Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: Moses Fayngold <moshfarlan@yahoo.com>*Date*: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:01:34 -0700 (PDT)

Derek McKenzie wrote on Mon, October 4, 2010 10:49:31 AM

If mass is defined in terms of a rest frame, and you require definitions to be

empirically meaningful (your requirement below), then surely a photon does >not

have a mass of zero, but rather an UNDEFINED mass.

"Empirically meaningful" means experimentally executable in principle. It does

not (and cannot!) require for a measurement result to be absolutely exact

since no experiment is ideal even classically (let alone QM indeterminacy). All

our theories are mathematical models of the real world, which are based on

idealizations, and we are talking about theory here. If we insist that

"empirically meaningful" must mean exactly measurable, then ALL physical

parameters are UNDEFINED including the invariant speed.

A limiting procedure is surely unreliable in 'singular-limit' cases like this -

as discussed >recently in another thread.

True, but this is not the case in the discussed situations.

As has been stated recently in another thread,

"... a singular limit means that the value of f(0) is not equal to the limit

of f(x) as x goes to zero."

In other words, there must be a discontinuous jump at the limiting point, be it

at x=0 or at any other value of x. What we are discussing, does involve a limit,

it could be called an "improper limit" but it is NOT singular. If you plot the

graph of the Lorentz factor gamma (v) vs. v, it diverge at v --> c, but it does

it continuously. There are no discontinuous jumps there, at least for v not

exceeding c - within the domain we are restricted to. We have gamma (c) = Inf at

v = c, AND the limit of gamma(v) is Inf as v --> c. So the value gamma(c) =

limit gamma (v) as v --> c. It is Not a singular limit!

Moses Fayngold,

NJIT

**References**:**Re: [Phys-l] Absolute four-momentum of massless particles***From:*Derek McKenzie <derek_s_mckenzie@hotmail.com>

**[Phys-l] Why is the photon massless?***From:*Moses Fayngold <moshfarlan@yahoo.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] Why is the photon massless?***From:*Derek McKenzie <derek_s_mckenzie@hotmail.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] Why is the photon massless?***From:*Moses Fayngold <moshfarlan@yahoo.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] Why is the photon massless?***From:*Derek McKenzie <derek_s_mckenzie@hotmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**[Phys-l] Fwd: Re(2): It's only Monday: let's fix US education** - Next by Date:
**[Phys-l] new enviro book** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] Why is the photon massless?** - Next by thread:
**[Phys-l] The speed of neutrinos** - Index(es):