How can a supposedly massless particle like the Photon form an electric mass like the electron ,proton,Etcc?
542466
Hey its very simple. It follows einstein's emergy mass relation viz. E=mc^2. Though photon is a massless particle but\nit has energy given by E=hv, v being the frequency. So the a part of photon's energy may be converted into mass and can give rise to massive charged particles like proton,electron etc. It can be understood from following equation:\n   E(photon) = m1*c^2 +m2*c^2 + 0.5*(m1*v1^2+m2*v2^2)\nIts notewrthy that the particles always appear in pair s.t. the two in a pair are of equal and opposite charges thus conserving the total charge.
838380
Photons that travel at the speed of light have zero mass.  Photons are tiny packets of pure energy.  Theoretically photons could be converted to mass using Einstein's equation E = mc2 but would then be unable to travel at the speed of light.  Do photons really exist?  Enough of them in the UV range can give you a sunburn.
170874
Most physicists (like Feynman) will tell you it's definitely a particle.  I think they're full of crap, and it's a wave.  The fact that it can only be absorbed and emited in discrete packets doesn't necessarily mean that it really travels as a particle, and the notion of a particle flies in the face of the double-slit one-photon experiment.
376534
Mass is defined via acting a force on an object produces an acceleration.  \nalso there is a universal kilogram in (i think) france that is the deffinition of a kilogram.\n\nNow how can a particle be massless... \nThis is defined as its rest mass, so if a particle does not exist at rest then it is going to be massless.  \n\nexample:\nA photon can have energy, and is moving.  so it can be said to have a momentum, and can then be said to have a "mass" but if a photon has zero energy its momentum is zero and its "mass" is zero.  \n\nThe mass of a particle is deffined when it is at rest, so some particles will have a zero mass, especial theoretical particals.
936725
Photons are mass-less elementary particles.  There is a famous, and simple, experiment to prove this.  A small pinwheel in a vaccum sealed light blub which is balanced on a pin can be made to spin in proportion to the amount of light that falls on the vanes of the pinwheel.  The vanes are colored alternatively black and white.  The white vanes reflect photons and the black vanes absorb them, so the thing spins like crazy, proving that the photons have enough energy and speed (momentum) to impart motion on the pinwheel.\n\nPhotons are said to have no 'intrinsic mass' which means they don't have mass when 'at rest.'  Of course photons are never 'at rest' so there's something called 'relativistic mass' which accounts for mass-like properties of things traveling at high speed (like the speed of light, which photons travel at).
17291
Electrons are fundamental particles and can not be divided by ordinary means.  However Einstein showed us that E=mc2 where E is energy and m is mass and c equals the speed of light which is squared.  Since an electron has mass, theoretically it can be converted to energy.  That would be akin to converting a chunk of ice into live steam which would be so finely divided you would not recognize that it had formerly been ice.  The easiest way to "divide" the electron would be to combine it with a positron (an electron of equal mass but positive charge).  The electron and positron would annihilate each other leaving only energy as the residue.  But where can you find a positron when you need one?
1049398
light is a wave-particle duality, and as such does not have 'mass'...
952119
The photon has zero mass (it does, however, have rest mass - as in M=E/C^2). \n\nLike all quanta, the photon exhibits wave and particle properties. \n\nIt is important to remember that mass and energy are equivalent. A photon is only referred to as a particle because of certain properties that light exhibits - the "particle" is actually no more than a quanta of pure light energy - and, as such, is indeed dimensionless in the conventional sense of density and volume.
721710
Short Answer:\n\nThe photon is generally accepted to be massless and experiments show that its mass is consistent with zero.\n\nLong Answer:\n\nLight is composed of photons so we could ask if the photon has mass.  The answer is then definitely "no": The photon is a massless particle.  According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.  Even before it was known that light is composed of photons it was known that light carries momentum and will exert a pressure on a surface.  This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass.\n\nSometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon.  Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2.  They also say that a photon has momentum and momentum is related to mass p = mv.  What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an outdated concept which is best avoided Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle which changes with velocity.  By convention relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way.  But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to.  In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass which is zero for a photon.\n\nIf we now return to the question "Does light have mass?" this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container.  The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}.  By this definition a beam of light, is massless like the photons it is composed of.  However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not.  Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box.  This could be measured - in principle at least - either by an increase in inertia when the box is slowly accelerated or by an increase in its gravitational pull.  You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light.  You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.\n\nIt might be thought that it would be better to regard the relativistic mass as the actual mass of photons and light, instead of invariant mass.  We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained.  If relativistic mass is used for all objects then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its part.  However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation.  In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts.  For example the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero).  Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy so it is a redundant concept.  In the modern view mass is not equivalent to energy.  It is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy.  Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.\n\nLet's try to phrase this another way.  What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2?  You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light.  Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass.  In that case photons have mass but we call it relativistic mass.  Another way to use Einstein's equati
659419
Basically photons (or light) are the particles that is exchanged in communicating the electromagnetic force. To understand the essence of electric charge then you must understand light, or EM fields. This is independent of the atom.
1039401
First, we have to look at the electron.  It is the electron and its multiples that form magnetic fields.  Second, we need to take a look at the force of gravity and compare the two.\n\nThe electron.  This is a small bit of matter formed of electromagnetic energy.  This is obvious in that a very high frequency of this energy entering near the nucleus of an atom is able to form electron pairs - negative and positive electrons.  In forming an electron a monopole is made.   This means an electron has one-half the frequency of the original electromagnetic energy bound in the southern half of the electron as "mass" (offers resistence to movement) and the northern half form magnetic lines extending outward.  The center of the electron has an electric field through the plane of its equator.  These three parts of the electron are formed of electromagnetic energy.\n\nMultiples of the electron form neutrons and protons, which become the mass of our universe.  Because mass is composed of electromagnetic energy, it has an unchangable value of "c" inherent in its composition.  That value would be realized were an electron to be taken apart.  What would instantly happen is an electromagnetic wave would be released.  The value of "c" was there all along.\n\nSecondly, we need to consider the origin of gravitational waves.  These waves are formed of a relationship between mass and energy.   The equation for a gravitational field is c2 = E/m.  It is also that of a field of physical time.  Notice if there were no energy to be divisible by mass, then there could be no gravitational field.  As the value of "E" changes so, also, does that of the field, c2.\n\nThe existence of gravitational waves is obvious.  In that the force of gravity performs work, it must have an energy source.  it is impossible to perfrom work apart from having some kind of energy.  What we need to know is how do the waves (a) form, and what are they (b) formed of.\n\n(a) How the waves form.  The basis of gravitational waves is that of the electromagnetic energy that formed the electron.  Remember that the value of "c" was the basis of that mass.  What the electron did in forming the mass was to complete a circle of more than 360 degrees and overlap part of its frequency, thus remaining bonded to its own frequency, while forming into three dimensions.\n\nAs an individual electron, or large mass, moves there is a change in its overall frequency.  The lines of frequency become more dense in direction of movement and less dense at right angles to that direction.  This is why a mass is able to move, and why it remains moving in its original direction, at its original speed until some of that increased frequency is given to another mass.  If there is no manner for that frequency to be shared, then mass must continue to move.  \n\nBut what happens when a mass is unable to move.  It is still three dimensional, occupying the same space, but there is no evidence of the frequency change within the mass.  This brings us to:\n\n(b) Why gravitational waves exist and how to relate their existence to mass.  It is stated that were a mass to approach to near the speed of light that it would become much shorter in the direction of movement.  That is true.  Because mass has as its basis electromagnetic energy, it must act in the same manner as what comprises it.  The thought in short form is as follows:\n\nE = hf, electromagnetic energy is equal to its frequency times Plank's constant.\n\nmk = hf, mass kinetic energy operates exactly the same way as does electromagnetic energy.  When there is an increase of energy in one direction, the overall line density in that direction increases.  The energy values at right angles to direction of travel decreases in proportion to that of the forward one.  Mass does not gain mass as it moves, it transfers energy (E) from dimensions to dimension.\n\nc = hf, is the last part.  The value of "c" is t
583006
photon is a massless particle that is the rest mass of photon is zero which means all the mass of a photon is due to relativistic speed.\nhowever, it has been proved by Davison and Germer experiment that whenever a subatomic particle moves with a velocity approaching the speed of light a wavelength is associated with it.which is originally on the concept of De Broglie\nmathematically\nlemda=h/mv\nAs per ur question we can say photons moves with speed of light but we cannt say photon a substance unless we make to stop it and it converts to positron and electron(pair production)
967323
I have no physics degree but I think this might help you.  The answer will vary slightly depending on how contemporary the physics you use to answer it is but here is an inexact answer which should give you the general idea.\n\nSo the first thing you need to know is that all matter is not in existence already.  Matter is energy in a special form where it is sort of tied up in a wiggly knot.  You can see the relation between the two in einstein's\n\nm=E/c^2   (just an alternate form of E=mc^2)\n\nwhere\nm is mass(the property that quantifies matter)\nE is energy\nc is the speed of light\n\nSo from that there is an equivalence between matter and energy.  Matter can be created by knotting up energy, or destroyed by liberating the energy it was made with.\n\nSo, without going into really advanced physics, all mass is not conserved (meaning it can be created or destroyed) but energy IS conserved, there are all kinds of rules involved, but you can interchange the two of them.\n\nWhen you release energy as photons from matter you are converting some of that matter (tied up energy) into energy.  If you could weigh the matter that radiated the photons well enough you would be able to see that it weighs less!\n\nIn "pair production" a photon can create matter; an electron and positron.\n\nAnother example of energy being released from matter is nuclear fission.  Where the matter going in weighs more than the matter after the process.  The difference of mass is the energy freed from the uranium fuel.\n\nIt's like the photon is some of the stuff that the electron is made of... (this is a loose analogy) like some of the waggling rope that the electron knot was made of.  The electron knot can lose some excitement (energy) by shedding a section of the length of the rope(photon) which goes zipping away as pure electromagnetic energy.\n\nAll the abstractions like neutron, proton, electron, photon aren't really such absolute and fundamental things that are seperate and different from each other.  They are more like energy tied up in different ways.
292196
Particles travelling at the speed of light cannot be decelerated; any such particle is massless. Since mass is the constant of proportionality between force and acceleration, no force can cause any acceleration of such a particle. \nEinstein's fundamental equation states that the energy E of a particle is the magnitude of its 4-momentum E^2 = (mc^2)^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2/[1-(v/c)^2] where p is the magnitude of its spatial momentum vector, m is the particle's inertial mass and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Thus (v/c)^2 = 1 -  (mc^2)^2/[(mc^2)^2 - (pc)^2]. Letting v/c=1, we get mc^2 = 0, which implies m=0.\nNote that this does not contradict general relativity; light particles lose energy in gravitational fields instead of decelerating. Also, light "slowing down" in a medium is due to photons being absorbed and reemitted; the speed of a photon is always c.
259865
No one knows.  It is believe it formed from photons of light.  However, scientist are not puzzled on how it happened but rather its byproducts, matter and anti-matter.  For every particle, there is an anti-particle.  In theory, if anti-matter comes in contact with matter, it cancels itself out.  Meaning, if anti-matter existed in our Universe, we wouldn't be here.  Our Universe seems to made only of matter.  So where is this anti-matter?  \n\nI read an article that there was some evidence to prove that matter pops into our Universe seemingly out of nowhere.  I wish i could find more information on it but I can't.  Below is an easy to read article.  It's all fascinating stuff and it is written in easy to understand language.  \n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/gleiser-1.html\n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/
703674
Actually there are lots of instances of energy being converted into mass. The simplest case is pair production, when you have a high energy gramma ray pass close to an atome there is a chance that the photon will interacte at create an electron poistron pair. In doing so the photon losses energy equal two the combined mass of the two paricles,1.022 MeV.
346637
Photon has mass so far it has energy but it depend on the nature of particle of ligth. You can apply this formula to get the mass of the photon; m = hf/c^2. (Where h=Planck's constant, f= frequency, c= speed of ligth)