OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the exact value of the mass of a given photon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exact value is unknown. I can not give you an exact value.

I can!
The energy of a photon is E= hf (planck constant times frequency)

E= MC^2, so M = E/C^2 so M = hf/C^2

For a 650nm photon from your red laser pointer there, it weighs: = 6.6e-34 x (C/6.5e-7) / C^2
= 3.4 x 10^-33 grams
Which equals zero to an accuracy of 1 part in a quadrillion quadrillions. Or a European "Million Trillion"

The silicon chip or magnetic tape has the same mass and number of electrons regardless. It's just that the little bits are in different positions depending on if they are ones or zeros.

Position is important, though. Take Uranium 235, for example. Now take roughly half the nucleons aside .
You have the same particles sitting around, but less mass and more energy than you know what to do with.

[ August 18, 2003, 16:03: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Tigbit]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigbit:
Unfortunately that's exactly the way history is. Even science is not totally immune to the deliberate inacuracies that plague historical study. People will only write what supports their view.

This doesn't explain why people change their minds...

---

You'll have to elaborate.

[General Woundwort]

[quote]Originally posted by Tigbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

This doesn't explain why people change their minds...

You'll have to elaborate.

---

If people only write what supports their views, how do you account for people critiquing their views - or even changing them? The implication seemed to be that people have their minds made up and are not interested in actual discussion and debate - where you run the risk of having your ideas proved wrong.

[Tigbit]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
[QB]

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the exact value of the mass of a given photon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exact value is unknown. I can not give you an exact value.

I can![QB]

---

While the rest of the scientific community argues the point get that paper typed up and submitted.

[dogscoff]

Who owns the intellectual property rights to my soul?

Microsoft, probably. Did you ever actually read any of those license agreements before clicking "I agree"?

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The silicon chip or magnetic tape has the same mass and number of electrons regardless. It's just that the little bits are in different positions depending on if they are ones or zeros.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Position is important, though. Take Uranium 235, for example. Now take roughly half the nucleons aside .
You have the same particles sitting around, but less mass and more energy than you know what to do with.

Doing so in close proximity to my body would certainly make it unsuitable for continued use as a storage device for my soul.

Geoschmo

[ August 18, 2003, 16:20: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Slick]

Why is it that people are insisting that photons have mass when all available evidence and theory are contrary to that? I just don't understand it.

SJ, nice try , but that calculation shows how much mass would be generated if the photon was completely anihilated. It does not show how much mass a photon has. This has been observed, by the way, in a process called "pair production". A photon (gamma) of at least 1.02 MeV can be transformed (E=mc^2) into an electron and a positron. There must be 2 particles due to conservation laws (momentum, spin, charge, etc.) beyond the scope of this discussion.

Slick.