Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: dragonridr

Ok the frequency would indicate lower mass it doesnt affect the mass so lets get that out of the way.

What? Seriously, what? That's now just more IN the way.

Frequency can be directly related to energy which in tern can be related to velocity.

No.

As i said there is some debate going on like neutrinos which was mentioned just now.

For the moment I could not care less about neutrinos. We're talking about photons, mass, speed of light and frequency affecting velocity. Is this some thing new I missed?

your going to say well Einstein said a particle cant move at the speed of light right,But that means that if it has a slight mass that that isnt the speed limit its higher than what we think is the speed of light.

think is the speed of light? Think? Really? Even if we're guessing at the actual numbers for the speed of light, if a photon has any mass then light can not travel at the speed of light. That makes no sense at all.

Unless Einstein was actually full of it.

See if photons have mass than frequency becomes important because well there is no upper limit as far as we know that means theoretically there could be an upper frequency that breaks what we assume to be light speed.As i said i dont agree with this line of thought but it is indeed being investigated and i could be wrong.

#@!% What does frequency have to do with velocity? #

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
If the photon is massless, it travels at the speed of light, and therefore the energy/frequency relationship is independent of velocity. We're pretty sure this is true so this is what we teach at lower levels of school.

However as education levels advance, you get taught that things you were taught at lower levels may not be true or at least in the case of photon mass you're taught we only know the upper experimental limit on mass, and we so far can't prove the mass is really zero and will likely never be able to do so. If the photon has mass then it's not traveling at c which might need to be some slightly higher value than photon velocity. But the photon is probably massless and probably traveling at c.

I think John Baez is pretty good at explaining stuff like this and he's written lots of FAQs over the years which can be understood by people without physics PhDs. Here's what he has to say about it:

What is the mass of a photon?

Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?

Alternative theories of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a "massive photon". If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass. But regardless of what any theory might predict, it is still necessary to check this prediction by doing an experiment.

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.

Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10−16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10−17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10−27 eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.

Here is what the wiki says:

Experimental checks on photon mass

The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time. Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

So if it turns out the photon has mass, it turns out to be a problem for QED theory, but scientists still check theories to see if they match experiment, and that's why they try to measure photon mass even though it needs to be zero for QED.

If photons have mass then they aren't traveling at c as explained by the wiki, so we would have to rewrite some textbooks. Contrary to what the wiki says, we should no longer call c the "speed of light" if photons don't travel at c, we should redefine c to be the "speed of gravitational waves" or something like that. If photons have a tiny mass then they might travel a tiny amount slower.

The interesting thing about this to me in an electric universe thread (and also relevant in the scientism thread) is that EU proponents say scientists are stuck in their theories and don't want to accept new theories (like EU) or change existing theories. The fact that scientists try to measure the mass of a photon tells me this is completely false. If all they wanted to do is stick with existing theories, they wouldn't try to measure photon mass because finding it will sort of mess up some existing theories. So EU proponents should pay attention here. Trying to measure photon mass is evidence of scientists looking for experimental evidence to challenge or falsify their own theories. It's truth-seeking, not reinforcing existing paradigms as is often claimed by science detractors in pseudoscience like electric universe.

I thought the confusion over photon's mass was over ?!

EM radiation is massless and there are no particles like photons moving in this ! Period !

Photon has nothing to do with reality, We call a quanta of EM radiation a photon, it's just a term and has nothing to do with any object or mass in reality. Math only.

Once again, when the disturbance in EM field propagates with the "speed of light", NOTHING IS ACTUALLY MOVING !
This isn't a velocity particle like.

The EM field itself is reconfiguring what takes time, it takes 1 sec to reconfigure 3E8 m (spherical)
and the energy in any frequency works this way, shorter EM wave has the same amount of energy as a long EM wave.
The only difference is the time this takes place.
So shorter waves will be affecting in shorter time and longer waves a little longer.
It looks like shorter EM wave has more energy than longer EM waves but this is not true !
In physics, power is the rate of doing work. It is equivalent to an amount of energy consumed per unit time.

Shorter EM wave is doing the same amount of work but faster than long EM waves.

Shorter wave has more energy per unit time but one complete oscillation, one package or quanta of any frequency has to have always the same amount energy.

BTW: Using E=mc2 to calculate mass of EM radiation is stupid as building a wall with numbers.

The above contains many statements that are incorrect.

Photons form packets and are not coherently produced unless via a lasing mechanism. Even when they are produced via a lasing mechanism they come out as a stream of many photons.

single photons have been measured, I spend a good part of my PhD doing single photon counting.

Also the energy is directly related to the energy of a photon.

E=hv

originally posted by: ErosA433
The above contains many statements that are incorrect.

and what exactly ?

please show me my error

originally posted by: KrzYma
Shorter wave has more energy per unit time but one complete oscillation, one package or quanta of any frequency has to have always the same amount energy.

If that was true, how do you explain the photoelectric effect? According to your claim, any frequency photon should have enough energy to eject an electron if we wait long enough, but that's not what we observe.

BTW: Using E=mc2 to calculate mass of EM radiation is stupid as building a wall with numbers.

That's an energy calculation. The recent discussion about photons mass is not about the E/c^2 term which is really an expression of energy (not rest mass), and is always non-zero, rather it's about the "rest mass" or something like it, which is assumed to be zero but it's still measured to check it anyway.

Anyway if you have answers that turn the world of physics upside down and solve all the unsolved problems you should be publishing papers so everyone can benefit, not posting in some dark corner of ATS where denying mainstream science without presenting any evidence to support the claims just makes you look a little out of touch.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If that was true, how do you explain the photoelectric effect? According to your claim, any frequency photon should have enough energy to eject an electron if we wait long enough, but that's not what we observe.

NO, it is the interaction time with the electron. In longer waves the energy exchange time is to long to kick an electron out.
You need to separate those two terms, energy quanta and time of action.
Short wave packet of energy acts quicker so more energy per time unit is exchanged than with longer wave packet.
Is the wave to long, say the energy quanta takes longer for the energy transfer, there is not enough energy per unit time for kicking the energy out.
I'm totally aware of the fact those packets are never alone, there allays multiple of them, this is pain for experiments.

Anyway if you have answers that turn the world of physics upside down and solve all the unsolved problems you should be publishing papers so everyone can benefit, not posting in some dark corner of ATS where denying mainstream science without presenting any evidence to support the claims just makes you look a little out of touch.

I could ask you the same, what are you doing here different than repeating mainstream science ?
Few hundred Years ago you would have argued with me the Earth is flat, right ?

this is exactly opposite to what we observe.

The shorter wavelength the photon, the higher the energy. This is one of the basics of quantization of energy and the photo electric effect.

Short wavelength -> high frequency = high energy
Long wavelength -> Low frequency = low energy

This means low energy per photon/wave.

This effect has been measured and dealt with, your interpretation is not only opposite to what we observe but also incorrect.

Few hundred years ago there would not be any argument about the world being round, it was known to be a sphere as early as the ancient greek civilization. They even had a measurement for it. It is a complete modern lie that people thought it was ever flat. It was more of a way of explaining it to simple folk who had no education and asked the question... oh so this is a map? what happens when we fall off the side?

originally posted by: KrzYma
NO, it is the interaction time with the electron. In longer waves the energy exchange time is to long to kick an electron out.

Where is the math or model for that? How do you determine theoretically how much time is too much time? Does the Planck constant figure into your model?

Few hundred Years ago you would have argued with me the Earth is flat, right ?

Just more confirmation that you're out of touch with mainstream science. That's not what mainstream science thought a few hundred years ago. But it's a commonly taught myth:

Myth of the Flat Earth

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.

But I already knew you liked myths because of your electric universe comments and videos you've posted.

As for rewriting science, you may be trying to do that but not me. Every time I've tried to do that I've ended up finding out the experts in the field already knew way more than me and maybe even had some data or knew about some other papers I wasn't aware of. I'm here to fill some gaps in my own knowledge and maybe help some others do the same.

a reply to: ErosA433

Short wavelength -> high frequency = high energy
Long wavelength -> Low frequency = low energy

and what did I said ?

Short wave packet of energy acts quicker so more energy per time unit is exchanged than with longer wave packet.

are you saying just NO without reading what I've said ? because I don't get it...

look, if something with a length, like a wave length propagates in one direction, will the beginning of the wave reach at the same time as the waves end ?
This moving wave is quantized with information about electric and magnetic field, forces that interact with electrons and protons. Or do you need any virtual friends for this ??

I never said make a photon particle out of a distance and call it uncertainty principle !

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Just more confirmation that you're out of touch with mainstream science. That's not what mainstream science thought a few hundred years ago. But it's a commonly taught myth: Myth of the Flat Earth

OK, I apologize on this !
You know a lot, I see it. I'm sure you would have known the earth is round

a reply to: KrzYma

And what I am saying is that in reality what you describe is not what we see. I did read what you said, and what you said has the illusion of being right or sound logical to someone who doesn't really understand.

What you are suggesting though is not what is observed. What you are saying is similar to saying that by increasing the intensity of a light, you can knock off electrons from an Atom. This is NOT what is observed.

You can bake a surface with high intensity IR light all day long and not see any electrons emanating.

You are applying classical visualization to quantum mechanics, this is inherently a none trivial and flawed thing to do.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If that was true, how do you explain the photoelectric effect? According to your claim, any frequency photon should have enough energy to eject an electron if we wait long enough, but that's not what we observe.

NO, it is the interaction time with the electron. In longer waves the energy exchange time is to long to kick an electron out.
You need to separate those two terms, energy quanta and time of action.
Short wave packet of energy acts quicker so more energy per time unit is exchanged than with longer wave packet.
Is the wave to long, say the energy quanta takes longer for the energy transfer, there is not enough energy per unit time for kicking the energy out.
I'm totally aware of the fact those packets are never alone, there allays multiple of them, this is pain for experiments.



Ok this is a strange theory you have never heard of this. Though your interpretation immediately throws out relativity in case you werent aware of this. Now im going to assume by reading this you misunderstand what flux is but lets start with time. in experiments it has been shown energies of the emitted electrons to be independent of the intensity of the incident radiation. Now if time were indeed a factor in this what we would have seen this as emitted electrons with different energy levels. What i mean is we would see differences in mass charge or spin of the electrons. Because remember if time is a requirement different times would apply different levels of radiation to our electron (meaning more energy). This does not mean flux however which is the number of electrons emitted. In your explanation the number of electrons wouldnt increase what would happen is there energy of the electrons would increase.Just thought id tell you here by your theory solar panels wouldnt operate. What really happens is identical electrons are released from there orbit by something with exactly the same energy level regardless of time or frequency. Which is a good thing because this is needed to create an electric current. Picture if electrons shot off at different energy levels the photoelectric effect wouldnt have sufficient ground to create a current. Because what is current other than electron proton attraction.

You continually make these wild claims and i see where some of it comes im going to say you have taken engineering classes but you never took the time to understand the science involved. Like what flux is i think your misinterpretation of flux is where you got this theory from. Look you can hate scientists all you like you can say they're wrong and they're scared to look outside the box ect.However realize science all the time is constantly trying to prove itself wrong the photoelectric effect is a great example of this really. Physics had to be entirely re written from the ground up because of this one experiment. There is no sticking to the standard model like you want to believe reality is thousands of scientists every day all over the world run experiments any one of which could turn physics upside down. Its a goal actually we know are understanding of the universe is incomplete so we test and retest different things looking for something we missed or an effect we haven't seen.The reason we do is we are trying to get that next big break in physics we need the model to fail in order for it to lead us to a new branches in science. So no one wants are models to fail more than the scientists doing the research we cant go forward until we cause our models to fail and than find out why.

Please let me add this for more understanding.

How do you get EM radiation, as simple as possible, without fission, fusion, neutron decay or whatever.
Let an electron drop an energy level or move it quick as you can with magnetic field ( where here the potential difference in EM field plays more role then electron movement ) like we do for radio waves, it works quite easy.

it always takes time to displace an electron ( E-field carer ) therefore the whole movement that produces the wave takes time.
The "information" about this new position of E field propagates with C in all directions in form of a wave in EM field.

originally posted by: KrzYma
Please let me add this for more understanding.

How do you get EM radiation, as simple as possible, without fission, fusion, neutron decay or whatever.
Let an electron drop an energy level or move it quick as you can with magnetic field ( where here the potential difference in EM field plays more role then electron movement ) like we do for radio waves, it works quite easy.

it always takes time to displace an electron ( E-field carer ) therefore the whole movement that produces the wave takes time.
The "information" about this new position of E field propagates with C in all directions in form of a wave in EM field.

Ah now i see what you mean your confusing the creation of an electromagnetic field with the photoelectric process there not the same. And what your describing is a crystal radio for example.

a reply to: dragonridr

your confusing the creation of an electromagnetic field with the photoelectric process there not the same

and you are saying it because what?.... somebody told you ?
so you are denying electrons as negative charge carrier witch interact with EM field ??
And electron proton iteration is not charge based ?

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

your confusing the creation of an electromagnetic field with the photoelectric process there not the same

and you are saying it because what?.... somebody told you ?
so you are denying electrons as negative charge carrier witch interact with EM field ??
And electron proton iteration is not charge based ?

No electrons are not knocked from there orbit because of there charge theres no way lightcould have this effect but id be real interested on seeing you make that link.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

your confusing the creation of an electromagnetic field with the photoelectric process there not the same

and you are saying it because what?.... somebody told you ?
so you are denying electrons as negative charge carrier witch interact with EM field ??
And electron proton iteration is not charge based ?

No electrons are not knocked from there orbit because of there charge theres no way lightcould have this effect but id be real interested on seeing you make that link.

and this because of what ? velocity difference between calculated electron velocity and the propagation velocity in EM field ?

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

your confusing the creation of an electromagnetic field with the photoelectric process there not the same

and you are saying it because what?.... somebody told you ?
so you are denying electrons as negative charge carrier witch interact with EM field ??
And electron proton iteration is not charge based ?

No electrons are not knocked from there orbit because of there charge theres no way lightcould have this effect but id be real interested on seeing you make that link.

and this because of what ? velocity difference between calculated electron velocity and the propagation velocity in

EM field ?

You do realize this statement makes zero sense right? Look you are obviously not understanding science in the least or we wouldnt get statements like this why on earth would you think how fast an em field is relevant since they all propagate at the same speed depending on the medium of course.