Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Energy? Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:14:51 -0700 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <66A8307B.8B6@ix.netcom.com> References: Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="2846208"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240729-6, 07/29/2024), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:655392 There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the word...Energy. Stefan Ram wrote: > > In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a > system with mass m = 0: > > E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector" > > . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle > at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore > p^'3-vector' <> 0.". > > So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass > must have momentum. > > But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."? > > 300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is > no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass. > > Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there > be a particle with "E = 0"? > > Here's the Unicode: > > E²/c² = p⃗ · p⃗ > > and > > |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we > |have a particle, E ≠0, and therefore p⃗ ≠0. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.