From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Defining Photons
Keywords: Energy transfer instant communications inquisition hearing
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:07:10 GMT
Reply-To: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us


                       SNARFY'S INQUISITION HEARING

  J A Carr explains  that:

  >>>For massless particles, it is the case that E=pc.

  To which Snarfy @ Netcom Cruzio (J. Ostrowski) licks  his  wounds  and
  sniffs:

>>        We  are  not here trying to ``apply'' the equatiom E=Mc^2 to the
>>       photon. The stated purpose and idea  is  to  ``relate''  massless
>>       ``particles''  to  the  massive  ones  in the M of E= Mc^2 . If a
>>       photon has E and E has some relationship to M via E=Mc^2 (or  E^2
>>       =  m^2c^4  + p^2c^2) then there must some ``relationship'' that a
>>       photon  has  to  M  that  can  be  expressed  or  measured.

  Carr counters :

> Yes.  You measure p and E and solve for m and get zero.

   Defeated  and  frustrated,   snarfy refuses to recant: He moans as if
   being stretched on the rack:

          Arrgh!  If this is so a mass  doesn't  gain  ANYTHING  by  having
   photons  (Electromagnetic Radiation) incident upon it-zero gain in terms
   of M as as M relates to E.  Bullhockey! I do not share  your  Faithe  in
   such  a  dogma,  Frere  Carr, whether or not it be Canonized by the holy
   Einstein Himself .  This theory means that  things  (massive  ,food-like
   objects)  do  not  get  warm  (  gain  E , the equivalent of M times the
   constant C^2) when you cook them in your microwave.   I  have  disproved
   this  False  Doctrine  hundreds  of  times in numerous Experiments in my
   Laboratory of Culinary Exorcism with my Miraculous  Device  marked  with
   the mysterious inscription: ``Sears''.

   Tortured by self doubt, however ,snarfy concedes:

     But I do see your point if you think E=MC^2  only  concerns  itself
  with  objects  whose masses are truly ``at rest'' (those which receive
  nor emit electromagnetic radiation) .  The trouble is ,I am unable  to
  detect such massive objects to verify their existence .Another of your
  ``Articles of Faith '', perhaps?

  Carr cruelly reminds him of his foolish gaffe'

 `` >> The other reason is that we want E on  one  side
    >> of the equals sign and not E^2.''


  > If you want an equation for E, just use
  > E = sqrt{ p^2 + m^2 }.

  Adding the word ``idiot!'' silently

  Again reeling from this tongue lash :

        OK  You  got me there- I should have done this myself, so
  this is not a reason .  But still- this means:

      We factor out m because that's zero right? So E=sqr p^2 or  E=p  .
  Great  .  Simplifies everything.  Energy equals the momentum (vector).
  I think that means that the energy  might  move  the  object  (through
  light  pressure  ,  presumably)  but  not  have  any other effect like
  causing the object to re-radiate available E  (warming  up).   If  you
  recall that was the point of the article to begin with.

       ``I'M JUST TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT OHM'S LAW DOESN'T  INCLUDE  A
       TIME   OR   DISTANCE   FACTOR''  Screams  Snarfy.``  That  allows
       communication of information about changes  the  rate  of  energy
       transfer  back  to  the  E  transmitter from the E receiver to be
       instantaneous once a connection is made, by means of lowering the
       impedance of the receiving object! ''

  Will snarfy be burned at the stake for this heresy?