Does light have a mass?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you think

THE CRACKPOT INDEX
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.
A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Click to expand...

A few hundred at least.
 
there's one missing

13. What to do when you feel you are right, but somehow, you just can't make this hard. Well, you just start posting sarcastic jokes, the twelve rules for this or that, written by people who obviously have no live (if one of these people is reading this: get a live will ya :p ) The only thing your posts have to do, is make feel the other party that they just won't get it, that you just can't keep waisting your time with the crancks, that you've been putting up with them too long now ... You see? You attack them with their own weapon: nonsense

Thed, if you feel you're waisting your time, then just stop waisting it, no? That's my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Cest moi/Joeblow

Now see what you've done, Thed's blown a fuse. We may never get him back now. :D


Thed...THED...COME BACK !!!

Don't go towards the light !!
 
C'est Moi

Intresting you think John Baez's crackpot index was directed at you. Why is that?
 
Yes indeed, you said it (Q)!! Don't do it Thed, do you know what temperatures these lightbulbs can attain? :p

"You said it best"

jeesh, I'm gonna look like Homer now: by the way, I was being sarcastic
 
Originally posted by (Q)
Cest moi/Joeblow

Now see what you've done, Thed's blown a fuse. We may never get him back now. :D

Thed...THED...COME BACK !!!

Don't go towards the light !!
Click to expand...

Lol.

God, I posted that!
 
"C'est Moi, Intresting you think John Baez's crackpot index was directed at you. Why is that?"

sorry to disappoint you little Thed but when you posted that one I was busy typing the 13nd rule (which I hope is clear enough)
why is it that Thed can't do better than suddenly post "humor"? feeling uncomfortable? why?

don't wanna discuss nothing? simply don't post then
it's not worth it
 
Tom,

<i>Particles in a particle accelerator are NOT accelerated by electromagnetic photons, they are accelerated by electric and magnetic fields.</i>

And what, pray tell, do you think that electric and magnetic fields consist of?

Hint: It starts with P.
 
James R, you know all this stuff, but I read an email discussion one time from someone who was not in agreement with the photons-who-have-to-catch-up-the-electrons model, because the particles where accelerated with electrostatic forces he said - ie, repulsion and attraction (and he was yapping some more that he himself was involved in experiments blablabla)

I know photons, ie EM radiation, *produces* electromagnetic fields, but what about the fields themselves? I learnd that they are imagined lines where the force of attraction-repulsion is

how is the photon involved in this field?
 
The concept of a "field" is a useful picture, but it is really just a shorthand way of talking about forces on charges and so on. According to quantum electrodynamics, whenever an electric or magnetic field affects a particle, that particle absorbs and/or emits photons. Photons are said to be the carrier particles of the electromagnetic interaction.
 
wow! I didn't know that

well, I had another thought because of this

photons are EM radiation
they are emitted by matter
doesn't that mean that matter is EM in nature??
some kind of standing EM waves?
 
Some matter has an EM nature. It's called <b>electrical charge</b>. Electromagnetic radiation is produced by the movement of charged particles.
 
"Some matter has an EM nature. It's called electrical charge."

which matter isn't? and of what kind of nature is that other matter?

"Electromagnetic radiation is produced by the movement of charged particles."

I also wonder, since I learnd this photon thing about EM-fields, how do they see a charge? I mean we know it is a property of matter ... but what else more? Result of some kind of interaction between virtual particles and particles?
Also, since movement of charged particles creates EM radiation and that radiation consists of photons and these photons produce EM-fields which are really absorption-emission of photons --> abs.-emission between the photons themselves??

last one :p , just very simple: two magnets with south and north side, they attract each other because of the magentic field:
how can you explain it (simple) with the photon model, what happens? why do they attract one another ... I find this strange
in de force field model you don't think about this, you just accept the force
 
Originally posted by c'est moi
"Some matter has an EM nature. It's called electrical charge."

which matter isn't? and of what kind of nature is that other matter?
Click to expand...

Neutrons and neutrinos. You could also argue that atoms as a whole are generally electrically neutral.

"Electromagnetic radiation is produced by the movement of charged particles."

I also wonder, since I learnd this photon thing about EM-fields, how do they see a charge?
Click to expand...

As photons are the particle analog of EM fields a photon can interfere with a EM wave. The interelation of things is quite complex.

I mean we know it is a property of matter ... but what else more? Result of some kind of interaction between virtual particles and particles?
Click to expand...

I would not go as far as to say EM is a property of matter. EM is a form of energy and can be emitted by energetic particles.

Also, since movement of charged particles creates EM radiation and that radiation consists of photons and these photons produce EM-fields which are really absorption-emission of photons --> abs.-emission between the photons themselves??
Click to expand...

The hardest aspect of quantum theory to grasp is that things are both waves and particles, at the same time. EM is not comprosed of photons, it is photons. Which we detect depends on the method of detection. You use the relevant model also.

last one :p , just very simple: two magnets with south and north side, they attract each other because of the magentic field: how can you explain it (simple) with the photon model, what happens? why do they attract one another ... I find this strange in de force field model you don't think about this, you just accept the force
Click to expand...

And that is the great conceptual leap you need to understand quantum electrodynamics. Forces are mediated by the transfer of momentum between particles. On the macro scale you see a force. On the microscopic scale of particles the 'field' is the transfer of momentum between particles.

This leads to the wild concepts of quantum gauge theories where instead of a field having force and direction at given points the field is a set of quantum properties. No, I don't really understand it either.
 
Thed,

"And that is the great conceptual leap you need to understand quantum electrodynamics. Forces are mediated by the transfer of momentum between particles. On the macro scale you see a force. On the microscopic scale of particles the 'field' is the transfer of momentum between particles. "

Just like gravity, right???


Tom
 
Hi Tom,

That is exactly what physicists are trying to find out by creating a good quantum theory of gravity. The mainstream idea however is indeed that gravity is also mediated by particles (gravitons) that form the gravitational field.

Bye!

Crisp
 
I'm not going to root through the postings too much.... Well it's tedious and my back button might trigger loads of unwanted scripts :D

Seriously, I was wondering if you'd had the primliminary arguement of "can a particle be called a particle if it acts like a wave?" Or my person thought "Can a bunch of waves act like a particle?".

I've mentioned my thought on atomics many times.

I use to try and explain what my thoughts were to Reign_of_Error on another board, but back then my perception was using what rudimentary models had been sculptured from Modern Physics. (Notably, Rutherfords model)

I was then one day looking through some information about how long an electron lasts when it's un-attached from its atom, it lasted a few seconds and then its energy would disperse. I also found something on Neutron bombardment, it mentioned that neutrons could be bombarded at other matter and they had a shorter life span than electrons (my memory can play tricks so if thats wrong please correct)

This meant while each of these was a piece to an atom, they couldn't exist for long on their own. This gave me a suspiscion that the only reason they exist is due to energy keeping them "alive" while they are in the specific places. Namely an electron charges the neutron to hold it's form and in return it charges itself to hold its own form.

My understanding was that the charge was created from electromagnetics (Schrodingers Psi wave), which are created from energy exersions accumilating throughout an electrons orbit. (not to forget to mention the other movements that other portions of an atom have too, since they are never "frozen".)

This also gave me a clue that everything is comprised of highscale (high spectrum) photon charges. (This is where someone will probably state whata load of...) These photon charges can be noted through either "knowing of the sun" (don't look directly at it) or from atomic reactions. (Afterall an atomic reaction causes an extreme release of radation and energy, which is itself Photonic).

This pretty much has me terming that all atoms are "holograms" from the shear fact that they are a photonic matrix's.
 
c'est moi:

There are lots of neutral particles around, such as photons, gluons, Z bosons, and composite particles like neutrons, neutral pions, Kaons etc.

<i>I also wonder, since I learnd this photon thing about EM-fields, how do they see a charge?</i>

How do what see a charge?

<i>two magnets with south and north side, they attract each other because of the magentic field: how can you explain it (simple) with the photon model, what happens?</i>

Atoms in one magnet emit virtual photons which travel to the other magnet, carrying the magnetic force. The important thing to realise is that virtual particle interacts can result in attractive forces as well as repulsive ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top