Jump to content



Recommended Posts

Their suggestion about photons is not considered by the immense majority of physicists and chemists, because their approach to understanding matter is based in a classical coarse-grained approach, instead of the modern fine-grained approach which has generated the above SM table with the three generations of matter.

John Wheeler was seconded only by Albert Einstein in 20th century physics. If physicists and chemists didn't appreciate his work then they just didn't read it. It's just that simple. Your impressions about this "course grained" nonsense is just empty gibber-jabberging that shouldn't even be acknowledged.

Edited by pmb
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Moderator Note

pmb, you're cutting this very fine. Please do not use the boards to go around posting inflammatory material or holding grudges. If you disagree with someone, then state your reasoning and your justification instead of outright dismissing their posts as 'empty gibber-jabbering that shouldn't even be acknowledged'. Posts such as yours are discouraged as per our forum rules, section 2.1.

Consider this a warning that you are coming very close to to being suspended from posting here. I highly recommend you take that caution under serious advisement and be more careful with how you post in future, as your next infraction will likely see you feature here: www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/ .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But photons are not generally considered matter. D H, juanrga and ajb have all said this.


Taylor and Wheeler suggest not using the term. And I agree with them.


I have just checked that Wheeler, in his very well-known textbook Gravitation (co-authored with Misner and Thorne) also differentiates between matter and radiation:


The pressure p, like the density [math]\rho[/math], is due to both matter and radiation.


In fact the cosmological evolution of our Universe is usually split into







Edited by juanrga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

m_0 = 0 for a photon.


The way light has mass is to introduce a new definition for mass, e.g. m=E/c^2


Personally, I think its just best to keep any redefinition of mass to its lowest uses. Photons have no mass, if they did it would be very very small, something like on the order of magnitude of [math]10^{-51}[/math] kg.

Edited by Aethelwulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont believe photons have matter.But if they could exist at a rest state,perhaps they might.

Consider a gas of massless photons for which the photons have random directions and momenta. Calculate the invariant mass m of this system and you'll get a non-zero value whose magnitude can be found by using the relation


P*P = (mc)2


P = total 4-momenta of system.

Edited by pmb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.