Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chimp · 08-01-2003, 11:00 PM

Mass "m" is a form of condensed space-time.

Yes, the mass-energy equivalence is given by the equation

E = m*c^2

Since mc is the momentum of a photon of light with mc = p the equation becomes:

E/p = c

Light is also a wave with a frequency (f) of oscillation and its energy is also given by the equation:

E = h*f = m*c^2 = p*c

wavelength, lambda = c/f

E/f = h = p*lambda

h is Planck's constant.

Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the aether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are somehow vibrations of-in spacetime itself. Mass-energy is a form of condensed space-time.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples coninually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" . As spacetime becomes compressed, matter is re-sized as a balancing effect, so the force of gravity and accelerations are perceived as "constant".

This becomes an extension of Einstein's general relativity and nothing really has to be changed with his brilliant theory.

From our local vantage point, we observe what appears to be an expansion of space-time. From "God's persective" the matter shrinks while spacetime {God's perspective} is constant.

Dr. Jack Sarfatti has some amazing ideas for "warp drive":

http://www.stardrive.org/title.shtml

Quote:

"Subtle is the Lord but malicious He is not." Albert Einstein

New July 1, 2003. Sarfatti rants and raves like his North Beach friend, Michael Savage "Where are the Iraq WMD? Have we all been Neo Conned in Saul Bellow's novel "Ravelstein" come true? I hear Mel Brooks is working on a sequel to "The Producers" called "Perle Over Baghdad". It bombed on the Iraqi Road. "

Lobstrosity · 08-02-2003, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chimp
Mass "m" is a form of condensed space-time.

Yes, the mass-energy equivalence is given by the equation

E = m*c^2

Since mc is the momentum of a photon of light with mc = p the equation becomes:

E/p = c

Even though the result is correct, I take issue with your derivation. The main problem is that the mass of a photon is zero, so p = mc is meaningless. The only reason you get a result is because you're simultaneously using the incorrect equation E = mc� which also reduces to zero when m = 0 (so that means you're dividing by zero and then just getting lucky that it still works out). The proper energy equation from relativity is:

E� = p�c� + m�c^4

Obviously in the rest frame of a massive particle (where p = 0) this reduces to E = mc�. Light has no rest frame, however, but it is also massless, which causes this equation to reduce to E = pc in all frames. Because we know that the energy of a photon is given by E = h&#957, we can see that the momemtum of a photon is given by:

p = h&#957/c = h/&#955

Chimp · 08-02-2003, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Even though the result is correct, I take issue with your derivation. The main problem is that the mass of a photon is zero, so p = mc is meaningless. The only reason you get a result is because you're simultaneously using the incorrect equation E = mc� which also reduces to zero when m = 0 (so that means you're dividing by zero and then just getting lucky that it still works out). The proper energy equation from relativity is:

E� = p�c� + m�c^4

Obviously in the rest frame of a massive particle (where p = 0) this reduces to E = mc�. Light has no rest frame, however, but it is also massless, which causes this equation to reduce to E = pc in all frames. Because we know that the energy of a photon is given by E = h&#957, we can see that the momemtum of a photon is given by:

p = h&#957/c = h/&#955

Thanks for the helpful demonstration Lobstrosity. Yes, the photon has zero rest mass, but it does have mass, due to its kinetic energy.

Chimp

Chimp · 08-02-2003, 04:03 AM

http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online...s/compton.html

Quote:

Let E = mc2 = hf for a photon, where f is frequency, and "m" is the mass "equivalent" of the photon given they have no "rest mass". (It is important to recognise that stopping a photon to measure its mass eliminates it -so it has no "at rest" mass - crucial in Special Relativity where, to travel at the speed of light, mass would otherwise become infinite.)

Having "rigged" this mass problem,

p = momentum = mc (mass x velocity) = hf /c = E / c = h / lambda

p = mc = E/c = h/lambda = hf/c

tensorproduct · 08-02-2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chimp

From our local vantage point, we observe what appears to be an expansion of space-time. From "God's persective" the matter shrinks while spacetime {God's perspective} is constant.

I'm confused, are you saying that there is a universal rest frame?
If so you're contradicting one of the underlying assumptions upon which Einsteinean Relativity is based.

Lobstrosity · 08-02-2003, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chimp
Thanks for the helpful demonstration Lobstrosity. Yes, the photon has zero rest mass, but it does have mass, due to its kinetic energy.

Yes, a photon has kinetic energy and momentom, but it does not have mass. It is a massless particle. It is not correct to say that m = hv/c. m = 0. Your website is wrong. Look in any book on relativity and you will see that the true equation for energy is E� = p�c� + m�c^4. This is the famous equation Einstein derived. People just get rid of the pc term because it complicates the part they find amazing. Even massless particles have energy, but this does not mean they have mass (in fact, it means they don't have mass...hence the massless). The true equation above makes it obvious why.

Chimp · 08-02-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tensorproduct
I'm confused, are you saying that there is a universal rest frame?
If so you're contradicting one of the underlying assumptions upon which Einsteinean Relativity is based.

Quite the opposite, I say that there is no "absolute expansion" of space-time. There is no external frame of reference? that can relate to an expanding space-time.

Chimp

Chimp · 08-02-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Yes, a photon has kinetic energy and momentom, but it does not have mass. It is a massless particle. It is not correct to say that m = hv/c. m = 0. Your website is wrong. Look in any book on relativity and you will see that the true equation for energy is E� = p�c� + m�c^4. This is the famous equation Einstein derived. People just get rid of the pc term because it complicates the part they find amazing. Even massless particles have energy, but this does not mean they have mass (in fact, it means they don't have mass...hence the massless). The true equation above makes it obvious why.

Interesting...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html

Quote:

What is the Mass of a Photon?
This question falls into two parts:

Does the photon have mass, after all it has energy and energy is equivalent to mass?
This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons are really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2. The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions of mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a "relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength. This is based upon an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not strictly wrong, is not used much today. See also the Faq article Does mass change with velocity?.

The old definition of mass, called "relativistic mass," assigns a mass to a particle proportional to its total energy E, and involved the speed of light, c, in the proportionality constant:

m = E / c^2. (1)

This definition gives every object a velocity-dependent mass.

The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant quantity that does not depend on velocity. This is given by

m = E_0 / c^2, (2)

where E_0 is the total energy of that object at rest.

The first definition is often used in popularizations, and in some elementary textbooks. It was once used by practicing physicists, but for the last few decades, the vast majority of physicists have instead used the second definition. Sometimes people will use the phrase "rest mass," or "invariant mass," but this is just for emphasis: mass is mass. The "relativistic mass" is never used at all. (If you see "relativistic mass" in your first-year physics textbook, complain! There is no reason for books to teach obsolete terminology.)

Note, by the way, that using the standard definition of mass, the one given by eqn (2), the equation "E = m c2" is not correct. Using the standard definition, the relation between the mass and energy of an object can be written as

E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v2/c2), (3)

or as
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, (4)

where v is the object's velocity, and p is its momentum.

In one sense, any definition is just a matter of convention. In practice, though, physicists now use this definition because it is much more convenient. The "relativistic mass" of an object is really just the same as its energy, and there isn't any reason to have another word for energy: "energy" is a perfectly good word. The mass of an object, though, is a fundamental and invariant property, and one for which we do need a word.

ex-xian · 08-02-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chimp
Interesting...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html

Was this supposed to futher your argument? All they're saying is consistent with what Lobstrosity. Instead of writing E=mc^2, with m understood to be the rest mass, now physicists are writing it as E=(gamma)mc^2. Also, the second part of that page explains the photons have to be massless for QED to work.

Shadowy Man · 08-02-2003, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Yes, a photon has kinetic energy and momentom, but it does not have mass. It is a massless particle. It is not correct to say that m = hv/c. m = 0. Your website is wrong. Look in any book on relativity and you will see that the true equation for energy is E� = p�c� + m�c^4. This is the famous equation Einstein derived. People just get rid of the pc term because it complicates the part they find amazing. Even massless particles have energy, but this does not mean they have mass (in fact, it means they don't have mass...hence the massless). The true equation above makes it obvious why.

The best way to think of it is terms of the magnitude of the momentum-energy four vector.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.