Does the mass of an electron change after absorption and emission photon?

Abdelhalim abdelnaby Zekry

Dear Farid

Consider that the massless photon is an assumption, only.

But in recent years, numerous articles have been published based on empirical evidence which shows the photon has the shape, the upper limit of mass, and the minimum of electric charge which challenges the old approach to the photon. In this paper old and new approaches have reviewed and a new definition of particles relative to their speed has propounded. Fore detail see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321589753_Are_photons_really_massless

The photon is a quantum of energy. It has a momentum therefore it is has a mass even if it is very tiny. Photons can exist in dynamic form and it has no static state as it is a packet of electromagnetic wave.

If it is absorbed by an electron it will transfer its energy and its momentum to the electron. So, not necessarily the mass of the electron changes since a momentum change can be accomplished by a change in the velocity of the particle.

Globally seen from the point of view of Einstein the combination of electron and photon will result in a heavier electron even if one considers only that photon is a quantum of energy since the increase of energy can be considered as an apparently an increase in the mass.

Best wishes

Dear Abdelhalim

According to the relation:

See figure:

Transfer the momentum and energy of a photon to the electron, the mass of electron should be changed.

Albert Manfredi

The question can be answered both ways. If one is a "massive photon skeptic," as I tend to be (although I'm not a physicist), then you can say no. Photon absorption results in an electron gaining energy, jumping up to a higher energy level, and therefore no change of mass is required conceptually.

If one believes in massive photons, then of course absorption of a photon results in an increase in mass of the electron.

Equations that relate mass to energy, though, don't make a convincing argument. Any more than would equations in classical physics, that might be shown to relate, say, height above the surface of the earth to spring constant. But other discoveries, which put in doubt the existence of quantum states at all, at least under certain conditions, well, that could change everything!

Albert Manfredi

If the mass of electron does not change, how we can describe this phenomenon?

When an electron emits a photon, the photon has mass the is given by m=E/c2. Where comes from the mass of the photon?

Abdelhalim abdelnaby Zekry

Dear Hossein,

When the photon inner electromagnetic structure of the photon is considered in the frame of the trispatial geometry, it can be observed that this conclusion that it would have zero mass can only be axiomatic.

In this geometry, inertia can be directly related to the transverse electromagnetic oscillation of half the energy of the photon, as described in this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

This oscillating half then displays "omnidirectional inertia" in normal space, which in the trispatial geometry is what corresponds to the concept of "mass", or rather "electromagnetic mass" as Kaufmann and Poincare preferred to name it.

When a photon is "absorbed" by an electron, this "massive" part of the photon simply adds to that of the carrying energy that already propels the electron, whose total complement of energy making up its rest mass permanently displays omnidirectional inertia.

The initial establishment of this carrying energy of an accelerating electron by the Coulomb force is described in the following paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

This induced momentum energy does not integrate however with the rest mass energy proper of the electron. In this trispatial geometry, this momentum related energy structures as an accompanying carrier-photon that propels the electron at the related measurable momentum velocity, and that structures in the same way as a free-moving photon.

This carrying energy is described in the following paper:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

The incoming photon energy simply increases the energy of this carrier-photon.

Thank you Andre for elaborating on my answer.This is in agreement with my previous post.

Best wishes

Laurent Jaeken

I am a cell biologist, but because it matters for understanding biology, I am studying quantum mechanics from the side line. A photon is said to have zero mass. This could be because the universe has a real realm and a virtual realm. A photon belongs to both. I understand this as, when the photon has a positive mass in the real realm, than it has an equivalent negative mass in the virtual realm, so that its total mass is zero. An electron - by definition - belongs only to the real realm. Its counterpart in the virtual realm is called a positron, but for me it is clear that together electron and positron form a unity. So, it is somehow an incomplete question in the sense that, if something happens with the electron, than - I believe - something also happens with its counterpart, the positron with which its forms a unity. But it is difficult for me to say what. But you have an important question, which I addressed also at some moment. This was when I saw that traditional physics is full of mistakes, very deeply embedded mistakes, which are very difficult to distinguish and therefore remained unnoticed for almost a century. So, I consider you to read two splendid books, not very much pages, but of great depth and both a real thriller. The first can be found freely on the internet. It is a monograph which is regularly updated. The title is: Physchemistry of microcosm. Put 'Ph. Kanarev' into your browser and you will find it. Do not be affraid that it is obscure. It is not. It is pure science of the highest level, although he starts to attack Bohr's formula of line spectra. Anyhow he is able to quantitatively calculate all lines of all isotopes with his own simple algebraic equation, with which one can abandone everything about orbitals. And line spectra is the topic about which your question goes. His first chapter points to the importance of considering the unity of the universe and how one makes fundamental mistakes when one does not. The way how Maxwell's truncated equations are commonly used is such a very big mistake. So, be prudent. The second book is called 'Secrets of the Aether' written by D. Thomson and J. Bourassa, originally from 2004, but also with further developments later. Also put these two names in your browser and you will find information. The book can be obtained directly from the authors via the internet. Also this is not obscure, but pure science from very high level, revealing other fundamental mistakes in current thinking. One of these is the wrong use of the law of Coulomb, though originally Coulomb saw it correctly. The two books are very complimentary. They both make quantum theory much more comprehensible, more algebraic, less mysterious and more Newtonian. So, in my opinion much of quantum theory is so weird, because at the time when it was conceived, some fundamental mistakes were introduced. One of these was the experimental proof of Michelson and Morley that the aether does not exist, despite the fact that Tesla conceived all his electric and electromagnetic devices by using this old concept. What Michelson proved was that there does not exist a static aether. But they did not disprove the existence of a dynamic aether. Thomson and Bourassa quantitatively describe what the dynamic aether is. This new description, in my opinion, will be able to replace or reformulate Einstein's relativity. I would not be able to work it out, but it is clear to me that Einstein developed his theories because he became convinced that the non-existence of the aaether was experimentay proved, and so he conceived something to allow science to continue. Although his whole life he continued to think that perhaps he was wrong. Anyhow, it was workable for almost a century, but now new insights emerge. Einstein's situation is somehow comparable to that of Schrödinger. His probabilistic method in retrospect can be seen as a rescue for all the many lines, which could otherwise not be computed with the (wrong) equation of Bohr. So, historically it put chemistry on the road.

Laurent Jaeken

Dear André

Massless photon is an assumption only. Also, moving photon has mass equal m=E/c2. Question is when an electron is absorbing a photon (that is moving) does photon lose its mass before absorption?

There is an interesting discussion on:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_moving_photon_has_the_mass_that_is_given_by_mE_c2_if_the_photon_is_massless_where_its_mass_come_from/1

Especially, I suggest read Mohamed Hassani comments.

Dear Laurent

You are welcome, thank you for the interesting comment. For rest mass of photon please see:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_moving_photon_has_the_mass_that_is_given_by_mE_c2_if_the_photon_is_massless_where_its_mass_come_from/1

Especially, I suggest read Mohamed Hassani comments.

Dear Abdelhalim,

Glad to see that you are aware of mass increase with velocity, that is, with increasing momentum energy.

If you wish to explore how the self-sustaining mutual induction of electric and magnetic aspects of localized elementary particles can be explained in the trispatial geometry, you will find a detailed overview of this analysis in this recently published paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

and here is an unpublished index with links to all related published papers:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/2460

Best Regards

Dear Hossein,

Actually, the trispatial geometry reveals that only half the photon quantum of energy displays omnidirectional inertia, that is "mass", the other half is its momentum related unidirectional energy, which propels the transversally EM oscillating half.

To your question, from the trispatial perspective, when a photon communicates its energy to an electron, all of its energy is transferred to the electron, including both its unidirectional momentum energy and its transversally EM oscillating half, that is its "massive" half.

I know well Mohamed Hassani's opinion on this issue, because I have often discussed with him.

Since he interprets the behavior of electrons from the SR perspective instead of from the trispatial geometry perspective, he is convinced that the electron does not increase its mass with increased velocity.

Best Regards

Dear André

"the electron does not increase its mass with increased velocity."

How is it explainable by relativistic mass?

Dear Hossein,

This is an issue that you would have to take up with Mohamed, because this is his conclusion.

Mine is the conclusion that emerges from the trispatial perspective, which is that the mass of elementary charged particles can only increase with velocity, or with proximity with other charged particles.

James Langworthy

A free electron doesn't absorb a photon. Only if it's bound to a nucleus can there be absorption. Then the photon that's absorbed does work on the electric field that binds the electron by elevating it to a higher orbit. The electron's rest mass doesn't change, it's the atom's mass that changes.

Dear James,

You write: "Then the photon that's absorbed does work on the electric field that binds the electron by elevating it to a higher orbit. The electron's rest mass doesn't change, it's the atom's mass that changes."

Not only the atom's mass changes with distance between it and the electron, but the mass of the electron also changes, made of its rest mass and of the mass increment contributed by its carrying energy.

But to understand this you need to first understand the adiabatic nature of the energy induced in charges by the Coulomb force:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

James Langworthy

Dear Andre -- Any change due effects of gravity are very negligible compared to the effects on the electric field.

Dear André

I agree with you that "the mass of the electron also changes".

In fact, in absorption, the mass of the photon is added to the mass of the electron.

Dear James,

What you say is true at our macroscopic level due to the huge relative distances that separate the charges making up any macroscopic bodiy from the charges making up any other macroscopic body, but when these distances between charges are short as within atomic structures, this effect is clearly measurable.

At our level, these changes are too close to the asymptotic limit of detectability to be measured, just like relativistic mass increase at low velocities is too close to the zero asymptotic limit for detection to be possible.

This has to do with the adiabatic nature of the energy induced in charges by the Coulomb force as a function of the inverse square of the distances.

If you read and understand the paper I referred you to, this is clearly explained.

Dear Hossein,

Yes. I am glad that you also concluded this from the QFT perspective.

As I was preparing my paper on gravitation and QM last summer as considered from the electromagnetism perspective, after having considered QFT and GR, I did not think it was possible to completely harmonize them into a consistent explanation.

I am still reading your material, but it looks like you went a long way into this harmonization process, which seems to be the quantized approach corresponding to the infinitesimally progressive approach that I analyzed from only electromagnetism.

ِDear André

I appreciate your attention.

It seems that our approaches are close.

Though from two different ways.

Dear Hossein,

I totally agree.

Indeed, I always understood that QFT was correctly derived from Maxwell's theory, So it always seemed possible in my view to completely describe the fundamental level from the quantization perspective, but I couldn't figure out how to proceed. Particularly, I couldn't figure out how to mechanically describe the conversion processes between each states, from this perspective.

Since I visualise infinitesimally continuous processes more easily, I analyzed the fundamental level from this perspective, with Maxwell's theory as the only reference.

So as I suspected, both continuous and discontinuous descriptions can be made of the fundamental level. Simply 2 different observation perspectives on the same physical reality.

If you go to page 2 of my paper on adiabatic processes (just referred to in my answer to James), you will see that I was in agreement with the quantization perspective all along, and that both methods are complementary. Section titled "Continuity vs. discontinuity with respect to the fundamental interaction laws and the time and space dimensions".

ِDear André

Not only "QFT was correctly derived from Maxwell's theory", even the atomic theory and the structure of the atom are affected by Maxwell equations.

For this reason, my work was started whit generalizing Maxwell equations to quantum vacuum.

Interesting, I am working on this same mystery. I argue that the mass remains the same, the centripetal velocity increases, and the orbit at which the electron propagates about decreases. As to whether or not the nucleus becomes more dense or remains the same is unclear. This instantaneous interaction, for which, after energy has become intertwined with a specific electron, the mass remains the same, centripetal velocity increases, atomic orbit decreases, and the nucleus becomes more dense or remains the same, is deemed as the Frank Starling Law of Atomic Interactions, per my discretion.

Dear Victor

Let's answer a more fundamental question.

Is the electron mass the same before and after absorption in the photoelectric phenomenon?

My answer is no.

Dear Victor,

It has been known for a 100 years that the electron is not moving about the proton on an orbit in the hydrogen atom as you suggest. It has no orbit that can decrease and on which it has a velocity that could increase.

In the hydrogen atom, the electron is captive in axial resonance state about a mean distance from the proton corresponding to the Bohr radius, and the volume visited by the electron as it is axially shoved about is defined by the wave function, as de Broglie and Schrödinger established in the 1920's. It may even be in resonance state without moving around the proton as when captive in covalent bound with another electron between two protons in a hydrogen molecule

To understand whether the components of the nucleus become more dense or remain the same, you need to understand the adiabatic nature of kinetic energy induction as function of the distances separating the charged particles that they are made of.

Mr. Michaud,

My apologies for not being content with the contemporary standards of what is considered scientifically acceptable, additionally, my suggestion never entailed any association with the hydrogen atom. I agree with you that an electron does not manifest rotational behavior about a proton; rather, what I am saying is that an electron rotates about a nucleus, which, to our standards, consists of protons and neutrons. It makes no logical sense for an electron to not have a rotational like behavior about a centered substance, in this case an atomic nucleus; whether the orbit is circular or elliptical in fashion. If electrons did not have a rotational like behavior, much like the mechanical satellites orbiting our planet, how will the electrons maintain specificity to an atom of its "origin" without wavering off to another atom? Electrons must maintain rotational velocity about a centered nucleus, specific to the example of a single atom (for this behavior changes when two or more atoms are linked together). Also, Kinetic energy induction plays a crucial role in determining the density of a nucleus, indeed.

Dear Victor,

I understand your concept of the massive electron requiring that it be on an orbit about the nucleus. It is quite logical. From the electromagnettic perspective, it is also possible for the electron to remain electromagnetically captive about the proton in an axial resonance manner that does not involve that it has to move on a closed orbit about the proton.

But this cannot be explained in a few sentences. It is related to Maxwell's theory and Quantum Mechanics. And you are right, kinetic energy induction plays a major role in these processes.

It is to my understanding that if the ideology for which an electron is to remain electromagnetically captive to a proton, then it is only because that depiction is made from a static diagram. However, axial resonance behavior of an electron may be interpreted through an equation of a pendulum, for which then an orbital equation may be formed. Perhaps what is meant by axial resonance from one perspective equates to orbital behavior by another. Indeed, these behaviors are far to complex to be fully captivated by a mere few sentences.

Dear Victor,

If you think that the fact that the electron remains captive in electromagnetic equilibrium with a proton is an "ideology", it can only mean that you never studied electromagnetism.

You write: "Perhaps what is meant by axial resonance from one perspective equates to orbital behavior by another."

You are exactly right, but to understand why, you need to study electromagnetism.

The fact that the same level of kinetic energy is involved in both perspectives does not mean that only the orbital behavior is possible, as you seem to think.

The classical mechanics perspective involving the concept of mass leads to the closed orbit representation, but the electromagnetic mechanics perspective involving the concept of charge leads to the resonance state representation, that also leads to an explanation of the stability of the least action electromagnetic equilibrium resonance state into which the electron remains captive into in the hydrogen atom, which is something that the classical perspective does not allow to mechanically explain.

My good sir,

No, in the context of electromagnetism I do not believe that an "electron remains captive in electromagnetic equilibrium with a proton."

Regarding kinetic energy, indeed this is relative, for there also exists potential energy in the form of orbital states for which the electrons are able to occupy. I have studied electromagnetism, and it is clear to me that if the scientific community accepts the ideology of electrons behaving in any other manner other than in an orbital fashion, specific to single non-interactive atoms, than there is clearly something wrong with that train of thought; of course, all of what was stated is in the context of a vacuumed atomic system.

In regards to classical mechanics, this field of study is simply a gateway into a better understanding of atomic behaviors. As you and I both know, the behaviors of atoms are for too complex then can be explained by simple classical mechanics.

My dear Sir,

In the context of 2, b from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology, yes. However, just because the term ideology is used, does not mean that the subject at which the term is directed towards is true or false.

Jerry Decker

In thermodynamics it is said that total mass decreases slightly when two atoms connect together as a molecule, similar to the binding energy of the nucleus, but much smaller. In covalent chemical bonding this is the sharing of electrons which may have a number of possible energy levels from lowest state to the high state at which the atoms separate. Each transition occurs by losing or gaining a photon. Consistent with thermodynamics the electron should lose mass as it gives off photons and gain mass as it captures photons to move faster. The difference is small compared to the total mass.

Photons don't need to bring rest mass or carry it away since the photons have no rest state.

All of these properties are measured in laboratory frame. The opposite occurs in the frame of the electron, where apparent rest mass decreases as speed increases.

Energy and mass are not conserved in relativistic transformations because the timing, distances, and sequence of events are not the same for all observers.