|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> Nope. Electric charge, yes, but not mass. Photons will have mass
>>>> proportional to their frequency, and frequency isn't apparently
>>>> quantified.
>>>
>>> Define mass.
>>
>> E=mc^2? Isn't mass measured in electron-volts?
>>
>> Why? What's your point? (This isn't sarcastic. I don't know enough to
>> know why someone who knows more would point out that I didn't define
>> mass, or that my naive understanding of it isn't correct.)
>
> The usual convention I've seen is to state that photons have
> momentum, not mass. A lot of physics textbooks (these days) don't talk
> about relativistic mass or mass changing when one speeds up.
Fair enough.
To be more precise in what I was saying, the amount of energy and hence
frequency of a photon is going to decrease in a smooth and
differentiable way as it climbs up out of a gravity well, according to
relativity as I understand it. Hence, not all quantities in "quantum
physics" have discontinuous integral values.
> physicists did not like the suggestion that a body gains more mass just
> by going faster.
That's OK. I also talk about how "big" a particle is. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |