/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11131781]

I have 2 questions:

(1) What is 'mass'?
(2) What is a 'photon'?

[Anonymous No.11131784]

>>11131781
20 bucks

[Anonymous No.11131839]

>>11131784
I don't have money

[Anonymous No.11131876]

>>11131781
Mass = e/(c^2)
Photon has a sum mass of zero, thus "massless". It only has relativistic Mass.

[Anonymous No.11131884]

>>11131876
>relativistic Mass.
Deprecated meme

[Anonymous No.11131888]

>>11131781
It's a lot of equations and stuff and they don't want you to learn about it.

[Anonymous No.11131912]

>>11131884
What's a meme about it? Photon has a mass when it converts to something else like an electron

[Anonymous No.11131916]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKzgpt4HBU here op, mass is the energy jumbling around in a system. the proton has mass because of the quarks jumbling around

[Anonymous No.11131944]

>>11131916
Why is youtube pop-science so cringe

[Anonymous No.11131945]

>>11131916
what is cringe about this, he explains exactly what mass is. i think you are cringe

[Anonymous No.11131951]

>>11131944
because everyone but your fellow 0.001% of the population 4chan buddies are mindless drones that only exist to be retarded. you are one of the few that are actually conscience because you do not engage in mainstream culture >>11131944

[Anonymous No.11131956]

>>11131951
Cringe

[Anonymous No.11131961]

>>11131916
>>11131944
>>11131945
>>11131951
>>11131956
This whole tangent is cringe with the answer already given that photon is a mass that can be broken down into other particle with measurable mass. The net mass of photon of those products is zero making it massless in that state. Photons in a box aside.

[Anonymous No.11131996]

>>11131876
Could it be said that all mass is "relativistic" or that mass is a consequence of relativity?

Seeing that photons and electrons create each other and electrons have mass, could the photon become trapped as a "stationary" particle(really field) and thereby using relativistic effects to gain what we describe as mass or something along those lines?

[Anonymous No.11132005]

>>11131996
photons and electrons dont create eachother. a photon cannot turn into an electron. an electron can release a photon worth of energy as a photon

[Anonymous No.11132008]

>>11131912
>has a mass when it converts to something else
bless your heart, anon

[Anonymous No.11132009]

>>11131996
You can probably argue a photon will cease to be a photon if it becomes "stationary". It's a state of that particle that simply doesn't happen in reality or experiment. This is based on the nature of the photon and how it's basically a pair of particles , the electron and positron . I recommend going through feynmanns lectures he does a great job giving the practical physics of it.

[Anonymous No.11132010]

>>11132005
>a photon cannot turn into an electron
A high energy photon can turn into a pair of an electron and a positron when it's near an atomic nucleus.

[Anonymous No.11132012]

>>11131944
k
https://youtu.be/JqNg819PiZY?t=40m

[El Arcón No.11132013]

>>11131781
I'm not quite sure what photons and mass are, but every experiment that has ever sought to demonstrate a non-zero mass for the photon has failed to do so, spectacularly.

[Anonymous No.11132020]

>>11131961
>photon is a mass
nope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-Particle_table_2009-1

[Anonymous No.11132035]

More like photon is a mess amirite

[Anonymous No.11132041]

>>11132020
>Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.11132045]

>>11132013
Of course photon will have a non mass measurement, the sum of it's products is zero. Measure an electron and positron separately and then allow them to annihilate.

[Anonymous No.11132055]

>>11132041
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.11132061]

There are no observed particles smaller than an electron,
The existence of these sub-atomic particles (other than proton, neutron and electron) is a hypothesis.
Hence the word "theory".
Abstract mathematicians theorise that they exist, but there is no real evidence.
And there is a staggering amount of money in this field of research, and money has a way of forcing someone's hand.
So quantum mechanics is just another hoax like anti gravity, or teleportation or time travel.
But if you notice that no one has been able to "disprove" god exists yet, and simultaneously Jacob Barnett wrote a quantum physics paper "proving" god was real, you have to remember that science doesn't work the way it does in movies, and more importantly it doesn't work the way we hope it does.
A "photon" is the individual peaks of the waveform generated in background electromagnetic radiation that permeates the observable universe, electrons generate this waveform because they are electronegative (have a negative charge) and interact with this EMF, as the electron bounces back and forth between the valence shells of the atom, a waveform travels outwards, this waveform is what we observe as light.
There is no such thing as a physical "photon"
You can see what I mean in this image,
Quantum computing is a hoax as well ;)

[Anonymous No.11132064]

>>11132045
>failed to do so, spectacularly.
did I fucking stutter?

[Anonymous No.11132069]

>>11132061
>is a hypothesis.
>Hence the word "theory".
topkek
you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.11132083]

>>11132061
Ok boomer

[Anonymous No.11132204]

>>11132069
Sorry if I don't have alot of faith in a field where 12 year old autistic religious fundamentalists can get pHds.

What was your answer to OPs question?

[Anonymous No.11132215]

>>11131944
it's because of their forced "Jokes" which are forced memes and you shud never meme allowed

[Anonymous No.11132288]

>>11132204
>was your answer
"you're an idiot"
seriously, lrn2read

[Anonymous No.11133131]

>>11132009
>a photon will cease to be a photon if it becomes "stationary".
Yes, I was talking about it becoming an electron/positron in that case.

>the photon and how it's basically a pair of particles
I believe this is a misinterpretation. "particles" are really excitations in fields and can "change into" different particles.

>>11132009
>I recommend going through feynmanns lectures he does a great job giving the practical physics of it.
From what I've seen Feynman is great when it comes to explanations and thought experiments on daily life things but he sadly loses that when it comes to more foundational physics. He also admitted he didn't know it well enough.

[Anonymous No.11133137]

>>11131781

Confinement by the Higgs Field which also forbids most particles from travelling at the speed light. This gives invariant mass to particles. However, most mass is not the result of the higgs field, but due the kinetic and potential energy of particles.

[Anonymous No.11133146]

https://youtu.be/Xo232kyTsO0

[Anonymous No.11133188]

>>11132061
Not sure if bait or dunning-kruger idiot. You should shut up about things you obviously know literally nothing about. This is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.11133194]

>>11133131
Considering his personality that is him being humble. Dude was right there with Oppenheimer on the Manhattan project

[Anonymous No.11133833]

>>11132061
>believing scientific theory and theory are the same thing

[Anonymous No.11133966]

>>11131781
for the q in the pic it is not really massless
If a photon were orbiting a black hole as in moving tangent to the event horizon said black hole would measure as being the energy equivalent of said photon converted to rest mass heavier (immeasurably small difference)
the issue is that when space isn't bent so much that the photon could never escape it doesn't cause a gradient in the gravitational field except as a gravitational wave far too small in magnitude and fast moving to ever be detected because it is radiating uncontained in all directions in space so you can't localize it as a point mass and it only has a point like interaction when it interacts with a particle
essentially regular restmass comes from folded dimensions holding light into some geometry creating what we call mass. Photons as a simpler or more primitive configuration of energy are still energy but you would have no way of measuring their effect on space/time without trapping them in a potential well first to concentrate said effect. It would still be too small to measure then as relative to the object holding it it would be like looking for one hydrogen atoms difference in the observable universes mass. All energy is the same by the way. hope this help/confuses you because the concern over the topic would be more simply handled by saying all energy is just energy and photons just aren't much energy therefore their gravity is real but also irrelevant except cosmologically/collectively

[Anonymous No.11134140]

>>11131884
Why? His formula evaluates to zero, so it's not incorrect.

[Anonymous No.11134238]

>>11131781
(1) a parameter/property of a quantum field which allows it to couple with other fields, notably the Higgs and gravity. Usually seen in the Lagrangian of a QFT, though an effective theory may feature mass terms differently.
(2) An excitation of a mode in the electromagnetic field. I would require it to be an eigenmode of the bare EM Hamiltonian, given B.C.s, but others may define it differently. Either way, such a unitary transformation is invariant in the same excitation number sector of the Fock space, so I suppose you can define a photon relative to the Fock space decomposition, but this sorta only makes sense for number conserving systems.