🚀 go-pugleaf

In Messa:ge-ID:  <9935@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>  J.  A.  Carr  quotes  me  and
responds :


>>      Einstein,postulated that a photon has no  ``rest''
>>      mass.   We  are  faced  ,then,  with  the  task of relating these
>>      theoretical ``particles'' that do not have a rest masses  to  the
>>      equation E=Mc^2 since it is assumed that M represents a rest mass
>>      value.

>                  [ long argument based on wrong equation deleted ]

>The equation is
>                  E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

>where m is the mass, p is the momentum (vector), E is the total energy,
>and c is the speed of light.  E=mc^2 is a specialized case of this
>equation, and can be used to tell you the total energy of a massive
>particle at rest.  It should not be applied to a massless particle
>such as a photon or neutrino.

>For massless particles, it is the case that E=pc.

       Your  criticism is noted and forwarded to my sources.  However my
       personal evaluation is that you are missing the point.  When  the
       word  ``particle''  is both applied to that which has no mass and
       to that which does have mass,  we  must  seriously  question  the
       choice of words used, for the sake of clarity ,if nothing else .

        We  are  not here trying to ``apply'' the equatiom E=Mc^2 to the
       photon. The stated purpose and idea  is  to  ``relate''  massless
       ``particles''  to  the  massive  ones  in the M of E= Mc^2 . If a
       photon has E and E has some relationship to M via E=Mc^2 (or  E^2
       =  m^2c^4  + p^2c^2) then there must some ``relationship'' that a
       photon  has  to  M  that  can  be  expressed  or  measured.   The
       expression  E=pc  contains no reference to M so that's one reason
       E=Mc^2 was used. The other reason is that we want E on  one  side
       of the equals sign and not E^2.

>I find it odd that someone can spend a lot of time working on such a
>document that was posted here and never take the time to read enough
>of Einstein to know the actual equations he used.

       If you are a college professor , the taxpayers  or  students  pay
       you to enlighten and clarify issues pertaining to your specialty.
       Why then have you not yet found a word other than ``particle'' to
       describe  that  which has no mass , to differentiate it from that
       which does?.  I think it's because some of you  would  prefer  to
       confuse people rather than teach them. The photon, as a concept ,
       would  be  more accurately described as a ``phenomena'' given the
       difficulty  you  have  manipulating  it  the  same   way   as   a
       ``particle''   mathematically.  (multiplying  by  zero  ,for  one
       thing).

      I find it odd that you have a job.

          Jim Ostrowski