Cecil
To provide a specific answer to your post that photons must be part of
a
phenomina that I propose. I cannot implant the photon such that it
makes my stance more credible. I would consider you a hero if YOU show
how a photon
fits in with radiation in accordance with Maxwells laws
..........................
The books state that a photon is a particle without mass.
It comes about by separation from a particle by a different name it
never the less a particle with mass.
The photon as a particle cannot be a wave since its extremities cannot
be determines as with a particle.

If a photon has no mass it cannot have spin which is reliant on
Newtons laws
which requires a circular force around a central point of mass itself.
Since it is now proven that Neutrinos do have mass as a particle in
the last few years the massless state of a photon must come under
question.
So why procede into dividing particles into those with mass and those
without mass when all can agree that they are indeed particles which
may or may not change its constituents at some time and at some place
that cannot be determined where as the particle from the sun named
Neutrinos is accepted as a particle with mass and that has a presence
here on Earth?
Because this is a known fact I prefer at this time not to challenge in
favor of a theory. That is my logic which I pursue which is a
plausable explanation of levitation in use and visible in industry
around the World and has the mathematical authenticity of Maxwell laws
Best regards
So is it not better

Art Unwin wrote:
The books state that a photon is a particle without mass.

Photons have no *rest* mass but since they must necessarily
move at the speed of light in a medium, they indeed do have
mass because of their momentum. The mass of a photon is
equal to Planck's constant divided by (the product of the
speed of light times the wavelength), i.e. m=h/(c*lamda).

The photon as a particle cannot be a wave since its extremities cannot
be determines as with a particle.

On the contrary, double slit experiments prove that a single
photon can go through both slits and interfere with itself on
the other side. If you design a test to prove a photon is a
wave, it will respond like a wave (even if it is a single photon).
If you design a test to prove a photon is a particle, it will
respond like a particle. The duality is related to the
uncertainty principle.

The main point is that the physical manifestation of RF
electromagnetic fields are clouds of photons. The fields and
the photons are the same thing. Those EM fields have been proven
to be quantized. Photons are the particles that quantize the EM
field.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jan 11, 6:26*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
The books state that a photon is a particle without mass.

Photons have no *rest* mass but since they must necessarily
move at the speed of light in a medium, they indeed do have
mass because of their momentum. The mass of a photon is
equal to Planck's constant divided by (the product of the
speed of light times the wavelength), i.e. m=h/(c*lamda).

The photon as a particle cannot be a wave since its extremities cannot
be determines as with a particle.

On the contrary, double slit experiments prove that a single
photon can go through both slits and interfere with itself on
the other side. If you design a test to prove a photon is a
wave, it will respond like a wave (even if it is a single photon).
If you design a test to prove a photon is a particle, it will
respond like a particle. The duality is related to the
uncertainty principle.

The main point is that the physical manifestation of RF
electromagnetic fields are clouds of photons. The fields and
the photons are the same thing. Those EM fields have been proven
to be quantized. Photons are the particles that quantize the EM
field.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
I would have no problem of accepting the presence of photons but the
link you gave me stated
that it had zero mass. I really don't understand that so I am not
willing to spend a lot of time on that or muons which are painted with
the same brush I sure as heck not willing to follow the line on
reflections that you followed as I would cringe from having to deal
with threads of more than a thousand to get the same results you
achieved. By the time Neutrinos arrive on the Earth are particles tho
possibly by a different name and I am also wary of allegations of
fresh particles which require a fresh name where its presence is
determined by unlinked deduction.
I really don't want to spread out beyond the point that I have as it
is apparent that hams are resistive to change so frankly I am at a
place where I am willing to stop my investigation as Americans have
lost the ingenuity they once had together with curiousity which is the
foundation of improving the living standards of the family. Waiting
for the third world to catch up so that competition is somewhat even
could actualy reverse our present station among the world population
which is only sustained by attracting the best from foreign countries
without which we now cannot function. Any way my present aproach to
radiation has not yet been overturned, so arguments are purely for the
archives where self perceived antenna experts will be hung on their
own petards for all to see which is one of my aims because of their
passed conduct with truly good men
Best regards
Art Unwin....KB98MZ....xg (uk)

Art Unwin wrote:
I would have no problem of accepting the presence of photons but the
link you gave me stated that it had zero mass.

If they didn't say zero *rest* mass, they should have.
A particle with zero rest mass cannot ever travel at
the speed of light as its mass would increase without
limit. Photons do travel at the speed of light but
are known to possess energy and momentum which is
equivalent to mass related by e=mc^2.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jan 11, 6:26*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
The books state that a photon is a particle without mass.

Photons have no *rest* mass but since they must necessarily
move at the speed of light in a medium, they indeed do have
mass because of their momentum. The mass of a photon is
equal to Planck's constant divided by (the product of the
speed of light times the wavelength), i.e. m=h/(c*lamda).

The photon as a particle cannot be a wave since its extremities cannot
be determines as with a particle.

On the contrary, double slit experiments prove that a single
photon can go through both slits and interfere with itself on
the other side. If you design a test to prove a photon is a
wave, it will respond like a wave (even if it is a single photon).
If you design a test to prove a photon is a particle, it will
respond like a particle. The duality is related to the
uncertainty principle.

The main point is that the physical manifestation of RF
electromagnetic fields are clouds of photons. The fields and
the photons are the same thing. Those EM fields have been proven
to be quantized. Photons are the particles that quantize the EM
field.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Well there you go Cecil I am out in left field when I move away from
the presence
of particles which probably are Neutrons as we know the Sun is
directly linked.
I have made my point and I have Richard H, David and RF whatever his
name or call is
firmly in the archives that will impale them. Roy has avoided
everything probably because of his commercial interests so he will not
declare where he is on the subject tho it is possible that the future
will declare his reluctant in other ways. As for the others they were
not around in the old days so they cannot be grouped with the others.
I will leave it to the future hams to determine what manner of men
technical or otherwise that they really are when the true facts are
discovered by doers as opposed to talking heads.I didn't need the
series of a 1000 posts per thread to fully expose them for what they
are as being resistant to change or just ignorant, certainly lazy.
Sooooo, I have achieved what I set out to do and that was to expose
them
I wonder where the next barney comes from or who it is directed at.
One thing we do know is
that they are not happy without the ability to attack so it certainly
will happen.
Best regards
Art

On Jan 11, 7:36*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I would have no problem of accepting the presence of photons but the
link you gave me stated that it had zero mass.

If they didn't say zero *rest* mass, they should have.
A particle with zero rest mass cannot ever travel at
the speed of light as its mass would increase without
limit. Photons do travel at the speed of light but
are known to possess energy and momentum which is
equivalent to mass related by e=mc^2.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

That is my point Cecil It would take me years at my slow rate to get
up to par to even discuss it let alone debate. No mass one minute and
mass the next minute, absolutely facinating, but beyond my ken and
time is short
Art

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
If they didn't say zero *rest* mass, they should have.
...

Where can I buy a bottle of "photons at rest?"; I like to buy a bottle
just to make sure!

Actually, how can a photon possibly rest?; well, and still be a photon?

Regards,
JS

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:52:11 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
If they didn't say zero *rest* mass, they should have.
...

Where can I buy a bottle of "photons at rest?"; I like to buy a bottle
just to make sure!

See "slow light" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light
Not totally at rest, but really slow.

Slow light window glass would be nifty. It would load up with photons
when the sun is shining, and unload them later inside in the evening,
when it's dark. You would also see through the window what was seen
perhaps a few hours before as a delayed action movie.

Actually, how can a photon possibly rest?; well, and still be a photon?

Everything above absolute zero is not at rest.

Unfortunately, the real answer is messy. See item #4 in the Physics
FAQ:
"Do Photons Move Slower in a Solid Medium?"
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104715


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:37:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Unfortunately, the real answer is messy. See item #4 in the Physics
FAQ:
"Do Photons Move Slower in a Solid Medium?"
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104715

Also #6 in the FAQ:
"Do Photons Have Mass?"


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jan 11, 9:04*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I have made my point and I have Richard H, David and RF whatever
his name or call is firmly in the archives that will impale them.

Certainly not in my case, Art, as I have yet to comment on the subject
of photons on any NG.

RF