Rest mass of a photon

Not really. I am not saying anything that goes against mainstream science. My interest is in trying to discover fundamental information of "common denominators" in the various exclusive and separate theories.

I admit that "in my own words, i have but a limited scientific vocabulary"...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and beg for some poetic freedom of expression. It is one of the reasons why I always try to refer (and link) to a "legitimate" scientific source to formally clarify what I informally posit.

But I now can't even answer your requests for clarification on my posits, or is this a different (more scientific) sort of inquiry?

p.s. do you or mainstream science have the official answers to all of your questions you expect me to answer?

I can give it a try, just give me permission.........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Is light quantized? If so, in reality light would have to refresh itself by a constant stream of photons and do so via quantum mechanics, no? Else it gets dark, no?

And IMO, according to mainstream physics, this process is limited to "c" as the maximum speed of all possible quantum expressions (reality) in the universe. Apparently Planck time is connected to "c".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again I understand that

ie aspect

• our Universe has green grass or
• our Universe has blue whales or
• our Universe has XYZ ASPECT

But it seems you also

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's a ready-made forum expressly for that purpose: Free Thoughts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The "aspect" is that we have space-time rather than time and space separately. It comes from the very nature of space-time.

 

The BB describes the evolution of spacetime [in the first instant] from a hotter, denser state, from t+10-43 seconds. Before that all we are able to do is speculate. The most reasonable speculation imo, tells us that the universe/space/time arose due to a fluctuation in the quantum foam, among possibly many other similar fluctuations...some arose quickly to burst like a soap bubble, ours arose at the rate to evolve to what we see today, with certain particular properties such as "c" being the universal maximum, along with other constants such as the gravitational constant, G and Planck's constant h.
That's simply just the way it is.

 

Don't be obtuse. Blithering about "reality" "refreshing" itself through "quantum change" is meaningless woo you have made up. You boast about providing references, so where are they? I bet you cannot produce a single reference supporting any of that crap, unless it is Deepak Chopra or some similar charlatan.

Ergo, it does not belong in the hard science section of the forum. The place for that is Alt theories or - more likely - Pseudo.

 

And what is the "hard science" section all about? A regurgitation of mainstream science?

Is there ever a chance to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of mainstream science? Or is that always reserved to Free thoughts or Alternative science which suggests that the proposition is distancing itself from mainstream science, even if the proposition brings a new perspective to mainstream science.

Label it and stick it on a shelf under the section named "woo". Can't mess with convention.

 

Now you are arguing like a full-on, industrial strength crank. What next? "They laughed at Galileo"?

And do you seriously contend that waffling about reality refreshing itself through quantum change is "discussing the strengths and weakness of mainstream science" ? How?

Look, in science, (a ) you can't just make shit up and (b ) words actually need to mean something.

 

Sure. Can we do it in its own thread please?

 

Preferably in the "Alternate or Pseudo science Fora?

LOL, I thought the Science Forum was designed to discuss the sciences of the Standard Model. Or is that the untouchable bible of science? Are there flaws in the Standard Model?

 

If you want to discuss the science of the Standard Model, you would be welcome (though I admit that on past performance I would await, in a foetal crouch, your first mention of "potentials" and "functions".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

But discussing that would involve you describing first which part of the Standard Model you want to discuss, explaining clearly what shortcomings you think it has and then perhaps advancing some alternative hypothesis you have come across, or even an idea of your own, with links supporting why you think it might be feasible.

Stating that "reality refreshes itself through quantum change" - with no supporting references - does none of these things. In fact it seems not to have any recognisable physical meaning at all. That is why I described it as woo: it brings Deepak Chopra vividly to mind. More here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

 

IMO, the terms potentials, values, functions, seems to be fundamental to any discussion of the mathematical and physical nature of the existence of matter.

First, I am not trying to critique the Standard model. I am only posting my interpretation of "common denominators" in the Standard model, rather than fracking it into a thousand bits and pieces. Hence my infatuation with Bohm's perspective of the "wholeness".

Re clarity of expression. I stipulate to my limited knowledge of scientific terms. Never ran across a scientific encyclopedia except wiki.

But that is what I try to do. I always accompany my narratives with links to formal science which should elucidate what I am talking about.

Well, I am not using Deepak Chopra, right?
I also do not use writings by Marquis DeSade.

OK, I'll give you my thought process.
I do use resources like this;

To make it really short, when we open Schrodingers box we "refresh the quantum state" from both "dead and alive" into "dead" or "alive".
i.e. wave collapse is a continual process of refreshment in reality from a previous state into the next state.

Can we say that continuous cell growth replacing older cells is a cellular (perhaps quantum) refreshment process?

 

But before I get banned. I'm done in this thread.

 

No.

 

Here's a pointer: if you feel you need to add "IMO" to a post, that should be a red flag that maybe what you are about to say doesn't belong in the science forums.

OK, that's probably for the best - and just in time.

Before reading this last post, I reported your earlier post wherein you appear to have taken James R's warning as merely an excuse to discuss why you should be allowed to express your opinions here. Too late for me to take that back.

 

No it is letting you know this is my own conclusion. If you believe I am not capable of logical thought , stay the hell out of my way, until you have some thing positive to say. I AM ENTITLED TO MY OPINION, but you are no longer entitled to address me. I hereby request you place me on ignore as I shall do to you and we will never have to interact again. You have nothing that I can use. Agreed?
Believe me, if this continues you do not want me on your case.

I'm so glad it meets with your approval ...gag.

I'm way ahead of you, man. I anticipated you or exchemist would, so I already posted that disclaimer.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Does anybody care to discuss this ?

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

Anybody want to offer a comment on this apparent unresolved issue?

 

Yes. The writers do not suggest there is any unresolved issue here. Relativity and QED work fine with photons having zero rest mass, and that is what they say, if you read it properly. They simply explore what would be the consequences in some alternative formulation in which the photon could be said to have mass.

They also make what looks to me a questionable statement - or perhaps they just ask a question provocatively - , viz. that "energy is equivalent to mass". But surely that statement assumes that E=mc² can be applied, which is wrong, according to SR. The long form of the SR formula explicitly provides for entities with zero rest mass to obey E=pc instead.

 

Well first, \(E=mc^2\) is pure SR, that is how the equality originates. Second \(E=pc\) is exactly equivalent - note that classically \(p=mv\) (where \(v\) is velocity) and and that the velocity of the photon is \(c\) any one can see that this implies \(E=(mc)c\), but this is not the point. Mass/energy equivalence was first demonstrated by Einstein using SR for massive objects, but has long since been generalized.

As a matter of interest (or not) in the wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the substitution \(p \to i\hbar \frac {\partial}{\partial x}\). Make of that whatever you can!

 

Well that's not really a substitution of course, as it's an operator, requiring an operand in order to yield a momentum.