General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on February 28, 2022, 12:01:34 am ---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".
--- End quote ---
Warning. Everyone around here has to be nice to me or i wont thank u in my Nobel speech.
If a neutrino is 0.1 eV then a photon is 0.05 eV
I say that koz a neutrino is a pair of photons that are sharing the same helical axis but 180 deg out of phase. Being 180 deg out of phase means that the em radiations from each photon cancel each other in the near field. Hence a neutrino is very slippery. But a neutrino is still subject to bending when passing near mass as for an ordinary photon.
A single photon has as we all know a zero nett em field in the far field, but a non-zero em field in the near field.
TimFox:
I will probably miss your Nobel prize lecture--it's a risk I am willing to take.
By the way, I knew two Nobel laureates, who have since passed away. They were awarded their prizes after I graduated, so I don't take any credit for it.
Not only were they wise and knowledgeable, they were both "nature's gentlemen" in their relations with others.
The experimental evidence for the photon mass, according to the paper above, is an upper limit < 10-22 of the electron mass, or < 5 x 10-17 eV/c2.
aetherist:
--- 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 ---
Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.
I think that it is silly that they mention the rest mass of a photon. Photons never rest. They propagate throo the aether at the speed of light (of course).
They mention that if a photon had mass then it could not move at the speed of light. What the. A photon is light. Of course it moves at the speed of light. It can do no other. If it has mass, & if it has no mass, it must move at the speed of light.
The paradox is that a photon with very little mass can increase its mass by umpteenfold when it becomes a confined photon (eg an electron).
But i have a theory for that (naturally).
Alex Eisenhut:
I have a theory: you've been out in the Sun too long without a hat.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on February 28, 2022, 01:36:15 am ---I will probably miss your Nobel prize lecture--it's a risk I am willing to take.
By the way, I knew two Nobel laureates, who have since passed away. They were awarded their prizes after I graduated, so I don't take any credit for it.
Not only were they wise and knowledgeable, they were both "nature's gentlemen" in their relations with others.
The experimental evidence for the photon mass, according to the paper above, is an upper limit < 10-22 of the electron mass, or < 5 x 10-17 eV/c2.
--- End quote ---
Yes, miles less than my 0.05 eV. And there's is an upper bound.
But i have doubts about how they might measure. I will have to have a good read.
We could class a photon as a quasi-particle. Masses of proper particles (eg electrons) would be relatively easy i suppose.
But i am thinking that they have measured the mass of lots of quasi-particles that move at the speed of light. No, i am wrong, if they move at the speed of light then almost by definition the mass must be zero.
They give the neutrino a bit of mass koz they reckon that neutrinos travel at slightly less than the speed of light. But i dont understand that. Neutrinos are free photons, pairs of photons actually. I cant of course say that paired photons travel at the speed of light, perhaps they are a tad slower.
Re the measured speed of neutrinos being a bit faster than the speed of light, if the travel is south to north then the neutrino will have an aether tailwind, which can be up to 500 km/s depending on direction.
And i have a theory that atomic clocks are sensitive to direction (ie as well as elevation). And, i have a theory that atomic clocks tick differently in the southern hemisphere, especially re the effect of elevation.
But here we are getting into very advanced crackpottery 401.
I brought up the atomic clock stuff koz it affects measurement of the true speed, it duznt affect the speed itself. Hence one could be fooled.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version