>If light is a particle and got mass, then this particle gravitate.

Photons are the particles associated with light, so yes we can think of light in terms of particles. However, their mass is zero - well theoretically that is, and experimentally we have some bounds that show that the photon is very light and so consistent with being massless.

Now what do you mean by gravitate?

According to general relativity, gravity is the curvature of space-time and photons follow what we call null geodesics. These are `the straightest  possible' paths on a curved space-time. In this sense photons do indeed `feel' gravity. This has experimentally been observed with gravitational lensing, for example.

Now, in general relativity it is not just mass that can act as a source of gravity, but we must also take into account energy. It is the energy-momentum tensor associated with a particle or field that acts as a source of gravity via Einstein's field equations

`Geometry = matter/field content'

As photons have energy and momentum they can act as a source of gravity,

So yes, photons 'feel' gravity and can course' gravity'.

>If all the particles got mass, then all particle gravitate.

Again, yes. But now any particles with non-zero mass follow what we call time-like geodesics. Also, as particles have energy-momentum they can act as a source of gravity.

The rest of your post I think is nonsense. Maybe you should read a book about modern physics?

Of course, though not in the way described. Cf. https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0919 for instance.

Light is electromagnetic radiation-and it is possible to lead to the formation of black holes. That's, also, known.

From Larmour  thesis about tranquility We can make plasma, becaouse particles of light gravitate by herself. I read book about electronic. Standard physic said that photon got not mass, but light is not energy, then could have mass.

>We can make plasma, becaouse particles of light gravitate by herself.

???

>Standard physic said that photon got not mass...

Yes, this is the case.

>...but light is not energy, then could have mass.

You are right that light is not energy. Classically, configurations of the electromagnetic field can be assigned a number that we call energy. Quantum mechanically, we say that photons can be assigned a number we call energy. Energy is a `thing' we assign to configurations, it does not exist by itself in any sense.

Photons could have a very very small mass, that would be allowed by our experiments and observations.  Theoretically this would be hard to understand due to gauge symmetry. Without details, the (gauge) symmetry of electromagnetism requires the photon to be massless.

Could not be massless and got very small mass. From while, maybe bozon do not give mass all particles, becaouse to make photon we need electromagnetic induction. From some species of particles we get other  particles. Energy exist but got not mass, in relations to bozon we get some species of particles. Light blongs to makro level not micro level, we do not need instruments to see some waves of light.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/larmor.html

>Could not be massless and got very small mass.

It is possible that photons have a tiny mass, but this is not thought to be the case.

>From while, maybe bozon do not give mass all particles, becaouse to make photon >we need electromagnetic induction.

Are talking about the Higgs boson?  We have a good model of electroweak symmetry breaking that produces a massless photon.

> Energy exist but got not mass,

Energy does not exists as something by itself. It is a property of a physical configuration.

> Light blongs to makro level not micro level, we do not need instruments to see some >waves of light.

We have biological instruments that can detect photons over a range of energies/frequencies....we have eyes.  But so what?

In mass is potential  energy, particles speed up anihilation, and in my opinion transform to energy. Yes in my opinion Higgs bozon make particles from energy. But we got different species of energy: electric, kinetic, heaten or other what I did not know..

Waves of light is surge of photons. this is the way the move. Or we're wrong waves with flux.  

>In mass is potential energy

It is best to think of mass as something that needs to be taken into account when balancing equations relating energies.  In this sense, mass can be converted to energy...but one has to take case as this my be the energy of something.

>,particles speed up anihilation,

I don't understand this.

>and in my opinion transform to energy.

When a particle and antiparticle collide part of their mass does indeed become energy, but not `pure energy'. For instance, if an electron and an  antielectron collide and produce two photons, then the initial mass becomes the energy of these photons.

>Yes in my opinion Higgs bozon make particles from energy. 

Where are you getting this?

The Higgs mechanism generates a mass via spontaneous symmetry breaking. It does not make particles as such (though decay of Higgs bosons will generate other particles, I don't think this is what you mean).

>Waves of light is surge of photons. this is the way the move.

Of course you have made a very loose statement.., so okay, light is `made of photons'.

Anyway, where are you getting your physics education? I am not why you are posting on Research Gate. I think a website dedicated to popular science would be better for you.

Myself. m=c2-(W/q0) It will be energetic potential in mass.

To verify that a photon has mass, a container that does not escape light but collects it should be made. If its weight is increasing, the photon has mass.

For current experimental tests on the mass of a photon, see the link. All tests are consistent with current theory, that the photon is massless. Trying to measure the weight will never work, the existing limits are far below what could be detected that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

> If its weight is increasing, the photon has mass.

Or would that just verify that E = mc^2?

I think better tests would be needed to see if photons do have a mass. As George Dishman points out, people have devised test to examine the experimental bounds on the mass of the photon.

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

For a photon, pc = E hence m=0

Then plasma did not have a mass too ? After all, plasma is produced from photons oscillations.

>Then plasma did not have a mass too ? After all, plasma is produced from photons >oscillations.

Tell us what a plasma is and then think about of plasmas have mass  or not.

(You might have something different in mind to what we understand as a plasma)

Electricity passed through the inductor converts electrons and protons into photons. From Larmour's theorem on frequency, it follows that when photons oscillate in relation to each other they turn into plasma due to the density. For example, a star consists of a plasma. I rely on the electronics manual. If the photon does not have mass, Larmour's theorem is wrong. And physics must be a coherent set of sentences.

Plasmas are ionized gases. In a normal gas the molecules are electrically neutral, the positive charge of the nucleus is balanced by the orbiting electrons.  In a plasma, some of these electrons are no longer bounded to particular molecules and are free. A plasma consists of positive ions (molecules or atoms in which some electrons are `missing') and free electrons.

I think what you are referring to plasmas emitting light - this is known as glow discharge.   You can read more about this via Wikipedia.

Thank You. I will read more about it.

George, from your formula, it follows that the photon rushing at the speed of light raised to the square turns into energy, but the light does not rush at a velocity raised to the square but at a speed c.

@Piotr

you are interpreting things in the wrong way, or trying to read too much into them...

The given formula

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

is what we call the mass-shell condition and all physical particles must obey this.  It is the basic equation of motion for all relativistic particles. You see that for massive particles in their rest frame, i.e., the frame for which p=0, we recover the formula you like

E = mc^2.

This tells us that whenever we are dealing with balancing equations related to energy we must also take into account mass. But again, as written this only works in the rest frame - the full expression works in all inertial frames.

Now, for massless particles we don't have a rest frame, we can't really make sense of p=0 (well, not if we want an inertial frame anyway). Setting m=0 gives

E = pc,

(being a little  slack here as p is now the absolute value of the momentum vector).  This tells us that the energy and momentum of a photon are the same up to a constant of proportionality which is the speed of light in vacuum. The expression itself doe snot directly tell you anything else... though it has consequences such as radiation pressure.

To recap, when examining energy we need to take into account mass, and when things are massless the energy and momentum are the same (in units c=1).

A little bit I understand it, but what happens to the protons heating argon (like in bulb) that they turn into photons lose mass? Protons has mass and argon has mass, in bulb they are not speed up to c^2. In LED bulb, argon is not necessary, just protons turn to photons. 15,09,2017

It seems to me that we can transform Einstein's pattern in the following manner, given that the mass is not the same as the weight. e=(w/q0)*c^2  but we could not transform like that (w/q0)/e=c^2, maybe we could transform to e/bozon=(w/q0)

I do not know if I think you wrote that light is energy. But how can it be energy, if the mass exceeding its speed to power turns into energy. Light has less speed than its speed raised to power. And if the photon had mass, it would turn itself into energy, reaching or exceeding c ^ 2.