When we calculate mean and variance, do we assume data are normally distributed?
That's the argument.
The relation to be used is.
We know energy and mass are the different aspects of the same thing. I think that double blueshift or double redshift in the Pond-Rebka experiment, as Sergey Shevchenko or Aleksei Bykov (asked by Stefano Quattrini) wrote about it is a misunderstanding.
the metric) couples to energy through the energy-momentum tensor. If SR became inconsistent because you moved a $\gamma$ from one side of an equation to the other, it would have been inconsistent beforehand. Why do aircraft with turboprop engine have black painted anti-icing system? International Laboratory of Contemporary Physics.
So if photon has a mass even just greater than zero, its mass appears to be infinite when it is travelling in vacuum.
Join ResearchGate to find the people and research you need to help your work. (3) – the mass is an equivalent of the energy – since they are proportional each other through standard universal constant seed of light; for moving body the mass, as something that counteracts to impacts, depends on the body’s speed also; (4) – the mass is a “relativistic invariant” in the SR, A photon: (1) - if no forces impact on a photon, the photon is at rectilinear uniform motion. But they are, for static conditions, seems totally equivalent for “massive” bodies; for that at first sight follows that photons should have zero gravitational mass – as that is posited in the GR. . Formally you can use Einstein's relation E = m c^2 to calculate the "mass" of the photon, but to me this is completely incorrect. No Lorentz violating terms necessary, that would have given rise to many other effects. And does a "path" in quantum field theory represent a possible field configuration (analogous to a possible trajectory of a particle in quantum mechanics). A novel experimental approach based on a toroid Cavendish balance is used to evaluate the product of photon mass squared and the ambient cosmic magnetic vector potential A. But we cannot say anything for its gravitational charge, which is its mass. But in nature, there is no photon at rest. in wave guides the waves *do* acquire a longitudinal polarization, and the dispersion relation does seem to give rise to a ``mass term'' of geometric origin-but, precisely, Lorentz invariance has been broken by the boundaries. And photons are *not* ``traditionally said to be massless.''
–pages 1-12, and Russian – pages 13-24”, Ordine degli ingegneri della provincia di Ancona.
All rights reserved.
However I think that it is disturbing to deal with mass seen only its inertial quality (as in the standard model) and forget its other quality, claimed for by GR, that it is also the gravitational charge. Their effects can be computed and looked for, since they are, of course, signals for new physical effects. The mass can be defined as the Lorentz invariant E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4. is necessary to define – what is the mass before. al. I inform, that almost the same topic is continued here: PS. “Massive” particles are born if the impact has temporal component, but they can also move in the space also; so their spins have all possible spatial projections. This has nothing to do with epistemology and everything to do with real physics, theory and experiment, everyday (and night) work.
@Chris that's new, editing the example out. Abstract nor is this ``a figure of speech''. so there is no other relevant direction than the wave vector of the photon. Jun Luo, Liang-Cheng Tu, Zhong-Kun Hu, and En-Jie Luan, Physical Review Letters, 081801, 26 February 2003, was at http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2003/304/1, moved by the journal. Therefore, *if* they are found to show them (which was measured) this means that, at least, one flavor has different mass from the others and, if the common mass was taken to be zero, this implies that this flavor has mass. (M=Mo/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))).Mo-rest mass,M apparent mass, v- velocity of moving object. Photons are traditionally said to be massless. Mind sharing your opinions on how to proceed next? An interesting issue is, whether the neutrinos are Majorana or not-and there's an ongoing experimental effort on ``neutrino less'' double beta decay to test for this. A system consisting of 2 photons in the same direction has no mass. (As well as inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent indeed). If you break a symmetry at one scale, then this has consequences at other energy scales, that can be computed-and have been. In reality the Matter’s spacetime is 4D Cartesian manifold where every particle moves with constant speed (“speed f light”) and for every particle the equation, So photons don’t differ from massive particles practically. The mathematical concept of a Hilbert space, named after David Hilbert, generalizes the notion of Euclidean space. Is there anything preventing a wizard from using a staff of healing? How can photons have momentum?
Photon are associated to Noether currents for the EM fields, and the simple implementation of a Yang Mills model lead, because the Lie algebra for U(1) is abelian, to the conclusion that its EM charge is null. Well, the argument in your second paragraph relies on the assumption that weight is proportional to mass, which isn't necessarily the case in this situation. But “It is not about "point of views", it's just about convenience.” – that isn’t correct principally; the “mass” notion has a number of different definitions not because of “convenience”, but because of every definition relates to different physical phenomenon; and, for example, the problem of the equivalence of “inertial” and “gravitational” masses is one of the utmost important problems in physics; as well as the problems “what is the inertia” and “what is the gravity”, though. Now, a massless particle can have energy and it can have momentum, simply because mass is related to these through the equation \(\displaystyle E^2 = M^2c^4 + p^2c^2\), which is subsequently zero-mass for a photon because \(\displaystyle E = pc\) for massless radiation … See also this question on SE. for the time being Photon has Zero rest mass. And these deoend on processes that do nor have any classical analog-a pont made by Dirac, already in 1927, that measurements at one energy scale, at the quantum level, are sensitive to physics at energy scales beyond what is ``classically'' accesible. In general, forces are only consequences of the energies at stake and how they evolve according to the least action principle. What gravity field of the system will be if matter and antimatter will annihilate and resulting photons will stay inside sphere?