Mass= ?

[jajrussel]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

I thonk you can argue this from a classical physics perspective, but photons are quantum, and you have a much harder time applying Newtonian physics.

You can’t really say it’s the same photon coming out as going in. Same thing for refraction.

I remember having a question as to if the light that lets me see a tree was photons emitted by the tree after absorbing photons rather than reflected light. I’m sure I was told that couldn’t occur.

what is the difference between that and what you’re suggesting?

21 hours ago, Strange said:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/acceleration-tutorial/a/acceleration-article

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/acceleration.htm

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/2-4-acceleration/

I’m not disagreeing, since I pretty much knew this ,but I have also pretty much thought a bit differently.

i haven’t visited all these sites yet. Not sure which presents the (and, or)? I’ heard it stated that way. The thought/ question I had was a curve is a longer distant so wouldn’t it measure as the photon slowing down? Photons are said to slow down, so why bother with the he (and, or) explanation?

is there something wrong with the photon curve thought? Isn’t light generally measured straight on? So there would be no mistaken assumption of light going faster than c on a curved path if it was accepted that a curved path measure would measure as slower than c?

This is basically my opinion, but I do change them when I see the light so to speak...

Edited December 28, 2018 by jajrussel

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

i haven’t visited all these sites yet. Not sure which presents the (and, or)? I’ heard it stated that way. The thought/ question I had was a curve is a longer distant so wouldn’t it measure as the photon slowing down? Photons are said to slow down, so why bother with the he (and, or) explanation?

It does increase the time taken, because it the light takes a longer path (not because it slows down): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

34 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

This is basically my opinion, but I do change them when I see the light so to speak...

Very good (both the sentiment and the way it is expressed!)

[swansont]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I remember having a question as to if the light that lets me see a tree was photons emitted by the tree after absorbing photons rather than reflected light. I’m sure I was told that couldn’t occur.

what is the difference between that and what you’re suggesting?

I would have to know the context of the discussion. 

How you analyze the behavior of a wave differs how you analyze the behavior of a photon. They are different models.

 

[jajrussel]

On 12/27/2018 at 10:38 AM, swansont said:

I thonk you can argue this from a classical physics perspective, but photons are quantum, and you have a much harder time applying Newtonian physics.

You can’t really say it’s the same photon coming out as going in. Same thing for refraction.

Is this because there is no way to make the observation, or are photons  Indistinguishable?

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Is this because there is no way to make the observation, or are photons  Indistinguishable?

Indistinguishable and also bosons, so there is no conservation of particle number.