QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER

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

Swan 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

LOL you need to quote the source of your fake photon mass number and Mad Magazine is not scientifically accepted as accurate.

Try again little girl.

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.

Swan wrote:
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.

Swan wrote:

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.

So ...

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

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote: 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

There is no such thing as a 'gravity flux wave generator'.

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

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote: 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

There is no such thing as a 'gravity flux wave generator'.

I believe Swan merely misspoke. I think he meant to write that nonexistent QUANTUM computers suffer performance degradation from close proximity to the dilithium crystals of any nonexistent gravity flux wave generator.

Those things burn holes through the subsace around Apple stock certificates, so watch out.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

I did. I'll clean it up a bit and repost here:

Red Photon Frequency: 410THz (independent variable provided by Into the Night)

Planck's Law derivation: Energy = Planck's Constant * Frequency

some algebra:
Planck's Constant = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds
Photon Energy = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds * 410THz
Photon Energy = 0.00000000000000000027142 Joules

Special Relativity: E = m * C^2 -> m = E / C^2

some algebra:
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)^2
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / 89,875,517,873,681,764 m^2/s^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2

Definition: 1 Joule = 1 kg m^2 / s^2

some algebra:
1kg = 1 Joules * s^2 / m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-33‬ g
Photon mass = dependent variable calculated by IBDaMath

Note: I listed mass in both grams and kilograms, but kilograms is the standard so one should go with that as often as possible.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

I did. I'll clean it up a bit and repost here:

Red Photon Frequency: 410THz (independent variable provided by Into the Night)

Planck's Law derivation: Energy = Planck's Constant * Frequency

some algebra:
Planck's Constant = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds
Photon Energy = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds * 410THz
Photon Energy = 0.00000000000000000027142 Joules

Special Relativity: E = m * C^2 -> m = E / C^2

some algebra:
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)^2
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / 89,875,517,873,681,764 m^2/s^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2

Definition: 1 Joule = 1 kg m^2 / s^2

some algebra:
1kg = 1 Joules * s^2 / m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-33‬ g
Photon mass = dependent variable calculated by IBDaMath

Note: I listed mass in both grams and kilograms, but kilograms is the standard so one should go with that as often as possible.

Nicely done. Thank you.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

I did. I'll clean it up a bit and repost here:

Red Photon Frequency: 410THz (independent variable provided by Into the Night)

Planck's Law derivation: Energy = Planck's Constant * Frequency

some algebra:
Planck's Constant = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds
Photon Energy = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds * 410THz
Photon Energy = 0.00000000000000000027142 Joules

Special Relativity: E = m * C^2 -> m = E / C^2

some algebra:
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)^2
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / 89,875,517,873,681,764 m^2/s^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2

Definition: 1 Joule = 1 kg m^2 / s^2

some algebra:
1kg = 1 Joules * s^2 / m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-33‬ g
Photon mass = dependent variable calculated by IBDaMath

Note: I listed mass in both grams and kilograms, but kilograms is the standard so one should go with that as often as possible.

Nicely done. Thank you.

The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light.

Swan wrote:
So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero.

Swan wrote:
This can be proved from Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Swan wrote:
Hence the photons have a rest mass of zero.

Swan wrote:
What evidence suggests that the photon has zero mass?

Swan wrote:
The photon is the quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is also the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. It has finite momentum, can be deflected by a gravity field, and can exert a force. So how can we say that it has zero mass?

Swan wrote:
The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass", and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass. The term "relativistic mass" is often used, but it is at best a term that includes not just the mass but some measure of the kinetic energy of a particle with respect to the frame of measurement.

Swan wrote:
Evidence for zero mass:
1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

Swan wrote:
The relativistic mass expression gives a zero in the denominator if the velocity is exactly c, which of course it is for a photon. So a nonzero m0 in the numerator gives an infinite mass.

Swan wrote:
2. Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.
The range of an exchange force depends inversely upon the mass of the exchange particle. The nuclear strong force and weak force have very short ranges because of the mass of the exchange particles. The electromagnetic and gravity forces are precisely inverse square law forces with the implication of infinite range. This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

Swan wrote:
3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Swan wrote:
Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun. But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

Swan wrote:
Now in simplified terms a photon is light, and it travels at the speed of light which according to your retarded hairy hero Einstein, NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So you are now forced to admit that once again I am correct, but at this juncture everyone involved already knows.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

I did. I'll clean it up a bit and repost here:

Red Photon Frequency: 410THz (independent variable provided by Into the Night)

Planck's Law derivation: Energy = Planck's Constant * Frequency

some algebra:
Planck's Constant = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds
Photon Energy = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds * 410THz
Photon Energy = 0.00000000000000000027142 Joules

Special Relativity: E = m * C^2 -> m = E / C^2

some algebra:
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)^2
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / 89,875,517,873,681,764 m^2/s^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2

Definition: 1 Joule = 1 kg m^2 / s^2

some algebra:
1kg = 1 Joules * s^2 / m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-33‬ g
Photon mass = dependent variable calculated by IBDaMath

Note: I listed mass in both grams and kilograms, but kilograms is the standard so one should go with that as often as possible.

Nicely done. Thank you.

The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light.

Photons have mass.

Swan wrote:
So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero.

There is no 'rest mass' of a photon.

Swan wrote:
This can be proved from Einstein's special theory of relativity.

A theory is not a proof. You just discarded Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Swan wrote:
Hence the photons have a rest mass of zero.

Photons do not have a rest mass.

Swan wrote:
What evidence suggests that the photon has zero mass?

Planck's law. Einstein's law. The equations have already been shown to you. A calculation of an example photon in the visible red light spectrum has already been shown to you.

Swan wrote:
The photon is the quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is also the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. It has finite momentum, can be deflected by a gravity field, and can exert a force. So how can we say that it has zero mass?

It doesn't. A photon has mass.

Swan wrote:
The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass", and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass. The term "relativistic mass" is often used, but it is at best a term that includes not just the mass but some measure of the kinetic energy of a particle with respect to the frame of measurement.

No rest mass is involved. A photon has mass that the same for all observers.

Swan wrote:
Evidence for zero mass:
1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

Paradox. Irrational.

Swan wrote:
The relativistic mass expression gives a zero in the denominator if the velocity is exactly c, which of course it is for a photon. So a nonzero m0 in the numerator gives an infinite mass.

There is no such thing as 'relativistic mass' for a photon. C is a natural constant, and is the same for all observers.

Swan wrote:
2. Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.
The range of an exchange force depends inversely upon the mass of the exchange particle. The nuclear strong force and weak force have very short ranges because of the mass of the exchange particles. The electromagnetic and gravity forces are precisely inverse square law forces with the implication of infinite range. This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

A photon is not an atom or a nucleus.

Swan wrote:
3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Space is not bent. Light is.

Swan wrote:
Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun. But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

Space is not bent. Light is.

Swan wrote:
Now in simplified terms a photon is light, and it travels at the speed of light which according to your retarded hairy hero Einstein, NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So you are now forced to admit that once again I am correct, but at this juncture everyone involved already knows.

Saying Einstein is retarded is only showing you despise Einstein and all of his theories of science.

You discard science.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

I did. I'll clean it up a bit and repost here:

Red Photon Frequency: 410THz (independent variable provided by Into the Night)

Planck's Law derivation: Energy = Planck's Constant * Frequency

some algebra:
Planck's Constant = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds
Photon Energy = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds * 410THz
Photon Energy = 0.00000000000000000027142 Joules

Special Relativity: E = m * C^2 -> m = E / C^2

some algebra:
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)^2
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / 89,875,517,873,681,764 m^2/s^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2

Definition: 1 Joule = 1 kg m^2 / s^2

some algebra:
1kg = 1 Joules * s^2 / m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-33‬ g
Photon mass = dependent variable calculated by IBDaMath

Note: I listed mass in both grams and kilograms, but kilograms is the standard so one should go with that as often as possible.

Nicely done. Thank you.

The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light. So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero. This can be proved from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Hence the photons have a rest mass of zero.


What evidence suggests that the photon has zero mass?
The photon is the quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is also the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. It has finite momentum, can be deflected by a gravity field, and can exert a force. So how can we say that it has zero mass?

The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass", and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass. The term "relativistic mass" is often used, but it is at best a term that includes not just the mass but some measure of the kinetic energy of a particle with respect to the frame of measurement.

Evidence for zero mass:
1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

The relativistic mass expression gives a zero in the denominator if the velocity is exactly c, which of course it is for a photon. So a nonzero m0 in the numerator gives an infinite mass.

2. Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.
The range of an exchange force depends inversely upon the mass of the exchange particle. The nuclear strong force and weak force have very short ranges because of the mass of the exchange particles. The electromagnetic and gravity forces are precisely inverse square law forces with the implication of infinite range. This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun. But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

Now in simplified terms a photon is light, and it travels at the speed of light which according to your retarded hairy hero Einstein, NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So you are now forced to admit that once again I am correct, but at this juncture everyone involved already knows.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

I did. I'll clean it up a bit and repost here:

Red Photon Frequency: 410THz (independent variable provided by Into the Night)

Planck's Law derivation: Energy = Planck's Constant * Frequency

some algebra:
Planck's Constant = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds
Photon Energy = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds * 410THz
Photon Energy = 0.00000000000000000027142 Joules

Special Relativity: E = m * C^2 -> m = E / C^2

some algebra:
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)^2
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / 89,875,517,873,681,764 m^2/s^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2

Definition: 1 Joule = 1 kg m^2 / s^2

some algebra:
1kg = 1 Joules * s^2 / m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-33‬ g
Photon mass = dependent variable calculated by IBDaMath

Note: I listed mass in both grams and kilograms, but kilograms is the standard so one should go with that as often as possible.

Nicely done. Thank you.

The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light. So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero. This can be proved from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Hence the photons have a rest mass of zero.


What evidence suggests that the photon has zero mass?
The photon is the quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is also the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. It has finite momentum, can be deflected by a gravity field, and can exert a force. So how can we say that it has zero mass?

The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass", and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass. The term "relativistic mass" is often used, but it is at best a term that includes not just the mass but some measure of the kinetic energy of a particle with respect to the frame of measurement.

Evidence for zero mass:
1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

The relativistic mass expression gives a zero in the denominator if the velocity is exactly c, which of course it is for a photon. So a nonzero m0 in the numerator gives an infinite mass.

2. Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.
The range of an exchange force depends inversely upon the mass of the exchange particle. The nuclear strong force and weak force have very short ranges because of the mass of the exchange particles. The electromagnetic and gravity forces are precisely inverse square law forces with the implication of infinite range. This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun. But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

Now in simplified terms a photon is light, and it travels at the speed of light which according to your retarded hairy hero Einstein, NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So you are now forced to admit that once again I am correct, but at this juncture everyone involved already knows.

Einstein's IQ was estimated at 160, and he was retarded? So, by your observation, a 130 score would be babbling moron... Does tossing around childish insult give you IQ the boost you need, to rise above just average?

Anyway, not everything Einstein was 100% correct. Maybe blasphemy, but he was actually wrong a few times...

With the world going 'green', have the shutdown the Large Hadron Collider? Huge energy drain on the solar panels and windmills. I'm sure this sort of high energy research probably contributed greatly to the CO2 issue. Wonder if they still use their onsite coal burning, electric generators to feed the beast...

Swan wrote:The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light.

Swan wrote:So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light.

Nope. They are not "said" to be massless, precisely because they all have mass. What they don't have is matter. Mass, however, they have.

Swan wrote:So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero.

Two things here.

1. Photons are never at rest. A photon has only one speed, i.e. the speed of light. The idea of a photon having a rest mass is like purple lunar gremlins, i.e. nonexistent.

2. The mass of a photon never changes so it doesn't matter what its theoretical speed might be in any hypothetical scenario. Any given photon's energy is determined by its frequency. The photon's mass is determined by its energy. The photon's speed never comes into play.

Now a photon's wavelength is a different matter. The wavelength is entirely determined by its speed (given its fixed frequency).

By the way, did anyone pitching quantum entanglement ever mention that they always lose the photons microseconds after entangling them? Yes, all of them. Every single one. Did anyone pitching quantum entanglement ever mention that they have no hope of ever being able to hold onto entangled photons or of ever finding them again once they are lost?

No? No one ever mentioned that to you?

I thought not.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

I did. I'll clean it up a bit and repost here:

Red Photon Frequency: 410THz (independent variable provided by Into the Night)

Planck's Law derivation: Energy = Planck's Constant * Frequency

some algebra:
Planck's Constant = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds
Photon Energy = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds * 410THz
Photon Energy = 0.00000000000000000027142 Joules

Special Relativity: E = m * C^2 -> m = E / C^2

some algebra:
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)^2
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / 89,875,517,873,681,764 m^2/s^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2

Definition: 1 Joule = 1 kg m^2 / s^2

some algebra:
1kg = 1 Joules * s^2 / m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-33‬ g
Photon mass = dependent variable calculated by IBDaMath

Note: I listed mass in both grams and kilograms, but kilograms is the standard so one should go with that as often as possible.

Nicely done. Thank you.

The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light. So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero. This can be proved from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Hence the photons have a rest mass of zero.


What evidence suggests that the photon has zero mass?
The photon is the quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is also the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. It has finite momentum, can be deflected by a gravity field, and can exert a force. So how can we say that it has zero mass?

The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass", and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass. The term "relativistic mass" is often used, but it is at best a term that includes not just the mass but some measure of the kinetic energy of a particle with respect to the frame of measurement.

Evidence for zero mass:
1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

The relativistic mass expression gives a zero in the denominator if the velocity is exactly c, which of course it is for a photon. So a nonzero m0 in the numerator gives an infinite mass.

2. Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.
The range of an exchange force depends inversely upon the mass of the exchange particle. The nuclear strong force and weak force have very short ranges because of the mass of the exchange particles. The electromagnetic and gravity forces are precisely inverse square law forces with the implication of infinite range. This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun. But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

Now in simplified terms a photon is light, and it travels at the speed of light which according to your retarded hairy hero Einstein, NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So you are now forced to admit that once again I am correct, but at this juncture everyone involved already knows.

Einstein's IQ was estimated at 160, and he was retarded? So, by your observation, a 130 score would be babbling moron... Does tossing around childish insult give you IQ the boost you need, to rise above just average?

Anyway, not everything Einstein was 100% correct. Maybe blasphemy, but he was actually wrong a few times...

With the world going 'green', have the shutdown the Large Hadron Collider? Huge energy drain on the solar panels and windmills. I'm sure this sort of high energy research probably contributed greatly to the CO2 issue. Wonder if they still use their onsite coal burning, electric generators to feed the beast...

Wrong again


Bye the way- 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

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

I did. I'll clean it up a bit and repost here:

Red Photon Frequency: 410THz (independent variable provided by Into the Night)

Planck's Law derivation: Energy = Planck's Constant * Frequency

some algebra:
Planck's Constant = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds
Photon Energy = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds * 410THz
Photon Energy = 0.00000000000000000027142 Joules

Special Relativity: E = m * C^2 -> m = E / C^2

some algebra:
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)^2
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / 89,875,517,873,681,764 m^2/s^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2

Definition: 1 Joule = 1 kg m^2 / s^2

some algebra:
1kg = 1 Joules * s^2 / m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-33‬ g
Photon mass = dependent variable calculated by IBDaMath

Note: I listed mass in both grams and kilograms, but kilograms is the standard so one should go with that as often as possible.

Nicely done. Thank you.

The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light. So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero. This can be proved from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Hence the photons have a rest mass of zero.


What evidence suggests that the photon has zero mass?
The photon is the quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is also the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. It has finite momentum, can be deflected by a gravity field, and can exert a force. So how can we say that it has zero mass?

The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass", and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass. The term "relativistic mass" is often used, but it is at best a term that includes not just the mass but some measure of the kinetic energy of a particle with respect to the frame of measurement.

Evidence for zero mass:
1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

The relativistic mass expression gives a zero in the denominator if the velocity is exactly c, which of course it is for a photon. So a nonzero m0 in the numerator gives an infinite mass.

2. Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.
The range of an exchange force depends inversely upon the mass of the exchange particle. The nuclear strong force and weak force have very short ranges because of the mass of the exchange particles. The electromagnetic and gravity forces are precisely inverse square law forces with the implication of infinite range. This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun. But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

Now in simplified terms a photon is light, and it travels at the speed of light which according to your retarded hairy hero Einstein, NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So you are now forced to admit that once again I am correct, but at this juncture everyone involved already knows.

Einstein's IQ was estimated at 160, and he was retarded? So, by your observation, a 130 score would be babbling moron... Does tossing around childish insult give you IQ the boost you need, to rise above just average?

Anyway, not everything Einstein was 100% correct. Maybe blasphemy, but he was actually wrong a few times...

With the world going 'green', have the shutdown the Large Hadron Collider? Huge energy drain on the solar panels and windmills. I'm sure this sort of high energy research probably contributed greatly to the CO2 issue. Wonder if they still use their onsite coal burning, electric generators to feed the beast...

Wrong again


Bye the way- 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

Is that the chart your mommy showed you? You have an average IQ, by modern standards...

Why would anyone believe computers would be made with vacuum tubes in the 50s? We had transistors. Carry a radio in your pocket. Pocket calculators in the 60s... Wouldn't have the space program without semiconductors. What are you, Biden's age? And you 'bought' Apple stock, why? Totally clueless about technology. Well, pretty much everything else as well...

Swan wrote: Your hairy hero Einstein also says that nothing with mass can travel at light speed.

Swan wrote:Bye the way- LOL, I bet that your father said EXACTLY the same thing about binary computers ...

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have again suggested he provide the equations he used and to show his work in calculating this value.

I did. I'll clean it up a bit and repost here:

Red Photon Frequency: 410THz (independent variable provided by Into the Night)

Planck's Law derivation: Energy = Planck's Constant * Frequency

some algebra:
Planck's Constant = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds
Photon Energy = 6.62 x 10^-34 Joules*seconds * 410THz
Photon Energy = 0.00000000000000000027142 Joules

Special Relativity: E = m * C^2 -> m = E / C^2

some algebra:
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)^2
Photon mass = 27142 * 10^-19 Joules / 89,875,517,873,681,764 m^2/s^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ Joules s^2/m^2

Definition: 1 Joule = 1 kg m^2 / s^2

some algebra:
1kg = 1 Joules * s^2 / m^2
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-36‬ kg
Photon mass = 3.0199547821407311486069149825905e-33‬ g
Photon mass = dependent variable calculated by IBDaMath

Note: I listed mass in both grams and kilograms, but kilograms is the standard so one should go with that as often as possible.

Nicely done. Thank you.

The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light. So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero. This can be proved from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Hence the photons have a rest mass of zero.


What evidence suggests that the photon has zero mass?
The photon is the quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is also the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. It has finite momentum, can be deflected by a gravity field, and can exert a force. So how can we say that it has zero mass?

The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass", and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass. The term "relativistic mass" is often used, but it is at best a term that includes not just the mass but some measure of the kinetic energy of a particle with respect to the frame of measurement.

Evidence for zero mass:
1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

The relativistic mass expression gives a zero in the denominator if the velocity is exactly c, which of course it is for a photon. So a nonzero m0 in the numerator gives an infinite mass.

2. Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.
The range of an exchange force depends inversely upon the mass of the exchange particle. The nuclear strong force and weak force have very short ranges because of the mass of the exchange particles. The electromagnetic and gravity forces are precisely inverse square law forces with the implication of infinite range. This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun. But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

Now in simplified terms a photon is light, and it travels at the speed of light which according to your retarded hairy hero Einstein, NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So you are now forced to admit that once again I am correct, but at this juncture everyone involved already knows.

Einstein's IQ was estimated at 160, and he was retarded? So, by your observation, a 130 score would be babbling moron... Does tossing around childish insult give you IQ the boost you need, to rise above just average?

Anyway, not everything Einstein was 100% correct. Maybe blasphemy, but he was actually wrong a few times...

With the world going 'green', have the shutdown the Large Hadron Collider? Huge energy drain on the solar panels and windmills. I'm sure this sort of high energy research probably contributed greatly to the CO2 issue. Wonder if they still use their onsite coal burning, electric generators to feed the beast...

Wrong again


Bye the way- 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

Is that the chart your mommy showed you? You have an average IQ, by modern standards...

Why would anyone believe computers would be made with vacuum tubes in the 50s? We had transistors. Carry a radio in your pocket. Pocket calculators in the 60s... Wouldn't have the space program without semiconductors. What are you, Biden's age? And you 'bought' Apple stock, why? Totally clueless about technology. Well, pretty much everything else as well...

The first computer transistor was implemented in 1954, meaning that in 1954 there was 1 transistor based machine and that 100 percent of all others were using vacuum tubes. Furthermore, ENIAC was used until 1955. All in the 50's you silly girl.

LOL Apple stock is still up over 72,000 percent.

So enjoy that Bud

Bye the way- 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

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Your hairy hero Einstein also says that nothing with mass can travel at light speed.

1. Einstein is not my hero. My children are my heroes.
2. Einstein is dead.
3. The Theory of Relativity does not preclude anything from traveling at, or faster than, the speed of light. Relativity precludes any mass being accelerated to the seed of light.

Swan wrote:Bye the way- LOL, I bet that your father said EXACTLY the same thing about binary computers ...

Just so we're clear, how much are you betting?

There still isn't any such thing as a gravity flux wave generator. That and quantum computing are firmly set in the genre of science fiction.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Your hairy hero Einstein also says that nothing with mass can travel at light speed.

1. Einstein is not my hero. My children are my heroes.
2. Einstein is dead.
3. The Theory of Relativity does not preclude anything from traveling at, or faster than, the speed of light. Relativity precludes any mass being accelerated to the seed of light.

Swan wrote:Bye the way- LOL, I bet that your father said EXACTLY the same thing about binary computers ...

Just so we're clear, how much are you betting?

There still isn't any such thing as a gravity flux wave generator. That and quantum computing are firmly set in the genre of science fiction.

So you agree ...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Your hairy hero Einstein also says that nothing with mass can travel at light speed.

1. Einstein is not my hero. My children are my heroes.
2. Einstein is dead.
3. The Theory of Relativity does not preclude anything from traveling at, or faster than, the speed of light. Relativity precludes any mass being accelerated to the seed of light.

Swan wrote:Bye the way- LOL, I bet that your father said EXACTLY the same thing about binary computers ...

Just so we're clear, how much are you betting?

There still isn't any such thing as a gravity flux wave generator. That and quantum computing are firmly set in the genre of science fiction.

So you agree ...

40a.

Swan wrote:So you agree that photons are massless because they clearly travel at light speed.

Swan wrote:So there are no quantum computers nor was there an ice age in your padded vacation cottage,

Swan wrote: as for gravity wave generators, that is way over your peeler clearance and or your do as you are told IQ

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So you agree that photons are massless because they clearly travel at light speed.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I do not so agree. Photons are not accelerated. What force are you claiming is accelerating the photons?

Swan wrote:So there are no quantum computers nor was there an ice age in your padded vacation cottage,

Of course you are misstating my position.

Swan wrote: as for gravity wave generators, that is way over your peeler clearance and or your do as you are told IQ

Everything is independent of the gravity wave generator's lack of existence.

Swan wrote:
ENIAC was completed in 45 and shut down in 55, I have heard that it used so much power, 160 kilowatts that it caused brownouts which is part of the reason it was shut down, furthermore 10 years in the lifespan of a computer is actually long.

Any more questions?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:
ENIAC was completed in 45 and shut down in 55, I have heard that it used so much power, 160 kilowatts that it caused brownouts which is part of the reason it was shut down, furthermore 10 years in the lifespan of a computer is actually long.

Any more questions?

Questions? Sure why would I ask a foolish moron anything, I'd actually be interest in answer too?

I started learning electronics nearly 50 years ago. You seem to be just getting around to googling, and failing to comprehend anyway. Early computers weren't cheap, and in short supply. They ran what they had on hand, and were fortunate for that. Semiconductor computers were on the way, but still had a ways, before replacing what was already built. Wasn't like the past 40 years, where you could just stop off at the office store and pick one up.

There are currently zero quantum computers. There are some experimental chips, the inner workings seem to be a secret, or buried behind a paywall. The experimental rigs, all still rely on binary computers to control everything the chip does. Everything going in, going out, the qubits themselves.

You seem to read marketing hype, from research hoping to attract investors and funding for their 'promising' projects. And buy it, as if they are producing commercial products, or very close. What you are buying is a simulation, or emulator, not the real deal.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Your hairy hero Einstein also says that nothing with mass can travel at light speed.

1. Einstein is not my hero. My children are my heroes.
2. Einstein is dead.
3. The Theory of Relativity does not preclude anything from traveling at, or faster than, the speed of light. Relativity precludes any mass being accelerated to the seed of light.

Swan wrote:Bye the way- LOL, I bet that your father said EXACTLY the same thing about binary computers ...

Just so we're clear, how much are you betting?

There still isn't any such thing as a gravity flux wave generator. That and quantum computing are firmly set in the genre of science fiction.

So you agree ...

40a.

LOL ...

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So you agree that photons are massless because they clearly travel at light speed.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I do not so agree. Photons are not accelerated. What force are you claiming is accelerating the photons?

Swan wrote:So there are no quantum computers nor was there an ice age in your padded vacation cottage,

Of course you are misstating my position.

Swan wrote: as for gravity wave generators, that is way over your peeler clearance and or your do as you are told IQ

Everything is independent of the gravity wave generator's lack of existence.

...deleted 40a...

LOL all one has to do to accelerate photons is turn on a light switch, then electricity accelerates photons to light speed.

Man u iz dumb

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:
ENIAC was completed in 45 and shut down in 55, I have heard that it used so much power, 160 kilowatts that it caused brownouts which is part of the reason it was shut down, furthermore 10 years in the lifespan of a computer is actually long.

Any more questions?

Questions? Sure why would I ask a foolish moron anything, I'd actually be interest in answer too?

I started learning electronics nearly 50 years ago. You seem to be just getting around to googling, and failing to comprehend anyway. Early computers weren't cheap, and in short supply. They ran what they had on hand, and were fortunate for that. Semiconductor computers were on the way, but still had a ways, before replacing what was already built. Wasn't like the past 40 years, where you could just stop off at the office store and pick one up.

There are currently zero quantum computers. There are some experimental chips, the inner workings seem to be a secret, or buried behind a paywall. The experimental rigs, all still rely on binary computers to control everything the chip does. Everything going in, going out, the qubits themselves.

You seem to read marketing hype, from research hoping to attract investors and funding for their 'promising' projects. And buy it, as if they are producing commercial products, or very close. What you are buying is a simulation, or emulator, not the real deal.

You are nothing but a troll, playing a psychological game with yourself because you want people to try to prove stuff to you as this makes you feel important. The fact is that you are nothing, you never were or will be. Must be a sad life for you.

Swan wrote:
PS. This is one of the quantum computers that I own in my stock portfolio.

Swan wrote:
Again, I need no one's approval at this juncture

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:
ENIAC was completed in 45 and shut down in 55, I have heard that it used so much power, 160 kilowatts that it caused brownouts which is part of the reason it was shut down, furthermore 10 years in the lifespan of a computer is actually long.

Any more questions?

Questions? Sure why would I ask a foolish moron anything, I'd actually be interest in answer too?

I started learning electronics nearly 50 years ago. You seem to be just getting around to googling, and failing to comprehend anyway. Early computers weren't cheap, and in short supply. They ran what they had on hand, and were fortunate for that. Semiconductor computers were on the way, but still had a ways, before replacing what was already built. Wasn't like the past 40 years, where you could just stop off at the office store and pick one up.

There are currently zero quantum computers. There are some experimental chips, the inner workings seem to be a secret, or buried behind a paywall. The experimental rigs, all still rely on binary computers to control everything the chip does. Everything going in, going out, the qubits themselves.

You seem to read marketing hype, from research hoping to attract investors and funding for their 'promising' projects. And buy it, as if they are producing commercial products, or very close. What you are buying is a simulation, or emulator, not the real deal.

You are nothing but a troll, playing a psychological game with yourself because you want people to try to prove stuff to you as this makes you feel important. The fact is that you are nothing, you never were or will be. Must be a sad life for you.

You are describing yourself again.

Swan wrote:
PS. This is one of the quantum computers that I own in my stock portfolio.

There are no quantum computers.

Swan wrote:
Again, I need no one's approval at this juncture

But you do. That's why you continue to push your religions and troll.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:
ENIAC was completed in 45 and shut down in 55, I have heard that it used so much power, 160 kilowatts that it caused brownouts which is part of the reason it was shut down, furthermore 10 years in the lifespan of a computer is actually long.

Any more questions?

Questions? Sure why would I ask a foolish moron anything, I'd actually be interest in answer too?

I started learning electronics nearly 50 years ago. You seem to be just getting around to googling, and failing to comprehend anyway. Early computers weren't cheap, and in short supply. They ran what they had on hand, and were fortunate for that. Semiconductor computers were on the way, but still had a ways, before replacing what was already built. Wasn't like the past 40 years, where you could just stop off at the office store and pick one up.

There are currently zero quantum computers. There are some experimental chips, the inner workings seem to be a secret, or buried behind a paywall. The experimental rigs, all still rely on binary computers to control everything the chip does. Everything going in, going out, the qubits themselves.

You seem to read marketing hype, from research hoping to attract investors and funding for their 'promising' projects. And buy it, as if they are producing commercial products, or very close. What you are buying is a simulation, or emulator, not the real deal.

You are nothing but a troll, playing a psychological game with yourself because you want people to try to prove stuff to you as this makes you feel important. The fact is that you are nothing, you never were or will be. Must be a sad life for you.

You are describing yourself again.

Swan wrote:
PS. This is one of the quantum computers that I own in my stock portfolio.

There are no quantum computers.

Swan wrote:
Again, I need no one's approval at this juncture

But you do. That's why you continue to push your religions and troll.

Swan wrote: So the rest mass of a photon is ...

Swan wrote: It has finite momentum,

Swan wrote: The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass"

Swan wrote:... and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass.

Swan wrote: The term "relativistic mass" is often used

Swan wrote:1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

Swan wrote:Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.

Swan wrote:The clergy of a cryptocurrency exchange forces the congregation to exchange all of the liquidity while returning only a particle in "reflections."

Swan wrote: This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

Swan wrote:3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Swan wrote:Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun.

Swan wrote:But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

[quote]Swan wrote: NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:
ENIAC was completed in 45 and shut down in 55, I have heard that it used so much power, 160 kilowatts that it caused brownouts which is part of the reason it was shut down, furthermore 10 years in the lifespan of a computer is actually long.

Any more questions?

Questions? Sure why would I ask a foolish moron anything, I'd actually be interest in answer too?

I started learning electronics nearly 50 years ago. You seem to be just getting around to googling, and failing to comprehend anyway. Early computers weren't cheap, and in short supply. They ran what they had on hand, and were fortunate for that. Semiconductor computers were on the way, but still had a ways, before replacing what was already built. Wasn't like the past 40 years, where you could just stop off at the office store and pick one up.

There are currently zero quantum computers. There are some experimental chips, the inner workings seem to be a secret, or buried behind a paywall. The experimental rigs, all still rely on binary computers to control everything the chip does. Everything going in, going out, the qubits themselves.

You seem to read marketing hype, from research hoping to attract investors and funding for their 'promising' projects. And buy it, as if they are producing commercial products, or very close. What you are buying is a simulation, or emulator, not the real deal.

You are nothing but a troll, playing a psychological game with yourself because you want people to try to prove stuff to you as this makes you feel important. The fact is that you are nothing, you never were or will be. Must be a sad life for you.

You are describing yourself again.

Swan wrote:
PS. This is one of the quantum computers that I own in my stock portfolio.

There are no quantum computers.

Swan wrote:
Again, I need no one's approval at this juncture

But you do. That's why you continue to push your religions and troll.

Many people ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: So the rest mass of a photon is ...

No photon is ever at rest.

Swan wrote: It has finite momentum,

Right here. You acknowledge that photons have mass. Momentum requires mass. Great job answering your own question.

Swan wrote: The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass"

Nope. The term mass is properly understood as independent of speed.

Swan wrote:... and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass.

Nope. Einstein presumed that mass was independent of speed.

Swan wrote: The term "relativistic mass" is often used

The term "relativistic mass" is never used.

Swan wrote:1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

Nope. Non-zero mass implies only non-zero mass.

Swan wrote:Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.

Trust in the infinite range of the Force, Luke. A Jedi's strength FLOWS from the infinite range of the Force. You must unlearn what you have learned, but you are not a Jedi yet.

Swan wrote:The clergy of a cryptocurrency exchange forces the congregation to exchange all of the liquidity while returning only a particle in "reflections."

All wealth that goes into a cryptocurrency exchange loses substantial mass to other offshore accounts, but only particles that are rug-pulled actually achieve zero mass.

Swan wrote: This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

This is how you know your assumptions are wrong.

Swan wrote:3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Newsflash: peanut butter is consistent with the curvature of space by gravity.

Swan wrote:Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun.

It wasn't Einstein's prediction. It is what General Relativity predicted. This hypothesis was not falsified. Ergo, yes, photon mass has not been shown to be false.

Swan wrote:But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

[quote]Swan wrote: NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Incorrect. Nothing with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light. Photons (and their mass) are already at the speed of light when created.

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: So the rest mass of a photon is ...

No photon is ever at rest.

Swan wrote: It has finite momentum,

Right here. You acknowledge that photons have mass. Momentum requires mass. Great job answering your own question.

Swan wrote: The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass"

Nope. The term mass is properly understood as independent of speed.

Swan wrote:... and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass.

Nope. Einstein presumed that mass was independent of speed.

Swan wrote: The term "relativistic mass" is often used

The term "relativistic mass" is never used.

Swan wrote:1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

Nope. Non-zero mass implies only non-zero mass.

Swan wrote:Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.

Trust in the infinite range of the Force, Luke. A Jedi's strength FLOWS from the infinite range of the Force. You must unlearn what you have learned, but you are not a Jedi yet.

Swan wrote:The clergy of a cryptocurrency exchange forces the congregation to exchange all of the liquidity while returning only a particle in "reflections."

All wealth that goes into a cryptocurrency exchange loses substantial mass to other offshore accounts, but only particles that are rug-pulled actually achieve zero mass.

Swan wrote: This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

This is how you know your assumptions are wrong.

Swan wrote:3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Newsflash: peanut butter is consistent with the curvature of space by gravity.

Swan wrote:Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun.

It wasn't Einstein's prediction. It is what General Relativity predicted. This hypothesis was not falsified. Ergo, yes, photon mass has not been shown to be false.

Swan wrote:But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

[quote]Swan wrote: NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Incorrect. Nothing with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light. Photons (and their mass) are already at the speed of light when created.

.

Photons are still massless particles/waves of light, except when viewed by a schizoid like you.

Interactions of Photons with Matter, source Massachusetts Institute of Technology

* Photons are electromagnetic radiation with zero mass, zero charge, and a
velocity that is always c, the speed of light.
* Because they are electrically neutral, they do not steadily lose energy via
coulombic interactions with atomic electrons, as do charged particles.
* Photons travel some considerable distance before undergoing a more
"catastrophic" interaction leading to partial or total transfer of the
photon energy to electron energy.
* These electrons will ultimately deposit their energy in the medium.
* Photons are far more penetrating than charged particles of similar energy.
Energy Loss Mechanisms
* photoelectric effect
* Compton scattering
* pair production

The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light. So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero. This can be proved from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Hence the photons have a rest mass of zero.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: So the rest mass of a photon is ...

No photon is ever at rest.

Swan wrote: It has finite momentum,

Right here. You acknowledge that photons have mass. Momentum requires mass. Great job answering your own question.

Swan wrote: The first thing to establish is that the term mass is properly limited to what is sometimes called "rest mass"

Nope. The term mass is properly understood as independent of speed.

Swan wrote:... and at least Einstein thought that this was the only proper use for the term mass.

Nope. Einstein presumed that mass was independent of speed.

Swan wrote: The term "relativistic mass" is often used

The term "relativistic mass" is never used.

Swan wrote:1. Non-zero mass implies infinite "relativistic mass".

Nope. Non-zero mass implies only non-zero mass.

Swan wrote:Measurements of electromagnetic force imply an infinite range for the force.

Trust in the infinite range of the Force, Luke. A Jedi's strength FLOWS from the infinite range of the Force. You must unlearn what you have learned, but you are not a Jedi yet.

Swan wrote:The clergy of a cryptocurrency exchange forces the congregation to exchange all of the liquidity while returning only a particle in "reflections."

All wealth that goes into a cryptocurrency exchange loses substantial mass to other offshore accounts, but only particles that are rug-pulled actually achieve zero mass.

Swan wrote: This implies a zero mass exchange particle.

This is how you know your assumptions are wrong.

Swan wrote:3. Light deflection is consistent with the bending of space by gravity.

Newsflash: peanut butter is consistent with the curvature of space by gravity.

Swan wrote:Einstein's famous prediction and the experimental verification of the bending of starlight around the Sun would seem to prove that light has mass and is therefore attracted by the gravitational mass of the Sun.

It wasn't Einstein's prediction. It is what General Relativity predicted. This hypothesis was not falsified. Ergo, yes, photon mass has not been shown to be false.

Swan wrote:But general relativity indicates that the presence of a gravitational mass bends space in its vicinity, and the accepted interpretation of this observation is that light follows space and therefore follows the curvature of space near the Sun.

[quote]Swan wrote: NOTHING WITH MASS CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Incorrect. Nothing with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light. Photons (and their mass) are already at the speed of light when created.

.

Photons are still massless particles/waves of light, except when viewed by a schizoid like you.

Interactions of Photons with Matter, source Massachusetts Institute of Technology

* Photons are electromagnetic radiation with zero mass, zero charge, and a
velocity that is always c, the speed of light.
* Because they are electrically neutral, they do not steadily lose energy via
coulombic interactions with atomic electrons, as do charged particles.
* Photons travel some considerable distance before undergoing a more
"catastrophic" interaction leading to partial or total transfer of the
photon energy to electron energy.
* These electrons will ultimately deposit their energy in the medium.
* Photons are far more penetrating than charged particles of similar energy.
Energy Loss Mechanisms
* photoelectric effect
* Compton scattering
* pair production

The photons are said to be chargeless and massless particles that travel at the speed of light. So the rest mass of a photon is taken to be zero. This can be proved from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Hence the photons have a rest mass of zero.

You are again denying Einstein's special theory of relativity.