Is there an answer to this question?

[crjmurray]

I have. And this will be the last response to your behavior on the thread. If the OP is ok with it, it's his thread.

That's fine. Continue to make things up, willfully ignore posts, and derail threads. Ha! What am I saying? You don't need my permission!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why is logic true?

Category mistake. First we assume a system of logic, and the logic has rules for truth and falsity.

If love is real how much does it weigh? Because surely every material thing has a mass and could, at least in theory, be weighed.

Photons are real, and they have no mass.

 

[TillICollapse]

So remind me, why is logic true?

Are you using the term "logic" in a common everyday sort of way ? Or are you addressing the actual topic of logic itself ?

Something can be logically consistent, but be fallacious and the resultant conclusions false, while still being logically consistent. You may draw a completely rational conclusion from evidence, which is logically consistent (but not sound, I don't believe), but one of those bits of evidence is false, which makes your conclusion false. For example. In that regard, logic doesn't have to be "true" to still be consistent. Someone can correct me if I'm using terms incorrectly or have misrepresented something

I believe this aspect of the topic really would be better addressed in the philosophy forum. IMO.

Personally, I use the term "logic" loosely sometimes, as I haven't had formal study in logic. But I am trying to point out what I believe I can speak to a bit. As I said ... anyone can feel free to educate me if I'm using terms incorrectly. I'm trying to familiarize myself more with logic itself as in, the study of it.

If thoughts don't have weight then do they really exist? Can you name something that really exists that has no mass and hence no weight?

As pointed out, photons have no mass.

Things like thoughts, love, consciousness, etc ... in order to "weigh" them, you would have to know the precise cocktail that is necessary to produce them as an emergent phenomena (they are arguably emergent phenomena). To properly weigh a cookie, you need the ingredients to first make the cookie. Obviously. There isn't a cookie tree that grows cookies whole, or a "cookie particle" (though that would be awesome). With thoughts and love, etc ... they are arguably emergent phenomena we experience once a variety of processes combine. To properly weigh "love", you would need to know all the factors involved in producing it.

I would probably say love isn't merely abstract (existing as concept only) since we do relate biological feelings to love.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Category mistake. First we assume a system of logic, and the logic has rules for truth and falsity.



Photons are real, and they have no mass.

I don't think that logic defines truth.

And photons do have mass, it is REST-MASS that they lack. Gotta get your physics right

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

As pointed out, photons have no mass.

Things like thoughts, love, consciousness, etc ... in order to "weigh" them, you would have to know the precise cocktail that is necessary to produce them as an emergent phenomena (they are arguably emergent phenomena). To properly weigh a cookie, you need the ingredients to first make the cookie. Obviously. There isn't a cookie tree that grows cookies whole, or a "cookie particle" (though that would be awesome). With thoughts and love, etc ... they are arguably emergent phenomena we experience once a variety of processes combine. To properly weigh "love", you would need to know all the factors involved in producing it.

I would probably say love isn't merely abstract (existing as concept only) since we do relate biological feelings to love.

Nope, photons do have mass. They have zero rest-mass. Quite a different thing.

Remember that old equation, the one Einstein did. E = mc**2 Well, photons have E hence they have m because c**2 is a finite number. The m that a photon has is E/C**2 where E is the photon's energy.

I hope they still teach this stuff in schools

 

[TillICollapse]

Nope, photons do have mass. They have zero rest-mass. Quite a different thing.

Remember that old equation, the one Einstein did. E = mc**2 Well, photons have E hence they have m because c**2 is a finite number. The m that a photon has is E/C**2 where E is the photon's energy.

I hope they still teach this stuff in schools

Yes they still teach that stuff in schools In fact, I remember being given a calculus problem (this was 20 years ago, and calculus has since become a foreign language to me) which took me about 30 minutes or so to work as I recall ... when I got to the end, I was looking at E = mc*2 lol. I got chills

Yes I was being lazy, sorry, fair enough point ... to a point. It's my understanding that whether or not a photon actually has mass or not, has yet to be proven definitively (anyone correct me ?). So to say it DOES have mass is speculative, and to give it a non-zero rest mass would cause some theories to have issues and conflict with other observed phenomena which is beyond my arm-chair understanding

 

[TillICollapse]

Nope, photons do have mass. They have zero rest-mass. Quite a different thing.

Remember that old equation, the one Einstein did. E = mc**2 Well, photons have E hence they have m because c**2 is a finite number. The m that a photon has is E/C**2 where E is the photon's energy.

I hope they still teach this stuff in schools

I just realized you were referencing E=mc*2 ONLY. For some reason I thought when I read your post I saw a "p" in there … I skimmed too fast. I just re-read what you actually wrote.

Are you leaving out momentum in your concept ? You didn't mention it here, does that mean you're not factoring it in (since you're bringing up rest energy specifically) ? IIRC, E=mc*2 in the lazy sense, is taking into account that momentum of the observer is equal to that of the particle being observed (or IOW, the article is at rest). If you refer to the full equation: E*2 = p*2c*2 + m*2 (rest mass)c*4, where p is the momentum of the particle, this is a step to getting E=mc*2 in the first place, because when the particle is at rest (p=0) you get E*2=m*2c*4 …. or E=mc*2. If you make the rest mass = 0, then you get E*2 = p*2c*2, or E=pc. Since a photon isn't ever at rest (yes ? This is still true, right ? Or is this knowledge outdated lol), E=mc*2 lacks the momentum factor. E=pc is the way a photon is expressed (in a vacuum, yes ?)

That was pulling some stuff off a rusty shelf there I did a quick Google to check the energy-momentum equation, hope I got it right nonetheless But as I recall, it's important to include momentum and to not consider energy as being related to mass only, but momentum. In fact, the idea of relativistic mass verses resting mass was born out of considering inertia, yes ?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Photons have momentum. It is measurable. It has been measured.

 

[justlookinla]

Love is related to photons in what way?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Love is related to photons in what way?

You tell me, I am not a philosophical materialist.

 

[justlookinla]

You tell me, I am not a philosophical materialist.

I don't know. I was hoping to find out.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't know. I was hoping to find out.

I see that you faith icon

denotes non-denominational. Do you have a view of how things work and why they exist?

 

[justlookinla]

I see that you faith icon

denotes non-denominational. Do you have a view of how things work and why they exist?

No, I'm not the go-to guy on explaining how God works and why we exist. I have lots of questions myself.

I have had what I believe were God encounters which deeply affected my life, but I can't explain the why's and hows of them.

 

[TillICollapse]

Photons have momentum. It is measurable. It has been measured.

Yeah that's why I brought it up, I wasn't sure how you were claiming that photons DO have mass. I thought perhaps you were leaving momentum out. So what is the mass of a photon then ? It's my understanding that to speak of relativistic mass is outdated now ... it's more normal to speak of energy and invariant mass, and that those who claim a photon does actually have mass often refer to relativistic mass, but that's a misnomer as it concerns a photon in the way we would normally think of mass. It still has no mass. So I'm willing to be educated, since I'm rusty and have taken for granted that the mass of a photon has still remained mass-less throughout the years. What is the mass of a photon ?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yeah that's why I brought it up, I wasn't sure how you were claiming that photons DO have mass. I thought perhaps you were leaving momentum out. So what is the mass of a photon then ? It's my understanding that to speak of relativistic mass is outdated now ... it's more normal to speak of energy and invariant mass, and that those who claim a photon does actually have mass often refer to relativistic mass, but that's a misnomer as it concerns a photon in the way we would normally think of mass. It still has no mass. So I'm willing to be educated, since I'm rusty and have taken for granted that the mass of a photon has still remained mass-less throughout the years. What is the mass of a photon ?

p=mv does it not? the m in that is mass. In the case of a photon v is c hence the momentum of a photon is directly proportional to its mass. p=mc. And since e=mc**2 making m = e/c**2 it follows that momentum is directly proportional to the energy of a photon.

 

[TillICollapse]

p=mv does it not? the m in that is mass.

But all the energy a photon has is kinetic energy, it has no rest mass technically since it's never at rest (we can't know for certain since it doesn't rest). It's momentum is solely determined by it's energy. p=mv doesn't cut it, because a photon has no mass. It wouldn't cut it for anything traveling at the speed of light, from what I understand. Which is why I referred back to the energy-momentum equation. It would actually be p= (gamma)v for a massless photon, which is the same as the classical except it's dependent up the Lorentz factor to find the relativistic mass.

As I said, as far as I know, whether or not a photon actually has mass (commonly referring to a resting mass) is debatable, but otherwise it's mostly considered fiction. We can't bring a photon to rest (or have we one this now ?). Unless you can explain to me what the mass of a photon has been discovered to be at various points ?

ETA: I just saw you edited your post to explain more. So okay, give me a working example using the classical p=mv as well as E=mc*2 to show me how a photon can have mass. Let me see a working example to where you get a mass for a photon, and how this can be verified to show a photon's mass and is actually applicable.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I did say that photons have no rest mass, a photon at rest does not exist. Photons always travel at c whatever c is for the medium that the photon is in.

Anyway, we've established that photons have mass and that they are detectable because of it and because of the energy. What about thoughts and love, do they have mass?

 

[TillICollapse]

I did say that photons have no rest mass, a photon at rest does not exist. Photons always travel as c whatever c is for the medium that the photon is in.

Anyway, we've established that photons have mass and that they are detectable because of it and because of the energy. What about thoughts and love, do they have mass?

So what is the mass of a photon traveling at c then ? I'm willing to be educated.

ETA: And I mean a working example. Pick any wavelength or frequency you wish.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is logic true?

If love is real how much does it weigh? Because surely every material thing has a mass and could, at least in theory, be weighed.

Love is a behavior, so it is a bit like asking the weight of flying, or flowing. A more approximate answer would the be weight of the brain, since it is responsible for producing the behavior and emotions of love.

As to science, we don't ask why nature acts in a consistent and rational manner. We just observe that it does. The scientific method is an extension of that observation.

 

[TillICollapse]

I did say that photons have no rest mass, a photon at rest does not exist. Photons always travel at c whatever c is for the medium that the photon is in.

Anyway, we've established that photons have mass and that they are detectable because of it and because of the energy. What about thoughts and love, do they have mass?

I opened up a new thread on this topic, if you'd wish to participate, feel free. If not, no worries. It may make for an interesting discussion (or may not, if there isn't sufficient participation).