relative mass of photon

In most of the books I've come across, they just write "rest mass of photon is zero." (See my PHOTONS OF LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS). c and Δt = Δx/c. Let me first remind you once again (I just can’t stress this point enough it seems) that Feynman’s representation – and most are based on his, it seems – is misleading because it suggests that ψ(x) is some real number. However, you are correct in thinking that should be tested. Nevertheless in the “Photon-Wikipedia” one reads: “A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. But then we also know it is an electromagnetic wave. So we look at a photon here as something very different – because it’s so incredibly long (at least as measured from its own reference frame) – but as something which does have some kind of ‘radius’ that is normal to its direction of propagation and equal or smaller than the classical electron radius. Monopoles and the photon mass 87 3.7. Now, when an electron falls from one energy level in an atom to another (lower) energy level, it emits one – and only one – photon with that particular wavelength and energy. What’s a transient? In the scheme of physics, not that bad of a factor. In the same way the two American physicists Davisson and Germer showed experimentally that also electrons produce waves. Let me be even more explicit. But let me go back to the first illustration: the vertical axis of the first illustration is not ψ but E – the electric field vector. In contrast, a photon that’s emitted or absorbed represents a ‘real’ disturbance of the electromagnetic field propagating through space. [Now that I think of it, we should probably think of it as being substantially smaller. That’s why I wrote this post and hope someone will react to it. So an electron absorbs or emits a photon when it goes from one energy level to the other, so it absorbs or emits radiation. So… A photon is, in essence, a electromagnetic disturbance and so, when trying to picture a photon, we can think of some oscillating electric field vector traveling through–and also limited in–space. a complex number in which both the real and imaginary part are important. However, if you’re still reading, and you like this kind of unorthodox application of electromagnetics, then the following remarks may stimulate your imagination. Hmm I thought I put "uniform gravitational field" in there, will edit. That is, one observes that matter as well as light possesses  both wave and corpuscular properties. Hence, there’s more to E than just its magnitude. In other words, if our photon is a transient electromagnetic disturbance caused by a ‘sudden burst of energy’ (which is what that electron jump is, I would think), then its representation will, much more likely, resemble a damped wave, like the one below, rather than Feynman’s picture of a moving matter-particle. The best answer you could probably come up with is: because no physics textbook says something like that. Can anyone help me through this problem? Dear PF Forum, Yesterday (on Sunday) my friend texted me, "the mass of a photon is 10-18 Ev/c2## If my number is correct. That’s an incredible distance: it’s like infinity on an atomic scale! I am going along here with the assumption that a photon in the visible light spectrum, from a classical world perspective, should indeed be something that’s several meters long and packs a few million oscillations. So we don’t usually think of photons as ten-meter long transients moving through space. So, when I write that “our concepts of amplitude and frequency of a photon are maybe not very relevant” when trying to picture a photon, and that “perhaps, it’s only energy that counts”, I actually don’t mean “maybe” or “perhaps“. The animation basically illustrates a mathematical operation. There is a relationship between the mass of the carrier particle and the range of the force. Although it had a considerable influence on the ideas of physicists Newton in his Opticks (1704) concluded that the Cartesian theory of light could not account for polarization. The vertical flip is because of the minus sign in the formula for E(t). Under this confusion we write here the correct math by using Einstein’s wrong relativistic energy E = Mc, = 2.2246 MeV which turns into the energy h, of the generated photon. Huh? 0000020073 00000 n Got you! • In photonuclear reactions, the photon is absorbed by the nucleus of the atom and a nuclear particle (neutron, proton, alpha) is ejected. You may say or think: What’s the problem here really? First because this type of analysis is not appropriate. [I’ll challenge you in a moment.] Then, since p = mc using the idea of Newton’s rectangular particles of light one could determine the mass    m = hν/c2 . We know m is zero for a photon, but p is not, so that E 2 = (pc) 2 + (mc) 2 becomes E = pc, or [latex]p=\frac{E}{c}\\[/latex] (photons). but that its effective ‘radius’ should be of the same order as the classical electron radius. It corresponds to all what I’ve read about it: only one photon is produced per electron in any de-excitation, and its energy is determined by the number of energy levels it drops, as illustrated (for a simple hydrogen atom) below. Huh? https://briankoberlein.com/2015/04/14/thats-about-the-size-of-it/, A Realist Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, calculation of the typical size of an atom, Uncertainty Principle for position and momentum, Uncertainty Principle for time and energy, Bad thinking: photons versus the matter wave | Reading Penrose, https://ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/what-is-interferometer, Some thoughts on the Nature of Reality | Reading Feynman, Electron and photon strings | Reading Feynman, Diffraction and the Uncertainty Principle (II), Maxwell, Lorentz, gauges and gauge transformations, Diffraction and the Uncertainty Principle (I), The Hamiltonian for a two-state system: the ammonia example, Maxwell-Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics, Magnetic dipoles and their torque and energy, The field of electric and magnetic dipoles. That is what photons do. [If you think I’ve gone crazy, I am really joking here: when it’s Compton scattering, there’s no ‘lost’ energy: the electron will recoil and, hence, its momentum will increase. In 1928 Dirac devised incorrectly an equation for a quantum system by using Einstein’s INVALID REST ENERGY. It’s that ten-meter long transient, isn’t it? Originally Answered: Rest mass of photon is zero so its relative mass is not infinite.but it has energe.how photon gains energe? On the other hand in 1902 Kaufmann showed experimentally that the absorption of energy by an electron contributes not only to the increase of the electron energy ΔΕ but also to the increase of the electron mass ΔΜ. So why wouldn’t we go all the way? AB and AC effects with finite photon mass 85 3.6. I’ve see nothing that makes me think its length should be zero. In other words, if we have a formula for the real part of a wave function, we have a formula for its imaginary part as well. The Wikipedia article on the Uncertainty Principle has this wonderful animation that shows how we can superimpose several waves, one on top of each other, to form a wave packet. This frequency will be one of the so-called characteristic frequencies of the atom and will define a specific so-called spectral emission line. In order to support the formula E= h v, the length of the photons must be equal independent of the frequency of the photon. Perhaps it’s only energy that counts. However, if we’d talk about its position, then we should obviously also invoke the Uncertainty Principle, which will give us some upper and lower bounds for its actual position, just like it does for any other particle: the uncertainty about its position will be related to the uncertainty about its momentum, and more knowledge about the former, will implies less knowledge about the latter, and vice versa. Let me bulldozer on. Also such dipoles moving at c interact with an electron of charge (-e) in terms of varying  Ey and Bz because of the spin of the dipole (dipolic photon). EINSTEIN’S INVALID REST ENERGY (1905) LED TO THE WRONG RELATIVISTIC MECHANICS OF DIRAC (1928) WHILE MY DISCOVERY OF THE NUCLEAR FORCE AND STRUCTURE LED TO MY DISCOVERY OF THE PHOTON MASS, The Schrodinger equation in three dimensions is the quantum analog of the well-established second law of Newton.