Relativity and its demerits.

[ovi issac]

Eniestein while publishing his theory haven't considered that any quantity  having rest mass zero doesn't exist in reality. Photon necessarily should have such energy density within each quantum that its density variation in different points of space imparts it two natures particle where density is highest and energy (wave) where density is lower than threshold value .hence transition between the two natures is so frequent that it can't be determines by any special equipment,Hence imparting it dual nature . Rest mass and relativistic mass of photon falls under controversy while the postulates that I intended are pondered well . concept is based on the rest mass of light is zero so any thing having zero mass is actually imaginary point that in reality doesn't exist so something that actually doesn't exist has nothing to do with apparent mass as it is extensive property .  photon actually isn't simple  particle as hypothesed by Einstein  , it is packet of energy called quantum which has such a  frequent  transition between particle(matter) and energy (propagating in form of waves ) nature that it can't be noticed by any of our current equipment . debronglie's dual nature of matter Is actually consequence of free energy associated within every particle and the quantity of this free energy associated with particle is  proportional to its mass and this free energy is responsible for imparting wave nature to the particle as energy propagates in form of waves and the mass associated with it is forced to fallow the similar fashion that energy traces out! Lambda =h  /fv where f ~m equation implies free energy associated with any  particle is  proportional to its mass ,if value of  mass of particle is greater free energy associated will be accordingly  hence value of v for certain value of force  will be lesser than in case of small particle here point to ponder is that free energy is also responsible for inertia of body . hence lambda = h/fv is modified version of dual nature of matter equation ! Photon occupies such a very small volume that transition between energy and matter nature cannot be noticed thus we say photon is massless particle becoz we never have encountered any photon in rest so far. photon in rest essentially would have mass zero as the mass is characteristic of matter photons energy while propagating through space transit between energy and particle due to the variation in its density at different points in space ! As matter  is dense form of energy as implied by E=mc²

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, ovi issac said:

Eniestein while publishing his theory haven't considered that any quantity  having rest mass zero doesn't exist in reality.

Please show where this is part of the theory of relativity.

 

[ovi issac]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Please show where this is part of the theory of relativity.

 

Dear it is actually based on the apparent mass of the photon can't exist independly means apparent mass of any quantity is property of matter not of any thing that has zero mass 

[Silvestru]

Well that's the actual definition of "matter", something that has mass and takes up space by having volume. 

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, ovi issac said:

Dear it is actually based on the apparent mass of the photon can't exist independly means apparent mass of any quantity is property of matter not of any thing that has zero mass 

OK but how is that relevant to relativity? 

[Silvestru]

A photon really does have zero mass. I think about it as a particle of "pure energy", a photon has energy but no mass.

[ovi issac]

17 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Well that's the actual definition of "matter", something that has mass and takes up space by having volume. 

Nice Einstein said photon has no rest mass then how can supply of further energy to something having zero mass impart it apparent mass ... Photon actually has energy not mass as energy is never static but energy in photon is in the threshold dense packet called quantum whose density varies in different points of space while propagating through it at highest density it acquires property of matter and has finite mass and below this density value point it again reaches the threshold value where it has characteristics of energy ... Transion  fallows the  mass energy equalence 

Nice Einstein said photon has no rest mass then how can supply of further energy to something having zero mass impart it apparent mass ... Photon actually has energy not mass as energy is never static but energy in photon is in the threshold dense packet called quantum whose density varies in different points of space while propagating through it at highest density it acquires property of matter and has finite mass and below this density value point it again reaches the threshold value where it has characteristics of energy ... Transion  fallows the  mass energy equalence 

13 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

A photon really does have zero mass. I think about it as a particle of "pure energy", a photon has energy but no mass.

Nice Einstein said photon has no rest mass then how can supply of further energy to something having zero mass impart it apparent mass ... Photon actually has energy not mass as energy is never static but energy in photon is in the threshold dense packet called quantum whose density varies in different points of space while propagating through it at highest density it acquires property of matter and has finite mass and below this density value point it again reaches the threshold value where it has characteristics of energy ... Transion  fallows the  mass energy equalence 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK but how is that relevant to relativity? 

Nice Einstein said photon has no rest mass then how can supply of further energy to something having zero mass impart it apparent mass ... Photon actually has energy not mass as energy is never static but energy in photon is in the threshold dense packet called quantum whose density varies in different points of space while propagating through it at highest density it acquires property of matter and has finite mass and below this density value point it again reaches the threshold value where it has characteristics of energy ... Transion  fallows the  mass energy equalence 

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, ovi issac said:

Nice Einstein said photon has no rest mass then how can supply of further energy to something having zero mass impart it apparent mass ...

Is this your actual question that you would like answered?

 

Think about the answer to this question.

 

I throw a ball into the air.
Where does the energy for the ball to acend come from?

 

The answer is the same as the answer to your question.

From whatever causes the motion.

 

In the case of a photon it starts off life with a fixed energy and can never change this.

[ovi issac]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Is this your actual question that you would like answered?

 

Think about the answer to this question.

 

I throw a ball into the air.
Where does the energy for the ball to acend come from?

 

The answer is the same as the answer to your question.

From whatever causes the motion.

 

In the case of a photon it starts off life with a fixed energy and can never change this.

Nice dear but I am not looking for what u said answer the content is itself a theory .... Force when applied on the ball attains motion and hence kinetic energy hence its appent mass increases but what about photon whoes rest mass is zero or its initial mass before it was set in motion was zero supplying energy to energy will give large amount of energy ...e1 + e2 not apparent mass to zero mass quantity 

Energy of photon doesn't change but packet within which it is packed changes its density in different points of space 

[Silvestru]

2 minutes ago, ovi issac said:

whoes rest mass is zero or its initial mass before it was set in motion

What do you mean before the photon was set in motion?

Also any number of bosons can occupy the same quantum state. The photon does not "occupy volume" but it still interacts with matter, as it couples to electric charges.

Sorry, I realize I am just posting random information about photons but I really don't understand where OP is going with this post.

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, ovi issac said:

Nice dear but I am not looking for what u said answer the content is itself a theory .... Force when applied on the ball attains motion and hence kinetic energy hence its appent mass increases but what about photon whoes rest mass is zero or its initial mass before it was set in motion was zero supplying energy to energy will give large amount of energy ...e1 + e2 not apparent mass to zero mass quantity 

Energy of photon doesn't change but packet within which it is packed changes its density in different points of space 

Please rephrase this, it is quite garbled English.

 

[ovi issac]

I am taking about its relativistic mass which is mass due to its motion in space or kinetic energy .... If rest mass is zero relative mass has no meaning for that as energy suplied to energy will give u more energy .... But energy supplied to mass may set it in motion and hence will increase its appent mass 

[studiot]

 

Just now, ovi issac said:

I am taking about its relativistic mass which is mass due to its motion in space or kinetic energy .... If rest mass is zero relative mass has no meaning for that as energy suplied to energy will give u more energy .... But energy supplied to mass may set it in motion and hence will increase its appent mass 

Well you seem to be mixing up mass and energy in any old way.

Relativistic mass is not the same sort of property as ordinary mass.

And I still don't see a question if , as you say, your question is not

 

Where does the energy come from?

[ovi issac]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Please rephrase this, it is quite garbled English.

 

Try to ponder u will understand it 

 

[studiot]

Just now, ovi issac said:

Try to ponder u will understand it 

 

It is up to you to make yourself clear.

[ovi issac]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Please rephrase this, it is quite garbled English.

 

Which content u think was garbled 

[Silvestru]

 

Ovi, I found a good explanation for what I think you might be asking in the works of Einstein.

"In 1905, Einstein published 3 works on different areas (One about the 'Photoelectric Effect', other about the 'Brownian Motion' and the other was the famous 'Special Relativity' - actually these are not the true titles of his works, but it gives you a rough idea). In one of them, about the Photoelectric Effect, Einstein recovered the old idea that light was composed of 'tiny' particles, and this relationship emerged due to the failure of the classical wave description of light to explain some experimental results. The experiment was, in a condensed form, as follows: 

Imagine a certain piece of metal that, when you put ultraviolet light on it, you can measure the energy of some electrons 'escaping' from the the metal. From the very basical wave mechanics, one would expect that if you increased the 'intensity' of the light you would see more energetic electrons pulling off from it (picture a little paper boat in a lake where you make some waves - the more 'intense' you make them, the more the boat will jump up with greater velocities). Well, actually experimental results tell you that this does NOT happens. When you increase the intensity of the wave, only the NUMBER of electrons emitted from the metal will increase - not its ENERGY. The observed result is that only when you increase the FREQUENCY of the light you are applying, then the energy of the electrons will be greater. That sounds really strange for the wave nature of light. 

Looking at these results, Einstein proposed that light, 'when interacting with matter', interacts as a particle. Well, if it interacts like that, as a particle, you might think that it needs a certain mass. Not exactly. Using the Theory of Relativity, Einstein proposed that the particle of light, the so-called 'photon', had a ZERO 'rest mass'. It had only the relativistic mass (caused by its motion). Using as a 'glue' the work of Max Planck about the Black Body Radiation, Einstein suggested that the energy of the photon was related to the frequency of the wave by the equation: 

E=hf, 

where 'E' is the energy of the photon, 'h' is the so-called 'Planck's constant' and 'f' is the frequency. "

Edited September 18, 2017 by Silvestru

[ovi issac]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is up to you to make yourself clear.

Yes I will but u need to let me know the content that u think is garbled 

[studiot]

Good research silvestru. +1

Too many people argue against Einstein, 'quoting' what he did not say.

ovi issac

5 minutes ago, ovi issac said:

Which content u think was garbled 

You seem to think that the popular phrase energy and mass (or matter) are equivalent mean they can be interchanged at will.

That is not the case.

In fact the popular equation E = mc² is only part of the full relativistic equation.

Have you studied the maths of relativity?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

A photon really does have zero mass. I think about it as a particle of "pure energy", a photon has energy but no mass.

No, it's not pure energy.

6 minutes ago, ovi issac said:

Yes I will but u need to let me know the content that u think is garbled 

Typing words out is a start. We are not texting. (e.g. "you")

[Silvestru]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, it's not pure energy.

+momentum+spin angular momentum+magic

[swansont]

2 hours ago, ovi issac said:

  Photon occupies such a very small volume that transition between energy and matter nature cannot be noticed thus we say photon is massless particle becoz we never have encountered any photon in rest so far. photon in rest essentially would have mass zero as the mass is characteristic of matter photons energy while propagating through space transit between energy and particle due to the variation in its density at different points in space ! As matter  is dense form of energy as implied by E=mc²

We say the photon is massless because that's how it behaves. If you are going to claim some deficiency in relativity, you need to show where its predictions do not match with experiment. Conflicting wth your preconceived notions is not a criterion used to assess this. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, ovi issac said:

Einstein said photon has no rest mass then how can supply of further energy to something having zero mass impart it apparent mass ..

That is because apparent or relativistic "mass" is just a way of measuring energy. It is not really mass. Photons are massless.

[ovi issac]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

We say the photon is massless because that's how it behaves. If you are going to claim some deficiency in relativity, you need to show where its predictions do not match with experiment. Conflicting wth your preconceived notions is not a criterion used to assess this. 

I am claiming that eneisteins theory was lacking few concepts like relative mass of something that had zero mass OK u explain it 

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is because apparent or relativistic "mass" is just a way of measuring energy. It is not really mass. Photons are massless.

Photons are masless but apparent mass can be defined only for those particles having definite rest mass ... If photon really would have even negligible mass its relativistic mass would be immense that we would never be able to with stand its collision despite of its minute size ... But fortunately photon actually isn't particle at all and hence had no mass but what about term particle nature of photon ... Explain it 

And it should be apparent weight not mass as mass doesn't change even if kinetic energy is supplied ... Mas remains constant 

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, it's not pure energy.

Typing words out is a start. We are not texting. (e.g. "you")

What typing words etc are u vituperating me 

[Silvestru]

14 minutes ago, ovi issac said:

 what about term particle nature of photon ... Explain it 

 

15 minutes ago, ovi issac said:

OK u explain it 

The photon can behave as a particle the same way you behave like like a demanding teenager. You have to explain what your actual question is not to claim Einsteins theory was wrong and then asking people to explain why it's wrong for you.