Do Photons Gain Infinite Mass at Light Speed?

[pmb_phy]

Hi Pete. Nice to find you on the Forum.

By the way, its nice to find you still posting here too Bernhard. I'm not sure how long I'll be here but I don't think there will be anymore conflicts with myself and the moderator.

Pete

 

[rbj]

By the way if all matter in the universe doubled the universe may go from open to closed.
It would that is not undetectable.

well, if all of the physical mass in the universe doubled and the Planck Mass did not, certainly an important dimensionless property of the universe changed. but if the mass all of the objects/particles of the universe and the Planck Mass doubled, i don't think that would be detectable.

1. c was known to be a constant long before 1983 when the current definition of the meter was coined out.

but there are people (Duff sites Paul Davies among others) of repute that do not agree that it must be and even that it is decreasing. the wiki VSL article says something about what the proponents of VSL would claim are detectable. and my question about that is how they would measure that? Duff is making a statement that not only is the notion of a sole varying dimensionful constant changing untrue, but is meaningless.

2. So , we all violently agree that c is a constant, ok?

yeah, but the one i like is 1 l_P/t_P.

3. The re-definition of the meter in 1983 simply assigned the value of precisely 299792458 m/s to the constant. Did not make c a constant, c was already known to be a constant for about 80 years.

not that value, no. i think Foucault measured it to be about 298xxxxxx m/s. I'm looking at an old (pre-1983) textbooks and CRC Handbook and it lists c as 2998xxxxx m/s or 2997925xx m/s. now that might be due to rounding, but i know that pre-1960 (when the meter was a platinum-iridium bar) there have been adjusted values to the measured c (there would have to be better increasing accuracy in the measurement).

An interesting question is how did the metrologists arrive to the 299792458 number? Do you know?

i remember reading somewhere from NIST, perhaps http://www.mel.nist.gov/div821/museum/timeline.htm , that when the make a change in definition of a unit, they do it so, given the existing measurement of some previously un-fixed quantity, that the numerical value they pick in the new definition will leave that value unchanged. so probably, the expectation value from the most recent measurements was between 299792457.5 m/s and 299792458.5 m/s and they decided to round it to the nearest integer m/s and carve it into stone.

 

[nakurusil]

but there are people (Duff sites Paul Davies among others) of repute that do not agree that it must be and even that it is decreasing. the wiki VSL article says something about what the proponents of VSL would claim are detectable. and my question about that is how they would measure that? Duff is making a statement that not only is the notion of a sole varying dimensionful constant changing untrue, but is meaningless.

Totally irrelevant in our discussion. Could you please stick to the point, this repeated diversion contributes nothing.

not that value, no. i think Foucault measured it to be about 298xxxxxx m/s. I'm looking at an old (pre-1983) textbooks and CRC Handbook and it lists c as 2998xxxxx m/s or 2997925xx m/s. now that might be due to rounding, but i know that pre-1960 (when the meter was a platinum-iridium bar) there have been adjusted values to the measured c (there would have to be better increasing accuracy in the measurement).

Again, you are missing the point. The point is that the whole action merely assigned a value to the constant . Did not make c constant as per MeJennifer's claim. This has been the discussion for the last 20 posts. Can we agree on this and end it?

 

[rbj]

Totally irrelevant in our discussion.

bull****. you made a point (number 1) that you are using to support what you claim, and i added qualification to it rather than to assent to it unqualified.

do you know how apply forensic principles to an argument you make? how to argue fairly and persuasively?

Could you please stick to the point, this repeated diversion contributes nothing.

tsss. :-/

Again, you are missing the point.

no, you are making a case based on assumptions some that are either not completely correct without qualification and i am calling you on that.

Did not make c constant as per MeJennifer's claim. This has been the discussion for the last 20 posts.

whether or not it has been discussed in the past 20 post, your statement is wrong. the measured value of c was not constant until they defined it so. now, if you believe that this is only due to different measurement errors in various measurements over time (which i think you do and it is also what i think) then you can say simply that, that these non-constant c values are due to measurement error (that is now precluded by the current definition but was not precluded by the pre-1960 definition) of a principly constant value. but some people do not think it is constant in principle and even claim they have evidence which indicates it is not constant. in other words, they disagree with Einstein, the correctness of whom you are using as a basis for your argument.

but when they redefined the meter, particularly in 1983, in terms of the meter as so defined, that did make c constant. the definition of the meter is the cause, the fact that c is constant m/s is the effect. MeJ was correct, you are not.

rather than cheaply say "oh! you are missing the point! lest you have to defend some of what you say, why not defend it or concede it or just drop it?

 

[nakurusil]

bull****. you made a point (number 1) that you are using to support what you claim, and i added qualification to it rather than to assent to it unqualified.

do you know how apply forensic principles to an argument you make? how to argue fairly and persuasively?

Yes, I know. I also know an attempt to diversion when I see one.

rather than cheaply say "oh! you are missing the point! lest you have to defend some of what you say, why not defend it or concede it or just drop it?

So, did the assignment of the value 299,etc. to the constant representing c "make c constant"? A simple yes or no suffices.

 

[nakurusil]

i remember reading somewhere from NIST, perhaps http://www.mel.nist.gov/div821/museum/timeline.htm , that when the make a change in definition of a unit, they do it so, given the existing measurement of some previously un-fixed quantity, that the numerical value they pick in the new definition will leave that value unchanged. so probably, the expectation value from the most recent measurements was between 299792457.5 m/s and 299792458.5 m/s and they decided to round it to the nearest integer m/s and carve it into stone.

Let me make it easier for you, I asked Tom Roberts what happened in 1983, he's old enough and experienced enough, here is what he answered: they got together and they voted on the value to choose based on the results of the latest experimental measurements. Then, they assigned the agreed upon value to c. In your opinion : did this action "make c a constant" , or was c already constant? A or B?

Tom confirmed another thing: how do you think that the values used in the voting process were determined? What type of meter standard was used in the measurements?

 

[duordi]

Identical distortions

I have a suggestion regarding the relativistic gravitational equation.
I understand that you can not use relativistic mass in the Newton gravitational equation due to the distortion of space-time.

If however the distance R between two objects is measured by the same means that gravity travels to us the Newton gravitational equation may then be usable if the relativistic mass is used in place of the rest mass.

Say for instance I determine distance R by viewing a distant mass object.
The view path is curved with the gravitational field identically as it travels to me.
All space time variants which would affect gravity also affect the photon image except for the properties of the distant object at the time the image departed.

I can use this distorted view of the distant object to determine an “apparent velocity” with respect to myself and an “apparent distance” R that the object is away from me.

By using the relativistic mass to correct for distortion due to the velocity properties of the distant mass at the time of image departure and the apparent radius R along the photon image path which is distorted identically to the gravitational distortion path the exact gravitational force experienced should be determined by using the Newton gravitational Equation with relativistic mass substituted for rest mass.

The basic premise here is that a mass is dumb and responds to gravitational information as it perceives it and not based on where it "actually" is in direction distance and time.

This reasoning would indicate that if we are only interested in the gravitational forces we expereince we need not be able to calculate the distortions of time space and locate the distant masses in time space but only measure the resultant distorted properties of the photon image directly, and apply constraints to Newton’s gravitational equations which correct for the apparent velocity properties of a distant mass at the time of photon image departure to determine the actual gravitational force which will be experienced.

Your thoughts?