The mass of a photon is of central importance in physics

    I would like to draw your attention to such details from Maxwell's treatise. But before you start reading Maxwell, think about the fact that NATURE did not know and does not know anything about mental abilities - mathematical abilities in particular, the same Thomson and the same Maxwell, who in the treatise directly relies on Thomson's theorem ... But I have a legitimate question - "Is the physical world, the world of elementary particles, obliged to obey Thomson's mathematics and in particular his theorem?" I think that nature is not obliged to obey this mathematics... And it will be interesting for you to know that Maxwell himself did not hide - that all this is just a hypothesis... I have underlined those places in the treatise that speak about this.







    A compass between the plates of a capacitor... Maxwell and Faraday did not have such an experiment... And Thomson and Rosing did not know about such an experiment.




    In nature there is only magnetic polarization, and there is no "electric polarization" in nature - this is Maxwell's mistake.


    6 years ago, at a seminar at RUDN University, something was said that I proved in January 2021 - a speech by Samsonenko Nikolai Vladimirovich, who trained with Louis de Broglie -

    2017.05.30 (2-2) Samsonenko N.V. Strong interactions are poorly understood magnetic interactions -

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Quote from can

    Shouldn't all of this derailment go into The church of SM physics or similar threads?


    There is NO derailment in this thread! My task is to help you correctly understand the experiments that Holmlid conducted ... The results are impressive ... But his explanation and interpretation are wrong ... Understand that thousands of people developed television technology and incorrectly interpreted WHAT was happening in their devices .... Thousands of people developed aircraft and rocket science and also misunderstood physics ... Airplanes and rockets fly ... Those who invented nuclear reactors made a mistake in the physics of uranium-235 fission, but at the same time they learned how to control reactors in automatic mode .... Paradox! Is not it ?

    And I take this calmly - the fact is that all these inventors and researchers measure the electric current and, in fact, without understanding the essence of this electric current, they calmly create new technology, even being mistaken ...

    But with nuclear reactions, this "trick" will not work - this is a higher flight of scientific thought ... There are many things that cannot be understood today ... The first reason is that physicists rely on the old erroneous physics-science. In fact, today an absolutely unknown part of science is the interaction of photons with an electron, or in a more general sense, the interaction of photons with matter.

    According to Maxwell, there is no electromagnetic wave in nature ... But there are waves! These waves are formed from mass formations of ether or photon mass... The new concept of "photon wave" should enter into the everyday life of physicists... Physicists must reconsider such a concept as "electronvolt" - today this is nonsense in physics... Physicists should reconsider measurement methods masses... Physicists need to understand in what cases a "particle" really flies into their detector - it used to be called a "charged particle", and in what cases a mass "moves" into the detector in the form of a photon mass, which in my interpretation is moved by electrons.

    Physicists have to realize a new interpretation of the so-called "tracks" both in X-ray films and on CD-disks, which they use to detect "strange, unknown" radiation - both of which are a manifestation of the photon mass, which changes the state of aggregation of matter and which manifests itself in both nuclear and chemical reactions ...

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Probably this new highly popular thread

    "The mass of a photon is of central importance in physics"

    The wavelength of a photon is inversely proportional to its mass... According to Wien's law, the temperature is inversely proportional to the wavelength of a photon... For this reason, only photons characterize the temperature of a substance... The greater the mass of a photon, the greater the temperature that it, a photon, characterizes. This is how it appears in the physical chemistry of the microworld. The speed of movement of photons or photon mass by electrons depends on the medium, or rather on the magnetic structure of the medium.

    For now, we can only speculate:

    If hard X-ray and gamma photons move or are emitted by protons, then they do not characterize these photons temperature and heat ... In fact, for these photons the concept of temperature has only a mathematical meaning - these photons are not responsible for heat and these photons do not characterize heat.

    The speed of these photons can be 100 or more times greater than the speed of light.

    But... But there is a danger of misunderstanding about this, since it may turn out that there are no gamma-ray photons in nature, since we are mistaken in the detection, which until now has been built on false physics - the physics of "charged particles", the physics of ionization - none of this exists in nature.

    Moved several posts from other thread here. Cherepanov2020 , we have asked you to not hijack other threads with your long posts that disrupt the topic. Please copy posts that call your attention in one of your threads to avoid disrupting threads with your single interest.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

    It's important to realize, that photon is quantum artifact violating Maxwell wave model, so that conclusions and derivations made for electrodynamics may not apply to them. In dense aether model photon is a Russel soliton of electromagnetic wave. BTW neutrinos are solitons of scalar waves instead.That means, while electromagnetic wave propagates like circular ripple at the water surface, density fluctuations of vacuum introduce space-time curvature fluctuation along its perimeter, which give it additional mass density. This is the reason why during supernovae explosions portion of star mass gets scattered in form of photons, which thus serve as a gravitons


    QTC8xXD.gif EUjb73r.gif


    In gauge theories it would imply that photons can not propagate at infinite distance, so that we couldn't see the light of distant galaxies. This is actually correct, because the photons observed aren't those originally radiated. The photons during its travel decay due to quantum decoherence and condense again repeatedly, so that they oscillate like neutrinos and they can not propagate at infinite distance with compare to Maxwell wave which is serving as their carrier.

    The situation is a bit complicated with inhomogeneous structure of vacuum, whereas the above assumptions are valid for flat space-time only. From dense aether model follows the mass of photon is zero for microwaves of wavelength corresponding the wavelength of CMB background radiation, the photons of higher wavelength have positive rest mass, the photons of lower wavelength have imaginary rest mass, i.e. they're forming unstable tachyons.

    Я знаю вашего кумира, я ему об этом говорил в Криннице, но он сидел на своем сайте и никуда не вылазил, а ты же что разошелся и меня оскорбил с физиками, ты будь повежливей, это тебе не МГУ....

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

    Haha 1
    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Temperature is only defined as a statistical value....thus a single photon has no temperature.

    Yurg! You misunderstood me... I have never claimed that a photon "has" a temperature. Photons "characterize" the temperature! And I wrote this - "The wavelength of a photon is inversely proportional to its mass... According to Wien's law, the temperature is inversely proportional to the wavelength of a photon..." Wien's law has been proven thousands of times by experiments. You obviously meant the distribution or curve of Wien's law... This is accepted in Physchemistry of the microworld - it means the wavelength (λmax) of the maximum number (density per unit volume of space near the thermometer) of photons that form this temperature, i.e. in another way - the photon mass of the maximum number of photons that form or characterize a given temperature.


    Wait. Wait. Cherepanov will soon leave this life, but Maxwell's mistakes will remain ... Therefore, do not waste time - deal with Maxwell's mistakes.


    Holmlid writes - "By using ion time-of-flight-mass spectrometry (TOF-MS) with variable acceleration voltages and a few different values of laser pulse power, we now prove the mass and charge of the particles as well as the KER. In fact, the ions are so fast that they must be H+, D+ or T+. By using two different flight lengths, we prove with certainty that the spectra are due to D+ ions and not to photons or electromagnetic effects."

    And I object to Holmlid, I believe that everything that is written in these phrases by Holmlid is his delusion!

    Homlid's statement "...we now prove the mass and charge of the particles" is a lie! And I explained to you why this is a lie - there are no charged particles in nature! The "time-of-flight-mass spectrometry (TOF-MS)" physics preached by physicists and Holmlid among them is wrong.

    Holmlid's remark in this paragraph - "...and not to photons..." does not correspond to real physics, because on the contrary, Holmlid had photons there, and these photons, in accordance with the physical chemistry of the microcosm, have a mass ...

    Quote from Drgenek

    The radiation from LENR does not match any know type, if we accept Rout et al. Based on Rout et al, the radiation is defected by a magnetic field, so it probably has charge. It can cause greater reaction with film when accelerated by an electric field of either polarity, so it likely has both polarities. It can pass through paper that light and chemicals cannot, therefore it likely has mass but a very small mass. So, it is likely a gas that isn't chemical (composed of elements)

    Drgenek! For several months now, the site has contained information that Maxwell made terrible and unforgivable mistakes, the analysis of which by me showed that there is no electric field in nature and there is not in nature that same "electric charge according to Maxwell" that you write about, and according to For these two reasons, there are no "electric forces according to Maxwell" in nature.

    Read my answer to the physicist - Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/QUjd/fsJKtB66n

    Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 - https://docs.google.com/file/d…E5Q6I_ji/edit?usp=sharing

    Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 -

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367334900_Answer_Cherepanov_AI_physicist_Frederick_David_Tombe_January_21_2023

    In this answer, my arguments and analysis of Maxwell's mistakes.

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    Drgenek! For several months now, the site has contained information that Maxwell made terrible and unforgivable mistakes, the analysis of which by me showed that there is no electric field in nature and there is not in nature that same "electric charge according to Maxwell"

    I must have missed this convincing information as well. All I saw was some idiotic equations with e's crossed out and nonsensical criticisms of theories without a replacement. I have also not seen a single person (other than the author) vouch for this new cancellation of one of the most important mathematical tools in physics history. But maybe me and everyone else is wrong.

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    I must have missed this convincing information as well. All I saw was some idiotic equations with e's crossed out and nonsensical criticisms of theories without a replacement. I have also not seen a single person (other than the author) vouch for this new cancellation of one of the most important mathematical tools in physics history. But maybe me and everyone else is wrong.

    Drenek! Haven't you been taught how to check the correctness of the solution of a physical problem? This is done in a simple way - if, when applying this or that formula, the "dimension" does not match to the right of the equal sign and to the left of the equal sign, then this means that you made a gross mistake. And Maxwell has the dimension of "force" on the left, and on the right the dimension of "force" multiplied by the dimension of "charge", multiplied by the dimension of "charge" and multiplied by the dimension of length to the power of "minus 2" - this is a gross mistake, because the dimensions on the right and left must match!



    I just double checked and Coulombs law you mentioned does in fact pass dimensional analysis, not surprisingly.

    {\displaystyle |\mathbf {F} |=k_{\text{e}}{\frac {|q_{1}q_{2}|}{r^{2}}}}

    The constant ke is called the Coulomb constant and is equal to 1/4πε0, where ε0 is the electric constant; ke ≈ 8.988×109 N⋅m2⋅C−2


    The m^2 in ke cancels the r^2, the q1q2 cancels the ke C^2, leaving Newtons, the unit of force.

    What is the hangup? You do realize fundamental constants have units too, right?

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    law you mentioned does in fact pass dimensional analysis,


    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    this is a gross mistake, because the dimensions on the right and left must match!

    Cherepanov's perceived "mistake" is not a mistake by Maxwell

    but by Cherepanov.

    Cherepanov can see "right and left"

    but there is no left and right side in Maxwell's algebraic expression for the force of repulsion

    fee'r-2


    The 'left side;' is in English.. not in algebra.


    Maxwell's "Repulsion....will be" is equivalent in algebra to

    "F="

    ..Maxwell has used the letter "f" to denote a constant

    so the left/right equation can be written algebraically as

    F=fee'r-2 which does have a left and a right side.


    When Maxwell writes

    "it is found by direct measurement that the force, of.. repulsion varies inversely as the square of the distance"

    he is adopting Coulomb's inverse square law...from his first Treatise in 1785


    "The fundamental law of Electricity.

    The repulsive force of two small globes electrified with the same kind of electricity,

    is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the two globes


    and no-one has found any fault with this adoption in two centuries except

    Comrade Cherepanov...perhaps all the 'huff and puff' is a misunderstanding?


    http://www.ampere.cnrs.fr/i-corpuspic/tab/Sources/coulomb/Coulomb_El_1785.pdf

    Drenek! Why didn't you bring it all up? You have not read anything from what I am posting, and you want to discuss this serious problem in some fragmentary phrases ... You are talking with a person who read Charles Coulomb's original treatise in French ... You are talking with a person who is outraged by historical injustice about Charles Coulomb. It was I who found the complete discrepancy between the paradigm of Charles Coulomb and the perversion paradigm that Maxwell introduced into use.

    All your quotes have nothing to do with Charles Coulomb - all that you quote is the work of Maxwell and his followers, who "The General Law of electrical action" - see paragraph 41, began to be called Coulomb's Law.



    And now I present to you the original text by Charles Coulomb from 1785 and the translation of this text into English. Now you can see for yourself that Maxwell changed the teachings of Charles Coulomb and presented us with something completely different, and not what Charles Coulomb left us as a legacy.




    Now you have seen the original law or regularity of Charles Coulomb -



    m is a constant coefficient depending on thesurface of the balls,



    The Coulomb constant presented above has nothing to do with Charles Coulomb and his concept, in which the mass of electricity was understood by "charge" and he writes on page 155 -


    ...that the mass of electricity and the electrical density of each ball were very different...


    The pattern of Charles Coulomb from 1785 is exactly this, on October 17, 2022 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/twbf/rW5nkfRWd


    The pattern of Charles Coulomb from 1785 is exactly this, on October 17, 2022 – https://docs.google.com/file/d…rgs7pmLI/edit?usp=sharing


    Say a word about "poor" Charles Coulomb... How the name of the great French scientist was denigrated... -


    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364664772_Say_a_word_about_poor_Charles_Coulomb_How_the_name_of_the_great_French_scientist_was_denigrated



Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.