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 June 7, 201213 yr by pmb

!

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/ .

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

 

http://en.wikipedia....n-Dominated_Era

 

and

 

http://en.wikipedia....r-Dominated_Era

Edited June 7, 201213 yr by juanrga

This is a good place to start, I found it really useful, there's some good info on here http://www.youtube.com/user/physicsacademy

 

It's definitely worth a look

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 June 9, 201213 yr by Aethelwulf

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

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 June 13, 201213 yr by pmb