QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Yup 10,000 times light speed and it does not even violate relativity because the traveling photons are massless. That said the red shift images indicate that the farthest galaxies are moving 5 times light speed which does violate relativity, but then according to Einstdum there is no red shift because the universe is not moving. All you can babble however is whatever your third grade teachers programmed you with

Entanglement has no speed. Photons have mass. Photons are not entanglement. The universe has no boundaries. There is nothing to move.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Yup 10,000 times light speed and it does not even violate relativity because the traveling photons are massless. That said the red shift images indicate that the farthest galaxies are moving 5 times light speed which does violate relativity, but then according to Einstdum there is no red shift because the universe is not moving. All you can babble however is whatever your third grade teachers programmed you with

Entanglement has no speed. Photons have mass. Photons are not entanglement. The universe has no boundaries. There is nothing to move.

What is the actual mass of photon?

Swan wrote:
Photons are massless,

Swan wrote:
so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s (or about 186,282 mi/s). The photon belongs to the class of bosons.

Swan wrote:
Seriously you demonstrate your ignorance like a genuine brain dead turtle trolling for the attention that his mommy never gave him

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Yup 10,000 times light speed and it does not even violate relativity because the traveling photons are massless. That said the red shift images indicate that the farthest galaxies are moving 5 times light speed which does violate relativity, but then according to Einstdum there is no red shift because the universe is not moving. All you can babble however is whatever your third grade teachers programmed you with

Entanglement has no speed. Photons have mass. Photons are not entanglement. The universe has no boundaries. There is nothing to move.

What is the actual mass of photon?

I varies with it's speed.

Swan wrote:
Photons are massless,

Photons can have mass.

Swan wrote:
so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s (or about 186,282 mi/s). The photon belongs to the class of bosons.

Photons always move at the speed of light in any medium.

Swan wrote:
Seriously you demonstrate your ignorance like a genuine brain dead turtle trolling for the attention that his mommy never gave him

Nah. It's YOU. Inversion fallacy.

Swan wrote:Photons are still massless no matter how accomplished of a troll that you THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN BRAIN CELL.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Photons are still massless no matter how accomplished of a troll that you THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN BRAIN CELL.

All photons have mass, unless you deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Oooops! You deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I had forgotten.

Photons have no matter, but they have mass. Per Relativity, the mass of any given photon equals the energy of the photon divided by the speed of light squared.

E = M * C^2 => M = E / C^2

This can be verified by noting how gravity affects the path of photons.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Photons are still massless no matter how accomplished of a troll that you THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN BRAIN CELL.

All photons have mass, unless you deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Oooops! You deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I had forgotten.

Photons have no matter, but they have mass. Per Relativity, the mass of any given photon equals the energy of the photon divided by the speed of light squared.

E = M * C^2 => M = E / C^2

This can be verified by noting how gravity affects the path of photons.

Actually the reason that photons can travel faster than light without violating relativity is because photons are massless.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Photons are still massless no matter how accomplished of a troll that you THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN BRAIN CELL.

All photons have mass, unless you deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Oooops! You deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I had forgotten.

Photons have no matter, but they have mass. Per Relativity, the mass of any given photon equals the energy of the photon divided by the speed of light squared.

E = M * C^2 => M = E / C^2

This can be verified by noting how gravity affects the path of photons.

Actually the reason that photons can travel faster than light without violating relativity is because photons are massless.

Just going to discard science again, eh? Photons do not travel faster than the speed of light.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Photons are still massless no matter how accomplished of a troll that you THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN BRAIN CELL.

All photons have mass, unless you deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Oooops! You deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I had forgotten.

Photons have no matter, but they have mass. Per Relativity, the mass of any given photon equals the energy of the photon divided by the speed of light squared.

E = M * C^2 => M = E / C^2

This can be verified by noting how gravity affects the path of photons.

Actually the reason that photons can travel faster than light without violating relativity is because photons are massless.

Just going to discard science again, eh? Photons do not travel faster than the speed of light.

They do when entangling, but I understand that you can never comprehend, which is why you are there saying it can't be done, and I am here doing whatever I put my mind too, as is my son who is studying quantum entanglement as part of his Navy cryptology classes.

Now smile and get those potatoes peeled, and no fingertips this time either, stumpy

CIAO

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:What is the actual mass of photon?

It varies with it's speed.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Photons are still massless no matter how accomplished of a troll that you THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN BRAIN CELL.

All photons have mass, unless you deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Oooops! You deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I had forgotten.

Photons have no matter, but they have mass. Per Relativity, the mass of any given photon equals the energy of the photon divided by the speed of light squared.

E = M * C^2 => M = E / C^2

This can be verified by noting how gravity affects the path of photons.

Actually the reason that photons can travel faster than light without violating relativity is because photons are massless.

Just going to discard science again, eh? Photons do not travel faster than the speed of light.

They do when entangling, but I understand that you can never comprehend, which is why you are there saying it can't be done, and I am here doing whatever I put my mind too, as is my son who is studying quantum entanglement as part of his Navy cryptology classes.

Now smile and get those potatoes peeled, and no fingertips this time either, stumpy

CIAO

Still deciding, whether to spit, or swallow? Or is that a fresh mouthful...

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:What is the actual mass of photon?

It varies with it's speed.

I don't believe the photon's mass ever varies.

Once the photon is created, its energy is fixed (remains constant). At any given moment and in any given medium, the photon's mass is computed as the photon's energy (constant) divided by the speed of light squared (constant).

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:What is the actual mass of photon?

It varies with it's speed.

I don't believe the photon's mass ever varies.

Once the photon is created, its energy is fixed (remains constant). At any given moment and in any given medium, the photon's mass is computed as the photon's energy (constant) divided by the speed of light squared (constant).

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:What is the actual mass of photon?

It varies with it's speed.

I don't believe the photon's mass ever varies.

Once the photon is created, its energy is fixed (remains constant). At any given moment and in any given medium, the photon's mass is computed as the photon's energy (constant) divided by the speed of light squared (constant).

Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass. (For details see the Physics FAQ article What is the mass of a photon?).

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion (see the FAQ article Does mass change with speed?). Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes with velocity. By convention, relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so, at least semantically, it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon.

If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?", this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container. The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this definition a beam of light is massless like the photons it is composed of. However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass, but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

Part of this discussion is only concerned with semantics. It might be thought that it would be better to regard the mass of the photons to be their (nonzero) relativistic mass, as opposed to their (zero) invariant mass. We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained. If relativistic mass is used for all objects, then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its parts. However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation. In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts. Thus, the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero). Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays. In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.

Let's try to phrase this another way. What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass. Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions. The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept. In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy. The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass. The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.

Sometimes people ask "If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?". One answer is that all particles, including photons, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass. The deflection of starlight by the sun was first measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919. The result was consistent with the predictions of general relativity and inconsistent with the newtonian theory. Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity. The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge. (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.) A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation. The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured. The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the Big Bang). And there seem to be far too few with too little energy to make any noticeable contribution to dark matter.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:What is the actual mass of photon?

It varies with it's speed.

I don't believe the photon's mass ever varies.

Once the photon is created, its energy is fixed (remains constant). At any given moment and in any given medium, the photon's mass is computed as the photon's energy (constant) divided by the speed of light squared (constant).

While a good point when considering photons in the same medium, the speed of a photon varies, depending on what medium it is moving through. The speed of light provided by Maxwell is for a vacuum.

As the speed of a photon becomes less for some reason (such as traveling through glass instead of a vacuum, the photon has more mass, according to the same equation from Einstein.

So the mass of a photon varies (for the same observer).

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:What is the actual mass of photon?

It varies with it's speed.

I don't believe the photon's mass ever varies.

Once the photon is created, its energy is fixed (remains constant). At any given moment and in any given medium, the photon's mass is computed as the photon's energy (constant) divided by the speed of light squared (constant).

Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass. (For details see the Physics FAQ article What is the mass of a photon?).

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion (see the FAQ article Does mass change with speed?). Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes with velocity. By convention, relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so, at least semantically, it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon.

If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?", this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container. The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this definition a beam of light is massless like the photons it is composed of. However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass, but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

Part of this discussion is only concerned with semantics. It might be thought that it would be better to regard the mass of the photons to be their (nonzero) relativistic mass, as opposed to their (zero) invariant mass. We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained. If relativistic mass is used for all objects, then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its parts. However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation. In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts. Thus, the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero). Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays. In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.

Let's try to phrase this another way. What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass. Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions. The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept. In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy. The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass. The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.

Sometimes people ask "If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?". One answer is that all particles, including photons, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass. The deflection of starlight by the sun was first measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919. The result was consistent with the predictions of general relativity and inconsistent with the newtonian theory. Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity. The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge. (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.) A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation. The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured. The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the Big Bang). And there seem to be far too few with too little energy to make any noticeable contribution to dark matter.

Einstein's theories do not falsify Newton's theories.
You cannot trap light.
Light is not electricity.
Making up wacky equations means nothing.
You are denying the behavior of photons in a gravity field.

You are ignoring both Einstein and Newton now.

Into the Night wrote:As the speed of a photon becomes less for some reason (such as traveling through glass instead of a vacuum, the photon has more mass, according to the same equation from Einstein.

So the mass of a photon varies (for the same observer).

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:As the speed of a photon becomes less for some reason (such as traveling through glass instead of a vacuum, the photon has more mass, according to the same equation from Einstein.

So the mass of a photon varies (for the same observer).

I don't believe the mass ever changes ... because the photon's energy never changes ... and the photon's mass is computed using the speed of light through a vacuum squared, not the speed of the photon squared.

If you wish to calculate a 142g baseball's equivalent amount of energy, you would compute the value as 142g * the speed of light through a vacuum squared, not 142g * zero (because the ball isn't moving) or some other speed of light value on account of the atmosphere and its humidity, for example.

The "C" in E=mC^2 is the speed of light through a vacuum, and is fixed regardless of the medium of any photons.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Photons are still massless no matter how accomplished of a troll that you THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN BRAIN CELL.

All photons have mass, unless you deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Oooops! You deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I had forgotten.

Photons have no matter, but they have mass. Per Relativity, the mass of any given photon equals the energy of the photon divided by the speed of light squared.

E = M * C^2 => M = E / C^2

This can be verified by noting how gravity affects the path of photons.

Actually the reason that photons can travel faster than light without violating relativity is because photons are massless.

Just going to discard science again, eh? Photons do not travel faster than the speed of light.

They do when entangling, but I understand that you can never comprehend, which is why you are there saying it can't be done, and I am here doing whatever I put my mind too, as is my son who is studying quantum entanglement as part of his Navy cryptology classes.

Now smile and get those potatoes peeled, and no fingertips this time either, stumpy

CIAO

Still deciding, whether to spit, or swallow? Or is that a fresh mouthful...

LOL what does you mother choose?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Photons are still massless no matter how accomplished of a troll that you THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN BRAIN CELL.

All photons have mass, unless you deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Oooops! You deny Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I had forgotten.

Photons have no matter, but they have mass. Per Relativity, the mass of any given photon equals the energy of the photon divided by the speed of light squared.

E = M * C^2 => M = E / C^2

This can be verified by noting how gravity affects the path of photons.

Actually the reason that photons can travel faster than light without violating relativity is because photons are massless.

Just going to discard science again, eh? Photons do not travel faster than the speed of light.

They do when entangling, but I understand that you can never comprehend, which is why you are there saying it can't be done, and I am here doing whatever I put my mind too, as is my son who is studying quantum entanglement as part of his Navy cryptology classes.

Now smile and get those potatoes peeled, and no fingertips this time either, stumpy

CIAO

Still deciding, whether to spit, or swallow? Or is that a fresh mouthful...

LOL what does you mother choose?

Was never curious to ask. What did your mom teach you to do with it? Obviously, you had the conversation, often. As you seem to think everyone discusses that stuff with mom...

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:What is the actual mass of photon?

It varies with it's speed.

I don't believe the photon's mass ever varies.

Once the photon is created, its energy is fixed (remains constant). At any given moment and in any given medium, the photon's mass is computed as the photon's energy (constant) divided by the speed of light squared (constant).

While a good point when considering photons in the same medium, the speed of a photon varies, depending on what medium it is moving through. The speed of light provided by Maxwell is for a vacuum.

As the speed of a photon becomes less for some reason (such as traveling through glass instead of a vacuum, the photon has more mass, according to the same equation from Einstein.

So the mass of a photon varies (for the same observer).

Photons are massless particles, and you can not change this.

Swan wrote:
LOL, there are several ways to "trap" a beam of light

Swan wrote:
— usually with mirrors, other reflective surfaces, or high-tech materials such as photonic crystals.

Swan wrote:
You should ask your shrink why you mock yourself so completely. That so I know how much you really care about my well-being, and as such you let me be correct ALL THE TIME.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:As the speed of a photon becomes less for some reason (such as traveling through glass instead of a vacuum, the photon has more mass, according to the same equation from Einstein.

So the mass of a photon varies (for the same observer).

I don't believe the mass ever changes ... because the photon's energy never changes ... and the photon's mass is computed using the speed of light through a vacuum squared, not the speed of the photon squared.

If you wish to calculate a 142g baseball's equivalent amount of energy, you would compute the value as 142g * the speed of light through a vacuum squared, not 142g * zero (because the ball isn't moving) or some other speed of light value on account of the atmosphere and its humidity, for example.

The "C" in E=mC^2 is the speed of light through a vacuum, and is fixed regardless of the medium of any photons.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:As the speed of a photon becomes less for some reason (such as traveling through glass instead of a vacuum, the photon has more mass, according to the same equation from Einstein.

So the mass of a photon varies (for the same observer).

I don't believe the mass ever changes ... because the photon's energy never changes ... and the photon's mass is computed using the speed of light through a vacuum squared, not the speed of the photon squared.

If you wish to calculate a 142g baseball's equivalent amount of energy, you would compute the value as 142g * the speed of light through a vacuum squared, not 142g * zero (because the ball isn't moving) or some other speed of light value on account of the atmosphere and its humidity, for example.

The "C" in E=mC^2 is the speed of light through a vacuum, and is fixed regardless of the medium of any photons.

Only a schizophrenic is capable of believing that their personal beliefs dictate scientific fact. Which is why in your own mind, that your beliefs come before all else.

CIAO

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:What is the actual mass of photon?

It varies with it's speed.

I don't believe the photon's mass ever varies.

Once the photon is created, its energy is fixed (remains constant). At any given moment and in any given medium, the photon's mass is computed as the photon's energy (constant) divided by the speed of light squared (constant).

While a good point when considering photons in the same medium, the speed of a photon varies, depending on what medium it is moving through. The speed of light provided by Maxwell is for a vacuum.

As the speed of a photon becomes less for some reason (such as traveling through glass instead of a vacuum, the photon has more mass, according to the same equation from Einstein.

So the mass of a photon varies (for the same observer).

Photons are massless particles, and you can not change this.

Photons have mass. You cannot change this. You are still discarding Einstein's theory.

Swan wrote:But you can not quote what the mass of a photon is

Swan wrote: ... because when you look this up on websites that get it wrong, you find out that they claim that photon's have no mass.

Swan wrote: You also quote Einstein when making your lame argument that entanglement is not real,

Swan wrote:... when Einstein called the process spooky action at a distance.

Swan wrote:LOL Which one of us has a son studying quantum computer cryptology as the radio operator of a nuclear attack sub

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:But you can not quote what the mass of a photon is

Sure I can. Specify a photon of a given amount of energy, *OR* specify its wavelength or its frequency, and then I will compute its mass.

Swan wrote: ... because when you look this up on websites that get it wrong, you find out that they claim that photon's have no mass.

Yes. So just specify the photon whose mass you find elusive and I'll compute it for you.

Swan wrote: You also quote Einstein when making your lame argument that entanglement is not real,

Negative. You quote Einstein. You talk about Einstein. You are forever putting Einstein at the center of your world.

Einstein is not science. Einstein is dead. I cite the General Theory of Relativity. This is science.

Now I am citing Planck's law as well.

Swan wrote:... when Einstein called the process spooky action at a distance.

You did this. I did not.

Swan wrote:LOL Which one of us has a son studying quantum computer cryptology as the radio operator of a nuclear attack sub

It's time for a splash of cold water. I apparently know your son better than you do. He is not studying quantum computer cryptology. He is applying NSA-approved encryption to outgoing messages, and NSA-approved keys to decrypt incoming messages.

He's also perfectly able to "admit" that this is what he does.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:But you can not quote what the mass of a photon is

Sure I can. Specify a photon of a given amount of energy, *OR* specify its wavelength or its frequency, and then I will compute its mass.

Swan wrote: ... because when you look this up on websites that get it wrong, you find out that they claim that photon's have no mass.

Yes. So just specify the photon whose mass you find elusive and I'll compute it for you.

Swan wrote: You also quote Einstein when making your lame argument that entanglement is not real,

Negative. You quote Einstein. You talk about Einstein. You are forever putting Einstein at the center of your world.

Einstein is not science. Einstein is dead. I cite the General Theory of Relativity. This is science.

Now I am citing Planck's law as well.

Swan wrote:... when Einstein called the process spooky action at a distance.

You did this. I did not.

Swan wrote:LOL Which one of us has a son studying quantum computer cryptology as the radio operator of a nuclear attack sub

It's time for a splash of cold water. I apparently know your son better than you do. He is not studying quantum computer cryptology. He is applying NSA-approved encryption to outgoing messages, and NSA-approved keys to decrypt incoming messages.

He's also perfectly able to "admit" that this is what he does.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28

Photon = 0.0 * 0 = 0 which is equal to your chance of success against me at any task

Now take your Chlorpromazine and finish peeling the carrots and potatoes, and again leave out your fingertips

Into the Night wrote:Use a photon in the visible range of light, say red, at 410Thz.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:But you can not quote what the mass of a photon is

Sure I can. Specify a photon of a given amount of energy, *OR* specify its wavelength or its frequency, and then I will compute its mass.

Swan wrote: ... because when you look this up on websites that get it wrong, you find out that they claim that photon's have no mass.

Yes. So just specify the photon whose mass you find elusive and I'll compute it for you.

Swan wrote: You also quote Einstein when making your lame argument that entanglement is not real,

Negative. You quote Einstein. You talk about Einstein. You are forever putting Einstein at the center of your world.

Einstein is not science. Einstein is dead. I cite the General Theory of Relativity. This is science.

Now I am citing Planck's law as well.

Swan wrote:... when Einstein called the process spooky action at a distance.

You did this. I did not.

Swan wrote:LOL Which one of us has a son studying quantum computer cryptology as the radio operator of a nuclear attack sub

It's time for a splash of cold water. I apparently know your son better than you do. He is not studying quantum computer cryptology. He is applying NSA-approved encryption to outgoing messages, and NSA-approved keys to decrypt incoming messages.

He's also perfectly able to "admit" that this is what he does.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28

Photon = 0.0 * 0 = 0 which is equal to your chance of success against me at any task

Now take your Chlorpromazine and finish peeling the carrots and potatoes, and again leave out your fingertips

A proton is not an atom.
A neutron is not an atom.
An electron is not an atom.
A photon is not an atom.

I guess you're going to have to show him by example how to calculate the mass of a photon.

Use a photon in the visible range of light, say red, at 410Thz. Show him the formulas and the math. The twit has to see the application of that math for himself.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:But you can not quote what the mass of a photon is

Sure I can. Specify a photon of a given amount of energy, *OR* specify its wavelength or its frequency, and then I will compute its mass.

Swan wrote: ... because when you look this up on websites that get it wrong, you find out that they claim that photon's have no mass.

Yes. So just specify the photon whose mass you find elusive and I'll compute it for you.

Swan wrote: You also quote Einstein when making your lame argument that entanglement is not real,

Negative. You quote Einstein. You talk about Einstein. You are forever putting Einstein at the center of your world.

Einstein is not science. Einstein is dead. I cite the General Theory of Relativity. This is science.

Now I am citing Planck's law as well.

Swan wrote:... when Einstein called the process spooky action at a distance.

You did this. I did not.

Swan wrote:LOL Which one of us has a son studying quantum computer cryptology as the radio operator of a nuclear attack sub

It's time for a splash of cold water. I apparently know your son better than you do. He is not studying quantum computer cryptology. He is applying NSA-approved encryption to outgoing messages, and NSA-approved keys to decrypt incoming messages.

He's also perfectly able to "admit" that this is what he does.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28

Photon = 0.0 * 0 = 0 which is equal to your chance of success against me at any task

Now take your Chlorpromazine and finish peeling the carrots and potatoes, and again leave out your fingertips

A proton is not an atom.
A neutron is not an atom.
An electron is not an atom.
A photon is not an atom.

I guess you're going to have to show him by example how to calculate the mass of a photon.

Use a photon in the visible range of light, say red, at 410Thz. Show him the formulas and the math. The twit has to see the application of that math for himself.

I did not say that they were atoms,

Swan wrote:
I said...

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:But you can not quote what the mass of a photon is

Sure I can. Specify a photon of a given amount of energy, *OR* specify its wavelength or its frequency, and then I will compute its mass.

Swan wrote: ... because when you look this up on websites that get it wrong, you find out that they claim that photon's have no mass.

Yes. So just specify the photon whose mass you find elusive and I'll compute it for you.

Swan wrote: You also quote Einstein when making your lame argument that entanglement is not real,

Negative. You quote Einstein. You talk about Einstein. You are forever putting Einstein at the center of your world.

Einstein is not science. Einstein is dead. I cite the General Theory of Relativity. This is science.

Now I am citing Planck's law as well.

Swan wrote:... when Einstein called the process spooky action at a distance.

You did this. I did not.

Swan wrote:LOL Which one of us has a son studying quantum computer cryptology as the radio operator of a nuclear attack sub

It's time for a splash of cold water. I apparently know your son better than you do. He is not studying quantum computer cryptology. He is applying NSA-approved encryption to outgoing messages, and NSA-approved keys to decrypt incoming messages.

He's also perfectly able to "admit" that this is what he does.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28

Photon = 0.0 * 0 = 0 which is equal to your chance of success against me at any task

Now take your Chlorpromazine and finish peeling the carrots and potatoes, and again leave out your fingertips

IBdaMann wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention:

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24 kg = 553,849,352,278.8303 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24 kg = 554,312,935,378.9082 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28 kg = 301,640,277.9893 times the mass of a 410THz photon

410THz Photon = ‭3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg

IBdaMann wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention:

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24 kg = 553,849,352,278.8303 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24 kg = 554,312,935,378.9082 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28 kg = 301,640,277.9893 times the mass of a 410THz photon

410THz Photon = ‭3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention:

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24 kg = 553,849,352,278.8303 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24 kg = 554,312,935,378.9082 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28 kg = 301,640,277.9893 times the mass of a 410THz photon

410THz Photon = ‭3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg

Nice diversion from the topic... So, what's the atomic mass of a qubit? Does a qubit's mass double, while entangled?

Really not getting how entanglement could possible be a good thing for a computer. The cubit is manipulated through 'states, with lasers or microwaves (control with binary computers). Wouldn't an entangled cubit be similarly manipulated, whether it's across the room, in somebody else's quantum computer, or in a galaxy, far, far, away? Best I can tell, there is no means to make qubits entangle on command. No control of where, and when they entangle. If there was anyway to pimp qubits into entanglement on demand, then it kind of screws the whole quantum computing scene.

Swan wrote:Again a quantum computer can solve certain mathematical problems in a day that would take binary supercomputers thousands of years.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention:

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24 kg = 553,849,352,278.8303 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24 kg = 554,312,935,378.9082 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28 kg = 301,640,277.9893 times the mass of a 410THz photon

410THz Photon = ‭3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg

Nice diversion from the topic... So, what's the atomic mass of a qubit? Does a qubit's mass double, while entangled?

Really not getting how entanglement could possible be a good thing for a computer. The cubit is manipulated through 'states, with lasers or microwaves (control with binary computers). Wouldn't an entangled cubit be similarly manipulated, whether it's across the room, in somebody else's quantum computer, or in a galaxy, far, far, away? Best I can tell, there is no means to make qubits entangle on command. No control of where, and when they entangle. If there was anyway to pimp qubits into entanglement on demand, then it kind of screws the whole quantum computing scene.

Again a quantum computer can solve certain mathematical problems in a day that would take binary supercomputers thousands of years. Not that this is within your grasp to comprehend. This is analogous to a binary computer solving problems in seconds that slide rulers operated by humans taking weeks of longer.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Again a quantum computer can solve certain mathematical problems in a day that would take binary supercomputers thousands of years.

This is one of those things you were ordered to regurgitate without question.

Ask me how I know.

Hint: There are no quantum computers, despite your insistence to the contrary. Guess who won't be able to specify any specific mathematical problem that can somehow be solved infinitely faster on a nonexistent quantum computer?

Too funny.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention:

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24 kg = 553,849,352,278.8303 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24 kg = 554,312,935,378.9082 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28 kg = 301,640,277.9893 times the mass of a 410THz photon

410THz Photon = ‭3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg

Nice diversion from the topic... So, what's the atomic mass of a qubit? Does a qubit's mass double, while entangled?

Really not getting how entanglement could possible be a good thing for a computer. The cubit is manipulated through 'states, with lasers or microwaves (control with binary computers). Wouldn't an entangled cubit be similarly manipulated, whether it's across the room, in somebody else's quantum computer, or in a galaxy, far, far, away? Best I can tell, there is no means to make qubits entangle on command. No control of where, and when they entangle. If there was anyway to pimp qubits into entanglement on demand, then it kind of screws the whole quantum computing scene.

Again a quantum computer can solve certain mathematical problems in a day that would take binary supercomputers thousands of years. Not that this is within your grasp to comprehend. This is analogous to a binary computer solving problems in seconds that slide rulers operated by humans taking weeks of longer.

In theory, a quantum computer could... But, that's a long way off, if ever. There is maybe a quantum possessor chip, but everything outside that chip is analog and digital, basically traditional technology doing all the heavy lifting. More than a little skeptical that an actual quantum computer exists. There are simulations, emulators, to give the quantum experience though, on how it might/could work. It's articles, the one I started this thread with, that pretty much confirms that nobody is really that far into it, to declare an actual quantum computer, that can actually do any of what you've claimed.

It's like sitting behind the wheel, of a car that can go 235 mph all day, but you are crawling along in a NYC traffic jam, maybe a mile in an hour or two... The quantum processor doesn't get to go fast, because it's total dependent on binary processors to function. You still have to wait for binary computers to setup and feed data to the quantum processor. And then you have to wait for the binary computers to read and interpret the results, convert it to something humans can make some sense of, if possible. Quantum computers are error prone, so there is redundancy. You have to run the same program several times, and compare results.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention:

Atomic masses of particles

Proton = 1.6726 x 10-24 kg = 553,849,352,278.8303 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Neutron = 1.6740 x 10-24 kg = 554,312,935,378.9082 times the mass of a 410THz photon

Electron = 9.1094 x 10-28 kg = 301,640,277.9893 times the mass of a 410THz photon

410THz Photon = ‭3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg

Nice diversion from the topic... So, what's the atomic mass of a qubit? Does a qubit's mass double, while entangled?

Really not getting how entanglement could possible be a good thing for a computer. The cubit is manipulated through 'states, with lasers or microwaves (control with binary computers). Wouldn't an entangled cubit be similarly manipulated, whether it's across the room, in somebody else's quantum computer, or in a galaxy, far, far, away? Best I can tell, there is no means to make qubits entangle on command. No control of where, and when they entangle. If there was anyway to pimp qubits into entanglement on demand, then it kind of screws the whole quantum computing scene.

Again a quantum computer can solve certain mathematical problems in a day that would take binary supercomputers thousands of years. Not that this is within your grasp to comprehend. This is analogous to a binary computer solving problems in seconds that slide rulers operated by humans taking weeks of longer.

In theory, a quantum computer could... But, that's a long way off, if ever. There is maybe a quantum possessor chip, but everything outside that chip is analog and digital, basically traditional technology doing all the heavy lifting. More than a little skeptical that an actual quantum computer exists. There are simulations, emulators, to give the quantum experience though, on how it might/could work. It's articles, the one I started this thread with, that pretty much confirms that nobody is really that far into it, to declare an actual quantum computer, that can actually do any of what you've claimed.

It's like sitting behind the wheel, of a car that can go 235 mph all day, but you are crawling along in a NYC traffic jam, maybe a mile in an hour or two... The quantum processor doesn't get to go fast, because it's total dependent on binary processors to function. You still have to wait for binary computers to setup and feed data to the quantum processor. And then you have to wait for the binary computers to read and interpret the results, convert it to something humans can make some sense of, if possible. Quantum computers are error prone, so there is redundancy. You have to run the same program several times, and compare results.

LOL, I bet that your father said EXACTLY the same thing about binary computers in say 1950/1970 when a computer that does what a smart phone does today was predicted to be as big as a football stadium and full of millions of vacuum tubes. Besides it is common knowledge that binary computers do not function properly in close proximity to gravity flux wave generators, but you are not allowed to comment on that. Are you shi-twad