Some strange questions about light?

Question

Does light(photons) have 0 mass or infinite?(b/c it its mass would be zero, it would take no energy to slow it down, meaning, it wouldn't be traveling, unless it has infinite mass which means that it can't be slowed down even a bit but that contradicts the theory that it does have 0 mass)

Answer 1

Dear Johnny:

I really like your Pic. I take it you do not live in Canada, Greenland, or Iceland.

Okay...Light. Light has no mass and certainly not infinite mass.
Mass is not a term that is normally used with a ray or a beam of light. Individual photons are tiny little blips of energy as I understand it. I might be wrong on this, but I recall that it was explained to me like this...

Stand next to a hot fire. Feel the heat on your skin. That is heat radiation coming off of the fire. There is no weight to the radiated heat. What happens is the radiated heat warms up what ever it strikes as it is radiated outward from the source. The thing (or things)that is/are struck by the radiation have mass and are heated by the radiation. The same thing happens with radiation that is in the visible or Infrared or ultraviolet spectrum, even the X Ray spectrum on up.

So, I don't think your logic is based upon good facts.

Try again
Zah

Answer 2

Based on our present day physics, I believe the answer is "No."

Those, however, who do argue the viewpoint that photons have mass, most likely draw their conclusion(s) from concepts such as Max Plank's theory of Relativistic Mass [1900].

It's important to test all argument(s) for syllogistic validity.

[Major Premise]: Photons have momentum p = mv (whereas relativistic mass measures the energy E of a particle as it pertains to velocity).

[Minor Premise whereas E = mc²]: Photons have energy E = hf ( h is constant and f is frequency).

[Conclusion]: Therefore, all Photons have mass.

While the argument has a valid structure, the problem for those who maintain that photons do contain mass, lies in the semantics. Relativistic Mass is NOT typically defined or called "the mass of a particle" (at least in contemporary physics); therefore the claim that a photon has mass would be invalid based on definition of terms.

Qualifying the premises by stating that the photon has "relativistic mass" would be appropriate (sorry...but I ALWAYS test logic before addressing these types of questions). By clarifing the definition, we substantiate the original problem statement.

To get back to your question - by application of modern terminology we can safely say that mass of an object is its invariant mass; so our superstar photon scores a big fat Zero on the "mass leaderboard."

;)

Answer 3

What a photon has is a wave/particle duality, meaning that it simultaneously has properties of a wave phenomenon (massless) and a particle (certain properties). The frequency of a given photon refers to how frequently it changes the balance of this character. If you look at most physics textbooks you'll see the symbolic wave graphics in two orthogonal axes as the photon changes nature.

In reality it is not changing nature completely with each cycle, it's just that our ability to create a conceptual model of a photon is based on as yet incomplete data -- thus the model will naturally have shortcomings.

Answer 4

Light has a double nature.
It behaves as a wave, but its energy exchanges occur in discrete quantities called photons, which behave as particles.