Re: Energy?

On 07/28/2024 12:36 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> 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."?

>
It is nonsense, from a practical point of view.
Maybe you need a better textbook?
>
E = 0 merely means an energy which is too low to be detectable.
We know that there must be infinitely many of those photons.
See under 'infra-red catastrophe', in which infinitely many IR photons
still have a finite energy,
>
Jan
>
>

The word "catastrophe" is also "perestroika" or "opening" in
the relevant mathematics of the singularity theory which is
a principal branch of what's a multiplicity theory.
Then, the "ultra-violet catastrophe" brings it back to how
the conceit of particle mechanics is rehabilitated in what's
a continuum mechanics, with regards to Rayleigh-Jeans, blackbody
radiation, Millikan measurement, and about how, for example,
sodium has at least three lines in spectroscopy.
See "hobbled".