativity (1996) by Leo Sartori, University of Nebraska Physics-Astronomy Dept/Behlen Observatory US, Page 231, "Although the photon has no rest mass, we can used the equation 7:19 (E=Mc^2) to assign it a relativistic rest mass based on its energy: M=hf/c^2 which is what I said.
Similar derivations can be found in most physics books on the subject.
The rest of my post was algebra and physics I learned in Junior High School.
The facts always stand for themselves but sometimes must be restated or explained lest someone takes all posts at face value.
I do though, take umbrage, at Tach’s accusation that I copied “some silly wiki post “ and his assertion of “guilt by association" with the original thread author who’s poorly worded and ill though out theories make little sense. Perhaps Tach could rethink this answers in light of recent posts, or provide more information and reference concerning his point of view, so we could all consider it.
I’m not trying to start a “flame war” here, but believe that more civility between the members would add a great deal of value to this forum.
Thank you.
Last edited:
And you are wrong on both accounts.
If you feel you need to understand physics, I suggest you start with an elementary school physics book (judging from your present level of understanding). If you don't feel the need to understand physics, fine, but don't waste your time commenting on the subject.
Hans
Don't bother with him, he just isn't sincere, there's no talking to people like that.
The Light is Heavy paper describes how a massless photon trapped in a mirror-box adds mass to that system. Open the box and the photon escapes, the system loses energy/momentum, and the mass is reduced. This is as per Einstein's E=mc² paper Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?
The photon has energy E=hf and momentum p=hf/c. These aren't separate things, just two ways of measuring energy/momentum distinguished by the conversion factor c=distance over time. When you confine the massless photon, the result is mass, so E=hf and E=mc² so hf=mc² and m=hf/c². This is backed up by experimental evidence. We can create a 511keV electron and a 511keV positron, which exhibit mass, from a massless photon of just over 1022KeV via pair production. Then when we annihilate the electron and the positron, we get light again. Since the electron and positron have spin angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment and can be diffracted, the simple inference is that each is just a photon in a box of its own making. Annihilation is "opening the boxes" to let the photons out, whereupon the boxes aren't there any more.