General > General Technical Chat

"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

<< < (279/396) > >>

TimFox:
That is a large collection of unproven statements, contrary to real evidence.
Photons have zero mass.  Therefore, they must travel at the speed of light, while massive particles must travel at lower speeds.
Originally, neutrinos were thought to have zero mass, but more recent evidence shows that their mass is very small (0.1 eV, vs. 511,000 eV for the electron).
There was a scare in 2011 (Opera experiment), where neutrino velocity larger than c was reported, but in 2012 the original experimenters found hardware problems that affected the time calibration of the experiment, and new data showed velocity < c.  The detailed history of this is very interesting;  see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
The extremely small size of the nucleus compared with the overall extent of the atom was demonstrated by Rutherford (who called it "the fly in the cathedral") in 1911, scattering alpha particles by a gold foil.
Nuclear dimensions are measured in fm, while atomic dimensions are measured in fractions of a nm.  (Ratios of 106:1 are large.)
"EM radiation is not made of photons, but is radiated by photons, it is a part of photons." sounds like a religious dogma that could have been propagated by the Council of Chalcedon.
Real data trump feelings of "ickyness".

SiliconWizard:
This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf

TimFox:
By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.

TimFox:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on February 28, 2022, 12:14:53 am ---This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf

--- End quote ---

That paper starts out with a serious discussion of the difficulty of establishing "zero" photon mass (or anything else), and quotes an impressive experimental upper limit of 10-22 times that of the electron mass.

adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 09:02:06 pm ---... I was expecting a 33% reduction in happy frequency not  3%. I would like to find out why not 33%. ...

--- End quote ---

Murphy. Murphy is why not. If you expected 3% it would be 33%. It is supposed to be a paradox, that is why we test.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod