Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pmb
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
 |
|
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.13.11.25.34@canonicalscience.com...
| Quote: |
Pmb wrote on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:31:50 -0400:
Don't waste your time here Juan. Both Eric and Dono have no clue how the
relativistic Lagrangian is derived. At best they're searching for a text
which derives it and then they'll copy it here.
Pete
Yes, both copied from my blog article of past year
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations.html
|
But that is not a derivation Juan. You didn't derive the Lagrangian there.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pmb
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.13.11.15.33@canonicalscience.com...
| Quote: |
Eric Gisse wrote on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:24:46 -0700:
On Jul 12, 7:20 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[snip]
See this is what happen when you think you know physics :-)
I was wrong on a subtle technical point. It happens.
|
Subtle? You call a major misunderstanding of the Lagrangian sublte? Thinking
that L = T - U works in relativity is far from being subtle. Its a serious
misunderstanding
| Quote: |
No, it was outrage mistake that nobody else did, except another crackpot:
Dono :-)
All you could do was stamp your feet and scream about how wrong I was.
When pressed you couldn't/wouldn't explain why.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I predicted in a previous post to Pete you would try some lye as this
when you could not hide your mistake more and... look and I was *right*.
|
I'm waiting for him to post his *derivation*. IF you'd like I can e-mail the
dervivation to you so you can compare it with Eric's sure to be mistake? I'd
post it here but I want to see if Eric can do it himself.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pmb
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.13.11.02.47@canonicalscience.com...
| Quote: |
Dono wrote on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:36:39 -0700:
On Jul 12, 6:28 pm, "Peter M. Brown-nose" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Yup. That's what he said. It sad that he needs to lie like this.
Pete
Brown-nose,
Here is what I said:
|
A lie from a sad specimen. Forget it Dono. I took a look straight from the
newsgroups server on usenet and saw that you are lying. It was a pain in the
ass to do so I'll have to assume that everything you type here is a lie and
not worth checking as I did here. You blew that by lying to me.
| Quote: |
(\blockquote
JuanShit,
You ARE an idiot, the relativistic Lagrangian is indeed:
L=-m_0*c^2 *(1-(v/c)^2)
MULTIPLICATION, Shito. Not division. PRETENDER.
)
|
Yup. That's what the flammer wrote.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pmb
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.13.14.34.53@canonicalscience.com...
| Quote: |
Pmb wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:29:39 -0400:
"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.13.11.35.50@canonicalscience.com...
Pmb wrote on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:35:10 -0400:
Peter, on the other hand, sometimes makes a good point. Unlike
Koobee and Juan and Sue, he's not a crackpot, there are just some
(unfortunately, permanent) gaps in his understanding of physics.
Easy claims to make Daryl. Why not state these supposed gaps and I'll
show you where (1) you're wrong or (2) I realized it and posted a
correction.
Pete
As explained in future version of guidelines, crackpots claim for
mistakes in other's knowledge but don't say where. /Ad hominem/ attacks
is a usual tactic they use.
Notice also how crackpot Daryl confound the Lagrangian written in terms
of four velocities v^b with the Lagrangian written in terms of four
proper velocities u^b.
The terms "proper velocity" and "4-velocity" are most often used to
refer to exactly the same object.
That is right, it is usual, but if one calls to the proper frame
Lagrangian
L = - 1/2 m u^b u_b
The "Lagrangian in terms of four velocities", then how would one call to
L = - m c (\sqrt v^b v_b) ?
|
How is this "v^b" defined?
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pmb
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.13.14.36.34@canonicalscience.com...
| Quote: |
Dono wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:11:17 -0700:
On Jul 13, 6:01 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38ce6321-c3e0-43aa-
b647-5881231c41c3@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 4:49 am, "JuanShit R." González-Álvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
The third mistake being his confusion between the Lagrangian and the
energy in special relativity. Note that Eric *multiplies* by the
factor
(1 - (v^2/ c^2))
instead dividing by it. According to *Eric* when a particle travel
to energies close to c its energies vanishes...
JuanShit,
You ARE an idiot, the relativistic Lagrangian is indeed:
L=-m_0*c^2 *(1-(v/c)^2)
MULTIPLICATION, Shito. Not division. PRETENDER.
Juan. You were correct.
Dono!! You are *such* a liar!!! You claimed that you didn't write the
above and its perfectly clear that you *did*.
You forgot that people use Oulook Express which gets messages from a
different source than google. The data is downloaded from the
newsgroups server and then loaded/saved in a file which is located on
disk. While he can destroy anything you want on google, which you
*did*, you can't destroy what is on my hard drive and in the newsgroups
server.
You're such a pest. I had to unblock you, delete Outlook's newsgroup
file, and then reload from scratch. All so that I could see you
*lying*. You sure are a piece of work Dono. You are a sad specimen for
sure.
Now
Pete
"Brown-nose" Pete
Still with your nose up Juanshito's ass?
|
Sure. Go ahead. Keep flaming. It only demonstrates your true character. And
just because Juan hasn't flamed me and I thus have no problem talking to him
means nothing more than that Mr. Flamer. Your accusation just demonstrates a
lack of maturity.
| Quote: |
Here is what I said:
|
Forget it Mr. Flamer. I already obtained from USENET newsgroup exactly what
you said and you lied about it. You are nothing more than an ignorant lying
flamer to me.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 6:55 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Daryl McCullough wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 05:50:00 -0700:
Dono says...
How about if you showed how the relativistic Lagrangian is DERIVED
In Jackson's Electrodynamics, the following heuristic argument is used:
We want the action A = Integral L dt to be a scalar, independent of
which coordinate system is used. However, the parameter t is
coordinate-dependent. So convert it to tau, the proper time:
dt = gamma d tau
Then the action becomes
Integral gamma L d tau
For this to be independent of coordinate systems, the quantity (gamma L)
must be a Lorentz scalar. The simplest choice is for it to be a
constant, K. With this heuristic,
gamma L = K
L = K/gamma = K square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
Working out the corresponding momentum gives:
p = @L/@v = -Kv/(c^2 square-root(1-(v/c)^2))
To give the usual expression for momentum, we let K = -mc^2.
So L = - mc^2 square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
Alternatively, you can just start with the equation
p = @L/@v = mv/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
and integrate with respect to v:
L = m Integral of v/square-root(1-(v/c)^2) dv
= -mc^2 square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
A less convoluted approach starts from arguments about worldlines for
free particles with invariant action
A = \Int k ds
where k is a constant which is found to be k = -mc
|
...and how is that _any different_ from what Daryl did?
| Quote: |
From the above action one can find the coordinate frame Lagrangian
A = \Int k ds = \Int L dt
in one much more easy and direct way.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 5:35 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.07.13.11.15.33@canonicalscience.com...
Eric Gisse wrote on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:24:46 -0700:
On Jul 12, 7:20 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[snip]
See this is what happen when you think you know physics :-)
I was wrong on a subtle technical point. It happens.
Subtle? You call a major misunderstanding of the Lagrangian sublte? Thinking
that L = T - U works in relativity is far from being subtle. Its a serious
misunderstanding
|
Yet neither you or Juan could explain why it was wrong. If you want me
to persist in believing that I'm right and your not, the quickest way
to doing that is sit there and shrilly shriek about how wrong I am and
then refuse to explain yourself.
Like Daryl said, bad faith arguing.
Yes, I didn't know/completely forgot that the Lagrangian has to be
quadratic in the generalized velocities for that to hold - that's my
mistake, but still not a large as one as you want to believe. However,
both you and Juan are still intellectually dishonest people who do not
argue fairly. You treat it like it is a contest, rather than as a
chance to learn.
| Quote: |
No, it was outrage mistake that nobody else did, except another crackpot:
Dono :-)
All you could do was stamp your feet and scream about how wrong I was.
When pressed you couldn't/wouldn't explain why.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I predicted in a previous post to Pete you would try some lye as this
when you could not hide your mistake more and... look and I was *right*..
|
Jesus it is "lie", lye is sodium hydroxide.
| Quote: |
I'm waiting for him to post his *derivation*. IF you'd like I can e-mail the
dervivation to you so you can compare it with Eric's sure to be mistake? I'd
post it here but I want to see if Eric can do it himself.
Pete
|
Why should I? Neither of you are interesting in learning - you are
just looking for another opportunity to crow. If I get it wrong in any
way, you got what you are looking for. If I get it right, you simply
claim I "copied it from a textbook" to save face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 1:10 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 5:35 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.07.13.11.15.33@canonicalscience.com...
Eric Gisse wrote on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:24:46 -0700:
On Jul 12, 7:20 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[snip]
See this is what happen when you think you know physics :-)
I was wrong on a subtle technical point. It happens.
Subtle? You call a major misunderstanding of the Lagrangian sublte? Thinking
that L = T - U works in relativity is far from being subtle. Its a serious
misunderstanding
Yet neither you or Juan could explain why it was wrong. If you want me
to persist in believing that I'm right and your not, the quickest way
to doing that is sit there and shrilly shriek about how wrong I am and
then refuse to explain yourself.
Like Daryl said, bad faith arguing.
Yes, I didn't know/completely forgot that the Lagrangian has to be
quadratic in the generalized velocities for that to hold - that's my
mistake, but still not a large as one as you want to believe. However,
both you and Juan are still intellectually dishonest people who do not
argue fairly. You treat it like it is a contest, rather than as a
chance to learn.
No, it was outrage mistake that nobody else did, except another crackpot:
Dono :-)
All you could do was stamp your feet and scream about how wrong I was.
When pressed you couldn't/wouldn't explain why.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I predicted in a previous post to Pete you would try some lye as this
when you could not hide your mistake more and... look and I was *right*.
Jesus it is "lie", lye is sodium hydroxide.
I'm waiting for him to post his *derivation*. IF you'd like I can e-mail the
dervivation to you so you can compare it with Eric's sure to be mistake? I'd
post it here but I want to see if Eric can do it himself.
Pete
Why should I? Neither of you are interesting in learning - you are
just looking for another opportunity to crow. If I get it wrong in any
way, you got what you are looking for. If I get it right, you simply
claim I "copied it from a textbook" to save face.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
The energy in the momentum of light is massive eric.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tom Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Pmb wrote:
| Quote: |
The terms "proper velocity" and "4-velocity" are most often used to refer to
exactly the same object.
|
This is just plain not true. "Proper" is a technical term meaning "in
the rest frame of the object in question". So the "proper velocity" of
ANY object is identically zero.
4-velocity, of course, is a 4-vector, and is thus independent of frame
or coordinates.
When one refers to "proper acceleration", that invariably means the
3-acceleration in the object's (instantaneous) rest frame. Thus is it
not the same as the 4-acceleration of the object (though it is equal to
the nonzero components of the 4-acceleration projected onto that frame).
Tom Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Dono wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:30:17 -0700:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 8:05 am, "Peter M. Brown-nose" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
"Brown-nose" Pete
Still with your nose up Juanshito's ass?
Sure. Go ahead. Keep flaming. It only demonstrates your true character.
And just because Juan hasn't flamed me and I thus have no problem
talking to him
...you talk with each other as in PRETENDER to PRETENDER. You keep your
respective noses up to your respective asses. 
|
Most of your posts involve certain part of human body. You are obsessed
and perverted about that part
Try to delete your nonsense using that part
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6db93e88919413fe
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Pmb wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:01:26 -0400:
| Quote: |
The terms "proper velocity" and "4-velocity" are most often used to
refer to exactly the same object.
That is right, it is usual, but if one calls to the proper frame
Lagrangian
L = - 1/2 m u^b u_b
The "Lagrangian in terms of four velocities", then how would one call
to
L = - m c (\sqrt v^b v_b) ?
How is this "v^b" defined?
Pete
|
Like proper four velocity but using coordinate time instead proper time.
v^b is used to write the Lagrangian on
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations.html
in explicit covariant form:
L = - m c^2 (\sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2) )
= - m c (\sqrt (c^2 - v^2) )
= - m c (\sqrt (n_ab v^a v^b) )
= - m c (\sqrt v^b v_b )
The transition to GR is direct (n_ab --> g_ab)
L = - m c (\sqrt v^b v_b )
The four velocity v^b is very used in tests of General Relativity. See
General Relativity for the Experimentalist:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/
iel5/10933/4066413/04066418.pdf?tp=&isnumber=4066413&arnumber=4066418
I can write a few equations using v^b from here if you cannot access that
paper.
v^b is also used for writing the scalar and vector potential of
electromagnetism on covariant form
A^b = (e / (R - Rv/c))_ret (v^b / c)
v^b is also used for the four currents
j^b = v^b * \rho = (c \rho, (\vect j))
where (\vect j) is the usual three current.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
"Juan R." GonzĂĄlez-Ălvarez wrote on Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:10:11 +0200:
| Quote: |
v^b is also used for writing the scalar and vector potential of
electromagnetism on covariant form
A^b = (e / (R - Rv/c))_ret (v^b / c)
|
A retardation correction and one rewriting to the above (in obvious
covariant notation)
A^b = (e / (R^a v_a))_ret (v^b)_ret
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:45:53 -0500:
| Quote: |
Pmb wrote:
The terms "proper velocity" and "4-velocity" are most often used to
refer to exactly the same object.
This is just plain not true. "Proper" is a technical term meaning "in
|
(...)
I think I understood perfectly Pete want to say really.
If you want to play to be the relativist netcop guy, that is fine but
then my question is *why* do you waste so many time time searching and
commenting in minor points of adversaries posts when you omit *outrage*
*mistakes* from your friends?
For example you said *nothing* when Eric said the nonsense
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is
H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ].
)
Or when Eric repeated us *again* that Hamiltonian of SR is negative after
being warned
(\blockquote
| Quote: |
*They* sure us that Hamiltonian is negative
H(Eric) = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ].
|
With a ^1/2...
)
But if we make
H(Eric) = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]^1/2
as Eric suggests, still there is *three* (3) outrage mistakes in that
nonsense. You omitted to make any comment...
And you said nothing when Dono wrote next nonsense
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
(\blockquote
JuanShit,
You ARE an idiot, the relativistic Lagrangian is indeed:
L=-m_0*c^2 *(1-(v/c)^2)
MULTIPLICATION, Shito. Not division. PRETENDER.
)
Why Tom? Why you did not comment on those obvious nonsenses?
Oops! I think I revealed the reply...
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 12:40 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
Why Tom? Why you did not comment on those obvious nonsenses?
|
Because it is not his job to babysit me, nor is it his job to act on
every imagined slight against you.
| Quote: |
Oops! I think I revealed the reply...
--
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
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
