Binding photons together slows them down and gives them mass.

Electron mass

The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton.[10]

Electricity is

Electricity is the set of physical phenomena associated with the presence and motion of electric charge. Although initially considered a phenomenon separate from magnetism, since the development of Maxwell's equations, both are recognized as part of a single phenomenon: electromagnetism.

An electrical phenomenon is caused by flow of free electrons from one atom to another. The characteristics of current electricity are opposite to those of static electricity.

Electricity is created when particles become charged. Some are negatively charged (electrons), and some are positively charged (protons). These opposite charges attract, whereas particles with similar charges repel each other.

What is Electromagnetism?

Electromagnetism is a branch of physicsinvolving the study of the electromagnetic force, a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles. The electromagnetic force usually exhibits electromagnetic fields such as electric fields, magnetic fields and light, and is one of the four fundamental interactions (commonly called forces) in nature.

What is Light?

Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Electromagnetic Radiation?

electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) refers to the waves (or their quanta, photons) of the electromagnetic field, propagating (radiating) through space-time, carrying electromagnetic radiant energy.[1] It includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared, (visible) light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.[2]"

Classically, electromagnetic radiation consists of electromagnetic waves, which are synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields that propagate at the speed of light through a vacuum.

Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated

EM waves carry energy, momentum and angular momentum away from their source particle and can impart those quantities to matter with which they interact. Quanta of EM waves are called photons

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
This thread has gone off track.
Can photons be bound to create new partilces with mass?
That is the question.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I'd prefer implosion. No reason other than, the near Impossible just grabs my imagination like that.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: burgerbuddy

When I die, I hope it's because of a black hole bomb, or something cool like that.

Black hole bombs are totally feasible but extremely dangerous. They are banned by galactic law.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
This thread has gone off track.
Can photons be bound to create new partilces with mass?
That is the question.

They must be.

Otherwise our entire concept of physics is deeply flawed and Einstein was wrong.

a reply to: Deluxe

Here's another, does mass disappear not heeding your attention on it? When you look at anything it changes. So what happens to particles, photons, endzoids etc? how do they change or not change.

a reply to: muzzleflash

There's always a chance that Einstein was wrong. We may never definitively truly know the answer to that. Mankind could be so arrogant as to be completely unaware of the physics of it's true presence.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack
I think your talking about the collapsing of the quantum wave function upon observance. I think it's understood now that any interaction is considered an observation.

a reply to: Deluxe

Well, I don't believe a massless object can have any kind of momentum. My intuition tells me that a massless object is an object that doesn't really exist. So yes, I think the claims in the article are plausible. Maybe my last comment was off topic, but if we're calling the mass of photons into question, it does pertain to the subject matter in the op.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
I know it's difficult to wrap your head around.
But..

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Blue Shift

If you say it like that, I would think they shoot it out in front of the rocket?

a reply to: Deluxe

It is, it's what kind of change could take effect that i'm interested in.

a reply to: Deluxe

Well, apparently this MIT experiment flies in the face of the massless particle claim.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack
Einstein wasn't wrong. He was incomplete.
Just as Newton's theories were incomplete. Einstein extended the theory of gravity. But it still does not explain Quantum Physics.

Yep. Energy is converted to mass as mass is converted to energy. Nothing gained. Nothing lost. Just how it was engineered to be. a reply to: Deluxe

a reply to: Notwhatitseems
exactly.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Deluxe

Well, apparently this MIT experiment flies in the face of the massless particle claim.

That's because, in my opinion, we still don't have a clue if there is a luminiferous aether or not, or if there is such a thing as photons or not.

Our experiments seem contradictory.

Like for example the Crookes radiometer doesn't seem to react to certain wavelengths of light yet it does react to others. This video shows an experiment (you'll have to ignore the negative persona of the individual making the video):



However the Michelson-Morley, and many other related experiments seem to call the entire premise of an aether into serious doubt.



The crux of the problem here is that Light appears to be a field with waves and also composed of particles.

It doesn't make any sense that it is both a wave in a field and a particle in a vacuum though - it is either
1) an action occurring in a substrate
(a wave occurring in a field)
Or
2) a particle acting a certain way in a vacuum

But somehow our primitive experiments are showing that it is BOTH an action occuring in a substrate AND a particle in a vacuum simultaneously.

And on top of that, we have individual experiments calling serious doubt into both concepts as well.

So if the Crookes shows it may not be a particle, and Michelson-Morley shows it may not be a wave in the aether, yet the double slit shows it's both - how does that make any sense? So it isn't either but it's definitely both?? Illogical!!

Clearly the reality of "Light" is a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma and we humans are simply too uncreative to think outside our little boxes to resolve this conundrum sufficiently.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Deluxe

Well, apparently this MIT experiment flies in the face of the massless particle claim.

So to reiterate - light is a particle and a wave in the aether, though there is probably no aether and no particle except that there is definitely both nevermind the fact it logically must be one or the aether (pun?).

In addition light is both massless and massed, it is both and neither.

It is a grand paradox.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Deluxe

Well, apparently this MIT experiment flies in the face of the massless particle claim.

Oh and for light to be massless than logically that is the wave in a luminiferous aether concept. Because a wave is an action in something else therefore it isn't something but rather an occurrence.

But if light is a particle than it's a definite packet of energy therefore massed. It is a thing rather than an occurrence.

It is all semantics.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So the age old answer of are they a particle or a wave? Is...They are whatever you want them to be. The observer effect indeed.

So since were constantly being bombarded by waves and waves of these photons every day, entangled in a heap of a mess everyday, well now that they seem to have mass when paired. Does that mean there now going to be weighing us down?

Uhh light just may be gravity for all we know. Or maybe we just never knew ass much that we thought we knew. Or maybe there just posing for the cameras.