pmb_phy said:
I was merely telling you what definition I was going by. This is a relativity forum so what makes you think that I know what crystal momentum is? Do you actually think I claim to know every single term and concept that exists in physics today? If so then you need a reality check. Actually I've never even heard of this crystal momentum and I don't have a text on solid state physics and I never learned of it in either as an undergraduate or as a graduate student.
But you seem to have ignored my original complaint, that you have somehow adopted A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION of momentum and speed. I know what forum this is. However, to say that your definition only works for so-and-so and not when QM kicks in makes it a highly dubious claim. THAT was my argument.
Please note that in many papers regarding the definition of "mass" and "momentum", the QM issue was
never neglected! How can they when it is also such a central issue of what we actually measure! How do you think a measurement of a photon's momentum is made? Would you care to speculate on the assumption made to enable the extraction of the photon interaction that produces such momentum? Or what about the "momentum" and "speed" of charge particles, especially elementary particles? What do you think is the most accurate means to determine such a thing?
ALL of those experimental observations on which anyone tries to based his/her ideas on ARE quantum measurements! So I find it highly incredulous that you think it is justifiable that somehow THAT part of physics can be safely ignored!
Tell you what. Why don't you provide the definition of momentum as it is used in relativity and apply it to your little example.
I'm NOT the one who goes around saying that I have a clear-cut definition of anything - YOU DO! I'm also not hung-up on any form of definition when the mathematical formulation is so clear that physicists don't go around using the WRONG formalism. Have you seen such issues popping up in physics? For example, when papers kept being published on the measurement of the upper limit of the photon "mass", do you see them using the WRONG formulation, regardless of what being measured is called? No? Thus, *I* personally have no use in those word games, so I am not the one here who is making a claim of anything regarding how people define "mass", "momentum", and "speed". Again, in case you forgot, you did! That was why I asked you to apply it in a particular situation.
But I can argue something with logic and a mathematical derivation using the principles of relativity. Everybody does it here so there's no reason why I can't. I am not citing something by posting a link to a derivation which can't fit into one of these posts. It turned out to be much better for me since people are often asking the same questions so instead of re-writing the same answers over and over and over again I create a web page for it. Many people here have very much appreciated those pages and have bookmarked them. So you're saying you want to deprive work because you have a personal problem with me? No other mentor has had a problem with this for the time I arrived here except you today.
But the worst part of your attitude is that you're speaking from a point of ignorance. You should have looked at the pages before you complained about them. I never said that those particular pages were my work. In fact I post the relevant published work on which it is based at the bottom of the page. Otherwise I state that it is my derivation. There is nothing wrongwith posting derivations.
First off you really need to look at the pages you're whining about before posting this kind of irritating post.
In the second place there is is nothing wrong with posting a derivation/proof of something in a post. We all do it. However some derivations are too long and difficult to post in Latex in a post. It was for that reason I created those web pages - ease of explanation.
And if you delete these links in the future then that is my invitation from you to leave and I will happily do so. I come here only to help others in a field I love so much. I did not come here to listen to comments such as the ones you're providing today. I am not in a place in my life where I want to tolerate such comments such as these.
Since its rather easy to predict what the response to this post is then I say thee fairwell and I will end my posting career here at this point.
Bye bye.
If you have noticed, pervect even had to point out your earlier reference to your unpublished papers. I would strongly suggest that you do not cite this UNTIL it is published.
I HAVE read your links, and quite a few times since you used it quite often. There is a difference between stating standard facts and stating OPINIONS! If you think YOUR definition of what a "mass" is is simply "logic", then it is you who are showing your arrogance, because there are point of views that disagree with you. Just look at the discussion on PF on this each time you brought it up! This is ample proof that it isn't just a matter of mathematical derivation that is contained in your links - you assert YOUR point of view of the physical meaning of such-and-such which may or may NOT be in line of what you'd find in a standard text.
If all you care about is truly trying to bring out the logical derivation of something that is constantly asked, then there are plenty of other legitimate sites that stick to addressing such issues. This includes the often-asked questions about photon mass! In fact, when such a question is being asked, it is often done by someone who is NOT familiar with basic SR. I put it to you that by pointing out what you have on your webpage will cause even MORE confusion than necessary. Why you can't just use the answer given in practically all standard SR textbooks (and already repeated many times on here) is beyond me.
Zz.
)