Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by bradguth, Jun 26, 2004.

  1. bradguth Banned Banned

    ? The individual resting photon mass = 6.4555e-83 gram

    Photons/m3 and of photons at rest:

    how many photons/m3 are there ?

    How weak, in terms of mass, are regular photons ?

    How about the mass of a given resting photon ?

    How many such photons (resting or otherwise) may exist or coexist/m3 ?

    Could a blackhole worth of resting photons surround a seed of anti-matter ?

    Are photons individual travelers, or are they being superconducted along by way of FIFO nodes of atomic Oort zones ?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    The photon rest mass is zero.

    A page filled with errors, misconceptions and conspiracy theories. Crackpot-stuff.

    Don't base your question on that page.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. bradguth Banned Banned

    Really, the freaking hell you say.

    How about a photon that's nearly resting, as in perhaps moving along at 3 m/s, or even 300 m/s ?

    I'd even consider anything much below that of 300 km/s as more or less resting.

    What part about this photon (resting or otherwise), say of the Hubble mass per photon, and of numerous others specifying upon all sorts of relative amounts of photon mass, is this supposed "conspiracy" all about ?

    Why the hell should there even be a photon conspiracy factor ?

    BTW; I and a few dozen others so happen think you're wrong about that "mass is zero", other than at absolute zero speed, of which you're smart enough to have known darn well that I wasn't suggesting such, other than possibly the 1 m/s worth of 5.81e-66 / 9e16 = 6.4555e-83.
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    That would be a neat trick.
  8. bradguth Banned Banned

    I do believe the issue of slowing a given photon packet down to next to nothing has been accomplished.

    Still the primary question remains:

    How many photons (resting or otherwise) might coexist/m3 ?
  9. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    You need to brush up on your physics. The rest mass of an object doesn't change with its speed. Photons always have a rest mass of zero, end of story. Changing the speed of the photon wouldn't change that, just like changing the speed of a baseball wouldn't change the rest mass of a baseball.

    Now photons do have a relativistic mass, but this is only because of their energy, and as such it changes depending on the energy of the photon. A radio photon, for example, would have a lot less relativistic mass than an x-ray photon.
  10. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    ... well... you are talking about restmass, right ?

    If someone disagrees with the fact that a photon has zero rest-mass, then that person should catch up with 100 year-old physics before trying to make outrageous claims on websites.
  11. beta Registered Senior Member

    Photons always travel at c, irregardless of the refractive index or otherwise of the medium.
    Photons have no rest mass.

    Photons have no spatial extent- There is no limit imposed by volume constraints.
  12. ddovala Pi is exactly 3 Registered Senior Member

    Thats wrong. You can calculate the speed of photons in different mediums using v1/v2 = n1/n2, where n is the refractive index number.

    Also, they have slowed photons down to nothing, they just dissapate into heat. Photons can not have a rest mass, it is 0. They only have relativistic mass.
  13. beta Registered Senior Member

    My original statement
    Response posted by ddovala
    No, you are incorrect. You are no doubt confusing the popular description of the reduced wavefront speed for light in a refractive medium and calling this the photon speed. Photons always travel at c. The path length changes which accounts for the reduced wavefront speed.
  14. bradguth Banned Banned

    Let us concur that photons have essentially no specific mass of their own, somewhat like an extremely large and capable dump-truck that when empty weighs in at zero, but is merely capable of carrying a rather considerable degree of this relativistic mass as energy, which indeed may sufficiently represent mass.

    Even though "ddovala" and a few other seem to believe that at least artificial photons may have differing speeds, lets further concur that we have absolutely no workable notion as to how said photon ever became so near to resting, nor of how that sucker remains at rest.

    Let us next concur that such a sufficiently resting photon is merely coexisting between few and far between atoms, say expanding and/or contracting about an average wavelength of 3e6 meters (0.01 light year) thus essentially residing as invisible to most instruments.

    At the resting status of roughly 3e6 m; what's the potential of associated maximum mass or payload of said photonic dump-truck?

    Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251)
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2004
  15. AndersHermansson Registered Senior Member

    I believe that is only in the classical picture.
  16. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    "Relativistic mass" is not "mass" in the way you interpret "mass". What you mean by "mass" is rest mass. Photons do not have rest mass, nor can they carry any actual mass. Relativistic mass is just a fancy way of saying "kinetic energy + rest mass".
  17. bradguth Banned Banned

    OK, then given the infinite dimensional length(s) of this photonic dump-truck (resting or not) that's capable of accommodating said "kinetic energy + rest mass", thus how much energy are we speaking of?

    Or, is this photon getting itself into too much of a God particle or God element of some sort?

    Am I to assume that no amount of energy can ever coexist as mass, or of the binder of mass?

    In other words, are you perchance suggesting that photons could be anti-matter?

    There's not much question that said photons do in fact exist, and in truly horrific numbers, whereas such, I was wondering in terms of those numbers/m3, as to how many, and especially of how many if there's only one atom/m3?
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2004
  18. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    It is more appropriate to think of wavefronts when you are talking about energy being radiated for light. If it is directed light (e.g. through a laser) then the length of the light beam is not infinity.

    The energy in a photon depends on its frequency ω, it is given by E = hω , where h is Planck's constant.

    Photons are very well understood and very accurately described by a theory called Quantum Electrodynamics. There is no need to attribute divine properties to it to understand what they are.

    Mass is one form of energy. Mass can be bounded by energy. And you can just have plain energy (= photons).

    Antimatter is not just one kind of particle. Ordinary matter consists of protons, neutrons and electrons. Antimatter consists of antiprotons, antineutrons and positrons, i.e. of the antiparticles of regular matter. These anti-particles are just like the "regular" particles, with reversed quantum parameters. E.g. an antiproton has the same mass as the proton, but opposite charge.

    The photon is its own antiparticle. (or you can say that it is neither a particle or an antiparticle, but this is not the conventional way of speaking).

    I cannot think of any reason why their number should be restricted. I don't even know if the number of regular particles is restricted (sure, loads of matter would create a black hole, but for an outside observer, you can still put loads of mass into one cubic meter

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    There are some problems if you want to enclose many photons in a box that measures one cubic meter. Then effects like wall-pressure (due to the photons) start to play a role, and an equilibrium situation will install itself in the box.
  19. bradguth Banned Banned

    That's quite helpful feedback that'll drive me into researching a bit further, and ponder the outcome. Of course I was just kidding about the "divine properties" of something we can sometimes see, and otherwise detect an measure in just about every possible way except in the 3D aspect.

    However there's yet another somewhat nagging thing that's been on one of those "need to know" list of topics;

    Can the photon thereby exist without the atom?

    And if so, where the heck did the photon originate from?

    Or how about the other way around with that same question?

    BTW; if a given photon was unmodulated, as in flat-line (no AM or FM component), what is it?
  20. bradguth Banned Banned

    "From the main formula of quantum theory (E=HV) it follows that light is “granular”. Experiment proved it. It consists of not only separate quanta, but also of separate intermittent “grains” of energy of the value. Quantity of these “grains” depends on frequency of oscillations of the source (V). This means that every oscillation generates an atom of energy of the (h) value. And the series of these oscillations makes a quantum."

    "every oscillation generates an atom of energy"

    "Thus quantum of light presents by itself the chain of atoms of energy. In almost 3-meter photon of the orange colour, for example, about 5 million atoms of energy move with the distance between each other 6058 A. And the eternal question “What is light?’ may be answered: Light is the flow of atoms of energy in the photons. As such atoms- impulses of energy make quanta by themselves, then they can be considered as “subquanta”.

    Ok, so I'm getting a little confused, in that here I've absconded with a couple of short tid bits from the above link, in which this message is suggesting by way of QM that photons might actually create atoms of energy, while it otherwise continually refers to the photon as a form of coexistence and/or reliance upon the atom, and/or perhaps vise versa. Although of whichever came first, the atom or the photon, or doesn't it matter?

    Perhaps the problem I'm having with said photon is that it's actually a very large quantum string, or whatever complexity that is.

    If in fact the photon is reliant upon the atomic influence (Oort zone or extended field of coulomb influence), and if within the near-vacuum of space held but a few atoms/m3 of sodium (like those which Dr. Wang obtained a 310X light speed result), whereas once within or past a given nullification zone the opportunity of said photons exceeding 3e8 m/s becomes more likely, at least as for those riding through and/or being superconducted along from atom to atom?

    If those few atoms were 10 fold further apart than the given photon wavelength, and if the photon was having to make good on its constant of light speed, but in order to accomplish this task needed to transport itself 10 times as far between those extended nodes of sodium atoms, thereby it stands to reason that the end result of covering a great distance containing such few atoms would in fact transpire in 1/10th the time.

    OOPS, I think I just shrunk the universe. Sorry about that.

    I'm not suggesting that naturally created photons have this expanse leaping capability, although I'm obviously suggesting that if folks like Dr. Wang accomplish a 310 fold improvement in dealing with photons, then perhaps artificially it's possible for a focused stream of laser photons to take advantage of a similar sort of sodium atom environment, and basically go for it, of which this might require a transponder near or within the given nullification zone in order to expedite those photons along at the 310X speed of light.

    Between us and the moon offers a slight nullification zone, although I believe there's still way too many atoms in the way, and perhaps if it matters, few of those being of sodium.
  21. blackholesun Registered Senior Member

  22. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    It is generally accepted that there were only photons in the universe right (read: the first 100.000 years) after the big bang.

    Good question. I don't have the answer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ... Some argue that the total universe must have energy zero, and that a fluctuation of the early universe caused some positive energy (in the form of photons) to drift away from some negative energy. I don't think there is any evidence for this kind of theories, so don't take it all too seriously.

    Now you are confusing a few things. There are two ways of describing the world, in an approximate classical way, where matter is described by (point-)particles and electromagnetic radiation is described by waves. In this picture, light is a modulated electromagnetic wave as you said.

    There is another picture of the world, the more accurate quantum mechanical picture, where matter also acts like waves, and where electromagnetic waves (like light) also behave like particles (dubbed photons). I think it is inappropriate to say that one single photon "is modulated" (has electric and magnetic field components).

    From a classical point of view, if the amplitude of the electromagnetic wave (light) goes to zero, also the amount of energy stored in the wave vanishes. So "unmodulated" light would be no light at all.
  23. bradguth Banned Banned

    Could this unmodulated photon of "no light at all" become any portion of dark matter, especially since there's no apparent limitation as to the numbers of such per m3, or as per cubic light year ?

    If it were possible to unmodulate and/or slow a photon down by a given factor of say 1/10th light speed, would not the associated energy and thereby mass become 1/10 the original?
    "in this case the atoms temporarily amplify the light pulse rather than absorb it."

    "Indeed, Wang and co-workers measured a group velocity of -c/310. In other words, a pulse travelling a distance, L, is advanced by 310L/c"

    OK, what's wrong with this picture; it seems as though under the right conditions that the NEC team managed to transport a quantum string worth of something at 310 times faster than the speed of light, and since those of GR and most QM folks keep insisting that photos represent absolutely no mass, then what's keeping these photonic dump-trucks of zero mass from hauling something other (such as an FM modulated quantum data packet) along for the ride?

    By way of utilizing a laser beam as a carrier wave, upon which a few FM photons are being delivered at 310 times the speed of light, this obviously represents that the carrier beam or quantum string of those photonic atoms must be established first, somewhat like establishing a superconductor of what's going to deliver electrons must be previously established from the energy source to the intended load or point of it final destination, whereas once this superconducting wire is installed, as then all sorts of good things start to happen.

    So, I'll concur that of a carrier beam or pathway must either pre-exist and/or coexist before the method of what NEC/Wang accomplished can take affect.
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2004

Share This Page