Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
 |
|
Eric Gisse wrote on Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:10:55 -0700:
| Quote: |
On Jul 8, 5:11 am, "Juan R." González-Ãlvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
The usual argument for massless photons uses the Hamiltonian
No, the usual argument for the massless photon is the following, in this
order:
a) Experiments and observation don't support it.
|
Don't true. Experiments only provide a upper limit for m_ph.
| Quote: |
b) Proca's equations
with m--> 0 recovers Maxwell's equations and the expected vacuum
dispersion relation.
|
And Maxwell equation with massless photons is a special case of a more
general theory with massive photons. Your comment is irrelevant.
| Quote: |
c) SR + Quantum field theory ---> photons travel along null paths ---
photons must be massless.
|
And QED with massless photons is a special case of a more general quantum
theory with massive photons. Your comment is also irrelevant.
| Quote: |
H = (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) ) Â (1)
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ].
|
Nonsense.
| Quote: |
There is no reference to electromagnetism regardless, so any
argument about electromagnetism that _neglects_ the electromagnetic
contributions to the Lagrangian is destined to be rather silly.
|
Misreading or off-topic or what else...
| Quote: |
and set (m = 0) to yield
H = pc
However, the original Hamiltonian (1) was derived using the Legendre
transformation
No, you derived the original Hamiltonian is by assuming it is the energy
in the magnitude of four-momentum.
|
No.
| Quote: |
H = pv - L = (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) )
If alternatively we start assuming (v = c) in the transformation, the
result is
H = pc - L = pc  (2)
How does pc - (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) ) = pc in your world? You can
only obtain that by _assuming_ a massless particle.
|
No. Read.
| Quote: |
where no assumption was taken about the mass.
By equating v = c you have DEFINED the particle to be massless.
|
No, a well-known counterexample is the electron in Dirac theory. It is
massive and its |v| = +-c.
| Quote: |
Either
that or you have defined a contradiction by allowing a massive particle
to travel on a null path.
|
It is to be proved that (2) and (1) represent the same particle.
(...)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 5:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Eric Gisse wrote on Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:10:55 -0700:
On Jul 8, 5:11 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
The usual argument for massless photons uses the Hamiltonian
No, the usual argument for the massless photon is the following, in this
order:
a) Experiments and observation don't support it.
Don't true. Experiments only provide a upper limit for m_ph.
|
...and you know what that upper limit is? It's in the region of 10^-17
eV.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
Again - massive photons are inconsistent with observation in the same
way the aether is inconsistent with observation. Any theory that
incorporates a massive photon has to be hiding in incredibly tight
error bars.
| Quote: |
b) Proca's equations
with m--> 0 recovers Maxwell's equations and the expected vacuum
dispersion relation.
And Maxwell equation with massless photons is a special case of a more
general theory with massive photons. Your comment is irrelevant.
|
Your short term memory is rather bad when it gets to the point where
you repeat exactly what I said back to me like it is a stunning
observation.
| Quote: |
c) SR + Quantum field theory ---> photons travel along null paths ---
photons must be massless.
And QED with massless photons is a special case of a more general quantum
theory with massive photons. Your comment is also irrelevant.
|
Sure - but the photons won't travel along null paths, will have a
dispersion relation that is a function of mass, etc, etc, etc.
Inconsistent with observation.
| Quote: |
H = (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) ) (1)
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ].
Nonsense.
|
*scratches head*
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-limitations.html
Says it right there. Then again my math ability is always bad this
early in the morning. Maybe I'm mistaken?
| Quote: |
There is no reference to electromagnetism regardless, so any
argument about electromagnetism that _neglects_ the electromagnetic
contributions to the Lagrangian is destined to be rather silly.
Misreading or off-topic or what else..
|
How is it either misleading or off-topic? It is silly to attempt to
discuss things like this without actually discussing electromagnetism.
| Quote: |
and set (m = 0) to yield
H = pc
However, the original Hamiltonian (1) was derived using the Legendre
transformation
No, you derived the original Hamiltonian is by assuming it is the energy
in the magnitude of four-momentum.
No.
|
To be fair that was a guess. How about explaining how you derive that
Hamiltonian?
Please don't insult my intelligence while trying to explain.
| Quote: |
H = pv - L = (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) )
If alternatively we start assuming (v = c) in the transformation, the
result is
H = pc - L = pc (2)
How does pc - (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) ) = pc in your world? You can
only obtain that by _assuming_ a massless particle.
No. Read.
where no assumption was taken about the mass.
By equating v = c you have DEFINED the particle to be massless.
No, a well-known counterexample is the electron in Dirac theory. It is
massive and its |v| = +-c.
|
I can't decide whether the hypocracy or dishonesty annoys me more, so
I'll leave this be.
| Quote: |
Either
that or you have defined a contradiction by allowing a massive particle
to travel on a null path.
It is to be proved that (2) and (1) represent the same particle.
|
There's only one null path.
| Quote: |
(...)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 9:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote on Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:12:30 -0700:
On Jul 8, 9:11 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
The usual argument for massless photons uses the Hamiltonian
H = (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) ) (1)
and set (m = 0) to yield
H = pc
However, the original Hamiltonian (1) was derived using the Legendre
transformation
H = pv - L = (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) )
If alternatively we start assuming (v = c) in the transformation, the
result is
H = pc - L = pc (2)
where no assumption was taken about the mass.
Is this Hamiltonian (2) representing some kind of massive photon
(somewhat as in Proca theory [#]) or is really the same that (1)?
[#]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proca_action
So you then have an imaginary mass that won't couple to a real
gravito-inertial field.
And your proof that m is imaginary for H = pc is?
In sci.physics.foundations Charles said that mass would be zero for (2),
but neither he offered any proof.
|
When an atom emits light quanta it loose mass.
When an atom absorbs light quanta it gains mass.
But the quanta absorbed is seldom 100 percent
causaly related to the emission. You have
to consider all the other EM disturbances
that could contribute to absorbtion and
subtract them out. Longer paths involve
more participants to be subtracted so
the mass approaches zero quicly.
Zero is close enough for me.  )
In the subatomic realm the certainty
of a causal link is much higher and
surely worth accounting for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram#Motivation_and_history
Sue...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Sue... wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:30:44 -0700:
| Quote: |
So you then have an imaginary mass that won't couple to a real
gravito-inertial field.
And your proof that m is imaginary for H = pc is?
In sci.physics.foundations Charles said that mass would be zero for
(2), but neither he offered any proof.
When an atom emits light quanta it loose mass.
When an atom absorbs light quanta it gains mass.
But the quanta absorbed is seldom 100 percent causaly related to the
emission. You have to consider all the other EM disturbances that could
contribute to absorbtion and subtract them out. Longer paths involve
more participants to be subtracted so the mass approaches zero quicly.
Zero is close enough for me. )
In the subatomic realm the certainty
of a causal link is much higher and
surely worth accounting for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram#Motivation_and_history
Sue...
|
No proof presented.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 10:59 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:30:44 -0700:
So you then have an imaginary mass that won't couple to a real
gravito-inertial field.
And your proof that m is imaginary for H = pc is?
In sci.physics.foundations Charles said that mass would be zero for
(2), but neither he offered any proof.
When an atom emits light quanta it loose mass.
When an atom absorbs light quanta it gains mass.
But the quanta absorbed is seldom 100 percent causaly related to the
emission. You have to consider all the other EM disturbances that could
contribute to absorbtion and subtract them out. Longer paths involve
more participants to be subtracted so the mass approaches zero quicly.
Zero is close enough for me. )
In the subatomic realm the certainty
of a causal link is much higher and
surely worth accounting for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram#Motivation_and_history
Sue...
No proof presented.
|
You will be my proof when you spend 10 years
avoiding electromagnetism when you could
learn it in three.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
Sue...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:16:17 -0700:
| Quote: |
a) Experiments and observation don't support it.
Don't true. Experiments only provide a upper limit for m_ph.
...and you know what that upper limit is? It's in the region of 10^-17
eV.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
Again - massive photons are inconsistent with observation in the same
way the aether is inconsistent with observation.
|
Don't true again.
| Quote: |
b) Proca's equations
with m--> 0 recovers Maxwell's equations and the expected vacuum
dispersion relation.
And Maxwell equation with massless photons is a special case of a more
general theory with massive photons. Your comment is irrelevant.
|
(snip another irrelevant comment from you)
| Quote: |
c) SR + Quantum field theory ---> photons travel along null paths
---> photons must be massless.
And QED with massless photons is a special case of a more general
quantum theory with massive photons. Your comment is also irrelevant.
Sure - but the photons won't travel along null paths, will have a
dispersion relation that is a function of mass, etc, etc, etc.
Inconsistent with observation.
|
Again don't true.
You say is completely false. The link say *nothing* about Hamiltonians!
| Quote: |
Then again my math ability is always bad this early
in the morning. Maybe I'm mistaken?
|
After writing above nonsense now you wait to confound readers with your
usual unfair techniques.
What I wrote in that blog is the relativistic Lagrangian L, denoted by
symbol L and named (I quote from above link) the "free Lagrangian".
The Hamiltonian H is that I wrote above (1) in this newsgroup. What you
wrote was nonsensical.
You show once more again you have no idea of elementary facts of physics
still you reply adding noise. Go away!
I will use this recent post from you as warning to USENET users in a
future version of the USENET guidelines.
(rest of nonsense, irrelevant comments, and /ad hominem/ sniped)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 8:25 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
H = (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) ) (1)
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ].
Nonsense.
*scratches head*
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-
and-limitations.html
Says it right there.
You say is completely false. The link say *nothing* about Hamiltonians!
Then again my math ability is always bad this early
in the morning. Maybe I'm mistaken?
After writing above nonsense now you wait to confound readers with your
usual unfair techniques.
What I wrote in that blog is the relativistic Lagrangian L, denoted by
symbol L and named (I quote from above link) the "free Lagrangian".
|
Juanshito,
Your Alzheimer is progressing at an alarming pace:
1. You can't write proper English anymore
2. You contradict your own web page
3. You contradict yourself from post to post.
I am not even going to ask you to derive the relativistic Lagrangian
anymore.
You are clearly unable to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Sue... wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:18:23 -0700:
But you continue without presenting any proof...
Some authors are developing electrodynamic theories where the photon has
a small mass and still the theory is compatible with high-precision tests
of QED:
E.V. Stefanovich,
Quantum Field Theory without Infinities
Ann. Phys. 292 (2001), 139-156.
See also discussion on massive photons on "S9c. What about relativistic
QFT at finite times?" on
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt
There is an excellent discussion of the issue of experimental bounds on
massive photons in
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306245
Therefore your links, whereas interesting, are not addressing the issue
of this thread: Is (2), in my original post, representing same particle
than (1) or some other massive particle?
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Dono wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:32:09 -0700:
(...)
Fortunately, except you and Eric, nobody more here is confusing the
Hamiltonian H with the Lagrangian L.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 7:25 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[snip blather]
You raise intellectual dishonesty to an art. Congratulations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:07:28 -0700:
(snip)
You would not comment on posts without studying physics first. Learning
the difference between H and L is a pre-requisite for replying a post
about H and L.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 11:55 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:18:23 -0700:
On Jul 10, 10:59 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Sue... wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:30:44 -0700:
So you then have an imaginary mass that won't couple to a real
gravito-inertial field.
And your proof that m is imaginary for H = pc is?
In sci.physics.foundations Charles said that mass would be zero for
(2), but neither he offered any proof.
When an atom emits light quanta it loose mass.
When an atom absorbs light quanta it gains mass.
But the quanta absorbed is seldom 100 percent causaly related to the
emission. You have to consider all the other EM disturbances that
could contribute to absorbtion and subtract them out. Longer paths
involve more participants to be subtracted so the mass approaches
zero quicly. Zero is close enough for me. )
In the subatomic realm the certainty
of a causal link is much higher and
surely worth accounting for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram#Motivation_and_history
Sue...
No proof presented.
You will be my proof when you spend 10 years avoiding electromagnetism
when you could learn it in three.
[...]
But you continue without presenting any proof...
Some authors are developing electrodynamic theories where the photon has
a small mass and still the theory is compatible with high-precision tests
of QED:
E.V. Stefanovich,
Quantum Field Theory without Infinities
Ann. Phys. 292 (2001), 139-156.
|
I explained earlier how that can work.
Disroving a theory is the author's burden,
certainly not mine.
"Cargo Cult Science"
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
| Quote: |
See also discussion on massive photons on "S9c. What about relativistic
QFT at finite times?" on
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt
There is an excellent discussion of the issue of experimental bounds on
massive photons in
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306245
Therefore your links, whereas interesting, are not addressing the issue
of this thread: Is (2), in my original post, representing same particle
than (1) or some other massive particle?
|
It seldom qualifies as a particle at all.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
...So anybody that cares what its mass is has already
defined it by the interaction it participates in.
Perhaps the refugees from EM-101 need to know?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
Sue...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 9:05 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dono wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:32:09 -0700:
(...)
Fortunately, except you and Eric, nobody more here is confusing the
Hamiltonian H with the Lagrangian L.
|
Juanshito,
No one confused the hamiltonian with the lagrangian (not even you, in
spite your very advanced Alzheimer!)
The issue is that you contradicted yourself in discussing L.
The issue is that you contradicted your own web page.
The issue is that you have no clue how to derive L.
PRETENDER. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Sue... wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:17:08 -0700:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 11:55 am, "Juan R." González-Ãlvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Sue... wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:18:23 -0700:
On Jul 10, 10:59 am, "Juan R." González-Ãlvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Sue... wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:30:44 -0700:
So you then have an imaginary mass that won't couple to a real
gravito-inertial field.
And your proof that m is imaginary for H = pc is?
In sci.physics.foundations Charles said that mass would be zero
for (2), but neither he offered any proof.
When an atom emits light quanta it loose mass.
When an atom absorbs light quanta it gains mass.
But the quanta absorbed is seldom 100 percent causaly related to
the emission. You have to consider all the other EM disturbances
that could contribute to absorbtion and subtract them out. Longer
paths involve more participants to be subtracted so the mass
approaches zero quicly. Zero is close enough for me. )
In the subatomic realm the certainty
of a causal link is much higher and
surely worth accounting for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram#Motivation_and_history
Sue...
No proof presented.
You will be my proof when you spend 10 years avoiding
electromagnetism when you could learn it in three.
[...]
But you continue without presenting any proof...
Some authors are developing electrodynamic theories where the photon
has a small mass and still the theory is compatible with high-precision
tests of QED:
E.V. Stefanovich,
Quantum Field Theory without Infinities Ann. Phys. 292 (2001),
139-156.
I explained earlier how that can work. Disroving a theory is the
author's burden, certainly not mine.
"Cargo Cult Science"
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
See also discussion on massive photons on "S9c. What about relativistic
QFT at finite times?" on
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt
There is an excellent discussion of the issue of experimental bounds on
massive photons in
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306245
Therefore your links, whereas interesting, are not addressing the issue
of this thread: Is (2), in my original post, representing same particle
than (1) or some other massive particle?
It seldom qualifies as a particle at all.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html ...So anybody
that cares what its mass is has already defined it by the interaction it
participates in.
|
??
Well, I already remarked that theories with massive photon are giving the
same experimental answers that classical electrodynamics in the
corresponding limit.
And also pointed to one example of quantum theory with massive photon
gives the same scattering amplitudes that computed using Feynman diagrams
for QED
Your links continue to be interesting but of no help. You continue
avoiding to reply a simple question I did.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Dono wrote on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:52:26 -0700:
| Quote: |
No one confused the hamiltonian with the lagrangian (not even you,
|
(...)
Eric confounded both, wrote H = L in previous message and did incorrect
claims about a blog article. You also did :-)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
