Current society is heavily influenced by the spread of online information, containing all sorts of claims, commonly found in news stories, tweets, and social media postings, while "photon mass" is an old magnet of such manifestations.

Depending on each user, they may be considered “true” or “false”, depending on the agent’s trust on the claim. Instead, one can discuss the concept of content trust and trust process, and use a framework to describe the trust process, which can support various possible models of content trust. See arxiv article by Carlos Laufer and Daniel Schwabe.

See also https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/8/170/htm on "Artificial Intelligence Implementations on the Blockchain. Use Cases and Future Applications".

Even though there seems to be a sufficient theoretical basis for separating “signal” from “noise”, which is the sought for solution, the problem still thrives as of today.

Photon has mass. Its longitudinal inertness is zero. And the transverse inertness is its mass. It manifests itself in the impulse, momentum and energy of the photon. I don't want to repeat myself. Please take a look at the preprint "What is photon" on my profile.

VP: a photon does not have mass. This is accepted physics, proven by thousands of experiments, and beyond what reasonable people can disagree on.

When a photon is emitted the energy which is given by E = hf is lost to the emitting source. Although this is a tiny amount of energy it is still a loss of mass by the source. This happens even though the photon has zero rest mass.

When the photon, still with energy E = hf is absorbed by another atom the energy increase to the atomic electron of that atom is added to energy of that atomic electron and there is a tiny increase in mass.

The nature of the atomic electron as a looped wave in spacetime means that it curves spacetime in its vicinity and this is the cause of the property mass that we measure. Looped waves in spacetime have mass and the wave speed in the loop is c. Non-looped waves travel at the speed of light and have zero rest mass.

The conservation of energy laws require that even though the photon has zero rest mass, there is transfer of mass from the emitter to the absorber.

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

Richard

RL: I don't know any "looped wave", I consider a photon to be a particle only, but PM is available for that. The other parts seems consistent with what we know and support in Einstein's famous equation.

But, may we add collective effects to that? A photon may have to work against neighboring atoms, or receive work from them, resulting in coherent effects beyond what one would expect just from m=E/c^2.

This has been called superabsorption, and superemission. We suspected, in an algebraic treatment in the RG archives on the double-slit experiment, that there should also be superstimulated-emission.

Thus, the mass transfer may be greater or less than m=E/c^2, by taking into account collective effects.

"Although no comments can be seriously replied publicly any more, due to RG lack of moderation, and RG fake news infestation versus facts, PM is available and viewpoints can be exposed by PM."

I totally agree, there are many comments saying stupid thinks just because the author thinks it is, regardless of the thousands of evidence to the contrary. Like for example.. That the wave function is discontinuous, right Ed?

SGC: Examples that show the wavefunction to be discontinuous have been calculated, experimentally proven, and were postulated by Bohr when he said that QM is "all states at once". Opposition to the contrary goes against this compound evidence, but tends to disappear. QM is seen, more and more, as ontic.

Nothing is continuous in nature, although universality can give that impression. Thus, people can ignore QM and just see a pretend continuity that explain all but some facts. These few facts include coherence, which appears in radiation though not supported by the qubit view. The qubit view is another fiction, not valid even classically. Einstein explained so already in 1917. Any questions on that, I may be available by PM. The qubit view is still used today, nevertheless.

This is an interesting question.

Preprint A Heuristic View on the Composition of Space

Preprint A New View on the Composition of Matter

GF: Your abuse of RG needs to stop. Please delete your off-topic message.

Comment on trust analogy with photon.

●Stimulated or Spontaneous Emission: when an atom emits a photon, mass is lost, and there is a recoil, albeit a photon has no mass.

●Absorption: the reverse happens when an atom receives a photon, where mass is gained, and there is a recoil, albeit a photon has no mass.

●Mass can be transfered by the photon, which has no mass, through m = E/c^2. Albeit one has to add the positive or negative contributions from collective effects.

Although mass is energy, energy is not identical to mass.

That's why the equation E = m c2 is not equal to E = m because the equation describes a transformation.

Now there is a conceptual problem because c2 isn't just a conversion number to get the equivalence between energy and mass. Obviously, c2 represents a "tangible" difference between a quantum somewhere in vacuum space ("free energy") and a quantum that is part of a local mass.

In other words, it isn't sensible to criticize the opinion of other RG members - and even plead for moderation - if we don't know the underlying reality of the most famous equation in physics that exists for more than a century.

With kind regards, Sydney

SEG: Comments cannot be made publicly in your entry, which has an ad hominem attack, attacking the person not the argument Thank you for your opinion, which disagrees with Einstein and established physics. I am available by PM.

The more posters insist on doing ad hominem attacks, attacking the person not the argument, the more we confirm the "observer effect" that has been plaguing RG discussions. They are playing for a supposedly untrained crowd. The solution is NOT to wait until RG is forced by law or competition to introduce moderation in such clear-cut cases. The solution is to offer PM, were there is no "observer effect" and opinions can be evaluated with more freedom of speech. This increases the value of RG, adding discussions to an already valuable preprint service. Science wins with more freedom of speech.

Gravitons may also transfer mass the same way. A graviton should have no mass, but can transfer mass by energy conversion.

It is physically acceptable to use any consistent system of units. Physics doesn't depend on the observer, or on how we measure things.

It is easier if we use some sort of "natural" units, for example that E and B have the same units, but it does not matter physically, because E and B form one thing for the electromagnetic field, as revealed by the measurement.

Likewise, it is customary in Physics to use c=1, an integer with no units, and write m = E. It is easy to pass to c != 1 units, as well-known.

Using m = E doesn't mean that m and E are equal, or the same thing, but that they are equivalent in definite circumstances. This must be understood.

"Likewise, it is customary in Physics to use c=1, an integer with no units, and write m = E. It is easy to pass to c != 1 units, as well-known."

...maybe it's well known, but it's one of the greatest mistakes which may be not so well-known by you... because every "crackpot" knows that Joule is different from Kilogram... c2 has a dimension that you throw away... like stating that Ed Gerck is non human... so you are alien ?! Possible, at least with your physics !

BB: No one, not even you, can argue against c=1, a much better way to calculate. In fact, c can be different than 1 in MKS but it still is understood as an exact integer. This is important, not a so-called real number -- that would necessarily imply imprecision.

Ed Gerck... your abuse of researchgate needs to stop... you are spreading fake knowledge ! Please delete the nonsense you wrote !

BB: You do not know physics well, you can consult some of our hundreds of publications and references. Sufficiently advanced knowledge often causes stress to those, who do not want to evolve. But, evolution is relentless. You must evolve, and I am happy with that. Take your time.

Again, the more posters insist on doing ad hominem attacks, attacking the person not the argument, the more we confirm the "observer effect" that has been plaguing RG discussions.

They are playing for a supposedly untrained crowd. The solution is NOT to wait until RG is forced by law or competition to introduce moderation in such clear-cut cases. The solution is to offer PM, were there is no "observer effect" and opinions can be evaluated with more freedom of speech.

This increases the value of RG, adding discussions to an already valuable preprint service. Science wins with more freedom of speech.

About m=E, with c=1. The first equal sign is not an equality. It is actually a left-oriented equivalence. This means that E implies m, in equivalence, but not the other way around, and not as an equality. To convince yourself, note that while there is massless energy (one photon), there is no "energyless" mass. Mass, even understood as a measure of content of matter, always carry energy. However, energy does not need matter to manifest itself.

The physical world, one day, as physics predicts, will not exist at all -- there will be no stars in the sky, no black-holes, and only energy will exist. Where would we, humans, be then?

The second equal sign is not, either, an equality, when m=E, with c=1. The first equal sign is already not an equality. The second equal sign is also a left-oriented equivalence. This means that 1 implies c, in equivalence, or that c has type 1, as a constant, but not the other way around, and not as an equality.

To convince yourself, note that c has no units in that system, so that there is no measure for c, as c does not depend on time, space or any other quantity. The speed of light in vacuum, is a constant. The other quantities, with their units, have to change. In that system, for example, space and time have to change, have to flow, so as to keep spacetime, the corresponding element of displacement, always in fusion of what we used to considered separate. So, there is no separate space and time.

A consequence is that the old paradoxes disappear, so that muons live longer if one travels with them, if one shares the same time. So that, we understand why we can see muons at sea level, when they are only created at higher altitude and, there, if stationary, would not live long enough. This is explained by SR, when using spacetime, in Minkowski formulation. It only happens in Einstein formulation when he changed his SR to create GR. There is a difference between SR from GR and SR as originally formulated by Einstein. Better to use SR from GR, as done studying special relativity as applied to arbitrary motion, even accelerated -- as seen in the RG archives:

Preprint Special Relativity Applied to Arbitrary Motion

Interesting discussion, I thought Energy and mass are exactly equal!

Do you have any experiment that clearly makes the difference?

JES

SS: Almost any experiment with a photon only shows energy, such as with a calorimeter, not also mass. The photoelectric effect is another example, an electron is knocked off its atom ionization barrier by energy, which is expressed exactly as frequency, not as amplitude or mass.

But the clearest example may be in the double-slit experiment, which is fully explained by coherence effects on the photon, viewed as frequency from energy, which also works for electrons. Even though electrons have mass, that does not count in the double-slit experiment.

Thus, mass is not the same as energy, and not just for a photon.

1) Calorimeters measure the temperature so any mass with kinetic energy (mass) will just increase the surrounding temperature while decelerating.

2) Well; if you suppose that you can write E = M_ph c² = hc/lambda, the mass is directly proportional to the frequency.

3) The double-slit experiment can be explained, as follows:

Both the electron and the photon are surrounded by extremely strong EM fields, they have both an oscillatory movement, i.e. a transverse oscillation. When they pass a slit, part of their EM-field is cut off and goes through the second slit. This EM-field will change into an EM-wave, creating the interference pattern with the original particle.

So, I don't think that you can say mass is not energy if you don't have some stronger evidence.

JES

SS: The equation m=E says that mass is not equal to energy, as it does not work in reverse. The photon has energy but no mass, a conundrum for some. The calorimeter measurement gives the same result as a photon-drag detector; so mass is not part of it. If mass would be equal to energy, why use mass? Old question but we need the concept of mass for comoving bodies.

All: No comments can be seriously replied publicly any more, due to RG lack of moderation and the observer effect with false crisis. In addition, there is the RG fake news infestation versus facts. Therefore, PM is available and viewpoints can be further exposed by PM. No controversy is to be taken up here, versus the double-slit experiment, which denies the wave picture.

Ed Gerck

You should take a closer look at the following equation:

E = m_e(gamma-1)*c²= m_ev²/2 (at low speeds)

you can separate this into two parts rest mass and "relativistic mass increase". You have the mass-energy needed for the structure of the particle plus the increase of mass-energy produced by the difference between the velocity of the particle and its surrounding.

Only the photon and the neutrino do not follow this law.

This indicates that all other particles are made up of e- and e+, as also the fact that only integer units of charge are found in nature.

JES

SG: The concept of "relativistic mass" is not in modern physics. It does not work. It is disqualifying to even discuss it, it is well-known to be false. Here, "well-known" means as tested experimentally in all cases and as understood theoretically, with no margin of reasonable doubt. Misconceptions can always exist, nonethess; but do not constitute a threat.

My dear Ed Gerck ,

it's "well known" means received idea, such expression should not be used in science. If you have an experiment demonstrating your point please indicate it.

You should know that all high energy accelerators are constructed on the basis of the relativistic mass, i.e. there is a high number of experiments showing that the relativistic mass is just an added mass.

JES

Things fall in place coherently. Mass cannot be resistance to change in energy if energy is to be absolute. Mass has no ties to motion. This is a possible holdover from the past idea that mass changes with speed, it does not. This was all clarified 100+ years ago, with SR according to Minkowski.

A disagreement here blocks for the self a new vision -- whereas the collective follows it already. There is a complement to mass, lIke distance is a complement to time, in spacetime. There is, though, proper time, as there is proper mass, called mass. For comoving observers, mass exists and is measurable. Comoving observers also exist. They share the same wavefront, in a classical wave picture.

Dear Ed Gerck

I believe that it's your received ideas that haven't changed for 100 years. This is exactly the view that has blocked all progress since then!

JES

Some comments (now, deleted) above show how following the RG ToS is necessary for a scientific conversation.

But the legal responsibility of enforcing the RG ToS falls only on RG, per EU law.

Meawhile, it is suggested to read the question text, with the latest references. Also, private messaging is available.