EMR has no mass

>>8634295
Light does not have mass. That was a troll thread.

Yes it has some properties that may seem like it has mass. And there are ways of interpreting it as having mass. But the consensus among scientists is that anything moving at the speed of light strictly never has mass. So yes, it acts like it does but we do not classify it as such.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

>>8634332
>Yes it has some properties that may seem like it has mass. And there are ways of interpreting it as having mass.
Like being affected by gravity?

>>8634332
This is dependent on the fact we are using the same definition of mass. This is the case for invariant/rest mass.

But technically photons do have relativistic mass.

So it depends on which mass you're talking about.

>it read each photon has a mass of 500 grams
definite troll

I do understand that it probably was a roll but I don't believe this is the section for that kind of material

Experimentally we see the momentum properties of the photon with things like the radiometer.

And relativistically we can calculate a mass. But in terms of the every day meaning of mass, photons have none.

> I don't believe this is the section for that kind of material

Hate to break it to you but roughly 10-20% of posters and commentors are just here to troll. We get flat earth, climate change hoax, black people are dumb, etc posts every single day.

>>8634349
>But technically photons do have relativistic mass.
There is no such thing. It is a didactic construct that shouldn't be taught any longer. It's useless and misleading. Photons do not have mass, or rather, we know with a confidence of 90% that they have less mass than ~10^-17 eV (direct measurement) or ~10^-27 eV in case you like to trust astrophysical calculations.

>>8634369
Read the link i posted: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

There are many different forms of mass based on useful and applicable equations we have. Relativistic mass has units of energy. Photons have energy. Photons have mass. No, not the mass you're referring to but we have semantically defined photons as having a mass because of the words we chose. It is an obnoxious exercise in translating phyiscs to english, but it is a choice made and accepted by scientists all over that photons have relativistic mass while at the same time having no invariant mass.

>didactic construct
Yeah, but we are stuck with it. And besides it helps to abstract the concept of mass rather than being tied to a singular definition of it. Poorly explained it hurts the student, but properly explained it helps. Being narrow minded of any concept in physics is unhelpful to students. Abstraction leads to students making more conceptual connections on their own.